Press Release - DISH Network Statement on House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up

**Jason Nipp** · 10-15-09, 01:42 PM

DISH Network Statement on House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up of SHVURA

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. – Oct. 15, 2009 – DISH Network L.L.C., a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH), today issued the following statement on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s mark-up of the Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act (SHVURA):
“DISH Network congratulates the House Energy and Commerce Committee for advancing a bill that provides DISH Network with an incentive to deliver local TV service to all 210 markets. Chairman Henry Waxman’s leadership, as well as leadership from Reps Rick Boucher, Joe Barton and Cliff Sterns, played a critical role in securing this bipartisan policy victory, which is a real win for consumers.”

# # #

About DISH Network L.L.C.
DISH Network L.L.C., the nation’s HD leader, provides approximately 13.610 million satellite TV customers as of June 30, 2009 with the highest quality programming and technology at the best value, including the lowest all-digital price nationwide. Customers have access to hundreds of video and audio channels, the most HD channels, the most international channels, state-of-the-art interactive TV applications, and award-winning HD and DVR technology including 1080p Video on Demand and the ViP® 722 HD DVR, a CNET and PC Magazine “Editors’ Choice.” Visit www.dishnetwork.com.

phrelin · 10-15-09, 01:56 PM

According to this article the bill would:

Insert a new section to account for the Judiciary Committee's decision to establish a process by which a federal court could lift an injunction that prevents one satellite carrier, Dish Network, from using the distant compulsory copyright license once it provides local into local service in every U.S. market.
Insert new grandfathering language to ensure that consumers who are lawfully receiving distant network programming do not lose access to that programming due to Judiciary Committee changes.

tedb3rd · 10-15-09, 07:56 PM

Does this do anything for areas where cable has more carry rights than satellite? For example: Where I live, I can only get Atlanta (GA) locals off the satellite. However, Comcast cable (that has the contract with our county) carries both Atlanta (GA) and Chattanooga (TN) local stations. We actually live closer to Chattanooga geographically so it makes more sense to have Chattanooga channels... Just by what's above, it looks like it doesn't... but I was wondering if anybody more educated on this had any insight.

Michael P · 10-17-09, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedb3rd

Does this do anything for areas where cable has more carry rights than satellite? For example: Where I live, I can only get Atlanta (GA) locals off the satellite. However, Comcast cable (that has the contract with our county) carries both Atlanta (GA) and Chattanooga (TN) local stations. We actually live closer to Chattanooga geographically so it makes more sense to have Chattanooga channels... Just by what's above, it looks like it doesn't... but I was wondering if anybody more educated on this had any insight.

The impact of this legislation is yet to be seen. The justification for this legislation is to provide all broadcast networks to every LIL customer. The smallest markets are missing key networks, therefore the importation of a "distant" is in order. OTOH, if your market has all the networks included, it may be less likely that you can get a 2nd set of OTA nets. As always YMMV. Then again, I did read earlier that the determination of what constitutes a market (Neilsen's DMA's) were also being reexamined by congress.I can see exceptions in areas like Washington D.C./Baltimore and Cincinnati/Dayton. In these areas the 2 markets are so close that many can put up an antenna and get the majority of both markets OTA.

In your case the reexamination of the DMA model may bear some weight. If a significant amount of viewers can watch Chattanooga (via cable or OTA) there is no reason why E* can't provide that market's stations to you. OTOH, there may be pressure to keep viewership "in state". This would be for political reasons (so you can see the political ads directed at your locale).

Paul Secic · 10-17-09, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrelin

According to this article the bill would:

Insert a new section to account for the Judiciary Committee's decision to establish a process by which a federal court could lift an injunction that prevents one satellite carrier, Dish Network, from using the distant compulsory copyright license once it provides local into local service in every U.S. market.
Insert new grandfathering language to ensure that consumers who are lawfully receiving distant network programming do not lose access to that programming due to Judiciary Committee changes.

Does this have anything to do with sub-channels? In the San Francisco DMA, Dish carries KOFY 2.1 which is AZTECA.

kinglerch · 10-19-09, 10:32 AM

I liked the days where you could buy eastcoast locals and westcoast locals, if you wanted. It was cheaper and easier for the satellite company and gave me the option to watch things at different times.

