Broadcasters are trying to prevent you from receiving HDTV via satellite!

[waltinvt]

Broadcasters are trying to prevent you

from receiving HDTV via satellite!



Are you going to let them get away with that?



Did you know that since the year 2000, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Political Action Committee has made more than $2 million in political contributions to candidates and members of Congress? All of this is meant to do one thing – deny satellite customers choice.



If consumers don’t speak up and tell their elected officials to resist the persuasion of the powerful broadcast lobby, our laws won’t reflect the needs of television consumers.



As satellite television has grown to more than 20 million subscribers nationwide, the broadcasters, from their palatial headquarters in Washington, DC have stepped up their fight against legislation that benefits consumers all while they drag their feet in transitioning to digital television.



Fight Back!

Thanks for your previous work on this issues. Your letter and emails are helping. What we need now is for customers to pick up and phone and tell your Senator to stand up to the powerful broadcast lobby! Tell him or her that you are a satellite television consumer who deserves a voice in the laws being passed in Congress. It shouldn’t be all about the broadcasters!



Tell your Senator to vote YES on S.2644 the Ensign Satellite bill. This bill would allow satellite companies to deliver an HDTV signal to many customers who cannot receive one today. The first vote on this important piece of legislation will take place on Tuesday morning.



Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Ask to be connected to your Senator’s office.



Senate Commerce Committee Members







Sen. John McCain, Chairman (R-AZ)

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

Sen. Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Sen. John B. Breaux (R-LA)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)

[dallas_axelrod]

Thanks for the information Walt! This is great. Earlier today, my friend called his Senator who is on the Senate Commerce Committee. He asked for the telecommunications staffer, and the kid actually knew about the bill, and answered many of my friend's questions.

The Senator's staffer said that my friend was the first satellite TV subscriber that he spoke with since the bill has been introduced. The staffer was pleased to hear that my friend was interested in receiving HDTV via satellite. The staffer said his boss was leaning toward supporting the bill, but the Senator was also getting lots of calls from local broadcasters who oppose the bill. The sense was that the broadcasters might convince the Senator to oppose the bill if there's not enough support from the public.

Thank you so much for posting your piece. And I hope that everyone that live in a state represented by a Senator on the Commerce Committee will call their member on Monday morning.

[richard_rd]

I live in Northeastern Pennsylvania and my major network affiliates are served from the Wilkes-Barre and Scranton Areas. All stations have their digital transmitters located on the same mountain top about 7 miles from where I live.

I can pull in all 5 stations.

ABC - WNEP - Ch 16 - Digital Ch 49
PBS - WVIA - Ch 44 - Digital Ch 41
Fox - WOLF - Ch 56 - Digital Ch 45
CBS - WYOU - Ch 22 - Digital Ch 13
NBC - WBRE - Ch 28 - Digital Ch 11

Currently only ABC and PBS are broadcasting in True HD during Prime time (8 to 11 pm), the rest of the time they upconvert SD to ED.

Fox will start broadcasting True HD in Primetime before the end of the year, but currently they just upcovert SD to ED 24x7.

My problem is my CBS and NBC affiliates are both owned by Nextel and they have upgraded to digital, but they only do SD to ED conversion, and they have no plans to upgrade to TRUE HD broadcasts. Anytime anyone gets a hold of a station manager they say they only have to be digital by 2006, they do not have to broadcast True 720p or 1080I HD by that deadline. They are arogant and have no plans to offer HD to us (at least not in the next 2- 4 years).

Even if the bill gets passed, i don't think it will help me because WYOU and WBRE will say they are digital (although ED only) ,and they never grant anyone a waiver to receive broadcasts from an out of area affiliate.

It sucks having two major networks not wanting to play ball in the HD game, and by the way how did one company gain ownership of two stations in the same market area, i thought that was against the law ( like a monopoly sort of thing, heck they even share the same news feed).

[waltinvt]

If anyone here has the ability to post over on DBSforums.com, will they please relay some of this information or tell them to come over here to view these threads. For some reason I can't post or even reply over there. They've got a discussion about all this and no one has a clue about what's going on. Some are asking what the new bill says and others are totally mixing up the facts.

