The Senate Bill 7/14/2004

[Geronimo]

Having troubles online today. I hope this makes it through.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA436008?display=Breaking+News&promocode=SUPP

[scooper]

In a nutshell - the McCain version in the Senate isn't making many friends with the NAB - E* gets 3 years to convert to single dish for locals...

[Mike123abc]

This whole claim by Echostar is a bit lame. They just do not want to be forced into moving the locals from the wings to E10. They rather put up more markets. They need to move the locals from the wings, and then put the tiny markets on the wings if they need the space.

[Bobby94928]

This whole claim by Echostar is a bit lame. They just do not want to be forced into moving the locals from the wings to E10. They rather put up more markets. They need to move the locals from the wings, and then put the tiny markets on the wings if they need the space.

Yes, you are correct, but..... They need another satellite at the core to make it happen. In order to shift things around without losing channels they need the space to put them. You can't draw blood from the stone.

[Mike123abc]

Yes, you are correct, but..... They need another satellite at the core to make it happen. In order to shift things around without losing channels they need the space to put them. You can't draw blood from the stone.

Well they have Echostar 10 a 45 spot beam satellite being built right now and it is set to launch next year. This would give them the capacity, but they keep asking for 4 MORE YEARS... They could build and launch the capacity from scratch in 2 years if they did not already have a satellite under construction. I think the truth is that Echostar has no intention of ever moving those locals off the wings unless the government makes them move. I think that they think 4 years will give them a chance to get the law changed again...

[HappyGoLucky]

Anything that pisses off the NAB has to be good. :D

[Chris Freeland]

Anything that pisses off the NAB has to be good. :D

I do not normally agree with you in politics or religion but this is one time that I agree with you :D .

[Jacob S]

Four years will give technology a chance to improve to provide more bandwidth from the current satellites as well as new technology for new satellite capabable of doing more than what they can do now.

Perhaps they need to invest in some hot air balloon technology (I saw a link a while back) that would allow them to transmit signals to the balloon and back down which is much cheaper and closer to earth.

[waltinvt]

Having troubles online today. I hope this makes it through.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA436008?display=Breaking+News&promocode=SUPP
I'm not sure how many realize that if this passes, it's great news for ALL HD viewers. The NAB has been trying to circumvent satellite from providing HD nets in any way, shape or manner and at the same time, allow local affilliates to continue to muddle along with just the bare minium of compliance to the digital transition.

While there is no requirement for any station to provide HD, the fact is HD is the ONLY thing that will bring viewers into the digital transition mandate. The major networks could care less about the NAB but many of the small town independently owned affilliates have long counted on the NAB to lobby for their rights to be the exclusive network providers, even if what they provide is of far less quality than what the parent network wants them to send.

Without competition, many of these affilliates, while eventually meeting the letter of the law for digital compliance, will drag their feet on real, full power HD broadcasting for as long as they can get away with it.

By allowing satellite to broadcast the HD signal of distant networks to anyone whose local affilliate can or will not, is the ONLY way to provide that competition. It will not only kick the locals in the pants, it will also throw the networks themselves into a competive race towards better quality HD programming. It's the shot in the arm we've been waiting for and can do nothing but make things better for viewers.

I don't know what the chances are for this getting through. I know the origional House version had a similar provision but I don't think it made it to the final draft and the previous Senate version didn't have it, so whatever compromise they reached probably wasn't going to have it, but this changes everything.

Facts:
1. This is an election year.
2. Some type of SHIVA extension MUST pass - letting it expire is not an option for congress.
3. While the NAB has a certain amount of control on campaign air-time, congress is also concerned about votes.

My guess is if congress gets a lot of letters, emails and phone calls supporting this legislation over the next few weeks, it WILL pass.

If you want more and better HD anytime soon, you people had better get off your butts and make yourself heard now, because you probably won't get another chance until the next legislation expires.

WaltinVt

[Mike D-CO5]

I'm not sure how many realize that if this passes, it's great news for ALL HD viewers. The NAB has been trying to circumvent satellite from providing HD nets in any way, shape or manner and at the same time, allow local affilliates to continue to muddle along with just the bare minium of compliance to the digital transition.