Now they have to provide different locals to each and every separate city, spend large amounts of money, and reduce the quality to squeeze it all in. And in the end, I am only "allowed" to buy my city's 4 networks.

So I put up an antenna and receive signals from 3 major markets. I get them in better quality and more channels that satellite companies don't cover (PBS, CW, subchannels, etc). If I wanted to, I could put my antenna on a huge tower and get even more markets...but why should this be necessary?

Why can't the consumer be allowed to buy whichever channels they want from Dish? I have to put up an antenna to receive channels that are already provided by and paid for by Dish, but are blocked? I have to watch my local news even if it is s#!tty, or local sports broadcast I'm not interested in, or a preempted or blacked out or time shifted or channel with technical difficulties?

I'm supposed to think "Well, they've blocked the broadcast I really want to watch, so I'll just watch this one"??? In these days of DVRs, skipped commercials, thousands of channels, and internet media they shouldn't be blocking anything. They should put something interesting on and people will watch. "Forcing" them to watch by blocking channels is going to just make them change the channel.

scooper · 10-19-09, 10:50 AM

You need some understanding on how the TV BUSINESS works, as well as some more details on the history of DBS coverage.

kinglerch · 10-19-09, 10:58 AM

I know the history of DBS coverage, I've lived it since the 18" dish first existed. I just think it's silly.

There is no reason they can give me for blocking a channel that will make me watch their unblocked "alternative"

Paul Secic · 10-19-09, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinglerch

I know the history of DBS coverage, I've lived it since the 18" dish first existed. I just think it's silly.

There is no reason they can give me for blocking a channel that will make me watch their unblocked "alternative"

Call the NAB and see how far you get.

phrelin · 10-19-09, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinglerch

Why can't the consumer be allowed to buy whichever channels they want from Dish?

Where would you get the idea that competition should apply to the likes of GE or News Corp which spend millions daily selling us on the idea that the free market should apply to everyone but them.

scoobyxj · 10-23-09, 10:38 PM

How will this affect areas like Muskingum county in Ohio. Where the local broadcast station, and DirecTv have (in what I consider it to be) monopolized the locals shutting out Dish Network from providing any kind of local programming county wide. Will this force (or allow depending how you look at it) Dish into carrying WHIZ in turn allowing Dish to provide the rest of the local (out of Columbus, OH) NBC, ABC, CBS, Ect... networks to the county.

joshjr · 10-23-09, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoobyxj

How will this affect areas like Muskingum county in Ohio. Where the local broadcast station, and DirecTv have (in what I consider it to be) monopolized the locals shutting out Dish Network from providing any kind of local programming county wide. Will this force (or allow depending how you look at it) Dish into carrying WHIZ in turn allowing Dish to provide the rest of the local (out of Columbus, OH) NBC, ABC, CBS, Ect... networks to the county.

I dont think the In-State-Out of DMA Locals aply to you here. I do how ever think that it would mean that either E* offers you your DMA's locals or you could possibly get the DNS feeds in its place. We will see. Nothing is decided yet. For the time being, have you tried getting any of the locals from All American Direct?

scoobyxj · 10-24-09, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjr

I dont think the In-State-Out of DMA Locals aply to you here. I do how ever think that it would mean that either E* offers you your DMA's locals or you could possibly get the DNS feeds in its place. We will see. Nothing is decided yet. For the time being, have you tried getting any of the locals from All American Direct?

All Amer Direct will provide the regional feeds to Muskingum county. Most people would like to have the locals though. My county is allowed locals. I'm asking more for my customers really. I do alot of work there.

david_jr · 10-24-09, 09:48 PM

What happens to AAD when Dish is allowed to do distants?

joshjr · 10-24-09, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david_jr

What happens to AAD when Dish is allowed to do distants?

I am guessing that will go away. If they offer all 210 DMA's and are giving permission to import DNS feeds for missing affiliates in short markers then there would be no need for AAD any longer.

david_jr · 10-25-09, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjr

I am guessing that will go away. If they offer all 210 DMA's and are giving permission to import DNS feeds for missing affiliates in short markers then there would be no need for AAD any longer.