Thanks,
WaltinVt

[dallas_axelrod]

There's an update on the legislation on the www.iwantmyhdtv.com website. The following is the link that takes you directly to the update. It is at the bottom of the page.

http://www.iwantmyhdtv.com/iwanthdtv/wrapper.jsp?PID=5080-40

[Intrepidguy]

I am willing to put an editorial in my newspaper as soon as tommorow, but I need to know if the article will make sense.

I am in the Indianapolis DMA and I do not know the status of the HDTV stations here. I will post my editorial and I need you guys to help me tweak it.

Any takers?

[Intrepidguy]

Just finished. How is this?

Please place this article in the Editorial section.

DO YOU WANT YOUR HDTV?

Broadcasters are trying to prevent you from receiving your HDTV via satellite. Read on to see what you can do to prevent this problem.

Like most retailers in this area, I have seen a surge in the interest of High Definition ('HDTV') sets over the past couple of years. Many individuals have held back on this beautiful service due to the high cost of the television sets and a total lack of content.

There is a reason for this, and you can shift the tide. To understand why this is happening you must have a general understanding of politics and have the understanding that the only way things will change is by affirmative action by YOU the consumer.

THE PROBLEM

Digital Television (DTV) Service, sometimes broadcast in High Definition Television is simply not widely available from local broadcasters around the country, despite the fact that consumers WANT it and Congress has MANDATED it. However, the current law has not been effective in bringing consumers their HDTV. Only Congress can fix this by allowing DBS providers to offer a digital signal so that network HDTV can be available to all consumers immediately.

Congress passed legislation several years ago setting a deadline of May 1, 2002 for commercial broadcasters to offer HDTV, and the following year for non-commercial stations. To date, only about 40 percent of all broadcasters have complied, meaning more than 1,000 broadcasters have still not meet their obligations to make digital service available to the public. In most cases, the broadcasters are not replicating their digital signal on par with their analog signal. Consumers are being deprived of the crystal clear picture and CD quality sound that HDTV would bring them because broadcasters are dragging their feet.

The broadcaster's argue that not enough consumers have digital television sets to justify the expense of broadcasting to the public. The programmers argue that with so few broadcasters willing to transmit in digital, it is not profitable to produce new HD programming. The consumer electronic manufacturers claim that they cannot lower the price of the HDTV television sets because there's not enough demand from consumers. Consumers say they are eager to receive the mesmerizing picture, but their interest is tempered because there's no HD service available. It’s a "circular problem."

An unbiased observer might logically wonder how the broadcasters can hang on to this spectrum that is so valuable to the nation as a whole, while at the same time, refusing to meet the Congressional mandate to offer HDTV.

The answer. They are exploiting a loophole in the law.

The loophole is sometimes referred to by industry analysts as "the 15 percent rule." This rule states that broadcasters get an exemption, for an undefined period of time, to the requirement that they return the analog spectrum if at least 15 percent of the television households in the market served by the station do not subscribe to a "multi-channel video programming distributor," including cable or satellite services, AND do not have DTV sets or converters. In plain English this means that unless 85 percent of the households in any given market have HDTV sets, the broadcasters are not required to make the transition to digital. This loophole allows the broadcasters to hold up their returning of the spectrum and thus eliminates their need to speed out the rollout of HDTV service.

But for every problem, there is a solution, if and only if the forces of competition are unleashed. There is a way to break the circle of this circular problem.

THE SOLUTION

A solution is readily available that would bring HDTV to the viewing public today. Increasingly consumers, public interest groups, and members of Congress are coming to the conclusion that the best way to make HDTV service more readily available is to allow satellite television providers to offer network HDTV service.

The key here is that Satellite Television can solve the "circular problem"

Satellite providers are currently prohibited from offering network HDTV service. However the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) industry is uniquely positioned to make good on Congress' promise that digital television be available to all Americans.

The solution is simple. In markets where a network affiliated-broadcaster is not offering digital service to the public, satellite TV providers would satisfy consumer demand by offering an out-of-market network HDTV feed via satellite. This can be done by broadening DBS' existing copyright license that allows satellite providers to offer the same service to consumers unable to receive an analog signal from their local broadcaster. The expanded license would allow DBS providers to only offer HDTV service to those households that cannot receive an over-the-air digital network signal.

