DBSTalk Forum banner

How to get significantly viewed dma stations added

22K views 210 replies 29 participants last post by  oriolesmagic 
#1 ·
According to the fcc database Ashtabula County OH has 3 stations from the Erie DMA listed as Significantly viewed. How would I go about getting them added to my local lineup?
 
#127 ·
damondlt said:
I believe you. Thats not what I said show me about. Show me where the Rules for Significanly viewed channels are different then DNS.

Also if your Tulsa ABC didn't approve of the other ABC, it would not be in your line up.
I will find the proof later (about to leave work). As for the other part, I am not in the Tulsa DMA. I am in the Pittsburg/Joplin DMA and they would NEVER EVER approve of us getting Tulsa. I am 100% confident they would stop it if they could. Maybe it will happen in a few years when their current agreement runs out but until that day comes if ever , I am gonna enjoy it.
 
#128 ·
damondlt said:
THANK YOU!!!!! This is Exactly what I was told by Directv , and 3 General Managers from 3 Different Networks.
I am happy you are happy about this. No one ever said they had to carry these stations. We simply said it was an option and if you want them, get your hands dirty and try like I did.
 
#129 ·
damondlt said:
THANK YOU!!!!! This is Exactly what I was told by Directv , and 3 General Managers from 3 Different Networks.
On page one I linked to both the list and the law.

Everyone should download both the pdfs and then there'll be no question.

Mike
 
#130 ·
KyL416 said:
There's no such thing as a cable DMA vs Satellite DMA. DMA's are set by Nielsen and are universal to satelite, cable and OTA. They consider Pike county as part of the NYC DMA.
Pike county PA is a PA market on Blue ridge Cable. Dispute all you want.

They are served with Scranton Wilkes Barre locals.

Dish and Directv are NY locals only!
 
#131 ·
joshjr said:
I am happy you are happy about this. No one ever said they had to carry these stations. We simply said it was an option and if you want them, get your hands dirty and try like I did.
Its not an option if Networks don't agree to a deal with each other. Got nothing to do with getting hands dirty.
 
#132 ·
damondlt said:
Page 9. See bold below. I think this spells it out pretty good. Have a great evening gentlemen.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.pdf

15.
The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) expanded the statutory copyright license to allow satellite carriers to carry significantly viewed stations, which are treated as local stations with respect to a particular satellite community in another market, thus, allowing them to be carried by the satellite carrier in that community in the other market. Satellite carriers are not required to carry out of market significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required. STELA reauthorizes the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of significantly viewed stations and moves that license from the
distant signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. Section 119(a)(3) to the local signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. Section 122(a)(2).
By so doing, Congress now defines significantly viewed signals as another type of local signal, rather than as an exception to distant signals, and consequently, the significantly viewed signal license does not expire on December 31, 2014, when the distant signal license is set to expire. Section 122(a)(2) explicitly limits significantly viewed to the rules as adopted by the Commission as of April 15, 1976. Satellite carriers are required to provide notice to local stations before they commence carriage of significantly viewed stations. This notice requirement does not apply to cable systems carriage of significantly viewed stations. There are no market modification provisions regarding satellite carriers similar to those for cable operators.
 
#133 ·
joshjr said:
Page 9. See bold below. I think this spells it out pretty good. Have a great evening gentlemen.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.pdf

15.
The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) expanded the statutory copyright license to allow satellite carriers to carry significantly viewed stations, which are treated as local stations with respect to a particular satellite community in another market, thus, allowing them to be carried by the satellite carrier in that community in the other market. Satellite carriers are not required to carry out of market significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required. STELA reauthorizes the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of significantly viewed stations and moves that license from the
distant signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. Section 119(a)(3) to the local signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. Section 122(a)(2).
By so doing, Congress now defines significantly viewed signals as another type of local signal, rather than as an exception to distant signals, and consequently, the significantly viewed signal license does not expire on December 31, 2014, when the distant signal license is set to expire. Section 122(a)(2) explicitly limits significantly viewed to the rules as adopted by the Commission as of April 15, 1976. Satellite carriers are required to provide notice to local stations before they commence carriage of significantly viewed stations. This notice requirement does not apply to cable systems carriage of significantly viewed stations. There are no market modification provisions regarding satellite carriers similar to those for cable operators.
You don't read do you!

Look!
Satellite carriers are not required to carry out of market significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required.

Thats means they STILL NEED PERMISSION!
 
#134 ·
damondlt said:
Pike county PA is a PA market on Blue ridge Cable. Dispute all you want!
There is no such thing as the "PA DMA", the DMAs are set by Nielsen, there's Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and NYC. Pike County is part of the NYC DMA, which is why the Blue Ridge systems in that county have additional NYC market stations like WABC, WNET, WTBY and WMBC and they never dropped WNYW on the systems that originate in that county. Some of the areas also don't get WSWB or WQMY.

Take a look at any NYC news broadcast, Pike is the only PA county outlined on the weather map and their weather alerts appear on severe weather tickers.
 