While there is no requirement for any station to provide HD, the fact is HD is the ONLY thing that will bring viewers into the digital transition mandate. The major networks could care less about the NAB but many of the small town independently owned affilliates have long counted on the NAB to lobby for their rights to be the exclusive network providers, even if what they provide is of far less quality than what the parent network wants them to send.

Without competition, many of these affilliates, while eventually meeting the letter of the law for digital compliance, will drag their feet on real, full power HD broadcasting for as long as they can get away with it.

By allowing satellite to broadcast the HD signal of distant networks to anyone whose local affilliate can or will not, is the ONLY way to provide that competition. It will not only kick the locals in the pants, it will also throw the networks themselves into a competive race towards better quality HD programming. It's the shot in the arm we've been waiting for and can do nothing but make things better for viewers.

I don't know what the chances are for this getting through. I know the origional House version had a similar provision but I don't think it made it to the final draft and the previous Senate version didn't have it, so whatever compromise they reached probably wasn't going to have it, but this changes everything.

Facts:
1. This is an election year.
2. Some type of SHIVA extension MUST pass - letting it expire is not an option for congress.
3. While the NAB has a certain amount of control on campaign air-time, congress is also concerned about votes.

My guess is if congress gets a lot of letters, emails and phone calls supporting this legislation over the next few weeks, it WILL pass.

If you want more and better HD anytime soon, you people had better get off your butts and make yourself heard now, because you probably won't get another chance until the next legislation expires.

WaltinVt


I agree with your comments. I just wonder if the shiva is not renewed and expires then does that allow Dish and Directv to do hd locals since there is no law governing digital channel transmissions?

I mean the only reason why we have sd channels on Dish is because Charlie put them up there because there was no law at the time. Then after Charlie did this, congress passed the shiva law governing network channels on satellite in 99. IF there is a lapse then Charlie should take advantage and put hd distant nets up and let congress deal with it after the fact, just like he did in 98 with distant sd networks.

We really have Dish and Charlie to thank for the fact that he forced the carriage of sd networks on satellite in the first place. He put pressure on both Directv and the cable industry at the same time. Without locals on satellite I doubt that the satellite business would have not grown as much as it has now. With hd network carriage this would be the way to rouse the broadcasting industry to go all hd with their signals. Otherwise satellite would continue to be the cutting edge of technology and even more people would take them to receive hd digital networks. People still watch the networks a lot more than the national cable channels. Until you have all highdef networks you will not get full acceptance of high definition as a viable service by the public.

The networks moved us into color tv, now with the help of dbs they can help push the networks and the rest of the industry into the high definition future.:D

[waltinvt]

I agree with your comments. I just wonder if the shiva is not renewed and expires then does that allow Dish and Directv to do hd locals since there is no law governing digital channel transmissions?

I mean the only reason why we have sd channels on Dish is because Charlie put them up there because there was no law at the time. Then after Charlie did this, congress passed the shiva law governing network channels on satellite in 99. IF there is a lapse then Charlie should take advantage and put hd distant nets up and let congress deal with it after the fact, just like he did in 98 with distant sd networks.

We really have Dish and Charlie to thank for the fact that he forced the carriage of sd networks on satellite in the first place. He put pressure on both Directv and the cable industry at the same time. Without locals on satellite I doubt that the satellite business would have not grown as much as it has now. With hd network carriage this would be the way to rouse the broadcasting industry to go all hd with their signals. Otherwise satellite would continue to be the cutting edge of technology and even more people would take them to receive hd digital networks. People still watch the networks a lot more than the national cable channels. Until you have all highdef networks you will not get full acceptance of high definition as a viable service by the public.

The networks moved us into color tv, now with the help of dbs they can help push the networks and the rest of the industry into the high definition future.:D
I'm not positive (maybe someone else will jump in here and clarify) but I think before SHIVA, it was a copyright issue. Although there was no law specifically addressing if satellite could broadcast networks, they were effectivly stopped from retransmission by existing copyright laws. Then the FCC and SHIVEA came up with a temporary fix, which if left to expire, could cause us to loose all locals. Probably over simplified but I think that's the jist. I would assume, lacking new legislation, such as what McCain is proposing in the Senate, HD networks would remain lumped in with analogs and subject to the same laws.

WaltinVt

[Curmudgeon]

There's so much hooey in this post, I hardly know where to begin.

