House Committee Marks Up SHVERA

[Chris Blount]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) at a hearing Thursday, a move that helps push forward key satellite TV legislation on Capitol Hill.

At the hearing, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) provided an updated version of the legislation that replaces previous work marked up earlier by his House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. The bill contains more detail about rules governing the delivery of significantly-viewed stations and proposes remedies if a broadcaster feels that a satellite TV carrier is importing a signal improperly.

Specifically, the legislation authorizes a satellite TV carrier to retransmit to subscribers the signal of any TV station that a cable system in the same community is authorized to retransmit or if the station is considered a significantly-viewed channel within the specific area. In communities without a cable system, a satellite carrier would be authorized to retransmit to subscribers the signal of any significantly-viewed station under the SHVERA legislation.

The one-dish/locals provision also is in the bill, which would put an end to splitting up local TV channels for a market between two dishes. EchoStar has been lobbying lawmakers to scrap the proposal.

The Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association praised the committee's work on SHVERA. "SBCA appreciates the House Energy and Commerce Committee moving so quickly on this critical legislation," said Jason Scism, director of government affairs at SBCA.

"The language marked up begins to allow satellite carriers to compete on a more level playing field with cable operators, but there are still issues left to be resolved," Scism said. "We look forward to working with all interested parties as this reauthorization moves forward."

SBCA has described SHVERA as must pass legislation given that the satellite industry's compulsory licenses expire at the end of the year. The House Judiciary Committee, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee still must consider the legislation before it goes before the full House and Senate for a vote.

SHVERA is scheduled for mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee as early as next week, SBCA said.

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

[tonyp56]

So does this mean for instance: I will be able to get the OKC channels but I will also get the same channels that cable subscribers get in particular some of the Tulsa stations. I live in the country, my sister ( along with other family members) lives inside "city limits" and gets the local cable. She's able to receive most if not all of the channels (never really counted them, but I do know she gets some of the stations from both cities) that are in Oklahoma. I've always thought this was totally unfair! I always liked the Tulsa stations because Tulsa is only forty miles away, on the other hand OKC is about ninety miles away, but I am still considered to be in the OKC DMA, never made any sense to me. I hope this goes through, and satellite customers can finally get equal access!!

Thanks for the news!

[Skyboss]

So being that the Networks are "Significantly Viewed" in LA and NY, I wonder if this makes distant HD feeds legal without a waiver???

Hmmmm

[waltinvt]

So being that the Networks are "Significantly Viewed" in LA and NY, I wonder if this makes distant HD feeds legal without a waiver???

Hmmmm
This is basically what I've been asking about here and on other lists but no one seems able to answer.

I believe the key issue is if and how the digital version of a network signal gets defined in the final legisation. This is very significant and probably what the satellite providers are watching most, as it determines the direction of marketing strategy for the next few years.

If new legisation does not define a digital (HD or EDT) network broadcast signals as seperate and different from the current analog signals, then nothing much changes except for what ever happens under "significantly viewed" and "same transmission rights as cable" .

On the other hand, if they come up with (and something about this was in one of the house drafts but I don't know if it still is) something that gives satellite companies the right to provide an HD network to areas where the local affilliate is not providing it - well this changes everything - at least for the period the new legisation covers.

A lot depends on how they word things. There's analog and digital and we all know digital will eventually be the law of the land. But withing digital there are options not spelled out (nor of concern) by federal mandate, such as HD. None of this is really defined.

The question becomes one of what makes a signal different, just content or also enhancments to the signal. Before digital it was not an issue. Fox was Fox, CBS was CBS, period. But now theres Fox analog, Fox enhanced widescreen and soon to be Fox HD. Then there's audio.

If congress ever wanted to light a fire under all these rinky dink affilliates to get their act together, all they have to say is that the consumer has the right to receive what the local affilliate can't or won't give him.

If the affilliates choose to drag their feet on converting; continue to broadcast at low power; refuse to install the towers and equipment needed for viewers in rual, mountain areas; and the NAB continues to seek extensions and protection for them, fine - take away the analog distant waivers or make customer choose; but in the meantime allow satellite companies to provide any HD networks to anyone that can't get them OTA. Side point, with digital there shouldn't be an issue over grade A, B or white areas, etc. You either get a perfect signal or you don't.

In closing I just want to emphasise that markk ups and drafts are happening now in both the senate and house. There's tremendious pressure being brought by broadcasters and cable - much more than by satellite viewers. Now is the time to make your concerns heard and very loud.

WaltinVt

[Geronimo]

So being that the Networks are "Significantly Viewed" in LA and NY, I wonder if this makes distant HD feeds legal without a waiver???

Hmmmm

It si not a "network" that matters but the individual ststion. Are you asking if the NY and LA network stations qualify as "significantly viewed" elsewhere or whether something is "significantly viewed" in LA and NY?

[Lyle_JP]

So this means that my family's place up in Tahoe will finally be able to get Reno locals despite being (barely) in the Sacramento DMA? If so, then very cool.

For once, legislation from Washington that makes sense!

[Skyboss]

It si not a "network" that matters but the individual ststion. Are you asking if the NY and LA network stations qualify as "significantly viewed" elsewhere or whether something is "significantly viewed" in LA and NY?


That's the garbled question of the the day. What does "significantly viewed" mean. That's what I don't get.