News Corp.'s Unfair Conduct Holding Rural America Hostage Says Frontiers of Freedom;

[cj9788]

WASHINGTON (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71691), Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a public policy foundation dedicated to promoting free market principles and the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, today urged Congress to take immediate action to protect rural television consumers who could lose their distant network television signals by investigating the News Corp.'s efforts to derail a pro-consumer resolution to the long-running distant network channels dispute involving EchoStar and television broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox).

The possibility of a sudden signal loss to nearly one million consumers, many of whom live in rural America, exists because the News Corp.'s efforts to undermine a settlement agreement between EchoStar and the broadcasters. Fox, after pulling out of the settlement discussions last week and stating that it has no intention of rejoining negotiations with EchoStar, recently filed a motion with the Federal District Court in Miami relating to an earlier Court decision, requesting that the Court issue a nationwide, permanent injunction barring EchoStar from delivering any ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox distant network signals to nearly one million consumers. Fox's action appears clearly designed to derail the settlement agreement that EchoStar entered into with the broadcast affiliates of ABC, CBS and NBC, which would mean that those broadcaster groups would no longer receive $100 million dollars and nearly one million consumers would lose the distant network channels they depend on for critical news and emergency information. Such an aggressive legal filing does not make sense if Fox were legitimately concerned about retaining eyeballs in its own markets, rather than enabling its sister company, DirecTV, to benefit from an unfair monopoly.

[Mike D-CO5]

Yes, I said the same thing that Rupert is screwing over the rural area customers just so he can stick it to Dishnetwork. Competition is one thing, but screwing over the rural area customers , many who will still not qualify for distants under Directv either, is shameful behavior. I hope this group can force the judge to make Fox settle its lone objections so they can settle this lawsuit. Does Directv have to stoop to such behavior to steal Dish customers? I mean they already have 3 million more than Dish and I don't think they will gain that many if they force this settlement to fail.

Rupert Murdoch sucks and what he had done with Hd lite is wrong as well. The sad thing is that Directv has now set the standard and Dish is following with their version of Hd lite as well.:mad:

[agreer]

One man owns the content and the delivery channel, and you are shocked by this behavior? you know damn well that if he could, he would pull Fox from every cable co in America and say "Want The Simpsons, Amarican Idol 1/2 of the NFL season, MLB playoffs, 1/2 of Nascar or any other Fox content? Get D*!"

[kenglish]

"Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a public policy foundation dedicated to promoting free market principles and the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,........................."

So, who the heck are they REALLY...? All they seem to do is promote stuff that E* and the power companies want. :confused:

[Yo Howdy]

It's a conservative think tank. Cheney spoke at their meeting last year at the Mayflower Hotel in DC.

Where are the lousy democrats (as Homer Simpson would say) in all this?:)

[Geronimo]

Actually I don't see iether political party taking a stand---just one "think tank". I am modestly surprised though that they seem to want governemnt action in this case. Isn't their primary cause removing government oversight of business? Does anyone know what led them to this? Just curious.

[Greg Bimson]

Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a public policy foundation dedicated to promoting free market principles...urged Congress to take immediate action...So much for the free-market.

These guys see TV the way many here on this board do: if it is transmitted over-the-air, then those people have no rights. Take a look at the group's belief how the transition to digital should be handled.

[Geronimo]

So much for the free-market.

These guys see TV the way many here on this board do: if it is transmitted over-the-air, then those people have no rights. Take a look at the group's belief how the transition to digital should be handled.

Where would we find that?

[Greg Bimson]

Ask and ye shall receive (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002157003&EDATE=).

[Paul Secic]

Yes, I said the same thing that Rupert is screwing over the rural area customers just so he can stick it to Dishnetwork. Competition is one thing, but screwing over the rural area customers , many who will still not qualify for distants under Directv either, is shameful behavior. I hope this group can force the judge to make Fox settle its lone objections so they can settle this lawsuit. Does Directv have to stoop to such behavior to steal Dish customers? I mean they already have 3 million more than Dish and I don't think they will gain that many if they force this settlement to fail.

Rupert Murdoch sucks and what he had done with Hd lite is wrong as well. The sad thing is that Directv has now set the standard and Dish is following with their version of Hd lite as well.:mad:
My neigbos switched from D to E last night. They wanted more HD. So they yanked the D dish off & put E's dish up.

[Geronimo]

Ask and ye shall receive (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002157003&EDATE=).


Thanks

[Badger]

"Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a public policy foundation dedicated to promoting free market principles and the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,........................."

So, who the heck are they REALLY...? All they seem to do is promote stuff that E* and the power companies want. :confused:

Be interesting to see how much E* has donated to this foundation wouldn't it!

They sure seem to be worried about the "poor" rural customers like me. Wonder why I've never heard of them before? I'm 56 miles from my actual sd locals and get them from D* and via OTA and HD locals I now get OTA and will have them via D* also in October. I imagine if I was with E* I could get DNS just by asking but that's not legal and everyone seems to know that except E*.


Won't do much good to write or call your congressional rep as they will be going home the end of this week until after the Nov. elections and after that nothing will happen from them until after the first of the year and this will be all over by then.

Ergan screwed up and now his subscribers are going to lose. If all parties would settle the judge has still been ordered by the federal court to shut E* DNS down. It's going to happen and I hope the "other shoe dropping" ie: shut off of E* dvrs can still be averted. That would be a much bigger concern to me. I've been seriously considering a switch to E* and while DNS doesn't mean anything to me not having DVR service would be the deal breaker. Just have to wait and see I guess.

Almost forgot, D* isn't "screwing over" rural" customers as they will give you DNS IF and only IF you qualify by the law!

[Badger]

Ask and ye shall receive (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002157003&EDATE=).

Interesting read Greg! Thanks for the link. Guess that puts E*'s fingerprints on this "freedom" group. LOL:lol:

[Geronimo]

It was actually started by Malcolm Wallop a former Republican senator but fora group intersted in less government regulation they sure do want a lot of regulations.

[cj9788]

Now the senate may step in.


Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.

Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."

Colorado is home to EchoStar Communications Corp. and its competing satellite television provider DISH Network.

A Judiciary Committee aide said the committee is "looking into the situation and urging all parties to settle this matter to ensure uninterrupted service to consumers." (http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=f98a7141-dade-4d8f-8e9c-4fd1752f01d3)

[Greg Bimson]

Hmm. The two Senators from Colorado are stepping in.

I realize that many people may lose distants because of this. However wouldn't it be a bit funny if...

The judge in the case issues the injunction across all networks. While giving his opinion, this is the punishment that must be given according to the law that the President and Congress created.

