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

#41 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:13 PM

The FCC maintains a list of "significantly viewed" stations. It has to do with over-the-air penetration of an adjacent market, not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market. Cable and satellite penetration in the Monterey-Salinas market is over 90 percent, and all those viewers cable and satellite customers receive KGO from San Francisco, the adjacent market. Yet, even though virtually everyone in Monterey-Salinas views KGO, it is not "significantly viewed" in that market. In fact, it covers news in Monterey-Salinas and provides all the ABC programs. It may even be the most popular station in that market, yet it is not "significantly viewed" in that market.

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

#42 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:51 PM

The FCC maintains a list of "significantly viewed" stations. It has to do with over-the-air penetration of an adjacent market, not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market.

It has nothing to do with cable coverage at all - except that being the goal of getting the station on the SV list. Cable viewership does not count toward the viewership level needed to be a Significantly Viewed station.

It also has nothing to do with adjacent markets. The SV list is not market specific, it is county (and in some cases city) specific. If the station met the threshold for over the air viewership in 1972 when the list was created by the FCC or met the threshold in a later year and were added the station is Significantly Viewed for the county/city specified.

In some ways heavy cable penetration and carriage prevents a channel from becoming Significantly viewed since only over the air viewing counts.

#43 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:51 PM

It is important to note that the FCC does not update the list automatically. It only makes changes at a station's request... a station that wants to be included as SV, or a station that wants a competitor removed from the SV list. (That's rare, but it happened a year or two ago in Johnson County, Iowa, after the cable system added the SV CBS affiliate from Rock Island, IL, amid a retransmission consent dispute with the Cedar Rapids CBS affiliate.)

There are many cases where a station has not had a reason to get itself added to the SV list. There are many big-four network affiliates that have come on the air since the early 1970's that are not listed as SV anywhere (the station I work at, KQDS-TV in Duluth, is an example of that).

#44 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:55 PM

Being listed as SV is not a requirement to gain cable carriage.
That's the biggest problem I see with using this list for satellite.
Stations who already have cable coverage don't need to be SV.

STELA has changed it so satellite providers can petition to have stations added to the SV list. But it being based solely on over-the-air ratings the threshold may not be met, even on the most popular cable carried local stations.

#45 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 14 June 2010 - 07:09 AM

It also has nothing to do with adjacent markets. The SV list is not market specific, it is county (and in some cases city) specific. If the station met the threshold for over the air viewership in 1972 when the list was created by the FCC or met the threshold in a later year and were added the station is Significantly Viewed for the county/city specified.

In some ways heavy cable penetration and carriage prevents a channel from becoming Significantly viewed since only over the air viewing counts.


I stated in my post that the issue is over-the-air viewing. KGO is seen by 90 percent or more of the viewers in Monterey-Salinas, yet is not "significantly viewed" in that market because it lacks over-the-air penetration of that market. All those viewers are on cable/satellite.

While you are legally correct that it has nothing to do with adjacent markets, in reality it will almost always if not always be a "significantly viewed" station from an adjacent market, unless it is a local station in the market. However, if it is a local station, then the carriage of the station is likely already occurring. Virtually all the discussion on the board is about "significantly viewed" stations that are outside the market.

The area in which a station is "significantly viewed" is specific to portions of the area--county or city where it is "significantly viewed," for example.

It is interesting to note that the non-competition clause that AAD and Dish are working under specifically states that nothing in the clause shall restrict Dish from carrying "significantly viewed" stations. Thus, the agreement contemplated that Dish might seek to carry out-of-market stations as "significantly viewed" stations, even if the same stations were being carried by AAD as distant stations.

It is that non-competition clause, plus KGO's status as not being a "significantly viewed" station in Monterey-Salinas, that prevents Dish from offering KGO in Monterey-Salinas, and instead Dish is preparing to offer a Santa Barbara ABC affiliate (assuming that Dish ever regains the distant license). Unless and until Dish regains that license, Dish does not offer ABC in Monterey-Salinas.

Can you identify a "significantly viewed" station that is not from an adjacent market and is not a local station? A station that, in other words, is from two markets over or farther away?

Edited by runner861, 14 June 2010 - 07:48 AM.


#46 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 14 June 2010 - 10:28 AM

I stated in my post that the issue is over-the-air viewing.

Read your full previous statement. It is pretty short and includes the statement "not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market." The threshold for qualifying for SV does NOT include cable carriage at all. Saying "cable coverage per se" [by itself] was wrong. As wrong as saying "The ERA has to do with the number of runs scored by the Dodgers, not the rushing yards of the Rams per se."

While you are legally correct that it has nothing to do with adjacent markets, in reality it will almost always if not always be a "significantly viewed" station from an adjacent market, unless it is a local station in the market.

"The fruit will be an apple (unless it is a orange)." The fact remains that markets do not define what is or is not a SV station. No need to muddy up the definition by even mentioning adjacent markets.

#47 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 14 June 2010 - 10:46 AM

Well aren't all the discussions here about "significantly viewed" stations dealing with customers' desire to get "significantly viewed" stations carried in an adjacent market?

#48 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 14 June 2010 - 10:57 AM

Well aren't all the discussions here about "significantly viewed" stations dealing with customers' desire to get "significantly viewed" stations carried in an adjacent market?

The question was how stations become listed as significantly viewed.

#49 OFFLINE   imnaha

imnaha

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2006

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:32 AM

Fascinating discussion. I appreciate all of your contributions. Sounds like it is nearly impossible to get the Portland stations on Umatilla County's SV list.