The bottom line is simple - and succinct: If broadcasters won't deliver HDTV, DBS should be allowed to. The DBS industry is ready now.

THE BENEFITS

If Congress allows DBS providers to offer a digital signal, network HDTV can be available to all consumers immediately.

The solution will ensure that all consumers will have access to HDTV service nationwide whether over-the-air or through their pay TV provider. The service is a dramatic improvement in picture, sound and quality from analog service. Experts have called HDTV the most significant development in television technology since the advent of the color television in the 1950s. HDTV offers the promise of clearer pictures, greater functionality, and more robust service. In particular, HDTV has the ability to provide sharper pictures, a wider screen, CD-quality sound, and better color rendition. Whereas before HDTV was only available in certain areas of the country, enacting the satellite TV proposal would make the signal available to all. At the same time the competition for local consumers would motivate the broadcasters to make their free over the air signal available to more consumers in their market.

Allowing DBS providers into the game would break the log jam and bring more and more homes into the world of HDTV. This, in turn, would trigger the second compelling benefit to the nation as a whole.

Moving from analog to digital would mean that broadcasters would return their analog spectrum to the government more quickly. The spectrum, worth several hundred billion dollars to the U.S. Treasury, could then be re-auctioned to companies eager to offer new advanced wireless services such as the next generation wireless phones (3G), high speed wireless links or the next WI-FI.

The return of the spectrum is also important to our local police and fire departments as it will allow them to use more advanced telecommunication systems to protect our communities. The money raised from auctioning off the analog spectrum could be returned to the U.S. taxpayer or applied to the nation's deficit.

Consumers want HDTV. Content providers are anxious to create HDTV programming and consumer electronic manufacturers stand poised to mass produce the necessary equipment. The government could re-coup billions of dollars by auctioning the spectrum that would be freed-up by the changeover from analog to digital signals. If ever there was a win-win situation, this is it. Congress should act immediately to allow satellite companies to transmit network digital television signals.

YOUR ROLE IN ALL OF THIS

I urge you to support Senator John Ensign's bill, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Rural Consumer Access to Digital Television Act of 2004, that allows satellite TV companies to offer a distant network HDTV signal.

It is my understanding that this service can be provided to consumers IMMEDIATELY if satellite television providers (DirecTV and Dish Network) are given permission from Congress. Therefore, I ask that you support Senator Ensign's bill that will increase competition and consumer choice by allowing satellite television providers to offer digital service in areas where it is not made available by local broadcasters. Not only will it allow us to receive the programming we want, but it would motivate broadcasters to move more quickly to make their DTV signals available over-the-air.

Thank you for your interest and you can call your local senator at (fill in the blank) or email him at (fill in the blank)


Jon R White
Intrepid Enterprises

[dallas_axelrod]

WOW!!! This is great. Everyone should do the same... you can find the status of the local stations in your market by typing in your zip code on the home page of www.iwantmyhdtv.com. You should include this information because the local paper is more likely to publish a piece with local content.

[Intrepidguy]

Here is what I got. Most of the major stations are covered. Should I still do it with my local paper or would it confuse the public?

The following is a list of television stations and their digital availability in the zip code you entered.

DMA: Indianapolis

STATION
AFFILIATE
AVAILABILITY OVER THE AIR

WIPB
PBS
No

WIPX
PAX
No

WTBU
ETV
No

WCLJ
TBN
Partial

WHMB
IND
Partial

WTTK
WBN
Partial

WTTV
WBN
Partial

KXFT-DT

Yes

WFYI
PBS
Yes

WISH
CBS
Yes

WNDY
UPN
Yes

WRTV
ABC
Yes

WTHR
NBC
Yes

WXIN
FOX
Yes


Partial Availability: These stations operate under STAs (Special Temporary Authorities) meaning they are not providing their digital signal at the same strength as their analog signal.

* This information came from the FCC, Warren Communications and Nielsen Media Research

www.IwantmyHDTV.com makes every effort to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information concerning the availability of DTV service. If you believe that information above requires updating, please notify us immediately

[Intrepidguy]

Yo. Anyone?

[dallas_axelrod]

I think that the letter is fine without the status of your local broadcasters especially because you're in a big market. SEND IT.