[Greg Bimson]

By the way, I've seen reports that ExxonMobil has donated over $800K to this Frontiers for Freedom. Anytime I see an oil company donate to a "cause", it is likely that the cause fights for them, i.e., less regulation.

So if this cause, which says it is for less regulation (a by-product of free-market principles) stands up for Dish Network, which has been found guilty in a court of law, and is promoting more help from Congress, what does that say about not only their principles but also their funding?

Queen had a lyric in a song that fits: "any way the wind blows."

[cj9788]

If fox does not want to settle that is fine, but they are going to have to face the added scrutiny because the same group owns the only other DBS company in town. Why is it that ABC NBC AND CBS have been able to come to a settlement but fox has not been able to? IF they were not owned by E*'s only competition would they have agreed as the other three networks? No doubt E* brought this on themselves but the idea that the holdout is fox just looks inappropriate. Anything that fox does to better support D* in the marketplace is wrong IMO.

As to the Frontiers for Freedom if it brings the issue to the forefront more power to them. Anything to delay the loss of DNS will be appreciated by me and many other DNS subscribers.

[Mike D-CO5]

Anything that gives consumers more choices should be always in the best interest of congress and all companies. Charlie has argued that point for years. He went the wrong way to advance his cause in the belief that any customer should be able to watch tv channels from anywhere that they want, just like newspaper customers can read a newspaper from anywhere in the world, by giving many subs these channels that shouldn't have received them. But remember that with out Charlie breaking the rules in the past , there would have never been local into local in the first place.

Once the rest of the country's dmas are completed the need for distant networks will lessen ,except for rv and truck drivers. Once this settlement is done , Dish should requalify all the distant network customers and where locals are available , they should give them locals only. This settlement is in the best interest of all consumers except Rupert Murdoch. All the more reason why congress should intervene if necessary and make Fox accept the settlement. I am sure they don't want to hear from thousands of rural constiutents in an election year, that they are mad at congress for doing nothing in this matter.

[Jhon69]

My neigbos switched from D to E last night. They wanted more HD. So they yanked the D dish off & put E's dish up.

Which is not the smartest thing to do.It's better to keep both dish's up to be able
to subscribe to the provider who gives the best deal.Unless you plan to not switch
for years this is definately not the way to go.:)

[DCSholtis]

Hmm. The two Senators from Colorado are stepping in.

I realize that many people may lose distants because of this. However wouldn't it be a bit funny if...

The judge in the case issues the injunction across all networks. While giving his opinion, this is the punishment that must be given according to the law that the President and Congress created.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/05/financial/f172247D02.DTL

I think this quote says it all!!

Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.

"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.

Keep up the fight Rupe my man!!!

[jhamps10]

Be interesting to see how much E* has donated to this foundation wouldn't it!

They sure seem to be worried about the "poor" rural customers like me. Wonder why I've never heard of them before? I'm 56 miles from my actual sd locals and get them from D* and via OTA and HD locals I now get OTA and will have them via D* also in October. I imagine if I was with E* I could get DNS just by asking but that's not legal and everyone seems to know that except E*.


Won't do much good to write or call your congressional rep as they will be going home the end of this week until after the Nov. elections and after that nothing will happen from them until after the first of the year and this will be all over by then.

Ergan screwed up and now his subscribers are going to lose. If all parties would settle the judge has still been ordered by the federal court to shut E* DNS down. It's going to happen and I hope the "other shoe dropping" ie: shut off of E* dvrs can still be averted. That would be a much bigger concern to me. I've been seriously considering a switch to E* and while DNS doesn't mean anything to me not having DVR service would be the deal breaker. Just have to wait and see I guess.

Almost forgot, D* isn't "screwing over" rural" customers as they will give you DNS IF and only IF you qualify by the law!


Let me guess here for a second, you must be rupert murdoch, or controlled by him, because yes D* and Fox is screwwing up rural customers, by not settleing like the other networks, and I do believe that it is his goal to take off FSN, and all local fox affilates from Cable, and E*. All I got to say is, we should have had an investagtion into him a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago.

[Greg Bimson]

...because yes D* and Fox is screwwing up rural customers...Let me get this straight...

This suit has been going on for NINE YEARS. At any point, Dish Network could have settled. Instead, Dish Network chose to wait until the Appeals Court told the District Court to issue a permanent injunction.

Yet this is someone else's fault.

That's like being the groom in a wedding ceremony, waiting for the preacher to ask the question about taking a lawfully wedded wife, and then answering NO. The tracks on this suit have been greased for years.

If ANYONE has forgotten, the Appeals Court had some special words for Echostar and their tactics. Echostar showed a pattern or practice of willful infringement. So I know where the fault lies.

[BobS]

But Gweg, Gweg you just don't unnerstand. I need my distants. It's my constitutional wight. Waah! Waah! It's mean old Wupert's fault! Chawie Ewgen wuz just trying to give the people what they want and deserve. The law is unfair.

Seriously, I'm beginning to question both the intellectual capacities and moral standards of a lot of posters. What have they been teaching in the schools over the last couple of decades?


Let me get this straight...

This suit has been going on for NINE YEARS. At any point, Dish Network could have settled. Instead, Dish Network chose to wait until the Appeals Court told the District Court to issue a permanent injunction.

Yet this is someone else's fault.

That's like being the groom in a wedding ceremony, waiting for the preacher to ask the question about taking a lawfully wedded wife, and then answering NO. The tracks on this suit have been greased for years.

If ANYONE has forgotten, the Appeals Court had some special words for Echostar and their tactics. Echostar showed a pattern or practice of willful infringement. So I know where the fault lies.

[James Long]

What have they been teaching in the schools over the last couple of decades?How to use a condom instead of self control and how to get birth control pills and abortions without parental notification.

Seems like schools today are so bent on "the child has a choice" that what the older generation may have considered a spoiled brat has become the norm. And thus the RIGHT has been created. Of course one has the RIGHT to receive TV from anywhere they choose - how DARE anyone prevent a child, grown up or not, from getting what they want.

Poor baby? A bit harsh but not far from the target. :)

[bobukcat]

Let me get this straight...

This suit has been going on for NINE YEARS. At any point, Dish Network could have settled. Instead, Dish Network chose to wait until the Appeals Court told the District Court to issue a permanent injunction.

Yet this is someone else's fault.

That's like being the groom in a wedding ceremony, waiting for the preacher to ask the question about taking a lawfully wedded wife, and then answering NO. The tracks on this suit have been greased for years.

If ANYONE has forgotten, the Appeals Court had some special words for Echostar and their tactics. Echostar showed a pattern or practice of willful infringement. So I know where the fault lies.