#1. The NAB is not "allowing local stations to muddle along." The federal govt. sets the rules and regulations, not the NAB.
#2. HDTV is NOT the only thing that will bring viewers into the digital transition. Ending analog broadcasting and returning those channels to the govt. will achieve that very nicely...which is the plan.
#3, Stations don't need the NAB to lobby for their "right" to be network providers...they PAY for that PRIVILEGE...And you obviously know nothing about how the broadcasting business works if you think the networks don't monitor what their affiliates are doing with their signals.
#4. So meeting the letter of the law isn't enough for you, huh? What is? And who determines it? Fascists always think they know better than the law and want to substitute their own version.

Try taking an economics 101 course, you dunce!
Local stations survive because of local advertising. The dollars that advertising generates is in direct proportion to LOCAL viewership.That's what pays for local news operations and everything else they do in the community. Without that franchise and that income, they can't afford to provide those things. They aren't just signal re-transmitters! Of course they want to guard that franchise...Wholesale distant station importation will absolutely destroy the network system and local news operations.
And stations are losing money hand over fist on digital!! They've spent millions and they receive NO additional ad revenue for providing that digital signal....only a huge power bill for the transmitter...that's why many have gone to lower power.

In short, you're really liberal with other people's money and property. You don't pay more taxes than the law requires, but you think local stations should move faster and further than the law requires. Just so you can have HDTV on your schedule and to your specifications.

Mussolini would have been proud.

[jrbdmb]

It been mentioned here many times that Echostar and DirecTV read these forums. Now apparently the NAB does as well. :rolleyes:

Two notes:

- Local broadcasters get a public license, and are expected to serve the public interest. In return, they get free use of the public airwaves. All the "facist" and "Mussolini" references in your post are BS.

- If a local broadcaster decides to send out a low power digital signal that is unavailable for a large percentage of its viewing audience, why shouldn't that consumer have an opportunity to get that digital signal from somewhere else? Congress has already agreed with this argument by passing SHVIA; all that would be done with the above bill is extend the same logic to digital signals.

[Tusk]

There's so much hooey in this post, I hardly know where to begin.

#1. The NAB is not "allowing local stations to muddle along." The federal govt. sets the rules and regulations, not the NAB. The federal govt. sets the rules but is strongly influenced by lobbyists such as NAB, whose main concern is the welfare of their base, which are the broadcast networks. I don't fault them for protecting their interests, but they do this at the exclusion of what is best for the customer.

#2. HDTV is NOT the only thing that will bring viewers into the digital transition. Ending analog broadcasting and returning those channels to the govt. will achieve that very nicely...which is the plan. Sure, ending analog broadcasts will bring viewers into the digital transition, but analog broadcasts won't end until 85% of viewers in a market receive their stations digitally. Thus, people have to view digital to end analog. HDTV is a compelling reason for a person to switch to digital, because most people are happy with their analog sets and their rabbit ears.

#4. So meeting the letter of the law isn't enough for you, huh? What is? And who determines it? Fascists always think they know better than the law and want to substitute their own version. To put up a temporary transmitter broadcasting directionally at 4kw when you originally filed for 750kw max power is meeting the letter of the law and is a total cop-out. The law was meant to provide a digital signal to the viewers. When you live in the same town as the transmitter and can't get the signal because of low power, that is crap. The station says that they are in compliance, but what they are really demonstrating is their lack of concern for the viewers and their complete concern for the profits of their owners and investors.

Try taking an economics 101 course, you dunce!
Local stations survive because of local advertising. The dollars that advertising generates is in direct proportion to LOCAL viewership.That's what pays for local news operations and everything else they do in the community. Without that franchise and that income, they can't afford to provide those things. They aren't just signal re-transmitters! Of course they want to guard that franchise...Wholesale distant station importation will absolutely destroy the network system and local news operations. Look at the newspaper industry. There are 1,000's of local newspapers. I can walk into Barnes & Noble and buy a newspaper from any part of the country. The reason I subscribe to my local paper is the compelling content. Same for broadcast networks. If they provide a high-quality product with programs (outside of primetime) that interest me, I will watch them. If however, they half-ass their production and the picture looks like crap, I might want to watch the New York or Boston or Atlanta channel. I should have the right.

