Mr. Shvia
05-05-04, 03:35 PM
SHVIA: DirecTV's Eddy Hartenstein suddenly sympathizes with NAB
During the house sessions.
1. Eddy Hartenstein was asking for SHVIA on a permanent basis.
- Now he is only asking for five years.
2. Eddy Hartenstein was asking for the no distants were locals provision
to be thrown out.
- Now he is in support of this provision.
3. Eddy Hartenstein was impartial on the non splitting of locals issue
- Now he is in support of this provision.
Very recently News Corp the organization who owns Fox Broadcasting Group
took over DirecTV. So this is very interesting why Eddy Hartenstein has a
different opinion towards SHVIA then he had in the house sessions. A phone
call from Rupert Murdoch, perhaps?
I for one am switching to Dish Network. The no distant were locals provision
also effects people living in white-areas, by the way. Dish Network is the
only provider still standing firm against these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1174&wit_id=3358
With this realization in mind, we have been meeting with representatives of
the broadcast industry over the last month or so to see if we could reach
common ground on some of the issues associated with SHVIA reauthorization.
We thought that, if we could reconcile our differences on these issues, the
end result would likely represent sound and reasonable public policy.
These discussions are still ongoing. But we have been able to find some
common ground, at least conceptually, on several basic SHVIA issues. Among
these issues are the following: · Legislation should extend satellite
operators’ ability to import distant signals for five years.
· Legislation should allow, subject to some limitations, satellite operators
to offer the same out-of-market “significantly viewed” stations that cable
operators already offer.
· Legislation should extend for five years the existing satellite carrier
retransmission consent exemption for distant signal stations.
· Legislation should extend for five years the existing statutory provision
prohibiting television stations from entering into exclusive retransmission
consent agreements.
· Legislation should extend the good faith negotiating requirement to all
multichannel video providers.
· Legislation should provide some sort of mechanism for “grandfathered”
distant signal subscribers (also known as “Grade B Doughnut” subscribers)
to choose between distant and local-into-local signals.
· Legislation should gradually implement a “no-distant-where-local” concept,
whereby satellite operators cannot offer new subscribers distant signals
where local-into-local signals are available. In doing so, however, legislation
must ensure that existing subscribers with both distant and local-into-local
service get to keep both.
· Finally, legislation should clarify that “carry one carry all” means that
satellite carriers may not “split” local analog or local digital signals,
respectively, in one market between two dishes. Do these principles reflect
everything DIRECTV would want from SHVIA reauthorization? Of course not. We
still think, for example, that Congress should reauthorize the distant signal
compulsory license on a permanent basis, so that we don’t find ourselves once
again discussing these same issues in five years. But all in all, we think
that these principles represent a reasonable compromise between two parties
that entered these discussions with very different points of view. We think
these principles represent a modest improvement over current law. Yet I must
point out that – although the issue is outside of this Committee’s jurisdiction
– any SHVIA reauthorization that includes a satellite-specific royalty fee
hike would not represent an improvement over current law.
--
Mr. SHVIA
During the house sessions.
1. Eddy Hartenstein was asking for SHVIA on a permanent basis.
- Now he is only asking for five years.
2. Eddy Hartenstein was asking for the no distants were locals provision
to be thrown out.
- Now he is in support of this provision.
3. Eddy Hartenstein was impartial on the non splitting of locals issue
- Now he is in support of this provision.
Very recently News Corp the organization who owns Fox Broadcasting Group
took over DirecTV. So this is very interesting why Eddy Hartenstein has a
different opinion towards SHVIA then he had in the house sessions. A phone
call from Rupert Murdoch, perhaps?
I for one am switching to Dish Network. The no distant were locals provision
also effects people living in white-areas, by the way. Dish Network is the
only provider still standing firm against these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1174&wit_id=3358
With this realization in mind, we have been meeting with representatives of
the broadcast industry over the last month or so to see if we could reach
common ground on some of the issues associated with SHVIA reauthorization.
We thought that, if we could reconcile our differences on these issues, the
end result would likely represent sound and reasonable public policy.
These discussions are still ongoing. But we have been able to find some
common ground, at least conceptually, on several basic SHVIA issues. Among
these issues are the following: · Legislation should extend satellite
operators’ ability to import distant signals for five years.
· Legislation should allow, subject to some limitations, satellite operators
to offer the same out-of-market “significantly viewed” stations that cable
operators already offer.
· Legislation should extend for five years the existing satellite carrier
retransmission consent exemption for distant signal stations.
· Legislation should extend for five years the existing statutory provision
prohibiting television stations from entering into exclusive retransmission
consent agreements.
· Legislation should extend the good faith negotiating requirement to all
multichannel video providers.
· Legislation should provide some sort of mechanism for “grandfathered”
distant signal subscribers (also known as “Grade B Doughnut” subscribers)
to choose between distant and local-into-local signals.
· Legislation should gradually implement a “no-distant-where-local” concept,
whereby satellite operators cannot offer new subscribers distant signals
where local-into-local signals are available. In doing so, however, legislation
must ensure that existing subscribers with both distant and local-into-local
service get to keep both.
· Finally, legislation should clarify that “carry one carry all” means that
satellite carriers may not “split” local analog or local digital signals,
respectively, in one market between two dishes. Do these principles reflect
everything DIRECTV would want from SHVIA reauthorization? Of course not. We
still think, for example, that Congress should reauthorize the distant signal
compulsory license on a permanent basis, so that we don’t find ourselves once
again discussing these same issues in five years. But all in all, we think
that these principles represent a reasonable compromise between two parties
that entered these discussions with very different points of view. We think
these principles represent a modest improvement over current law. Yet I must
point out that – although the issue is outside of this Committee’s jurisdiction
– any SHVIA reauthorization that includes a satellite-specific royalty fee
hike would not represent an improvement over current law.
--
Mr. SHVIA