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
- - - - -

what does the passing of Stela means for distant networks..


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:16 PM

So what is the difference, legally, between a distant that is from the next market over and a distant from a thousand miles away? Does STELA make any distinction?

If Congress has not chosen to make a distinction between the next market over or a market a thousand miles away, then why shouldn't the viewer and the satellite company be able to choose which station, either from a neighboring market or a market a thousand miles away?

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

#22 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:38 PM

... then why shouldn't the viewer and the satellite company be able to choose which station, either from a neighboring market or a market a thousand miles away?

The satellite company WILL be making the decision as to which stations they offer. They can even choose to offer no distant stations. As stated before I believe they will go with the stations most requested by their subscribers on a market by market basis.

#23 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 18 May 2010 - 08:52 PM

But the question still remains, did Congress define in any way distant stations from great distances away any differently from distant stations from neighboring markets? I'm not referring to significantly viewed stations. I am referring to stations not available in a market unless imported in via the distant network license.

Did Congress even include any persuasive language, such as "distant stations from neighboring markets are preferred over distant stations from larger distances"? Or is there anything in the legislative history that indicates that Congress prefers "distant stations from neighboring markets" over "distant stations from larger distances" or "distant stations from big cities"?

Or did Congress go in the opposite direction, in fact grandfathering all distant station subscribers? Thus protecting their access to the distant station, even when a local station becomes available?

#24 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:00 PM

As anyone said Congress has? If this is so important to you perhaps you should read the bill and answer your own question. It is only 112 pages. :)

#25 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:05 PM

Have you read it? I have. The point that I am making is that the concept of "neighboring distant" is something that does not exist in the law. If it is a distant, it is a distant, whether from five miles or five thousand miles away. Congress has made no distinction.

Edited by runner861, 18 May 2010 - 09:11 PM.


#26 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:18 PM

It doesn't make sense to keep asking a question that you already have the answer to, unless you're James Lipton.

The closest thing to a "neighboring distant" is the significantly viewed stations ... stations we've been referring to as close distants for over five years now. As current law classifies these as distants the name is perfectly fitting.

In the STELA powered future we'll have locals, SVs and distants ... and they will likely be offered in that order. If you can get additional channels great!

#27 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:23 PM

But you keep skipping around the definition of "distants." That is the key to this discussion, yet you have created an artificial distinction between "neighboring distants" and "distants." "Neighboring distants" do not exist in STELA.

#28 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:41 PM

But you keep skipping around the definition of "distants." That is the key to this discussion, yet you have created an artificial distinction between "neighboring distants" and "distants." "Neighboring distants" do not exist in STELA.

I'm sorry if you have misread any of my posts.

Satellite providers are free to offer and not offer any out of market network station as a distant to a qualified customer. Qualified customers are free to choose up to two affiliates of each network any distant stations that the satellite provider chooses to offer to that customer. Satellite providers are not required to offer any particular station as a distant or to offer distant network stations at all.

I expect networks will be provided to customers by their satellite providers in the order previously discussed for the reasons previously given. Proximity matters to most customers. The average satellite customer isn't the guy with a C band dish or two in his back yard experimenting as much as watching TV. We're talking about retail customers who want transparent service ... cable from the sky ... with all the channels that their neighbors with cable or the folks in town with cable can get. And if they can get a better service through price, sports offerings or quality they will take that too.

#29 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 18 May 2010 - 10:15 PM

I'm sorry if you have misread any of my posts.

Satellite providers are free to offer and not offer any out of market network station as a distant to a qualified customer. Qualified customers are free to choose up to two affiliates of each network any distant stations that the satellite provider chooses to offer to that customer. Satellite providers are not required to offer any particular station as a distant or to offer distant network stations at all.

I expect networks will be provided to customers by their satellite providers in the order previously discussed for the reasons previously given. Proximity matters to most customers. The average satellite customer isn't the guy with a C band dish or two in his back yard experimenting as much as watching TV. We're talking about retail customers who want transparent service ... cable from the sky ... with all the channels that their neighbors with cable or the folks in town with cable can get. And if they can get a better service through price, sports offerings or quality they will take that too.

I don't believe I have misread any of your posts. I furthermore agree with your last post. And I think that you have done an excellent job moderating the discussions in this forum. You have a vast store of knowledge with regard to Dish Network, and with regard to satellite television in general. If anything, a little debate can sharpen both people.