[gor88]

I agree with dallas, send it without the local info. The important thing is to inform everyone about the importance of the digital transition and the need for HD networks on satellite.

[waltinvt]

<snip>..........Digital Television (DTV) Service, sometimes broadcast in High Definition Television is simply not widely available from local broadcasters around the country, despite the fact that consumers WANT it and Congress has MANDATED it.
<snip>......
An unbiased observer might logically wonder how the broadcasters can hang on to this spectrum that is so valuable to the nation as a whole, while at the same time, refusing to meet the Congressional mandate to offer HDTV.
<snip>
In plain English this means that unless 85 percent of the households in any given market have HDTV sets, the broadcasters are not required to make the transition to digital. This loophole allows the broadcasters to hold up their returning of the spectrum and thus eliminates their need to speed out the rollout of HDTV service.
Most of the article reads pretty good but the parts I quoted above are not really accurate with respect to Congress or the FCC mandating HDTV. The mandate is only for a transition to digital and there can be a big difference. Maybe a difference you might want to explain to your readers.

Now Dish Network is on record as saying they intend to provide HD signals if the bill passes but there's no specific requirement in the bill for HD - only digital.

That's my 10 cent critique.

WaltinVt

[cicijay]

I have a question regarding what the Senate Proposal actually includes:

Does the proposal mean that the consumer will qualify if the broadcaster isn't broadcasting on the digital frequency or do they have to be broadcasting in HD on the digital frequency. It seems to me that most of the country is broadcasting on the digital frequency, just not HD.

If the former is the case I could see the broadcasters point that they had until 2006 and that they should at least be given until 2006 until the changes come into effect.

If the later is the case it seems like it would cause problems if a broadcaster is sporadically broadcasting in HD and what about the fact that alot of broadcasts on the digital frequency don't cover their entire DMA.

In my area ABC,FOX and NBC affiliates are broadcasting on the digital frequency and PBS broadcasts some HD while CBS doesn't use the digital frequency at all. From what I understand the major networks have no plans to convert to HD either.

I rarely watch the networks anyway except during a sporting event. How do you think the NCAA tourney looks on a 100" wide screen with my CBS affiliate after watching the Big East Tourney on ESPN HD? I have trouble accepting that MY government has decided it is not in my best interest to view the NCAA tournament in HD.

I think that I might be smart enough to be able to tell what is in my best interest and if SHVIRA doesn't address them then I will need to look into the legalities of options to the North for my satellite needs.

[Jacob S]

Perhaps there should be an editorial wrote in each DMA market in the major newspapers. If there was a group of people that could be in charge of having this done then this should help a good bit.

[dallas_axelrod]

Does the proposal mean that the consumer will qualify if the broadcaster isn't broadcasting on the digital frequency or do they have to be broadcasting in HD on the digital frequency. It seems to me that most of the country is broadcasting on the digital frequency, just not HD.

From my read of the bill, the proposal would allow consumers to receive a distant digital signal from their satellite TV provider if the consumer cannot receive their local broadcaster's digital signal. The bill does not distinguish between digital service in HD or SD. So, if your local broadcaster is only offering their digital signal in SD in your area, then you would be ineligible for distant digital service.

As for the obligations of the DBS provider, they are granted the same leeway to offer a digital signal in either HD or SD. However I watched the webcast of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where EchoStar Chairman Charlie Ergen said he intends to offer the distant digital service in HD because that's what consumers want.

[waltinvt]

From my read of the bill, the proposal would allow consumers to receive a distant digital signal from their satellite TV provider if the consumer cannot receive their local broadcaster's digital signal. The bill does not distinguish between digital service in HD or SD. So, if your local broadcaster is only offering their digital signal in SD in your area, then you would be ineligible for distant digital service.

As for the obligations of the DBS provider, they are granted the same leeway to offer a digital signal in either HD or SD. However I watched the webcast of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where EchoStar Chairman Charlie Ergen said he intends to offer the distant digital service in HD because that's what consumers want.
You're basically correct except I believe there is a clause or two in the bill that talks about the power level a local affilliat transmits digital.

One big thing here is (if this version of the bill becomes law), is that the FCC MUST come up with a system to address the digital reception issue within 2 years. In the interm, some of the existing rules of analog will be used. There are a lot of "or"s in that part of the bill and I don't completly understand all options for qualification.

