Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

New SHVERA draft ties Dish distants, short markets to 210-market LIL


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,473 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:16 AM

Essential story (if you care about such things) from Multichannel News: http://www.multichan...ink&rid=5207347

"A house Judiciary Committee draft of a SHVERA bill (now named the Satellite Home Viewer Digital Television Act) ... still contains language that would allow Dish Network back into the distant-signal business in exchange for delivering local TV station signals in all 210 Nielsen markets"

This draft would only give temporary but renewable authorization to Dish, and would put the courts in charge of enforcement.

More details, including that short-market stuff, in the article. Go read it!

Edit: Also found a link to the story about the Senate version of the bill: http://www.multichan...ink&rid=5207347

Edited by FTA Michael, 16 September 2009 - 10:59 AM.
Added Senate bill link

Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:56 PM

The Senate version would also allow importation of non-commercial stations into adjacent in-state markets.

I find this somewhat confusing, since I thought importation of non-commercial stations could already be done. Isn't there a network in Mississippi or another southern state that reached a deal with one of the providers to be distributed statewide?

#3 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,316 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 16 September 2009 - 11:29 PM

I cant wait to see how it all turns out. It should be good news in one way or another for all who are missing all or part of their local stations.

#4 OFFLINE   Craigbiz

Craigbiz

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 1 posts
Joined: Sep 25, 2009

Posted 25 September 2009 - 03:32 PM

How does this apply to New Hampshire? The only major station in the entire state is WMUR (ABC) but yet the SOBs consider this as part of the Boston, DMA. Is Manchester a Short Market like it should be, or will we be stuck with Boston only?

#5 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:41 PM

Manchester is not a "short market" because it is not a market - it is officially part of the Boston market. In other words, it's not a case where it's a market missing network affiliates and Boston are added to the Manchester locals package, the Boston locals are the in-market affiliates for Manchester. The "SOBs" you refer to are the station owners who want the market assignment to stay the way it is.

If Manchester were its own market, it would be a "short market" and the out-of-market CBS/NBC/FOX affiliates would likely come from - guess where - Boston, so there would be no actual difference. In fact, viewers would get less, since WCVB and the smaller Boston stations would not be imported into the Manchester market.

#6 OFFLINE   Lodi25

Lodi25

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 134 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2009

Posted 27 September 2009 - 12:09 AM

So dose this new BILL-LAW mean I can get San Fransisco locals too? I live in the Sacramento TV market and when I had COMCAST cable I go both locals.

#7 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,316 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 27 September 2009 - 10:10 AM

So dose this new BILL-LAW mean I can get San Fransisco locals too? I live in the Sacramento TV market and when I had COMCAST cable I go both locals.

Im not taking it that they are trying to provide locals from 2 markets to people. Just that they are trying to make sure that everyone gets locals from the major 4 even if its not their market. If they really losen the way the sig. viewed stations work then maybe we might see some stuff like this happen. It should be interesting. They have to make the decisions soon and I for one can not wait! :)

#8 OFFLINE   greatwhitenorth

greatwhitenorth

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 360 posts
Joined: Jul 18, 2005

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:43 AM

Manchester is not a "short market" because it is not a market - it is officially part of the Boston market. In other words, it's not a case where it's a market missing network affiliates and Boston are added to the Manchester locals package, the Boston locals are the in-market affiliates for Manchester. The "SOBs" you refer to are the station owners who want the market assignment to stay the way it is.

If Manchester were its own market, it would be a "short market" and the out-of-market CBS/NBC/FOX affiliates would likely come from - guess where - Boston, so there would be no actual difference. In fact, viewers would get less, since WCVB and the smaller Boston stations would not be imported into the Manchester market.


The situation he is referring to is that not all of NH can get WMUR. Part of the state is considered to be Burlington, VT, part is considered Boston, and yet another part is considered to be Portland, ME. Whether or not the amendment to SHVERA will fix this, I really have no idea. It is odd, though, you can watch WMUR in Plymouth, MASSACHUSETTS, but not Plymouth, NEW HAMPSHIRE:mad:

#9 OFFLINE   BattleZone

BattleZone

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 8,969 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2007

Posted 28 September 2009 - 05:01 PM

I think it's pretty unlikely that Dish (or DirecTV) will choose to serve every DMA unless they are forced to. Many of those DMAs on the bottom of the list are TINY, and providing locals to them could only be done at a loss. The cost to run an uplink and monitor the additional channels would be costly enough, but there's also the problem of limited transponder space.

If it does happen, IMO it won't happen until the SD mirrors can be shut off.

#10 OFFLINE   Lodi25

Lodi25

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 134 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2009

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:33 PM

Are LA AND NYC locals still going to offered as DNS??

#11 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,316 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 29 September 2009 - 09:05 AM

Are LA AND NYC locals still going to offered as DNS??


I have heard no plans to do anything different with the DNS feeds. I would guess they are going to be around for awhile.

#12 OFFLINE   Lodi25

Lodi25

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 134 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2009

Posted 29 September 2009 - 03:31 PM

oh alright cool. Just wondering. A friend of mine has a RV and gets those channels. Its cool to watch LA news when their is a high speed chase! lol




spam firewall