I certainly didn't say it was anyone else's fault, and I absolutely agree that E* should be punished - the $100M settlement would be a pretty good punishment in my opinion and the injured parties would get restitution. If CBS, NBC, or ABC would have refused to make the settlement the people losing their (legitimate) distants would be mad at that company. But the fact it is FOX, the only other party to the suite that owns a DBS company, that has killed the settlement absolutely raises a credible and logical question as to the real motives of FOX and their ownership and whether or not it violates the terms of News Corps aquistion of D*.

[Greg Bimson]

But the fact it is FOX, the only other party to the suite that owns a DBS company, that has killed the settlement absolutely raises a credible and logical question as to the real motives of FOX and their ownership and whether or not it violates the terms of News Corps aquistion of D*.Then you forget what happened in 1999. Fox (and CBS) absolutely killed DirecTV by getting an injunction. The only real issue here is was that DirecTV never went through the appeals process, and then simply came to a settlement. The suit lasted all of two years.

Why would anyone think that Fox would actually treat Dish Network any differently?

And we still don't know if a settlement can be reached at this point. The suit may be too far along.

[bobukcat]

Then you forget what happened in 1999. Fox (and CBS) absolutely killed DirecTV by getting an injunction. The only real issue here is was that DirecTV never went through the appeals process, and then simply came to a settlement. The suit lasted all of two years.

Why would anyone think that Fox would actually treat Dish Network any differently?

And we still don't know if a settlement can be reached at this point. The suit may be too far along.

I did not follow DBS in '99 so I'm not familiar with what happened then, but that was 7 years ago and FOX did not own a distribution method then. Thankfully I'm not one of the subs that will get lose programming over this if nothing changes.

[jonsnow]

WASHINGTON (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71691), Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a public policy foundation dedicated to promoting free market principles and the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, today urged Congress to take immediate action to protect rural television consumers who could lose their distant network television signals by investigating the News Corp.'s efforts to derail a pro-consumer resolution to the long-running distant network channels dispute involving EchoStar and television broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox).

The possibility of a sudden signal loss to nearly one million consumers, many of whom live in rural America, exists because the News Corp.'s efforts to undermine a settlement agreement between EchoStar and the broadcasters. Fox, after pulling out of the settlement discussions last week and stating that it has no intention of rejoining negotiations with EchoStar, recently filed a motion with the Federal District Court in Miami relating to an earlier Court decision, requesting that the Court issue a nationwide, permanent injunction barring EchoStar from delivering any ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox distant network signals to nearly one million consumers. Fox's action appears clearly designed to derail the settlement agreement that EchoStar entered into with the broadcast affiliates of ABC, CBS and NBC, which would mean that those broadcaster groups would no longer receive $100 million dollars and nearly one million consumers would lose the distant network channels they depend on for critical news and emergency information. Such an aggressive legal filing does not make sense if Fox were legitimately concerned about retaining eyeballs in its own markets, rather than enabling its sister company, DirecTV, to benefit from an unfair monopoly.


True, this goes against the pursuit of happiness clause in the declaration of independence and limits free speech but so to does Charlie's new idea of blackouting of free previews to folks on limited income unable to afford even the family package and unable to receive their locals over the air. If your poor and rural you now do not have the same rights as those who are rich and urban. So in the end Charlie is a hypocrite and Murdock is just a slick businessman.

[kenglish]

If they are "holding Rural America hostage", can't we just send in troops?

This whole DNS thing seems so overblown....just slick businessmen stirring up a stink. Give everyone their local stations, or their closest receivable market. Eliminate the DNS "drug" that so many people think they have a "right" to. It's all a game. Tell someone that some "big, bad conglomerate" won't let them have something. Then, make 'em want it so bad that they will pay money, even lie and cheat to get it. Makes more money for the "dealer".......just like selling drugs.

If rural America has such a need for TV, then let the stations have the ability to broadcast to them. Take a look at listings for TV and FM Translator stations. And, look at the new list of LD (Low-power Digital TV Companion Channels) on the FCC website. Rural America is not "being held hostage", just being "taken for a ride".

[zmark]

If rural America has such a need for TV, then let the stations have the ability to broadcast to them.

But the stations don't want to broadcast to them; they just want to prevent anyone else from serving them so that the stations can count them for computing ad revenue. For many rural people, their "local" stations are anything but. The stations just want to claim ownership of rural viewers without having to actualy serve them.

[FLWingNut]

But the stations don't want to broadcast to them; they just want to prevent anyone else from serving them so that the stations can count them for computing ad revenue. For many rural people, their "local" stations are anything but. The stations just want to claim ownership of rural viewers without having to actualy serve them.

Which stations are you talking about? It's actually just the opposite -- the more people the staion can reach, the more they can charge for ads. You can't "count" people that you're not serving -- ad agencies aren't that stupid. So which stations specifically are purposely not serving rural customers, and how do you define "serve?"

Once LIL is done, there should be no need for DNS -- if it's set up right, you'll get either your home market stations, or if you're really out in the sticks, the closest market's stations. Problem solved.

[zmark]

Which stations are you talking about? It's actually just the opposite -- the more people the staion can reach, the more they can charge for ads. You can't "count" people that you're not serving -- ad agencies aren't that stupid. So which stations specifically are purposely not serving rural customers, and how do you define "serve?"

I define serve as providing news and weather for the local community, you know, the things a station is supposed to do in exchange for their license.

I guess my point is that for such customers, their "locals" are as distant as the stations from New York and LA.

Once LIL is done, there should be no need for DNS -- if it's set up right, you'll get either your home market stations, or if you're really out in the sticks, the closest market's stations. Problem solved.

If by "problem solved", you mean getting less choice and less quality than I do now with distants, then I guess the problem is solved.:nono2:

[agreer]

Here is what I dont get; I can buy a NewYork Times in Washington, a SF Chronical in Chicago and a Chicago Sun in Seattle, so why cant I do the same thing with local content on the tube if I am willing to pay for other markets local content? Lots of people move in and out of this area but want to stay connected to their home towns, so why cant I get Nashville or Pheonix locals in Indiana? 15 miles north of here starts the Chicago DMA, why cant I pay any amount of money in the world to get the same channels that friends just accross the county line get as standard? Any channel should be fair game for any customer as long as the customer is willing to pay the cost.


(I am talking on a strictly legal/political level here, spot beams are a topic for a seperate thread.)

[greatwhitenorth]

If they are "holding Rural America hostage", can't we just send in troops?

This whole DNS thing seems so overblown....just slick businessmen stirring up a stink. Give everyone their local stations, or their closest receivable market. Eliminate the DNS "drug" that so many people think they have a "right" to. It's all a game. Tell someone that some "big, bad conglomerate" won't let them have something. Then, make 'em want it so bad that they will pay money, even lie and cheat to get it. Makes more money for the "dealer".......just like selling drugs.

