1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Distant Networks: ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION - Effective December 1st

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Oct 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 5, 2006 #321 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    People with E* SV channels will get an "enhanced locals" package. The big list on the locals page doesn't have too many listed as "enhanced".
     
  2. Nov 5, 2006 #322 of 658
    joe42

    joe42 AllStar

    64
    0
    Nov 5, 2006
    Okay I found the list thanks to another message. KDFW and WFAA out of Dallas are considered "Significantly viewed" channels where I live. I called E* to find out if they could put them under this and I could keep them. All the person did was go on the website and do a search like I could.
    I talked to 2 different people and they had no idea what I was talking about.

    Finally I asked one of them what it would take to add these to channels to my local package since they are "siginifincantly viewed" according to the FCC. I kept getting "I'm sorry sir we can't add them at this time." I kept asking "Yeah I know you can't. Who do I need to talk to get them added or reccommend adding them?" "I'm sorry sir... " repeat again and again.

    I emailed them with a link to the list of "Significantly viewed" channels. I sure hope I can get them to add them to our area. If they aren't then anyone with Dish in S OK is going to lose the ability to watch ABC.
     
  3. Nov 6, 2006 #323 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is possible that those stations will be going away (if you can get them added). Too much limbo and not enough "official answers" at the moment. Given a choice E* would leave on all local channels to all subscribers - but the law does not give them that choice.

    BTW: For the amateur lawyers out there ...
    The last modification of SHVA (SHVERA) actually became law as part of H.R.4818 the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005".
    TITLE IX--SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004
    TITLE I--STATUTORY LICENSE FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS
    SEC. 106. EFFECT ON CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS.
    Nothing in this title shall modify any remedy imposed on a party that is required by the judgment of a court in any action that was brought before May 1, 2004, against that party for a violation of section 119 of title 17, United States Code.​
    You can search for H.R.4818 in the 108th Congress at the Library of Congress "Thomas" site for more information.
     
  4. Nov 6, 2006 #324 of 658
    OakIsle

    OakIsle Mentor

    25
    0
    Feb 14, 2005
    I hope this is true. I called DirectTV and asked if I could receive both the east and west coast feeds from the 4 major networks. After putting me on hold for awhile and checking with a couple people, she said I qualified. I then checked online using their link to see if my address qualified for distants, and it did not. I'm hoping that link is wrong and she is right. I will get a name of someone prior to switching once I lose them with E*.
    I'd hate to have them tell me on the phone that I could get them, then make the change, and get the news later that I didn't qualify.
     
  5. Nov 6, 2006 #325 of 658
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    DirecTV can be sued again if they screw it up.

    And trust me, with the way the affiliate boards feel, they wouldn't hesitate to file a suit.
     
  6. Nov 6, 2006 #326 of 658
    bbomar

    bbomar Legend

    228
    0
    Oct 18, 2004
    You may have already located the complete list on the FCCs SHVERA page:

    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A2.pdf

    However, it looks like Dish doesn't offer all possible SVs, and maybe none after Dec. 1.
     
  7. Nov 6, 2006 #327 of 658
    bgrauberger

    bgrauberger New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    But what about newspapers? I live in Georgia and can walk to the local convenience store and purchase a New York Times, as well as an Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a Macon Telegraph. I understand the law restricts me from receiving distant networks, but I don't understand the logic of it. If this is a free market society, why shouldn't I be able to subscribe to the Denver Networks if I feel they are superior to my locals. That is the basis of competition, if someone has a superior product they have nothing to worry about. Just my 2cents :).
     
  8. Nov 6, 2006 #328 of 658
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,660
    36
    Jun 7, 2004
    The logic of it is that it is the mandate of the FCC to maintain local supremicy in each TV market. If outside stations were allowed to swamp local stations, there soon would be only 4 or 5 national stations and you would never get any local news or programming. This is also why the FCC limits the amount of programming the networks can provide to local stations.
     
  9. Nov 6, 2006 #329 of 658
    bgrauberger

    bgrauberger New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    I respectfully disagree, I believe the majority of people would still prefer their local news and sports, so the demand would still be there. If that were the case using the newspaper example, then why are local newspapers still striving?
     
  10. Nov 6, 2006 #330 of 658
    Tower Guy

    Tower Guy Godfather

    450
    0
    Jul 27, 2005
    You miss the significance of the copyright law.

    The out of town papers that you buy are the original, printed by the copyright owner, not reprinted by a third party. Distant stations are not original, but a copy of the original, and can't be sold just like an out of town printer can't make illegal copies of a newspaper.
     
  11. Nov 6, 2006 #331 of 658
    bgrauberger

    bgrauberger New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 6, 2006

    Perhaps I am missing something as I am not a lawyer, but many of the articles in the newspapers are by the associated press, it seems that the newspapers are purchasing the rights to the copyright when purchasing the ap articles and are then free to distribute them to anyone they wish, along with the local newspaper articles. Why is this different than local networks purchasing programming, and therefore purchasing the copyright rights then rebroadcasting to whomever they wish? I am not arguing your point with this question, I truely want to understand the logic in limiting the broadcast of networks.

