SHVIA Hearings

[Chris Blount]

The House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing for mark-up of legislation reauthorizing the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act Wednesday.

Satellite interests will be watching closely whatever bill surfaces from the subcommittee, given the recent Capitol Hill skirmishes between satellite TV giants DirecTV and EchoStar. Last week, EchoStar accused DirecTV of meeting with broadcast and film interests on crafting a bill, and it's expected legislation could address - and possibly restrict - EchoStar's use of a second dish to deliver a select set of local TV channels to certain markets.

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on telecommunications policy and lessons learned from the 1996 Telecommunications Act Tuesday. That will be followed by another hearing that will look into the future of telecom policy scheduled for Wednesday.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)

[TheRatPatrol]

The House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing for mark-up of legislation reauthorizing the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act Wednesday.

Satellite interests will be watching closely whatever bill surfaces from the subcommittee, given the recent Capitol Hill skirmishes between satellite TV giants DirecTV and EchoStar. Last week, EchoStar accused DirecTV of meeting with broadcast and film interests on crafting a bill, and it's expected legislation could address - and possibly restrict - EchoStar's use of a second dish to deliver a select set of local TV channels to certain markets.

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on telecommunications policy and lessons learned from the 1996 Telecommunications Act Tuesday. That will be followed by another hearing that will look into the future of telecom policy scheduled for Wednesday.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)

So does this mean that they may pass the bill so those of us who have the DN and waivers will be able to receive these channels after December 31st 2004?

And why would D* go after E* about having to use a 2nd dish? Who cares if they use a 2nd dish. Don't they already use a 2nd dish for 61.5? and if D* gets permission to use the Candian satellite at 71.5, won't that mean that we'll have to use a 2nd dish to get that satellite? So whats the big deal? What a waste of time and money.

[scooper]

theratpatrol - you obviously DON'T understand the 2nd dish issue.

Some believe (among those , the NAB ) that the intention of SHVIA to allow locals / Must Carry was to require the DBS providers offer ALL of any DMA's stations on a single dish - notnecessarily the same dish as core programming, but that ALL stations were treated identically. This COULD mean that the stations can be on the same slot - even 61.5 / 148 - as long as ALL stations for a DMA were on the same slot.

What E* has been doing is putting the "major stations" (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, primary PBS, maybe a couple of others if space allows) on the 119 / 110 spot beams, then putting the smaller stations off on the side slots. To "comply with the spirit of the law", they have been offering a free dish and installation of this 2nd dish.

This wouldn't be an issue if ALL of a DMA's stations were on the side slots - imagine putting all of Greenville/ New Bern NC DMA on 61.5 (as an example) - and leaving core programming at 119/110.

[TheRatPatrol]

theratpatrol - you obviously DON'T understand the 2nd dish issue.

Some believe (among those , the NAB ) that the intention of SHVIA to allow locals / Must Carry was to require the DBS providers offer ALL of any DMA's stations on a single dish - notnecessarily the same dish as core programming, but that ALL stations were treated identically. This COULD mean that the stations can be on the same slot - even 61.5 / 148 - as long as ALL stations for a DMA were on the same slot.

What E* has been doing is putting the "major stations" (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, primary PBS, maybe a couple of others if space allows) on the 119 / 110 spot beams, then putting the smaller stations off on the side slots. To "comply with the spirit of the law", they have been offering a free dish and installation of this 2nd dish.

This wouldn't be an issue if ALL of a DMA's stations were on the side slots - imagine putting all of Greenville/ New Bern NC DMA on 61.5 (as an example) - and leaving core programming at 119/110.

No I didn't understand the 2nd dish issue, as I have D* not E*. But I understand now thanks to your post. Thanks! :)

[Chris Blount]

More Fireworks Before SHVIA Hearing

More fireworks erupted Tuesday concerning the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) and its reauthorization, a day before lawmakers were set to discuss the law (a hearing on the matter is scheduled for today on Capitol Hill).

The Digital Transition Coalition, which has EchoStar as a member, among others, sent a letter to Congress Tuesday on SHVIA's renewal and its ideas for the digital TV transition. In its correspondence, the group asked lawmakers to allow satellite TV companies to deliver digital distant networks into local markets where broadcasters are not transmitting a digital signal.

