More Positioning on Significantly-Viewed Stations

[Chris Blount]

The Federal Communications Commission last week got more than an earful on significantly-viewed stations, something that would allow satellite TV to deliver local TV stations to customers from a neighboring market.
DirecTV said local broadcasters should not have the ability to block satellite TV retransmission of significantly-viewed signals. In its comments, the company took aim at broadcaster suggestions that would allow local stations to stop importation of third-party significantly viewed stations by withholding retransmission consent from DBS operators.

DirecTV said current law - or even "sound public policy" - wouldn't support such a move. The company also said broadcaster concerns that satellite carriers "might bypass local stations or use the threat of delivery of out-of-market stations to extract more favorable retransmission consent terms is entirely unfounded."

The company said it agreed with broadcasters on several items tied to significantly-viewed stations, including a proposal that a subscriber must receive local TV service via satellite before receiving significantly-viewed signals.

The National Association of Broadcasters reiterated in its comments that there must be a condition that requires subscribers to receive a local TV affiliate before getting a duplicative significantly viewed out-of-market station. "Congress sought to protect localism through this 'receive' requirement and also to prevent satellite carriers from bypassing local stations or using the threat of delivery of out-of-market stations to extract more favorable retransmission consent terms," the organization said.

Also, the NAB asked the FCC to reject proposals from DirecTV and EchoStar that would utilize zip codes to define satellite communities for determining markets for significantly-viewed stations.

When satellite TV gains the ability to offer significantly-viewed stations, something which cable can offer now, small dish companies would be able to offer customers in one market local TV channels from another city.

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

[Jacob S]

It would be totally unfair for cable to be allowed to have network channels that satellite companies would not be allowed to have. I say that whatever the cable company in your county has available the satellite company should have that available as well.

[tsmacro]

It would be totally unfair for cable to be allowed to have network channels that satellite companies would not be allowed to have. I say that whatever the cable company in your county has available the satellite company should have that available as well.

Abso-frickin'-lutely!! As someone who lives half-way between two cities and have not been able to get the stations from one of them on my Dish when my neighbors who have cable can, has certainly been one of my pet peeves! :soapbox:

[Jacob S]

I know exactly what you mean. I had someone that I switched off of cable to satellite ask where one of the channels was. I had to explain how Dish Network by law is not allowed to broadcast that station and that it is not on the satellite yet anyways but this new legislation may allow it to be available in the future but could give no promise of that.

[jegrant]

I think the zip codes are a good idea, myself. I think it would be a great help to DISH, dealers, consumers, everyone, if it was possible to just supply a zip code and be told, 100 percent for sure, which locals and significantly viewed stations are available.
It's good enough for RSNs, it should be good enough for major networks & NAB.

[tsmacro]

If the FCC approves this I can't imagine E* & D* taking advantage of it. Afterall ultimately it would mean more $$$ in their pockets. After all they're already using bandwidth to beam these locals and from what I understand the spotbeams they use actually cover a radius quite a bit larger than the DMA's they're pointing at. They'd be able to offer "neighboring area package" to subscribers within the spotbeam but outside of the DMA. Heck i'd pay another $5/mo myself if it meant I could get both. It would be a way for them make more money off of what they already have in place.

[TNGTony]

It just boggles my mind that they do not use the most logical test. REVERSE the current grade B standard. If a station can block you from getting another one, then you should be able to subscribe to that station. No ifs ands or buts!

See ya
Tony

[joblo]

It just boggles my mind that they do not use the most logical test. REVERSE the current grade B standard. If a station can block you from getting another one, then you should be able to subscribe to that station. No ifs ands or buts!
Agreed. I think at least one station filed a comment to that effect.

[Big Bob]

It would be totally unfair for cable to be allowed to have network channels that satellite companies would not be allowed to have. I say that whatever the cable company in your county has available the satellite company should have that available as well.

Including taxes?

Using the argument that the same rules should apply to satellite and cable, that means that satellite must be taxed in the same way that cable is.

[derwin0]

I have no problem with Satellite paying the same taxes as cable, EXCEPT franchise fees. Franchise fees are for using local infrastructure, which Sat. doesn't use.

[Big Bob]

I have no problem with Satellite paying the same taxes as cable, EXCEPT franchise fees. Franchise fees are for using local infrastructure, which Sat. doesn't use.
Agreed

[Bob Haller]

Grade B should be the gold standard for out of areas, since the NAB feels grade B means its a good OTA signal :rolleyes: