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

losing distants

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by mike_augie, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. Kheldar

    Kheldar Icon

    773
    0
    Sep 5, 2004
    I was surprised to find the following page (using Google), but the 2004 Olympics page is still on D*'s website.

    The 2004 Olympics broadcast on D* was a special broadcast, and not considered a "distant network":
    The "other markets" situation, if I remember correctly, was that stations in other markets allowed D* to broadcast the HD Olympics (but not other content) to their viewers. The broadcast was limited to "eight hours of Olympic highlights each day", not the whole 24-hour channel.


    And anyway, my original point still stands about ABC and FOX: they were not available on D* prior to the 12/8/2004 grandfather date.
     
  2. keenan

    keenan Godfather

    612
    7
    Feb 8, 2005
    Exactly, even if they have them it doesn't mean they have to offer them, and it really doesn't matter what reason they give, including "mis-interpreting" SHVERA, bottom line, if they've decided to pull them - for whatever reason, "right" or "wrong" - they can do so if they choose and they're under no obligation/ruling/interpretation to restore them.
     
  3. coacho

    coacho Legend

    140
    0
    Aug 21, 2007
    I only lost the channels in the 80s on my HR20. My HR10 still gets them, wonder for how long?
     
  4. bjlc

    bjlc Icon

    1,062
    7
    Aug 20, 2004
    there has to be one person out there who can either afford a lawyer or know of a lawyer who can call or write Directv and get it sorted out. just because they say one thing it doesn't make it so..

    especially since you are paying for the service..
     
  5. Kheldar

    Kheldar Icon

    773
    0
    Sep 5, 2004
    Most of the people that were getting the HD distant networks were not paying anything for them.

    And once the networks get removed from your account, you won't be paying for them anymore anyway.
     
  6. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004

    I swear I watched the red sox win the world series in 2004 on channel 88.
     
  7. rkr0923

    rkr0923 Guest

    499
    0
    Sep 14, 2006
    That's how I knew D* had DNS HD (04 World Series) and that was when I signed up and started receiving NY/LA HD's. They got the waivers for me for I get nothing OTA. Last year (maybe 2 years) they cut-off the LA HD's at Football startup. This year they cut-off NY HD's at Football startup.........Hmmmmmmmmmm
    D* thinks their sneaky. I see how they are. Blame it on the FCC all they want but it's up to them and their BS!
     
  8. wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,492
    50
    Aug 16, 2006
    Probably some suit that made the risk-averse decision. Happens all the time in corporate America.

    Just deal with it - it's not going to change. D* messed up royally here, no doubt, but corporate suits are more conservative than Barry Goldwater.
     
  9. whitepelican

    whitepelican Godfather

    291
    0
    May 9, 2007
    I doubt if it'll last long. My HR10 lost them first yesterday morning. Then, my HR20 lost them last night. My HR21 still has them as of this morning.
     
  10. Kheldar

    Kheldar Icon

    773
    0
    Sep 5, 2004
    You may have, but again that was a "special event", not the actual full-time channel.
    Check out the "FOX HD on DIRECTV (88) in DECEMBER?" thread:

    12-07-04:
    12-21-04:
    12-21-04, 06:39 AM:
    So it was added on 12/21/04 instead of 12/22/04, but it was still after 12/8/04, so it is not possible for any D* viewer to have "grandfathered" waivers for the Fox HD DNS. My original point still stands.
     
  11. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    I would guess that the CSR's say what is in their scripts and nothing more.

    As for the reason to tell customers they can't, for every customer that knows better, there are 100's if not thousands that don't. So it is much easier to lie to the few that know and let the rest think someone else is the bad guy.
     
  12. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Yes, the Athens Olympics were on NBC HD. Plus the 2004 World Series was up on FOX in HD as well.
     
  13. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I wrote this piece on this board back in June, 2006:
    DirecTV technically did not start digital local-into-local until after this legislation passed. Therefore, with every market and network affiliate brought online in digital under this law, the ability to receive out-of-market networks should be diminished.

    My belief is that DirecTV worked hand-in-hand with the broadcasters, but was also at the mercy of the broadcasters, because the moment the broadcasters chose to tell DirecTV the waivers were revoked, the distant networks were finished, as in done.

    BTW, special events, such as the Athens Olympics or Red Sox WS win could not possibly count towards being "grandfathered". Those events were contracted and waivered at a higher level, so those events probably had their waivers expire once the event was completed.
     
  14. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,839
    3
    Aug 4, 2006
    So my market is scheduled to go online, in digital, on August 25. Not HD, but DirecTV is scheduled to begin relaying the digital version. Does this mean I will lose my HD DNS?
     
  15. Darkscream

    Darkscream Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 8, 2008

    It is my understanding you lose your Distant HD's IF you can get local HD channels.

    Currrently I do get my locals in HD ( But not ABC ) so I still get my Distant ABC feed from NY. I do get NBC, CBS and Fox Locals in HD and therefore if I had had those as HD Distants they would have been turned off.
     
  16. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,839
    3
    Aug 4, 2006
    Yes, but the provision under which I am able to receive HD DNS refers to digital locals not being available from the satellite, not HD locals. And the digital locals are set to be provided beginning next Monday.
     
  17. blc

    blc Legend

    122
    0
    Sep 29, 2007
    I will agree that the local broadcasters probably extracted their pound of flesh in any negotiations for carriage. However, as to what the statute requires, the statute is very clear, as well as two prior FCC Orders, that there are some subscribers who do NOT have to give up out-of-market networks just because digital locals are brought online. Here is the quoted language from the two recent FCC orders.

    Section 339(a)(2)(D)(iii)(III) of the Act also requires that to be eligible for distant digital signals, subscribers must subscribe to the analog local-into-local package, where offered, and receive the analog signal of the network station affiliated with the same network, where available. For new local-into-local markets [after Dec. 8, 2004], subscribers receiving a distant digital signal of a network station can continue to receive that signal after a satellite carrier begins offering local-into-local digital signals in the market only if the subscriber also subscribes to the digital signal of the local station affiliated with the same network.
    See In re Waiver of Digital Testing Pursuant to the [SHVERA] of 2004, MB Docket No. 05-317 (January 16, 2008) (an order extending prior Order containing same language dated July 13, 2007).

    And here is the exact language from the statute.

    (v) Non-local-to-local markets
    After December 8, 2004, if the satellite carrier does not make available the digital signal of a local network station in a local market, the satellite carrier may offer a new subscriber [to DNS service] after such date who is eligible under this subparagraph a distant digital signal from a station affiliated with the same network and, in the case of any local market in the 48 contiguous States of the United States, whose prime time network programming is generally broadcast simultaneously with, or later than, the prime time network programming of the affiliate of the same network in the local market, except that--
    (I) such carrier may continue to provide such distant digital signal to such a subscriber after the date on which the carrier makes available the digital signal of a local network station affiliated with such network only if such subscriber subscribes to the digital signal from such local network station; and
    (II) the limitation contained in subclause (I) of this clause shall not apply to a subscriber that cannot be reached by the satellite transmission of the local digital signal.
    See 47 U.S.C.A. § 339(a)(2)(D)(v) (allowing certain subscribers to continue to receive HD DNS even after local-into-local digital signals are later offered by Directv).

    The above-described subscribers must first be "unserved" as defined by the statute. That is, either beyond a grade b signal or found to have insufficient signal after signal strength test.

    Furthermore, SHVERA specifically allows "grandfathered" digital DNS subscribers (those receiving digital DNS prior to SHVERA’s passage date of Dec. 8, 2004) to continue to receive digital DNS "whether or not such subscriber elects to subscribe to local digital signals." This means such subscribers may receive both HD DNS and local HD signals or only the digital DNS if they so choose. See 47 U.S.C. § 339 (a)(2)(D)(ii) (provision labeled "Pre-enactment distant digital signal subscribers").

    Finally, SHVERA still provides subscribers who do not automatically qualify under the above provisions the right to request waivers. See 47 U.S.C. § 339 (a)(2)(E) ("Authority to grant station-specific waivers--This paragraph shall not prohibit a retransmission of a distant analog signal or distant digital signal (within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B), or (D)) of any distant network station to any subscriber to whom the signal of a local network station affiliated with the same network is available, if and to the extent that such local network station has affirmatively granted a waiver from the requirements of this paragraph to such satellite carrier with respect to retransmission of such distant network station to such subscriber."). This provides subscribers the right to request individual waivers.
     
  18. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    What market in Eastern KY is getting digital locals?
     
  19. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I am not going to get into a big fight about this. Honestly.
    There is other controlling law, such as simple waivers. After the SHVERA was signed into law on 8 December, 2004, the networks started working with DirecTV by granting waivers for all of the O&O's. Only CBS was available prior to 8 December, 2004, and the waivers were require for that too.

    So the simple way of saying this is when the networks revoke their waivers, it doesn't matter what 47 U.S.C. § 339 (a)(2)(D)(ii) mentions, as the waiver is most likely revoked.

    And then there is that thought that DirecTV is trying to get out of the distant business, which is their right, but they haven't publicly said anything...
     
  20. blc

    blc Legend

    122
    0
    Sep 29, 2007
    Not trying to get in "a big fight about this." If the post came off that way, please don't take that way. I am simply trying to get people to stop posting absolutes in the form of once digital locals are available, distants MUST be discontinued. This in not the law for all subscribers. It may be for those who received digital distants because of blanket waivers and did not live in an "unserved household" as that term is defined in the statute. I agree with your statement that DirecTV is possibly wanting out of the distant network business, although the reps keep telling people that Directv would love sell them distants if only the FCC would allow it. For some, the FCC does allow it.

    I am simply quoting what the law states in black and white. It is quoted here along with the FCC's own orders showing how some subscribers are statutorily eligible (without having to grovel for a waiver) to be provided distants even after digital locals are offered. Subparagraph (E) provides for when a waiver is required--that being when the subscriber does not otherwise qualify for eligibility under the statute.

    I understand why the NAB likes to push the idea that SHVERA is more strict on distants than it actually is (as most station managers would love to close up distants all together), but the statute just doesn't read that way. Evidently, the FCC doesn't read it that restrictive either as the quoted language from the FCC orders indicates. The truth of the matter is, it is actually easier for to keep distant digitals for some subscribers according to the language quoted than it was to keep distant analogs back in the prior amendments. Other than grandfathered analog subscribers, no subscriber was allowed to simply add the locals and keep the distant analogs when they came available under the statute. However, under the SHVERA amendment, such is clearly allowed as to some digital distant subscribers, and the FCC apparently reads it that way too.

    I think it is all moot, because as you have stated, it appears DirecTV wants out of the distant network business. They should just lease a few transponders to a third party like Dish did and let the third party provide the distants to all subscribers who live beyond a grade b signal or who can obtain waivers. After all, the Eleventh Circuit seems to have endorsed such a practice in their ruling last month on the Dish case.
     

Share This Page