    Thanks
     
  12. Nov 6, 2006 #332 of 658
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Because the network does not allow the local affiliate to resell the programming. It is one of the terms of the network/affiliate contract.

    Of course, there are some laws and some judicial decsions that have impacted that contract on a limited basis. The distant network issue is one of those laws.
     
  13. Nov 6, 2006 #333 of 658
    bgrauberger

    bgrauberger New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 6, 2006


    Sorry, I'm still not clear, and forgive my ignorance :). Someone is making the money off of the network programming be it the networks themselves or the local affiliates from purchasing them. They are then being broadcast to millions of homes. Dish customers are paying for these broadcasts be it local or distant. It seems the only person losing by allowing distant networks is the local affiliates, whom can keep their customer base by offering local programming. I can understand if the Networks disallowed the distant broadcasts of their networks, but I don't understand why the FCC is involved in this decision, and if this was the case, the Networks could pull the local channels affiliation if the local channel was broadcasting outside of there area. But this is not the case, the Networks are allowing the local channels (such as Denver) to broadcast distant networks. I know I may sound ignorant, but I don't see why the government is involved in this, and why the networks are opposed to this. Or are you saying that the Distant Networks (such as the Denver channels) sued the Networks to allow distribution on a limited basis, or how did the distant network decision come about?

    BTW, I'm a little biased on the matter, because I moved here from Colorado and would love the opportunity to watch the Bronco games :).
     
  14. Nov 6, 2006 #334 of 658
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I'll try to make this easy.

    There are two pieces of US Code that allow local channels to be rebroadcast by satellite, with respect to the copyright. One has been on the books for darn near 20 years, and is Title 17, Chapter 119.

    So, long story very short, any satellite provider can take any network station, and rebroadcast that station to anyone that is not in an area served by a local broadcast affiliate. For a satellite company, this law allows the satellite company to do this without the need for a contract.

    So, if I started a satellite company and wanted to rebroadcast KUSA out of Denver, I can simply do it, as long as I don't give anyone the channel that is in range of an NBC affiliate. And I do not need to even talk to the owners of KUSA.

    The issue is that Dish Network was giving these distant network stations without qualification. So of course the affiliates were mad.

    The government was involved because they were the ones that granted the license; the courts are involved when there is an issue with violations of the license.
     
  15. Nov 6, 2006 #335 of 658
    Tower Guy

    Tower Guy Godfather

    450
    0
    Jul 27, 2005
    The Associated Press is a cooperative that allows anyone who is willing to pay the rights to the articles. There are no territorial rights to AP stories.

    However, some newpaper stories are written and syndicated by companies such as Knight Ridder. Those stories have territorial rights. If there were no such rights, Knight Ridder would sell the story once, and everyone else would copy it without restrictions. This action would deprive Knight Ridder the rightful fruits of their labor.
     
  16. Nov 6, 2006 #336 of 658
    bgrauberger

    bgrauberger New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    Thank you all for the posts. To summarize, my understanding is the issue is copyright infringement by Dish Network, for rebroadcasting w/o permission to people not authorized by the networks to receive the transmission. If I'm understanding correctly, this makes sense to me. Hope I'm not coming across as an idiot, I'm just not familiar w/the laws involved in this issue, and I appreciate the feedback to help me w/understading. Although, I would still love to watch the Bronco Games :).
     
  17. Nov 6, 2006 #337 of 658
    Tower Guy

    Tower Guy Godfather

    450
    0
    Jul 27, 2005
    Are you in a location that could pick up a nearby market that is carrying the Broncos? Below is one example where Greenboro, SC had the Broncos, but Atlanta, GA did not.

    http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/07-CBS.gif

    As a Bills fan, I watched the game yesterday on WFXV in Utica, NY because WXXA in Albany had Dallas/Washington.

    http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/09-FOX.gif
     
  18. Nov 6, 2006 #338 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    Almost. You need two things (1) Copyright clearance which can be provided by 17 USC 119 and (2) Permission of the owner of the signal (the network a/o affiliate). The copyright owner is generally NOT the network/affiliate.

     
  19. Nov 6, 2006 #339 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Nope. Satellite carriers do NOT need the permission of the station that they wish to carry as a distant. The can, under 17USC119, pick up any network affiliate that they want and air it anywhere that they want as long as that customer isn't "served" by another affiliate of the same network.

    Echostar could have chosen to carry random stations throughout the US as distants, as long as they didn't offer them to someone within Grade B (or with an LIL affiliate starting in 2005) without a waiver.
     
  20. Nov 6, 2006 #340 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    Incorrect. This has nothing to do with 17 USC 119. It is a prohibition under 47 USC 325. There are several exceptions (including some for DBS) but as blanket statement the original contention is not true. Neither was mine as written. I should have said "As a general rule...." or "With some exceptions...."


     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page