I know it says if you qualify for analog distant, you qualify for digital distant. Then it has a couple paragraphs that deal with qualification after Dec 31, '04 which talks about grade "B", power levels and locations - that's where I sort of get lost.

I know I've been told (and I can't say by who at the moment), that the fact you do or can receive analog locals from your satellite provider would not disqualify you from receiving distant digitals.

It will be interresting to see what the legal experts do with this legislation. In the meantime, I still believe it's the best we'll get this round and if the NAB is so dead set against it, then it's probably something good for the customer.

WaltinVt

[dallas_axelrod]

Satellite Business News is reporting that Sen. Burns (R-MT) and Sen. Hollings (D-SC) are planning to introduce an amendment that would make the two-dish and distant network station provisions track the House language.

The Burns / Hollings amendment would gut the bill. It would only ask the FCC to study and report on the digital white area. It would not give satellite TV companies the authority to deliver distant digital service.

We must oppose the Burns / Hollings amendment and support the Ensign bill.

[waltinvt]

Satellite Business News is reporting that Sen. Burns (R-MT) and Sen. Hollings (D-SC) are planning to introduce an amendment that would make the two-dish and distant network station provisions track the House language.

The Burns / Hollings amendment would gut the bill. It would only ask the FCC to study and report on the digital white area. It would not give satellite TV companies the authority to deliver distant digital service.

We must oppose the Burns / Hollings amendment and support the Ensign bill.
Man ! I'm starting to develope battle sores here.:(
Now someone's going to have to make sure this information gets out to people, so they understand the differences and don't support the wrong legislation. I except the DTC will be on top of this.

[Chris Freeland]

[QUOTE=cicijay]I have a question regarding what the Senate Proposal actually includes:

Does the proposal mean that the consumer will qualify if the broadcaster isn't broadcasting on the digital frequency or do they have to be broadcasting in HD on the digital frequency. It seems to me that most of the country is broadcasting on the digital frequency, just not HD.

/QUOTE]

Most major network stations in most parts of the country broadcast in digital, however the problam is that the majority are broadcasting at a lower power level then their comparable analog channel and many can receive the analog feed ota but not the digital one. With the current law if you can receive a grade A or B analog signal you do not qualify for distant locals digital or analog . If this new addition to the SHVA survives, it will mean if you can not qualify for the analog distant nets, you may qualify for the digital distant nets which will be in HD when the programing is HD if you can not receive your local digital signal regardless of weather or not you can receive the analog ones.

[Jacob S]

I received a phone call from Dish Network today asking me to call my senator and they gave me his phone number. I called the number and left a message and also left an email with him and two other representatives from my state.

[dallas_axelrod]

I received a phone call from Dish Network today asking me to call my senator and they gave me his phone number. I called the number and left a message and also left an email with him and two other representatives from my state.

So what did the operator say?

[Jacob S]

What operator? The only thing that was said was for me to call my senator about the bill.

[Nick]

I am willing to put an editorial in my newspaper as soon as tommorow, but I need to know if the article will make sense.If you are in the news business, you should know how to spell. It's 'tomorrow', not "tommorow".

Just finished. How is this?It's good, but three times too long. No paper is going to print an editorial, or a letter to the ed. that long, and if they did, few would read it. Cut it down to no more than about 20 col. inches, punch it up and lose the minutia.

[Alan Gordon]

It's good, but three times too long. No paper is going to print an editorial, or a letter to the ed. that long, and if they did, few would read it. Cut it down to no more than about 20 col. inches, punch it up and lose the minutia.


A few papers would print a editorial/letter to the editor, but it would depend on who sent the editorial/letter, and what it was about. However, you are right that most would not print one that long.

You are also correct about about not many reading the article, but not necessarily because it's long, but because most people could care less. Most people do not understand what "HD" or "High Definition" is, and most likely, most people would just overlook it to begin with.

The newspaper that I work for had a good sized "letter to the editor" published, I don't remember if it was this year, or last year, but it was about the current state of rules and limits imposed on telecommunications. It was a great letter, and I thoroughly enjoyed it... however, I was in the minority who understood it. :(

~Alan