The move would help speed up the digital transition and benefit consumers who are unable to receive existing digital network TV because local broadcasters are not yet providing a digital signal, the coalition letter said.

"Consumers are being deprived the benefits of digital television because the broadcasters are failing to meet their obligations," the letter said. "There are more than 1,000 television stations, representing 61 percent of all broadcasters nationwide, which have not met their commitment to fully provide their DTV service. These broadcasters have either not constructed digital facilities within the deadlines or are serving only a fraction of the area for which they are required."

The National Association of Broadcasters fired back, sending a letter to lawmakers just hours after the Digital Transition Coalition letter hit Capitol Hill. The association said the satellite industry's "real motivation behind allowing distant digital signal importation has nothing to do with expediting the digital television transition."

The NAB letter brought up past distant networks litigation pitting satellite TV companies against broadcasters. "In the analog world, it took years of court battles and millions of dollars in litigation fees to convince satellite companies to stop illegally providing distant signals to ineligible subscribers," the broadcast association letter said. "Now, as Congress prepares to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, the satellite industry asks that Congress repeat and worsen this debacle."

NAB also disputed the Digital Transition Coalition's numbers on DTV stations. It said there are 1,186 local stations on-air in digital in 205 markets that serve 99.6 percent of the U.S. population.

The House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing for mark-up of legislation reauthorizing the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act today at 10 a.m. EST.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)

[jrbdmb]

Here is the draft version of the SHVIA reauthorization:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/drafts/SHVIRA.draft.pdf

Looks like the main changes are:
- All locals from a single dish
- Updates to waiver and testing procedures, including models used to determine unserved areas
- Start study to determine which digital TV customers will be unserved as of 1/1/2007
- Enable DBS to sell "significantly viewed" stations (outside its own DMA)
- If DBS provides local channels to a sub, they cannot also provide a distant network. (There may be an exception for owned-and-operated NETs.)

[jrbdmb]

For anyone with nothing else to do, you can watch the hearing live:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Markups/04282004markup1261.htm

[Adam Richey]

I like the significantly viewed idea. Although I doubt Dish Network will EVER carry WLFI (CBS) from Lafayette, IN, I would love to have that channel in my locals.

[TonyM]

I like the significantly viewed idea.

I like it too. Being 120 miles north of Minneapolis and 100 miles SSW of Duluth, some of the cable companies carry some networks from both areas(ABC & NBC). So it seems logical that Dish should be able too.

Or areas that don't have all the "Big 4"..I think that's what it will come to. If you don't have all of the Big 4 in your DMA, they'll import it in from the neighboring DMA.

[Chris Blount]

It looks like the US House panel has approved the measure regarding the second dish issue.

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/newswire/2004/04/28/rtr1351365.html

[jrbdmb]

Other major item of interest: "In markets where satellite operators begin offering local broadcast stations, the bill gives subscribers 60 days to decide whether they wanted that service or prefer to continue receiving the signal of a distant broadcast network."

Looks like distant NETs days are numbered.

(Nothing mentioned about "significantly viewed" stations in th report.)

[TheRatPatrol]

Other major item of interest: "In markets where satellite operators begin offering local broadcast stations, the bill gives subscribers 60 days to decide whether they wanted that service or prefer to continue receiving the signal of a distant broadcast network."

Looks like distant NETs days are numbered.

(Nothing mentioned about "significantly viewed" stations in th report.)

Why do you say they are numbered? From the way I read it you have 60 days to choose if you want your locals or DN, and can choose to keep the DN. I guess you're saying that you couldn't have both locals and DN?

[jrjcd]

well, it's a pisser, bcause if you have your locals, you should also have the right to purchase DNs from a different time zone if you wish....

[Chris Blount]

The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) was brought before the House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Wednesday, and as expected the bill addresses the use of two dishes to deliver local TV to consumers.

The legislation, introduced by Subcommittee Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.), requires satellite TV providers to deliver local TV channels to the markets they serve via a single dish. The bill allows satellite TV companies to deliver local TV channels to one dish and other programming services to another dish, but prohibits the splitting up of local TV channel packages between dishes. Companies would have one year to comply with the proposed rule after signed into law.