If rural America has such a need for TV, then let the stations have the ability to broadcast to them. Take a look at listings for TV and FM Translator stations. And, look at the new list of LD (Low-power Digital TV Companion Channels) on the FCC website. Rural America is not "being held hostage", just being "taken for a ride".

Amen, thank you for pointing out the absurdity of this thread. I'm not talking about the well reasoned posts of our members, but the fact that someone thinks a TV dispute is "holding America hostage". America was held hostage in 1979 in Teheran, America was under attack 5 years ago today, but in no way does this rise to the level of "hostage taking". I've lived in rural settings most of my life, and sometimes it's pretty inconvenient. I have never, however, felt that I was a "hostage" or that Rupe was figuring out ways to torment me. I think he's probably alittle busier than that.

[jacmyoung]

"Holding rural America hostage" is said by Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank whose No.1 financial contributor was Exxon, the organization is also close allied with the Vice President. There are many wealthy RV, not to mention yacht owners one would imagine are the supporters of this think tank, and guess what they rely on for their TV entertainment on the road or at the open sea?

Of course my tone was a little sarcastic, but for those who actually would have their DNs interrupted despite the fact that they legally obtained the service, the above accusation isn't far off.

[Greg Bimson]

Here is what I dont get; I can buy a NewYork Times in Washington, a SF Chronical in Chicago and a Chicago Sun in Seattle, so why cant I do the same thing with local content on the tube if I am willing to pay for other markets local content?And that is the issue. Let's use the easiest example I can give.

Barnes and Noble have a fairly large "periodical" section. Within that section, they sell newspapers from all over the country.

What Barnes and Noble does is contract with each of the newspapers, and buys quite a bit of them. Then, those newspapers are distributed through their system. Because Barnes and Noble pays for each copy of the newspaper, the copyrights are paid for.

If DirecTV and Dish Network wanted, they could simply come to an agreement with each station and purchase copies of the stations' newscasts, and distribute it to their subscribers. There is no law against that. It is just that unlike the Barnes and Noble example, there isn't a contract between the DBS company and the station for only their newscasts. DirecTV and Dish Network don't want to pay a station a "copyright fee" (think retransmission fee) to only deliver the local news nationwide.

[James Long]

If DirecTV and Dish Network wanted, they could simply come to an agreement with each station and purchase copies of the stations' newscasts, and distribute it to their subscribers. There is no law against that. It is just that unlike the Barnes and Noble example, there isn't a contract between the DBS company and the station for only their newscasts. DirecTV and Dish Network don't want to pay a station a "copyright fee" (think retransmission fee) to only deliver the local news nationwide.They could do that with content the station produces and/or holds national rights for ... but the station DOES NOT have the right to make such a deal on network or syndicated programming UNLESS they have secured national broadcast rights. Although there may not be a violation of law there would be a breach of contract involved.

BTW: Everytime I read the thread title I think:
"Frontiers of Freedom uses inflamitory language to inflate the importance of their cause."

[kenglish]

Trouble is....you are worth quite a bit more to the stations and their advertisers than most people are willing to pay.

In a medium to major market, a full-blown TV network affiliate (with all the staff, news department, public service obligations, outside advertising, etc) needs to make about a million dollars a week. Figure the number of stations in a big city, times that kind of costs, divided by the number of potential viewers..........every home is worth several hundred dollars a month to them. Of course, if you start selling-off the viewership, you quickly negate the entire value of the advertising. So, bottom line (pun intended), you'd have to get every home to commit to paying several hundred bucks a month for TV, not just the ones that want to get distant stations.

[joblo]

Trouble is....you are worth quite a bit more to the stations and their advertisers than most people are willing to pay.
Trouble is... stations don't pay viewers for the right to sell them to advertisers in the first place.

Unless/until the station has a contract with me, I have no sympathy…

[bobukcat]

Here is what I dont get; I can buy a NewYork Times in Washington, a SF Chronical in Chicago and a Chicago Sun in Seattle, so why cant I do the same thing with local content on the tube if I am willing to pay for other markets local content? Lots of people move in and out of this area but want to stay connected to their home towns, so why cant I get Nashville or Pheonix locals in Indiana? 15 miles north of here starts the Chicago DMA, why cant I pay any amount of money in the world to get the same channels that friends just accross the county line get as standard? Any channel should be fair game for any customer as long as the customer is willing to pay the cost.


(I am talking on a strictly legal/political level here, spot beams are a topic for a seperate thread.)

Because we are still dealing with an antiquated broadcast media system that still believes people receive their entertainment and news from local media over the air. The business and rules will eventually catch-up, but it's going to take a while IMO. Right now you have companies that built their business under the old technology and way of life that are desperately struggling to hold on to that as long as they can since they haven't found ways to adapt and take advantage of the new world of technology. This happens in all industries as newer technologies impact their way of doing business - those that can and do adapt survive, those that don't.......

[James Long]

Newspapers don't sign exclusive first run rights for news within their markets.
Television stations are constantly signing exclusive first run rights contracts.

As long as TV stations sign exclusive contracts they cannot intrude on each other's territory. CANNOT. A few weeks back the example of bottling companies came up --- another exclusive marketing arrangement where each pays for it's own region and is FORBIDDEN to sell their product in another market.

Television is not newspaper. They are completely different beasts.

[FLWingNut]

Trouble is... stations don't pay viewers for the right to sell them to advertisers in the first place.

Unless/until the station has a contract with me, I have no sympathy…

Actually, I believe there is a sort of implied contract between station(s) and viewers -- we(the stations) will give you all this programming for free (OTA) and you agree in return to tolerate commercial advertising during said programming.

Maybe you'd like a TV tax like they have in Europe and Japan instead..

[FLWingNut]

Newspapers don't sign exclusive first run rights for news within their markets.
Television stations are constantly signing exclusive first run rights contracts.

As long as TV stations sign exclusive contracts they cannot intrude on each other's territory. CANNOT. A few weeks back the example of bottling companies came up --- another exclusive marketing arrangement where each pays for it's own region and is FORBIDDEN to sell their product in another market.

Television is not newspaper. They are completely different beasts.

Newspapers don't sign exclusive contratcs for news, but they do with columnists and with the comics. If the local paper has "Blondie" and I want to start my own paper, I can't get "Blondie." Same for most columnists.

But, as you said, newspapers are different beasts. Reading the New York Times doesn't mean I won't read the Orlando Sentinel. I would read them for different reasons because they are different kinds of newspapers. On the other hand, if I watch Amercian Idol on the NYC Fox station I won't be watching it on my local, and that hurts the local.