And stations are losing money hand over fist on digital!! They've spent millions and they receive NO additional ad revenue for providing that digital signal....only a huge power bill for the transmitter...that's why many have gone to lower power. Boo Hoo. There are three stations in my area providing a full power signal with passing of all HD available primetime content. The other 5 stations are doing just enough to meet the letter of the law. Guess which stations I watch. Economics are their concern, not mine. If they can't provide the best service, then get the hell out of the way.

Whew, rant is over.

[waltinvt]

There's so much hooey in this post, I hardly know where to begin.

#1. The NAB is not "allowing local stations to muddle along." The federal govt. sets the rules and regulations, not the NAB.
#2. HDTV is NOT the only thing that will bring viewers into the digital transition. Ending analog broadcasting and returning those channels to the govt. will achieve that very nicely...which is the plan.
#3, Stations don't need the NAB to lobby for their "right" to be network providers...they PAY for that PRIVILEGE...And you obviously know nothing about how the broadcasting business works if you think the networks don't monitor what their affiliates are doing with their signals.
#4. So meeting the letter of the law isn't enough for you, huh? What is? And who determines it? Fascists always think they know better than the law and want to substitute their own version.

Try taking an economics 101 course, you dunce!
Local stations survive because of local advertising. The dollars that advertising generates is in direct proportion to LOCAL viewership.That's what pays for local news operations and everything else they do in the community. Without that franchise and that income, they can't afford to provide those things. They aren't just signal re-transmitters! Of course they want to guard that franchise...Wholesale distant station importation will absolutely destroy the network system and local news operations.
And stations are losing money hand over fist on digital!! They've spent millions and they receive NO additional ad revenue for providing that digital signal....only a huge power bill for the transmitter...that's why many have gone to lower power.

In short, you're really liberal with other people's money and property. You don't pay more taxes than the law requires, but you think local stations should move faster and further than the law requires. Just so you can have HDTV on your schedule and to your specifications.

Mussolini would have been proud.
You must be a "newbie" here and obviously either have little experience in polite and constructive dialog or just choose to forego the normal protocols of mutual respect most here have come to expect from one another.

Do you always degrade a person's character when you disagree with them ? It's quite childish and immature. It also tends to cloud whatever valid and legitimate debate you have to offer.

I don't expect others to always agree with my opinions and I may not always be correct about everything I say. I try to be sincere about what I post and am open to respectful disagreement. I won't however participate in a debate that digresses into childish name calling and baseless accusations. If you care to rephrasee your post, I'll try to respond to it.

WaltinVt

[dishdude19]

Right on Walt and Tusk!!!

It may be a "copyright" issue, but it needs to change where Americans CAN order stations out-of-market if they wish to do so. Just as Tusk said, we can buy newspapers and books from all over... we have freedom of choice where most things are concerned. If I want to watch the news out of Atlanta and PAY to do it, why shouldn't I be able to do so?

No offense to anyone, but I'm in favor of freedom of choice when it comes to networks. When my stations denied waivers, I just quit watching them, period. That's my own personal boycott. I don't wish them economic harm, but I do not agree with them forcing me to watch their signal if I don't want to. I respect differing views on this issue, but I can't understand why anyone would argue against the consumer having choice. Most would return to watch local channel anyway.

What about a law that REQUIRES buying your locals and giving your a choice of TWO other network packages? To me, that would be a good compromise. I could live with that. But I think satellite viewers deserve more than one set of network channels if they are willing to pay. Many cable customers have for years enjoyed this. I KNOW I KNOW... the laws are different for cable. It's weird. Why have laws at all restricting what I can pay to watch?

[ramy]

Right on Walt and Tusk!!!

It may be a "copyright" issue, but it needs to change where Americans CAN order stations out-of-market if they wish to do so. Just as Tusk said, we can buy newspapers and books from all over... we have freedom of choice where most things are concerned. If I want to watch the news out of Atlanta and PAY to do it, why shouldn't I be able to do so?

No offense to anyone, but I'm in favor of freedom of choice when it comes to networks. When my stations denied waivers, I just quit watching them, period. That's my own personal boycott. I don't wish them economic harm, but I do not agree with them forcing me to watch their signal if I don't want to. I respect differing views on this issue, but I can't understand why anyone would argue against the consumer having choice. Most would return to watch local channel anyway.