The proposed mandate takes aim at EchoStar and its use of two dishes to deliver a number of local TV channels to consumers in select markets.

The bill also asks the Federal Communications Commission to study which consumers will not be able to receive over-the-air local TV stations in digital as of Jan. 1, 2007.

The National Association of Broadcasters and its president, Eddie Fritts, praised the legislation. "We are particularly pleased the subcommittee moved decisively to end EchoStar's two-dish practice and rejected an ill-guided proposal to allow distant digital signal importation," he said.

EchoStar said it's disappointed "that the powerful broadcaster special interests successfully included a number of provisions in the draft legislation that are bad for competition and bad for consumers."

The company added, "We look forward to better educating Congress about the consumer benefits that are possible, particularly with respect to the two-dish issue. Congress challenged the satellite industry to provide local network channels and more effective competition, to the greatest number of markets as quickly as possible. EchoStar rose to the challenge and today provides local channels in 117 markets. This would not have been possible without a two-dish solution that is seamless to consumers."

EchoStar said it's optimistic the legislation will change "when Congress better understands the consequences of these issues."

Richard DalBello, president of the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association, said the bill "has a lot to offer the broadcasters but very little for consumers and the satellite industry. It seems to me that Congress is missing a great opportunity to expand consumer choice and increase competition."

SBCA said it's especially concerned with the removal of a grandfather clause that currently allows some consumers to receive distant network signals. And it expressed disappointment with the missing distant digital networks proposal, which would allow consumers to get satellite-delivered digital distant nets if they cannot get a local broadcast digital signal.

Still, SBCA said it was encouraged by the support from lawmakers for the role satellite TV could play in providing high-def and digital services to consumers who live in "digital white areas." Said DalBello, "The subcommittee took an important first step today. I hope as we move from the subcommittee to the full committee, discussion on the proposal to allow satellite carriers to offer an HD distant signal to digitally-unserved customers will continue to move forward."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)

[MikeSoltis]

EchoStar said it's disappointed "that the powerful broadcaster special interests successfully included a number of provisions in the draft legislation that are bad for competition and bad for consumers."


Congress doing something bad for consumers? What a shock.
This legislation continues to be a thinly disguised law to protect the "Local" broadcasters, most of which are owned by companies which own more than one station anyway. Anyone who thinks otherwise and holds any hope for the gov't doing ANYTHING which might benefit the consumer is living in a land of make-believe...

[jrbdmb]

Why do you say they are numbered? From the way I read it you have 60 days to choose if you want your locals or DN, and can choose to keep the DN. I guess you're saying that you couldn't have both locals and DN?OK, I overstated it a bit ... but since almost all major markets have locals, and I suspect that *most* subs will pick locals over distants, the number of distant NET subs will decrease dramatically after this passes.

[Chris Freeland]

We have the best Congress that the NAB can buy. :(

[Jacob S]

They might as well eliminate distant networks if Dish is able to provide a neighboring DMA's locals to an area. It is a wonder that they have not made that mandatory. I imagine Dish will provide the unserved local markets a neighboring DMA if permitted until that DMA is put up. This would give everyone access to the networks even if it means it is a little distance away.

[SamC]

IMHO,

We have been down the path of "I want NBC from 47 different cities and I have a right to it" many times. The simple answer is no, you have no such right.

I think the following would be a good basis for the future:

- DBS should have the right to carry significantly viewed stations.

- DBS should have the right to carry any station for which the viewer is within the Grade B.

- Only one station, per network, should have veto rights over waiver requests.

- If a local station is not broadcasting in digital at 100% of its power and in HD when the network provides HD, DBS can carry an distant digital HD.

- When all of the "Big 4" stations in a DMA are from one state, those parts of the DMA in other states can get additional locals from their state's of residence.

- Any local station which carries programming that is 95% or more duplicated by a national cable channel (Pax, Daystar, etc) is not eligiable for must carry.

- Any white area resident can get distants from any place that his dish can see the spot for.

- UPN and WB should be treated as networks for distant purposes. If the DMA does not contain these, they can be suplemented.

- If a local station does not carry a particular network show, DBS can unscramble the NY or LA feed for that time period for all customers.