THAT'S the difference between newspapers and TV, for the purposes of this discussion.

[James Long]

OT: Does the NY Times run comics?

[FTA Michael]

JL is correct, but TV and newspapers share some similarities. Both do contract for exclusive local content (Dear Abby, comics, crossword), and both add local content of their own (at least the good TV stations do). When you buy your Las Vegas paper from an out-of-town bookstore, you're also getting some content for which some other local paper really has the exclusive local rights. I presume that no one cares because out-of-town readership is such a small fraction of your audience; if you're the Kansas City Star, do you really care if 10 KC residents people do their Jumble puzzles in the Denver Post?

The big differences, IMHO, are price and freshness. It's pretty hard to get today's out-of-town local newspaper if you're more than a trivial distance away. And it's darned near impossible to get it at the cover price. Because it doesn't have to get trucked or flown hundreds of miles, your local paper offers fresher content at a better price. And that's why, IMHO, the feature syndicates don't go after bookstores to enforce local exclusivity.

Satellite TV eliminates any freshness and transportation advantages that locals would enjoy. With the right satellite hookup, it can be easier to get a distant channel than a weak one that's in your market (depending on the market). If you could find a way to deliver a delayed version of a distant network at a higher per-channel price, then you'd have something approximating today's out-of-town newspaper situation. But who'd want to buy a channel like that? :)

Edit: FLWN beat me to it. And after I wrote this, I remembered that this was a decent description of the old PBS National feed, with most shows delayed by a day and costing extra. Ah, those were the days!

[James Long]

PBS's one day delay satellite station seems to have an audience, and NBC's practice of rerunning first run shows on Bravo and other NBC Universal properties seems to be popular.

I wonder how well a "one week delayed" network station would do? Same schedule but with all the programs a week old. Viewers would have to avoid media so they wouldn't know what happened before they watched the show. (It wouldn't work for live sports and news programs ... but it is a thought.)

[kenglish]

Trouble is... stations don't pay viewers for the right to sell them to advertisers in the first place.

Unless/until the station has a contract with me, I have no sympathy…

Sounds like those "Soverign Citizens" I keep running in to.

They say that, since they didn't personally sign any papers that give the government the right to tax them, or tell them how fast they can drive, or what they can do with their property, then they can' t be taxed, ticketed, or cited for zoning violations :sure: .

Of course, the stations DO pay you, by providing you with the programming you are watching for "free". It's not really free, but your eyeballs are the same as money to them.

[FTA Michael]

Of course, the stations DO pay you, by providing you with the programming you are watching for "free". It's not really free, but your eyeballs are the same as money to them.Absolutely true, and conversely, the stations' typically lucrative businesses are based on the people's giving them the exclusive right to broadcast on a piece of the limited TV frequency spectrum. If the people (aka "the government") were to decide to yank a station's license :sure:, then it's game over for that station. So theoretically, the stations exist only with the approval of the viewers they serve.

[Geronimo]

I would agree that there are similarities between the publishing and broadcast industries. nevertheless they are regulated differently and the laws on copyright and other matters are different as well.

[Tower Guy]

I would agree that there are similarities between the publishing and broadcast industries. nevertheless they are regulated differently and the laws on copyright and other matters are different as well.

Perhaps true, but the essence of the rules are the same.

Here's the difference from a copyright standpoint. The delivery of TV stations via satellite involves the retransmission of a copy of the content, not the original signal. The puchase of an out-of-town newspaper is delivery of material printed by the publisher, not a copy.

[BobaBird]

They say that, since they didn't personally sign any papers that give the government the right to tax them, or tell them how fast they can drive, or what they can do with their property, then they can' t be taxed, ticketed, or cited for zoning violations .OK, but the rest of this thread is about a business arrangement, not government regulation.

The broadcasters need to expand their business model to include their viewers as customers rather than just as property. They need to recognize that the "property" is discovering they aren't getting what they could be and are finding other ways to get it. "It" could be better PQ or delivery of the full network schedule, maybe even at a more convenient time.

If the local broadcasters are "damaged" by the loss of eyeballs, and if localism is really worth upholding, come up with a way that customers can purchase waivers. If it helps, you can think if it as buying our way out of the implied contract. That analogy is flawed though, because viewers are not represented in the contract, they are just the subject of it.

[joblo]

Here's the difference from a copyright standpoint. The delivery of TV stations via satellite involves the retransmission of a copy of the content, not the original signal. The puchase of an out-of-town newspaper is delivery of material printed by the publisher, not a copy.
The difference is that there is no such thing as an individuated instance of a broadcast signal. By its nature, a broadcast signal can be received simultaneously by a theoretically infinite number of receivers within its propagation pattern. Because marginal replication costs are zero and there is not a finite supply of “copies”, the notion of transporting any given number of copies from point A to point B is technically meaningless, and thus an artificial means of regulating copyright is necessary.


Sounds like those "Soverign Citizens" I keep running in to.

They say that, since they didn't personally sign any papers that give the government the right to tax them, or tell them how fast they can drive, or what they can do with their property, then they can' t be taxed, ticketed, or cited for zoning violations :sure: .
Now let me get this straight. Watching local television is like paying taxes and obeying the rules of the road? Are you kidding?

Talk about an exaggerated sense of your own importance…

Look, we’re not talking about sovereign citizenship here. We’re talking about whether or not a citizen has or ought to have a legal obligation to patronize a local business to the exclusion of out of town businesses.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of patronizing local businesses, including local TV. I just don’t like the idea of the government making that patronage mandatory, and I’m not much dissuaded from that sentiment just because the mandate happens to be effectuated through a Byzantine set of copyright regulations.

Of course, the stations DO pay you, by providing you with the programming you are watching for "free". It's not really free, but your eyeballs are the same as money to them.
It’s “not really free” because 70-85% of the audience buys the signal from a multi-channel service provider, who in turn must pay the station for retransmission consent. As such, the subscriber pays the station for the content, and that’s that. The station does NOT pay the subscriber and thus should have no right or claim to anything from the subscriber. Not “eyeballs”, not attention, not time, not manual labor, not sexual favors, not anything!


Actually, I believe there is a sort of implied contract between station(s) and viewers -- we(the stations) will give you all this programming for free (OTA) and you agree in return to tolerate commercial advertising during said programming.A. See previous re “free”.
B. Commercials are fine by me; exclusivity is not.

Maybe you'd like a TV tax like they have in Europe and Japan instead..What I’d like is to see local spectrum space used for actual local content rather than as an exclusive distribution channel for nationally distributed content.

[Geronimo]

Perhaps true, but the essence of the rules are the same.

Here's the difference from a copyright standpoint. The delivery of TV stations via satellite involves the retransmission of a copy of the content, not the original signal. The puchase of an out-of-town newspaper is delivery of material printed by the publisher, not a copy.