#30 OFFLINE   imnaha

imnaha

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2006

Posted 04 June 2010 - 09:00 PM

So what does this all mean for northeast Oregon residents in the Yakima WA DMA? Is Directv finally allowed to carry any Portland channels into Umatilla County as Charter Cable now does?

#31 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 06 June 2010 - 09:02 PM

Unfortunately, the revised law does nothing for your case. The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/m...tions050310.pdf)

This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.

#32 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 June 2010 - 11:43 PM

This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.

For clarity: It will allow DISH to do what DirecTV could already do.
"SVs" blocked by the injunction are immediately available.
"Distants" in markets that did not have DISH local-into-local service on Dec 31st are available as of the issuance of a temporary waiver last week.
"Distants" into markets that had DISH local-into-local service on Dec 31st and to RV customers remain unavailable until a FCC/court process is followed.

DirecTV can, today, do everything DISH has is able to do again and more. Nothing less.

(And yes, you are correct in your assessment of Umatilla County.)

#33 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 07 June 2010 - 09:54 PM

"SVs" blocked by the injunction are immediately available.


You might instead say that DISH has the immediate option to offer them. Whether or not they are available to subscribers is up to DISH.

#34 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 June 2010 - 11:37 PM

You might instead say that DISH has the immediate option to offer them. Whether or not they are available to subscribers is up to DISH.

You're right ... DISH is under no obligation to offer them and there are plenty of examples where DISH is not offering a SV station where they could easily do so (and fill in missing network coverage).

#35 OFFLINE   oyving

oyving

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 40 posts
Joined: Sep 15, 2003

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:35 PM

The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/m...tions050310.pdf)


Thanks for this link. Now I am in Lee County, Illinois and the list says I should be getting more than I am. How would I proceed with Directv if I can?

#36 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 08 June 2010 - 04:15 PM

Thanks for this link. Now I am in Lee County, Illinois and the list says I should be getting more than I am. How would I proceed with Directv if I can?

"Should" probably isn't the right word. The law and the list give satellite providers permission to carry significantly viewed stations. It does not mandate carriage.

#37 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:02 PM

It might not hurt to give DirecTV a call or drop them an e-mail, though. They might add the SV stations if enough people request them.

#38 OFFLINE   imnaha

imnaha

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2006

Posted 12 June 2010 - 12:15 AM

So what does this all mean for northeast Oregon residents in the Yakima WA DMA? Is Directv finally allowed to carry any Portland channels into Umatilla County as Charter Cable now does?


Unfortunately, the revised law does nothing for your case. The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/m...tions050310.pdf)

This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.


I appreciate the information. What I've never understood is why the FCC refuses to place Portland stations on the SV list for Umatilla County.

Four translators carry Portland stations specifically into Umatilla County. Several more translators in the same area carry Spokane stations into neighboring Walla Walla County, and yet Walla Walla County gets Spokane stations on its SV list. Walla Walla County is also in the Yakima DMA, and its border is within a few miles of all the "Big-Three" Tri-Cities stations. The FCCs own coverage maps for these translators clearly show the translators' service areas are for both Umatilla and Walla Walla counties.

Perhaps someone could explain how one county gets SV stations on its list, and the other does not. One could argue that Umatilla County should have both Portland and Spokane stations on its SV list. Some of the Spokane translators are practically next door to the Portland translators on the same mountain.

#39 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:20 PM

In my limited experience, SV = on cable. If the Umatilla County cable systems don't carry Portland stations, then they really aren't SV. If they do, then that's your argument for adding them to the SV list.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?

#40 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,188 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 13 June 2010 - 09:09 PM

In my limited experience, SV = on cable.

That is the point of SV. Stations fight for SV status so they can be on cable systems that normally wouldn't carry them.

If the Umatilla County cable systems don't carry Portland stations, then they really aren't SV.

True. If they were SV the Umatilla County systems would be forced to carry them.

On cable doesn't mean a station is SV ... stations (even "out of market" stations) can get cable carriage without being SV. But if a station has gained SV status the only reason why it wouldn't be on cable would be if the cable system were small and had already met its quota for OTA stations.

BTW: Even if the stations were SV, carrying a Portland network station in Umatilla County would require the permission of the same network Yakima market stations. It is unfortunate - but cable and satellite laws are still not a level playing field. There are still instances of "cable can" where "satellite cannot" in the laws.




spam firewall