- Waiver requests should work in reverse. Viewers should get distants upon request, and then it would be up to the local NABandit to protest and try to have these taken away.

- A waiver denial must be signed on by the station engineer. If it is proven that he signed in bad faith, which is to say he signed a denial where no reasonable person could believe that an appropriate signal can be received, he should lose his FCC card and the station should be fined.

Pipe dreams, I know.

[jericho29]

So can someone tell me if I will lose my distant networks? I live in an area where I qualify for Distant Nets because I'm far enough away from my DMA stations broadcast towers (Tulsa). Will I end up losing my Mountain and Pacific time zone channels?

[SamC]

The INTENT of "distant nets" was NEVER to provide people with multiple network feeds from different time zones. It was to provide television to the 1000s of rural Americans who previously had no access to broadcast television.

The most likely result seems to be that eventually people who have their own locals will have to be happy with their own locals, and distants will cover the people that these were intended for in the first place, which, if you believe the 210 markets mantra (and I don't) will eventually be nobody.

[Nick]

The "single dish" issue isn't even a topic worthy of dicussion. If you don't want multiple dishes, go for D*. If you don't mind a dish farm, go E*

<sarcasm>

What if congress mandates that viewers can have only one OTA antenna and no rotor? What if you can use only one rabbit-ears? What about cablecos that offer up locals from more than one dma? Let's put a stop to this reckless abuse of the rules. I demand that my cable co cease the retransmission of locals from two different cities in two different states. Adelphia, choose either Jax, FL or Sav, GA locals to include in my overpriced basic cable tier. These are two different dma's and I should not be allowed to view receive locals from more than one dma.

I am a Georgia resident and equi-distant from Sav and Jax, but I am arbitrarily in the Jax, FL dma, so according to SHVIA, I must watch locals via DBS from another state in whose news I have little interest (sorry, Richard). This is as it should be. I should not be allowed to view news from my own state and area. I should not be permitted to get storm warnings and hurricane tracking information from any broadcast outlet within my own state.

I currently receive locals from three different dma's in two different states. This is outrageous and must stop. I appeal to congress and the FCC police to put a stop to my utter disregard for the wishes of the NAB.

Help me! I'm out of control! I'm about to add a third dish to my multi-dish array mounted on a galvanized fence post within the federally-mandated area under my exclusive use and control.

Somebody please stop me! Please! :eek:

</sarcasm>

:rolleyes:

[jrbdmb]

The INTENT of "distant nets" was NEVER to provide people with multiple network feeds from different time zones. It was to provide television to the 1000s of rural Americans who previously had no access to broadcast television.

The most likely result seems to be that eventually people who have their own locals will have to be happy with their own locals, and distants will cover the people that these were intended for in the first place, which, if you believe the 210 markets mantra (and I don't) will eventually be nobody.I can't disagree with what you say ... but obviously there is a group of people who want to watch programming from another (distant) market, either to time shift, watch local news and sports, or whatever. I wish that the NAB would quit fighting this concept, and instead see it as an additional revenue source that they can take advantage of.

[Randy_B]

How manyof you have contacted your members of Congress with your thoughts?

[mraub]

Did any ordinary consumers get to testify before the committee? If additional hearing are held, maybe people on this board could contribute to send an articulate and knowledgeable member to Washington to offer testimony. There is probably a procedure set out someplace to allow interested persons the right to request an opportunity to testify. Someone who moderates a national Internet forum on the topic being legislated on ought to be viewed as having adequate credentials to provide useful information to Congress.

MIKE

[benl]

The only issue for me is the ability to watch HDTV network channels. Only one of our locals carry HDTV at this time. Consumers with this issue should be able to watch the network HD programing from distant locations until the locals get up to speed and make it available to the consumer.

[Nick]

Did any ordinary consumers get to testify before the committee? If additional hearing are held, maybe people on this board could contribute to send an articulate and knowledgeable member to Washington to offer testimony. There is probably a procedure set out someplace to allow interested persons the right to request an opportunity to testify. Someone who moderates a national Internet forum on the topic being legislated on ought to be viewed as having adequate credentials to provide useful information to Congress.