Curious what their position is on this.

joshjr · 10-25-09, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david_jr

Curious what their position is on this.

Who AAD? Not much they can do. I think someone one here said E* leases transponder space to them. So the lease will eventually be up and E* would not renew it. Nothing to it really.

phrelin · 10-26-09, 12:45 AM

Somehow, I don't think AAD depends solely on short markets or unserved areas. Many people like me who live outside the OTA range prefer to get stations in other time zones.

joshjr · 10-26-09, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrelin

Somehow, I don't think AAD depends solely on short markets or unserved areas. Many people like me who live outside the OTA range prefer to get stations in other time zones.

That would make you unserved lol. I get locals in different time zones as well and I like it to just its not from AAD.

ercjncprdtv · 10-26-09, 07:44 PM

This question is a bit off topic, but I am not able to get my local Fox and MNT affiliates via antenna where I live. I do of course get them on DISH. Can I get a waiver for a distant Fox signal simply because of no over-the-air reception? Or will AAD or other providers disallow this because I am getting them on DISH?

**James Long** · 10-26-09, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercjncprdtv

This question is a bit off topic, but I am not able to get my local Fox and MNT affiliates via antenna where I live. I do of course get them on DISH. Can I get a waiver for a distant Fox signal simply because of no over-the-air reception? Or will AAD or other providers disallow this because I am getting them on DISH?

It is OTA reception that matters for AAD. It doesn't matter if you can get the same networks in market via DISH or DirecTV. What matters is if you can receive any affiliate of the said network - in or out of market - OTA. If you are predicted to receive an OTA affiliate (in or out of market) you will need a waiver from all of that network you are predicted to receive. Actual testing can be done to "prove" a prediction is wrong, but it is easier if you are simply outside of the predicted coverage.

Tower Guy · 10-27-09, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrelin

Somehow, I don't think AAD depends solely on short markets or unserved areas. Many people like me who live outside the OTA range prefer to get stations in other time zones.

I'm sure that's true, but the question is, are there enough people like you to make AAD a viable business? I doubt it.

I predict that Dish buys AAD to say "thank you" for rescuing Dish.

joshjr · 10-27-09, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tower Guy

I'm sure that's true, but the question is, are there enough people like you to make AAD a viable business? I doubt it.

I predict that Dish buys AAD to say "thank you" for rescuing Dish.

They wont need to buy them after the reauthorization. E* could be given the rights back to sell DNS feeds. If thats the case then they would not need AAD to do it for them. They would make more money to do it themselves.

joshjr · 10-27-09, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Long

It is OTA reception that matters for AAD. It doesn't matter if you can get the same networks in market via DISH or DirecTV. What matters is if you can receive any affiliate of the said network - in or out of market - OTA. If you are predicted to receive an OTA affiliate (in or out of market) you will need a waiver from all of that network you are predicted to receive. Actual testing can be done to "prove" a prediction is wrong, but it is easier if you are simply outside of the predicted coverage.

I guess I am gonna have to disagree. Maybe not for E* but for D* if you are getting locals from your DMA they will not let you get a DNS feed from another affiliate since they are providing you one already. I highly doubt E* will either. I just called All American Direct. If you are getting locals already from E* then you can apply for waivers. That means you ask your local affiliate to give you permission to get feeds from an affiliate somewhere else. I doubt any of them are gonna grant that if you are already getting their feed from E*. Also All American Direct charges to submit the waiver lol. So if you already get locals with E* and you want to pay $12 to have your local affiliate tell you they wont let you get DNS feeds then you can try. I bet there is a 99% fail rate from DMA's that are offering locals. The only way I can see someone getting one approved in a market that offers locals is if its a short market which means missing at least one of the big 4 networks.

scrybigtv · 10-28-09, 03:19 PM

I don't much care about DNS feeds, but I wonder if this might possibly address DBS subs like myself whose so-called "locals" actually come from someplace other than our home state.

If I could receive in-state network channels (I can't receive OTA broadcasts from ANY state – they're all too far away), it would be a dream come true. Until Congress, the FCC, or the courts address this problem – which is more common than many of you realize – satellite TV will never provide the level of service that it could and should provide for millions of citizens throughout rural America.