#135 ·
damondlt;3190340 said:
You don't read do you!

Look!
Satellite carriers are not required to carry out of market significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required.

Thats means they STILL NEED PERMISSION!
LMAO, I see why you are confused now. The Greement you speak of, is with the significantly viewed station NOT the in DMA affiliate!
 
#136 ·
KyL416 said:
There is no such thing as the "PA DMA", the DMAs are set by Nielsen, there's Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and NYC. Pike County is part of the NYC DMA, which is why the Blue Ridg systems in that county have additional NYC market stations like WABC, WNET, WTBY and WMBC and they never dropped WNYW on the systems that originate in that county. Some of the areas also don't get WSWB or WQMY.

Take a look at any NYC news broadcast, Pike is the only PA county outlined on the weather map and their weather alerts appear on sever weather tickets.
Ok not disputing that , But Blue Ridge Cable has the rights for Pike county PA they have a Huge satellite field there.

This is also Pike couny Pa in Hawley
 
#137 ·
KyL416 said:
There is no such thing as the "PA DMA", the DMAs are set by Nielsen, there's Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and NYC. Pike County is part of the NYC DMA, which is why the Blue Ridge systems in that county have additional NYC market stations like WABC, WNET, WTBY and WMBC and they never dropped WNYW on the systems that originate in that county. Some of the areas also don't get WSWB or WQMY.

Take a look at any NYC news broadcast, Pike is the only PA county outlined on the weather map and their weather alerts appear on severe weather tickers.
And Pike county PA is Also Highlighted on every scranton Wilkesbarre weather too.
 
#138 ·
joshjr said:
LMAO, I see why you are confused now. The Greement you speak of, is with the significantly viewed station NOT the in DMA affiliate!
I'm not confused at all, No permission , No channel. Cut and Dry!

If Directv had permission it would be on , just like in your case.
 
#139 ·
damondlt said:
And Pike county PA is Also Highlighted on every scranton Wilkesbarre weather too.
The also highlight portions of the Elmira (Tioga), Philly (Northampton) and Altoona (Centre county) markets on their maps too. They take advantage of their expanded cable coverage and send reporters to the areas the neighboring DMAs ignore, but in Nielsen's eyes Pike is part of the NYC DMA.
 
#140 ·
damondlt said:
I'm not confused at all, No permission , No channel. Cut and Dry!

If Directv had permission it would be on , just like in your case.
There's currently hearings for the renewal of it going on. You should take a look at some of the articles at Broadcasting and Cable and Multichannel news covering it. One of the things being brought up is the lack of progress on the rollout of significantly viewed stations, so you might get some answers when the next round of hearings start in about two weeks. Some early testimony claims the spot beam coverage is preventing it, but that's no excuse here since the NYC big 4 are on a Conus beam and we get 90s on the spotbeams used by Philly's locals.
 
#141 ·
KyL416 said:
There's currently hearings for the renewal of it going on. You should take a look at some of the articles at Broadcasting and Cable and Multichannel news covering it. One of the things being brought up is the lack of progress on the rollout of significantly viewed stations, so you might get some answers when the next round of hearings start in about two weeks. Some early testimony claims the spot beam coverage is preventing it, but that's no excuse here since the NYC big 4 are on a Conus beam and we get 90s on the spotbeams used by Philly's locals.
Hey I'm all for them, I will call whom ever. But its not going to get done unless some new laws and or rules go into effect.

Yea Spotbeams are not an issue here, I've "moved" to NY and Philly Market. before. :)
 
#142 ·
damondlt;3190355 said:
I'm not confused at all, No permission , No channel. Cut and Dry!

If Directv had permission it would be on , just like in your case.
I've been reading all this with interest. Good topic.

All the documents and legal stuff that has been posted has been centered on permission from the significantly viewed station, NOT the local station.

Yes. Directv needs permission but the permission is not from a local affiliate blocking the other channel. It is from the channel they wan to carry. Just as it is with every channel.

The local channel can make it difficult for directv to put another channel on (somehow I doubt they can put such wording In a contract as the significantly viewed channel rights are pretty much spelled out in every document posted here) as in asking for more money or even threatening withdrawal of their signal. And in those cases, Directv will side with the local channel. Not every agreement in a negotiation is in writing.

It is clear that the choice is directv's as long as the channel is available per the FCC list. But to what advantage to them? Most of the time they will make future deals with the locals painful and probably won't gain enough in sales to overcome that issue. Plus, they will still have to pay the SV station. If they don't think it is worth it, they won't do it.

As for value of significantly viewed. It varies. In my case, I am in Baltimore DMA but my county qualifies for five stations from DC. None of them are on directv. Comcast offers them but in SD only. Fios offers four of them in both SD and HD. I suspect fios has them because their distribution system is more regional than Comcast. But that says that there is little value in bringing the DC channels in even though I live about 20 miles from the DC beltway (about 5 from the Baltimore Beltway).

It is not because of some law or contract restricting directv. It is just a business decision.
 
#143 ·
tonyd79 said:
It is not because of some law or contract restricting directv. It is just a business decision.
This is beyond Directv.