The operative difference is that local stations have protection against other broadcasters infringing on their territory in a way that the law does not allow local newspapers. There are similarities but not concerning this.

[Geronimo]

Perhaps true, but the essence of the rules are the same.

Here's the difference from a copyright standpoint. The delivery of TV stations via satellite involves the retransmission of a copy of the content, not the original signal. The puchase of an out-of-town newspaper is delivery of material printed by the publisher, not a copy.


The operative difference is that local stations have protection against other broadcasters infringing on their territory in a way that the law does not allow local newspapers. There are similarities but not concerning this.

[Greg Bimson]

The difference is that there is no such thing as an individuated instance of a broadcast signal. By its nature, a broadcast signal can be received simultaneously by a theoretically infinite number of receivers within its propagation pattern. Because marginal replication costs are zero and there is not a finite supply of “copies”, the notion of transporting any given number of copies from point A to point B is technically meaningless, and thus an artificial means of regulating copyright is necessary.And a rebroadcasted signal, to subscribers of cable and DBS, is not artifical. Your point?Look, we’re not talking about sovereign citizenship here. We’re talking about whether or not a citizen has or ought to have a legal obligation to patronize a local business to the exclusion of out of town businesses.No we aren't. We are talking about the fact that the networks everyone so dearly loves do not want to allow multiple copies of similar programming from different areas to a subscriber.It’s “not really free” because 70-85% of the audience buys the signal from a multi-channel service provider, who in turn must pay the station for retransmission consent. As such, the subscriber pays the station for the content, and that’s that. The station does NOT pay the subscriber and thus should have no right or claim to anything from the subscriber. Not “eyeballs”, not attention, not time, not manual labor, not sexual favors, not anything!How so Karl Marx of you! I guess ESPN and Discovery and SciFi shouldn't claim any viewership numbers, either.The operative difference is that local stations have protection against other broadcasters infringing on their territory in a way that the law does not allow local newspapers.No, the local stations do not have protection against other broadcasters. Copyright law takes care of that. The ability for networks to sign excluisve deals also takes care of that.B. Commercials are fine by me; exclusivity is not.Of course exclusivity isn't fine by you. It is the one reason you cannot get what you want.

[Geronimo]

I was saying that the copyright laws take care of this Greg. What are you taking issue with?

[Greg Bimson]

Although copyright law has something to do with it, Geronimo, the fact that the networks grant exclusivity to their affiliates is the difference between newspapers and television. It isn't that the law prevents distant television feeds.

[Geronimo]

Wahtever you say greg.

[jacmyoung]

...Now don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of patronizing local businesses, including local TV. I just don’t like the idea of the government making that patronage mandatory, and I’m not much dissuaded from that sentiment just because the mandate happens to be effectuated through a Byzantine set of copyright regulations...

People continue to have this misconception that the government was mandating how the networks should be distributed. No it did not, the network affiliates went to court and the court agreed why the distants should NOT be distributed by DBS. Congress saw DBS stood to lose distants completely.

In order to preserve the distants on DBS, Congress had to come up with a new law that would stand up to court challenge, or at least to ensure the new law will be acceptable to NAB. Hence the LIL model on DBS.

Congress must make laws that can withstand constitutional test. Or else we would not have networks on DBS period, distant or local. I wonder which of the two would you rather have?

[James Long]

Think about it this way, if you can.

A private marketplace is established where networks sign exclusive deals with affiliates. The affiliates get first run rights for the shows on the network. If an affilitate chooses to not air a particular show they then can offer it to other stations in that affiliate's market (and sometimes have). But the private contract protecting each affiliate from a competing station is there without government involvement.

Then someone figures out how to export a TV station into a different market. They figure out that one can receive the signals OTA and retransmit them via satellite to anyone they wish. They claim a right to do this based on the signals being on free OTA broadcasts.

The local stations don't like this as they feel that their contract is being violated by having a competing signal in their market. The networks don't like it because it interferes with their ability to sell their product as they want sell it - affilated in exclusive markets.

The government is called in to settle it. Satellite operators demand the right to rebroadcast local stations and stations and networks demand the right to control how thier signals are rebroadcast. Laws are written and adjusted to satisfy all parties --- or at least come to a happy medium. Similar laws are written for cable preventing them from importing out of market competition. The laws allow carriage within each market of that market's locals (with permission or on demand of the local station if any of that market's stations are carried) as well as the carriage of 'distant' stations in areas where no local station's exclusive rights will be harmed or where the local station has waived their exclusive rights.

A certain satellite carrier refuses to follow the law. Several times along the way they are scolded by the courts and warned to shape up. Eventually it gets to a point where a final decision is needed to forbid that satellite carrier from carrying channels outside of the local market ... because it does not seem there is any other way of making sure that the customers served are eligible. This penalty is part of the law ... not invented by the courts or the complaining stations ... but part of the rules that gave the satellite system permission to carry distant stations in the first place.

And now a judge must decide if a last minute settlement by most parties is a good enough reason (or if there are any good reasons) to set aside a mandated penalty that the lower court was directed by a higher court to put in place.

But it all comes back to the root. An exclusive affiliation contract between two parties unlike most other forms of business and a third party who believes that exclusivity was unfair.

"People should be able to view any local TV station they wish." That is not what the affilation agreements say, that is not what the law says, that is not what the courts have said. But it is the express opinion of the man leading the company at the center of all of this attention. Many here would agree with that opinion - but it is not the law.

[FLWingNut]

It’s “not really free” because 70-85% of the audience buys the signal from a multi-channel service provider, who in turn must pay the station for retransmission consent. As such, the subscriber pays the station for the content, and that’s that. The station does NOT pay the subscriber and thus should have no right or claim to anything from the subscriber. Not “eyeballs”, not attention, not time, not manual labor, not sexual favors, not anything!.

Irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. We're talking about a "contract" of sorts between the local station and the viewer -- the method of delivery doesn't matter.

Commercials are fine by me; exclusivity is not.

What I’d like is to see local spectrum space used for actual local content rather than as an exclusive distribution channel for nationally distributed content.

What exactly does that mean? What local content? 24/7 news? No network programming? Network programming but non-exclusive? Good luck making a profit on that.

[joblo]

What exactly does that mean? What local content? 24/7 news? No network programming? Network programming but non-exclusive? Good luck making a profit on that.
All of that works for me… if the stations can’t make a profit on that basis, let them turn in their license so someone else can use the frequency.

Local exclusivity on national programming is a financial win for two groups: program rights holder who see a balkanized market wherein they can charge higher prices for their programs (think of it as the antithesis of globalization), and local advertisers, who see a glut of local ad avails in popular programming and are thus able to reach more viewers for less money.