What about a law that REQUIRES buying your locals and giving your a choice of TWO other network packages? To me, that would be a good compromise. I could live with that. But I think satellite viewers deserve more than one set of network channels if they are willing to pay. Many cable customers have for years enjoyed this. I KNOW I KNOW... the laws are different for cable. It's weird. Why have laws at all restricting what I can pay to watch?

Yeah the local cable companies in my area of Ashland, KY all let you have both the Lexington, KY CBS (WKYT) and (WOWK) in Huntington, WV because during Kentucky Wildcat basketball season you can watch the games on the Lexington station and also during football season watch those games. I know the football team isn't that good but try to get a ticket to the game and see just how much support is still given to the team.

[NKy.Yall]

Right on Walt and Tusk!!!

It may be a "copyright" issue, but it needs to change where Americans CAN order stations out-of-market if they wish to do so. Just as Tusk said, we can buy newspapers and books from all over... we have freedom of choice where most things are concerned. If I want to watch the news out of Atlanta and PAY to do it, why shouldn't I be able to do so?
[QUOTE]

dishdude,I agree with you as well !!!!!,not too mention you can order/watch and PAY what, 20-25 Foreign networks if not more and thats perfectly fine,but damn if you try and watch any of the " Big 4" distants{AND PAY,NOT PIRATE} thats a big no-can-do with the NAB people and other sympathizers !!!! in their corner.Why not purpose/pass a law that if you are able to receive a DMA and you subscribe at $5.99 a month for that local station{s} thay should give you the option to get available networks if you want such as the east/west feeds.But that will never happen so just concider this a pipe-dream,but I feel better saying my 2-cents worth !!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike123abc]

Quite frankly if the station does not want to serve the market with a full power signal then they need to turn off their station, give up their transmission rights and let a station come into the market that will serve the market. I am tired of hearing the argument that the station cannot afford to operate. If that is the case then economics 101 says the station SHOULD TURN OFF.

The television stations have enjoyed 50+ years of broadcasting analog. Now it is time for them to upgrade to digital for the next 50 years. I am sorry but the free use of analog for the last 50 years does not give you a right to complain about having to invest to get FREE spectrum from the people of the United States for another 50 years.

If it is not economical for you to maintain your business you need to sell it or go out of business.

[Mike D-CO5]

Quite frankly if the station does not want to serve the market with a full power signal then they need to turn off their station, give up their transmission rights and let a station come into the market that will serve the market. I am tired of hearing the argument that the station cannot afford to operate. If that is the case then economics 101 says the station SHOULD TURN OFF.

The television stations have enjoyed 50+ years of broadcasting analog. Now it is time for them to upgrade to digital for the next 50 years. I am sorry but the free use of analog for the last 50 years does not give you a right to complain about having to invest to get FREE spectrum from the people of the United States for another 50 years.

If it is not economical for you to maintain your business you need to sell it or go out of business.

Here , Here!!


I second that one! My local ABC station told me that it was to expensive for them to put up a new digital tower( 1/2 a million) and that they would only put out the minimum signal required by the FCC; which means no hd pass through. They weren' t going to change that until the government made them, By God! Yet this same station says " Channel 12 the first station in the Golden Triangle putting out a digital signal". Ironic. :rolleyes:

The local Fox station puts out low power and no digital and practically no one can receive this channel in town because it is all static and noise. I don't see how they can still be on tv since all tv stations were supposed to be digital by last year in May ,this year with extensions from the FCC. :confused:

[waltinvt]

Here , Here!!


I second that one! My local ABC station told me that it was to expensive for them to put up a new digital tower( 1/2 a million) and that they would only put out the minimum signal required by the FCC; which means no hd pass through. They weren' t going to change that until the government made them, By God! Yet this same station says " Channel 12 the first station in the Golden Triangle putting out a digital signal". Ironic. :rolleyes:

The local Fox station puts out low power and no digital and practically no one can receive this channel in town because it is all static and noise. I don't see how they can still be on tv since all tv stations were supposed to be digital by last year in May ,this year with extensions from the FCC. :confused:
This is exactly what I've been talking about. The ones that would like to believe that the vast majority of affilliates are in compliance with the digital transition need to understand this.

It's bull**** and what millions of viewers ultimatly are "allowed" to watch is going to be determined by this retoric - unless people wake up and start making noise.

WaltinVt