Directv already stated if they can do it it would be on.

The big picture is network battles.

Which the Network flatout refuse to to as well!
 
#144 ·
damondlt;3190404 said:
This is beyond Directv.

Directv already stated if they can do it it would be on.

The big picture is network battles.

Which the Network flatout refuse to to as well!
No one has produced a single legal or government document that supports that position. In fact, all documents support the opposite.

As for directv, "can do it" also means money and coming to an agreement with the SV station.
 
#145 ·
damondlt said:
I'm not confused at all, No permission , No channel. Cut and Dry!

If Directv had permission it would be on , just like in your case.
I really dont get why you are so confused or arguing. You just dont seem to get it so I will try to break it down for you.

1. Check to see if out of market locals are considered significantly viewed in your county.

2. If so, call the GM of that affiliate and sell them on adding their station to your counties locals from DirecTV.

3. If they are not on the list already call the GM or the Chief Engineer and see if they are interested in requesting for a significantly viewed status in your county and why. Also what you hope to happen if and when that status is applied.

4. If the out of market affiliate comes to terms with DirecTV the station is added as part of your local package at no additional charge to you.

I NEVER said its a requirement, DirecTV has to add them, it was easy, there arnt or wont be complications, etc. Its a process that can work for some and get another markets locals in your own. The paragraph I posted earlier proved that significantly viewed stations are not considered DNS which is what we were trying to prove to you. As soon as I posted that you talk about something else. Fact is, they are viewed differently then DNS and can be added in markets. That is what I am here to help with.
 
#146 ·
damondlt said:
Hey I'm all for them, I will call whom ever. But its not going to get done unless some new laws and or rules go into effect.

Yea Spotbeams are not an issue here, I've "moved" to NY and Philly Market. before. :)
I dont get why you say this. I had it done. Working on having more done. It can happen and it does not take new laws to make it happen.
 
#147 ·
KyL416 said:
There's currently hearings for the renewal of it going on. You should take a look at some of the articles at Broadcasting and Cable and Multichannel news covering it. One of the things being brought up is the lack of progress on the rollout of significantly viewed stations, so you might get some answers when the next round of hearings start in about two weeks. Some early testimony claims the spot beam coverage is preventing it, but that's no excuse here since the NYC big 4 are on a Conus beam and we get 90s on the spotbeams used by Philly's locals.
Here is the link to the most recent hearing on DNS, etc.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/satellite-video-101
 
#148 ·
damondlt said:
This is beyond Directv.

Directv already stated if they can do it it would be on.

The big picture is network battles.

Which the Network flatout refuse to to as well!
What do you think someone making minimum wage answering the 800 number at DirecTV is gonna tell you? You really think they are gonna know the ins and outs of the spot beams and the contrcts for all 210 DMA's. I THINK NOT! Everytime a new software update comes out they dont know jack about it either or when a new receiver is about to come out. You gotta quit trusting them on complex quetions like this.
 
#149 ·
tonyd79 said:
No one has produced a single legal or government document that supports that position. In fact, all documents support the opposite.

As for directv, "can do it" also means money and coming to an agreement with the SV station.
Thank you!!!
 
#150 ·
tonyd79 said:
damondlt;3190404 said:
This is beyond Directv.

Directv already stated if they can do it it would be on.

The big picture is network battles.

Which the Network flatout refuse to to as well!
No one has produced a single legal or government document that supports that position. In fact, all documents support the opposite.

As for directv, "can do it" also means money and coming to an agreement with the SV station.
Actually, while Significantly Viewed stations are exempt from the Network non duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, there are ways for a local station to have the Significantly Viewed status changed for some or all towns in a given county.

Here is a link to my local ABC affiliate's FCC petition to prevent Significantly Viewed stations in four CT towns. The FCC granted the petition in three of those towns and denied if for the fourth.

Link

WTNH Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of television broadcast station WTNH-TV (ABC,
Ch. 8), New Haven, Connecticut ("WTNH-TV"), filed the above captioned petition seeking a waiver of
the rules that preclude cable operators from deleting the duplicate programming of "significantly viewed"
stations under the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules ("exclusivity rules").1
Specifically, WTNH-TV seeks a waiver of the significantly viewed exception so that it may enforce its
exclusivity rights against WABC-TV (ABC, Ch. 7), New York ("WABC-TV") in the communities of
Meriden, Milford, Wallingford and Waterbury, Connecticut.2 An opposition to this petition has been
filed on behalf of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., licensee of WABC-TV to which WTNH-TV
replied. For the reasons discussed below, we grant, in part, WTNH-TV's waiver request.
We started out having all five of the Significantly Viewed stations and now I've only got two. I'll bet if I search a bit more I can find a petition to have them dropped.

The fact is the exclusivity rules can still be applied and a local station can bar a significantly viewed station from being carried. As to whether or not this is why damondlt can't get his Significantly Viewed channels I've got no idea, but as you can see it certainly is possible.

A comment to everyone, the search engine is your friend. :)

Mike
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top