The taxpayer effectively subsidizes these financial windfalls via free (or at least well below market value) spectrum space for local stations. Call me crazy, but I don’t think advertisers and Hollywood producers merit subsidization.

Meanwhile, because of the glut of local ad avails in national programming, real local programming has little or no chance of attracting advertiser support. Granted, even without exclusivity, most local programming would face an uphill battle for sponsorship, but certainly it would stand a better chance without six networks worth of competition from major Hollywood production houses.

[FLWingNut]

All of that works for me… if the stations can’t make a profit on that basis, let them turn in their license so someone else can use the frequency..

To do what? Lose money, too? I'm telling you most stations can't generate enough local money without network programming to back it up. There's only room for (maybe) one independent in a market, and they better have sports of something elsoe going for it. Notice how quickly stations jumped to become WB or even UPN affiliates? Network programming allows a station to fill air time with quality (insert joke here) programming at low or no cost, then make money on ads

Local exclusivity on national programming is a financial win for two groups: program rights holder who see a balkanized market wherein they can charge higher prices for their programs (think of it as the antithesis of globalization), and local advertisers, who see a glut of local ad avails in popular programming and are thus able to reach more viewers for less money.

The taxpayer effectively subsidizes these financial windfalls via free (or at least well below market value) spectrum space for local stations. Call me crazy, but I don’t think advertisers and Hollywood producers merit subsidization.

Meanwhile, because of the glut of local ad avails in national programming, real local programming has little or no chance of attracting advertiser support. Granted, even without exclusivity, most local programming would face an uphill battle for sponsorship, but certainly it would stand a better chance without six networks worth of competition from major Hollywood production houses.

There's no "glut" of local avails. It's a few minutes per hour, the rest is national and local and network promos.

Why do we need to make sponsorship an "uphill battle?" For whose benefit? The present system works. Your locals provide your network programs and local news and information. What exactly is the problem with the current system?

Having asked that, I will allow that some markets have technical and HD-issues. And that's a problem. Stations do need to get on the ball and become HD compliant. Understand though, that's an expensive proposition for some small market stations. Equipment costs the same no matter the market size, but ad revenues are much smaller in smaller markets.

I now see on AP that NBC will join the other nets in offering their primetime shows on-line the day after they air. Maybe this will help some who are clamoring for other ways to see network content.

[cj9788]

Why do we need to make sponsorship an "uphill battle?" For whose benefit? The present system works. Your locals provide your network programs and local news and information. What exactly is the problem with the current system?



The Local affilaites have a monoply on my eyes. They can bump programing because of content the local owner finds objectionable. They can delay shows for some assinine reason like a fire or a slow moving cloud or just because they can. Most of the time if they do decide to air the show that was delayed it is at an ungodly hour with no notice. and you can forget about a rebroadcast of a show if it is just an interuption. Having DNS is an option to snub my local broadcaster and let him know that I will not tolerate such shenanigins. Competiton is a strong motivator. I do not understand why my local ABC does not have to compete with the DNS ABC. Maybe if they did they would come up with a better product that people would want to watch. The technology is there the money to be had is there. Why the NAB and the big 4 have not realized the huge money tree that is just waiting to be picked. I would pay an extra 20 bucks a month for a DNS package of say maybe 4 or five cities. But much like legal pot it is just a pipe dream.

[FLWingNut]

The Local affilaites have a monoply on my eyes. They can bump programing because of content the local owner finds objectionable. They can delay shows for some assinine reason like a fire or a slow moving cloud or just because they can. Most of the time if they do decide to air the show that was delayed it is at an ungodly hour with no notice. and you can forget about a rebroadcast of a show if it is just an interuption. Having DNS is an option to snub my local broadcaster and let him know that I will not tolerate such shenanigins. Competiton is a strong motivator. I do not understand why my local ABC does not have to compete with the DNS ABC. Maybe if they did they would come up with a better product that people would want to watch. The technology is there the money to be had is there. Why the NAB and the big 4 have not realized the huge money tree that is just waiting to be picked. I would pay an extra 20 bucks a month for a DNS package of say maybe 4 or five cities. But much like legal pot it is just a pipe dream.

And how often does this REALLY happen? Do you think your local ABC is going to bump "Desperate Housewives" or "Lost" just because they can? That "fire" or "slow moving cloud" you're so quick to dismiss affects people in your area -- maybe even you. Wouldn't you like to know that a tornado has been spotted in your neighborhood? Heaven forbid we interrupt "Deal or No Deal" to tell you a gas tanker has turned over near your home. Puh-leeze. Let's get our priroities straight.

I'm not here to defend every interruption or pre-emption; some of the ones my local ABC station have pulled aggravated me. But on the whole, the system works. You get network programming and your local news, too.

I'm still not clear what a "better product to watch" means. One that's custom-made for you? I keep reading how the locals should "compete" -- they already do. With each other. Why should they have to compete with national DNS, too?

[James Long]

Devil's Advocate -
Last spring we had a series of nasty storms pass through on Sunday nights. It seemed like every week the storms hit right on schedule during "The West Wing". So every week the local affiliate broke out of the HD network signal to insert the upconvert of the weather warnings and program then back into HD. The SD side was also interrupted. Toward the end of the season NBC Universal started reairing the program the next evening on BravoTV ... which was the only way I could watch a clean copy of the show (without having distants).

I was home for that show, although I generally started watching 20 minutes late so I could skip the commercials. MOST of the programs I watch are on a delay basis. It may not be until the next day that I watch the show - and by then the warnings are too late.

I have other means to know about heavy storms ... and if a tanker overturns I'm sure that the police will be evacuating the neighborhood before the media knows about it. After all, there are people who are watching cable and satellite channels that are not local as well as those who are not watching TV at all.

Much of the TV coverage of anything but weather is for lookie lous anyways. "WE HAVE SMOKE" let's run a crawl - "WE HAVE FIRE" let's break in live!

Priorities are straight ... but let's do the job with some finesse! Don't just break in because you can! Some stations are better at knowing when to interupt.

[cj9788]

And how often does this REALLY happen? Do you think your local ABC is going to bump "Desperate Housewives" or "Lost" just because they can? That "fire" or "slow moving cloud" you're so quick to dismiss affects people in your area -- maybe even you. Wouldn't you like to know that a tornado has been spotted in your neighborhood? Heaven forbid we interrupt "Deal or No Deal" to tell you a gas tanker has turned over near your home. Puh-leeze. Let's get our priroities straight.

I'm not here to defend every interruption or pre-emption; some of the ones my local ABC station have pulled aggravated me. But on the whole, the system works. You get network programming and your local news, too.