MIKEReauthorization of SHVIA is done by Congress. You may address your comments and concerns to your senators and U.S. representative. Once reauthorization is passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, the FCC will issue an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) to put the public on notice that FCC will accept comments as it considers new rules and regulations to reflect specific provisions of the new law.

The FCC will publish the NPRM which will summarize the new law and announce the time frame for public and industry comments. Citizen comments are welcome and can carry great weight with the Commission. When the new rules are promulgated, the commissioner will report on comments received from citizens and industry, and will respond to many of the comments as he explains the rationale behind the Commission's new rules and regulations.

There is plenty of opportunity for you to provide input to Congress and to the FCC, but you have to take the initiative.

[MikeSoltis]

What about the 'grandfather' clause (not clock)... would those getting distant nets (like even over on the BUD) be shut off?

And no offense Nick, but contacting your representatives is not going to have much effect unless you print your message on the back of a large check.

[BobMurdoch]

I can't disagree with what you say ... but obviously there is a group of people who want to watch programming from another (distant) market, either to time shift, watch local news and sports, or whatever. I wish that the NAB would quit fighting this concept, and instead see it as an additional revenue source that they can take advantage of.

I use it because of time shifts that the 921 doesn't catch, glitches that cause a problem not to be recorded, and other "oops" type situations (mostly by fault) where I miss recording something (WHAT???? American Idol was jerked around the schedule AGAIN???)

Also, hard to believe, two tuners aren't enough (Alias, The Sopranos, and Arrested Development... I could bump the Sopranos for the THAT west coast feed... but there are other conflicts as well......)

[Nick]

Bob, I feel your pain. :rolleyes:

So does old 'Crazy Willie', the homeless dude who lives in a cardboard RPTV carton under a bridge near City Park. He wishes he had gotten a 60" RPTV box instead of a 47". :lol:

[Curtis0620]

From the D* conference call, they mentioned a change in the SHVIA will even the playing field between satellite and cable by allowing satellite to offer significantly viewed channels from neighboring markets just like cable does (eg. DC & Baltimore).

[BobMurdoch]

Form the D* conference call, they mentioned a change in the SHVIA will even the playing field between satellite and cable by allowing satellite to offer significantly viewed channels from neighboring markets just like cable does (eg. DC & Baltimore).

That would be great. I'd add Philly's channels tomorrow! (just like I could have with cable which offers both markets in my area)

[Dax]

Would removal of the grandfather clause mean that I'll no longer be able to receive the WB and UPN "Superstation Package" that I currently subscribe to through DISH?

[BobMurdoch]

No, that is a separate issue. The superstations are 5 stations specifically called out by the original SHVIA as being made available. The grandfather clause was concerned with the ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX stations in distant network packages. In 1999, there were few local markets served, and this was supposed to soften the hardship on consumers who had already gotten used to them. New subscribers from late 1999 onwards would not be able to get them anymore without waivers approved by your local broadcasters.

[waltinvt]

Any speculations on what's going on with Shvia in the Senate?

I've kind of been out of touch since that draft was written by the House but as I remember, they were trying to have a clause that Sat providers could give distant HD network signals to any customer whose local affiliate was NOT providing an HD signal.

I know the NAB is against that big time and will try to block it by buying off congress. Anyway, just wondering if anyone's heard anything.
WaltinVt

[Sonnie Parker]

I'm very curious myself concerning this same issue. We have one local (ABC) broadcasting digital but only at 5.8kw which at 50 miles away ain't gonna reach me.

NAB also disputed the Digital Transition Coalition's numbers on DTV stations. It said there are 1,186 local stations on-air in digital in 205 markets that serve 99.6 percent of the U.S. population.

I'm in that .4 percent category.

[onegojoe]

From the D* conference call, they mentioned a change in the SHVIA will even the playing field between satellite and cable by allowing satellite to offer significantly viewed channels from neighboring markets just like cable does (eg. DC & Baltimore).
I live in a white area. No cable and no over the air signal. Will I be able to get DC locals. Had them at one time but like a dummie I cancelled them and Dish won't give me them back. My zip is 26884. Only thing I can get now in the way of networks is NBC, CBS, and FOX from NYK. Trying to get ABC from NYK on waiver, waiver still pending.