I'm still not clear what a "better product to watch" means. One that's custom-made for you? I keep reading how the locals should "compete" -- they already do. With each other. Why should they have to compete with national DNS, too?


They should have to compete for the reasons I have stated above.

They have a monoploly plain and simple. The delvery methods have changed with the advent of technology. It is no longer nessecary for a local channel to be the only ABC in town. If the decide to preempt shows or interupt shows thats fine that is there perrogitive, but they should know that my eyes can get the same programing from another source that will not interupt my network shows. Big example are DMA's like Jacksonville Fl which covers a huge area. Do you think some hump in waycross GA cares about a fire in downtown Jacksonville? Keep in mind Waycross is over 90 miles from DT JAX. Do you think the guy in Baker county cares that there is a tornado watch in St. Johns county? And lets not forget about Dale Earnhart's last big hit "the wall". OMG it was like the president died. All four JAX nets preempted network programing to tell me 500 times over and over again that the world has lost one of the greats in nascar. Whoptefrickingdo.

And by a better product I mean a sophesticated slick broadcast that does not feel like an attempt to try to hard. All four JAX locals SUCK! Yes I have them because I like to have local news but for the most part I watch my network shows from NY and LA. The O&O rarley if ever preempt and are always on time back from commercials. It is a daily occerance for the 15 second news promo on the JAX ABC to run into the first five seconds of the network show coming back from commercials. That is unprofessional and shoddy and a piss poor product.

The days of the local affilates strangelhold on network content is comming to an end. If not DNS on satellite then it will be slingbox and internet downloads. The end is near. You will have to adjust to the emerging technolgy or lose viewers.

BTW just what is wrong with people viewing DNS. Why does it bother you so much? The fact that real competition is on the horiozon. The fact that one of the viewers in your DMA can have a choice to watch your ABC or the ABC from NY? IMO the only competition in my DMA is for local news. If I like lost and do not like what CBS is showing ABC wins. The compettition I am refering to is which ABC provider I am going to watch. JAX NY OR LA. I can tell you now it will not be the JAX local. They might interput to tell me that there is a cat stuck in a tree over 5 counties away.

[Greg Bimson]

They have a monoploly plain and simple. The delvery methods have changed with the advent of technology. It is no longer nessecary for a local channel to be the only ABC in town.None of this is plain and simple, and your definitions are incorrect:

There is no monopoly. That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Mac's. A Big Mac is simply a brand of hamburger; Lost and Desparate Housewives are simply programs that are first run exclusives on the ABC network.

Nothing has changed with the advent of technology. The stations are still licensed by the FCC and comply with their regulations. How they are licensed to broadcast now and 50 years ago are only different because each station now runs an analog and a digital transmission. Other companies that wish to rebroadcast the signal need permission to do so, and within that permission is the delivery area of the retransmission.

And, if it isn't any longer necessary for a local channel to be the only ABC in town, your gripe is with ABC. If you don't like how ABC itself conducts the distribution of their business, stop watching. If the ABC programming wasn't in demand, you wouldn't be so hell-bent on trying to receive it.BTW just what is wrong with people viewing DNS. Why does it bother you so much? The fact that real competition is on the horiozon. The fact that one of the viewers in your DMA can have a choice to watch your ABC or the ABC from NY?No, the fact that ABC has determined how best to distribute their programming, and many people believe they shouldn't have that right. Trust me, the competition you talk about is not going to occur over the next five years at least.The compettition I am refering to is which ABC provider I am going to watch. JAX NY OR LA. I can tell you now it will not be the JAX local. They might interput to tell me that there is a cat stuck in a tree over 5 counties away.And that is because the Jacksonville local is doing its part for localism. These are some of the reasons that pre-emptions occur; to keep people up to date on the happenings in their community is the reason the FCC licenses stations in this manner.

[FLWingNut]

The days of the local affilates strangelhold on network content is comming to an end. If not DNS on satellite then it will be slingbox and internet downloads. The end is near. You will have to adjust to the emerging technolgy or lose viewers.

You are somewhat correct here -- there are other ways to get network shows. All four of the big nets now offer downloads on their websites, usually the day after they air. If you want to get them that way, go for it. Slingbox is legal -- have at it. I have no problem with getting the content you want any LEGAL way you want.

BTW just what is wrong with people viewing DNS. Why does it bother you so much? The fact that real competition is on the horiozon. The fact that one of the viewers in your DMA can have a choice to watch your ABC or the ABC from NY? IMO the only competition in my DMA is for local news. If I like lost and do not like what CBS is showing ABC wins. The compettition I am refering to is which ABC provider I am going to watch. JAX NY OR LA..

I don't have a problem with people legally qualifed for DNS to watch it. I just maintain it's unncessary for 95 percent of us and not worth all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this forum. It's a shame that due to E*s thumbing its nose at the law that some people who really qualify for DNS might lose it. I hope that doesn't happen. But if you have locals, those are the stations you should be getting your network programming from.

I can tell you now it will not be the JAX local. They might interput to tell me that there is a cat stuck in a tree over 5 counties away.

That's just silly.

[Darkman]

Stevens Pushes Legislation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn
9/18/2006

Washington— Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said legislation might be necessary to ensure that a potential federal court injunction does not cost hundreds of thousands of EchoStar Communications Corp. subscribers their access to ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast programming.

“I think there has to be something done to assure that these satellite users in rural areas are not going to be left in limbo if EchoStar loses,” Stevens said in a brief exchange with a Multichannel News reporter last Tuesday.

EchoStar is in legal trouble after court rulings found that the direct-broadcast satellite company sold distant network signals to hundreds of thousands of ineligible customers.

According to a Stevens aide, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) two weeks ago quashed an attempt by Stevens and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to pass an amendment designed to protect EchoStar customers from a sudden cutoff...

( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6372815.html )

[kenglish]

If those "hostages" are truly in a "white area", they should qualify to get the nearest L-I-L affiliate. It doesn't take E* 4 months to turn your movie on when you place a PPV order.....it shouldn't take 4 months to switch on a local station to someone who had the temporary DNS service.

[joblo]

If those "hostages" are truly in a "white area", they should qualify to get the nearest L-I-L affiliate.
Well, if it's not true LIL, and it isn't SV, then it's DNS, whether it comes form the nearest uplinked market or the planet Neptune. E* won't be able to provide DNS, from anywhere, if it loses the 17USC119 license. Even SV could be in jeopardy, because that is licensed under 17USC119 also. It all depends on how the judge words the injunction, assuming an injunction is actually issued.

Btw, nothing has ever stopped either D* or E* from using nearby markets for DNS rather than NY/LA; they simply chose not to do it that way.