Bottom line is this:

1. No Portland stations are currently on the SV list for Umatilla County.

2. All cable systems in Umatilla County now carry Portland stations. (I guess that's irrelevant in terms of SV status.)

3. Several Portland stations have translators in Umatilla County targeting parts of Umatilla County.

4. In 2004, Senators Ron Wyden (D) and former Senator Gordon Smith ® succeeded in passing legislation that would have made an exemption to the SV rules for Umatilla County and several other Oregon counties, but it never became reality (as far as I know). Here's the link to Wyden's original press release from 2004:

http://wyden.senate....e9-51d57f33e02d

A bipartisan attempt was made by the Senators to grant an exemption for Umatilla County so that we could get the Portland stations on satellite. I've been unable to get Senator Wyden's office to respond to my questions about this for an update.

#50 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:49 AM

4. In 2004, Senators Ron Wyden (D) and former Senator Gordon Smith ® succeeded in passing legislation that would have made an exemption to the SV rules for Umatilla County and several other Oregon counties, but it never became reality (as far as I know). Here's the link to Wyden's original press release from 2004:

http://wyden.senate....e9-51d57f33e02d

Sending to the president looks like it should be law, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 rolled into the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations bill.

That sounds like 47 USC 341:

§ 341. Carriage of television signals to certain subscribers

(a)(1) IN GENERAL.—A cable operator or satellite carrier may elect to retransmit, to subscribers in an eligible county—

(A) any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located and that any cable operator or satellite carrier was retransmitting to subscribers in the county on January 1, 2004; or

(B) up to 2 television broadcast stations located in the State in which the county is located, if the number of television broadcast stations that the cable operator or satellite carrier is authorized to carry under paragraph (1) is less than 3.

(2) DEEMED SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED.—A station described in subsection (a) of this section is deemed to be significantly viewed in the eligible county within the meaning of section 76.54 of the Commission’s regulations (47 CFR 76.54).

(3) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COUNTY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘eligible county’’ means any 1 of 4 counties that—

(A) are all in a single State;

(B) on January 1, 2004, were each in designated market areas in which the majority of counties were located in another State or States; and

© as a group had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003–2004.

(4) LIMITATION.—Carriage of a station under this section shall be at the option of the cable operator or satellite carrier.

(B) CERTAIN MARKETS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a satellite carrier may not carry the signal of a television station into an adjacent local market that is comprised of only a portion of a county, other than to unserved households located in that county.

Congress likes to write in special rules for special areas without actually naming those special areas. It makes it hard to know what the special area is unless it is noted at the time the law was passed.

IF this matches the correct description the stations could be SV via this section of law ... then it would simply be up to DISH (or DirecTV) to carry the stations when they have the desire to do so.

#51 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 15 June 2010 - 09:54 PM

2. All cable systems in Umatilla County now carry Portland stations. (I guess that's irrelevant in terms of SV status.)


SV is only one way cable systems can carry out-of-market stations. They can also carry stations if they're a certain distance from the in-market affiliate, or if they have a small number of subscribers. Satellite doesn't have this option. Also, I believe the way the rules are written, a cable system can carry any PBS/non-comm station it wants.

#52 OFFLINE   Terry K

Terry K

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 231 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2006

Posted 21 September 2010 - 04:34 AM

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.


It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.

#53 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 21 September 2010 - 06:33 AM

It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.

Has DirecTV done that yet? DISH has. DISH used St Joseph as one of their examples of why SV were needed so it makes sense that they actually provided the channels as soon as STELA moved SVs over from the distants law to the locals law for satellite carriers.

But in many other markets DISH has bypassed the SV stations and is carrying (or apparently planning on carrying) channels that are distants. Personally I believe DISH (and DirecTV) should provide SVs to the fullest extent of the law before providing distants.

#54 OFFLINE   Jon Ellis

Jon Ellis

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 267 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2003

Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:15 PM

It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.


DirecTV was already allowed to do that. In Mankato, MN, they offer Mankato CBS with Minneapolis ABC, FOX, and NBC.

#55 OFFLINE   Terry K

Terry K

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 231 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2006

Posted 23 September 2010 - 01:38 PM

Has DirecTV done that yet? DISH has. DISH used St Joseph as one of their examples of why SV were needed so it makes sense that they actually provided the channels as soon as STELA moved SVs over from the distants law to the locals law for satellite carriers.

But in many other markets DISH has bypassed the SV stations and is carrying (or apparently planning on carrying) channels that are distants. Personally I believe DISH (and DirecTV) should provide SVs to the fullest extent of the law before providing distants.


I'm not sure what D* is doing up there yet. But St Joe Cablevision refuses to carry KCWE or KSMO since they would cut into their precious CW 100+ stuff.

#56 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,758 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

I'm not sure what D* is doing up there yet. But St Joe Cablevision refuses to carry KCWE or KSMO since they would cut into their precious CW 100+ stuff.

Using Zip 64506 and choosing Buchanan County, DirecTV's website shows only the PBS national feed, in SD, as a St Joseph local.

DISH offers the local ABC; CBS, NBC and FOX from Kansas City; and the PBS national feed - all in SD. No CW from either provider as far as I can tell.

#57 OFFLINE   jep8821

jep8821

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 41 posts
Joined: Jun 23, 2007

Posted 30 September 2010 - 05:45 PM

directv offering national feeds for Saint Joe MO? I entered my zip (64503) and it is showing nationals from 60 -65 (in HD)??? I am suprised KQ2 is allowing them to provide ABC. I cannot verify that though for specific reasons

Thanks.

Jason
All Owned:
HR34-700
HR24-500
HR23-100
HR21-200
SWM 16
DECA (self installed)

#58 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,353 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:34 AM

directv offering national feeds for Saint Joe MO? I entered my zip (64503) and it is showing nationals from 60 -65 (in HD)??? I am suprised KQ2 is allowing them to provide ABC. I cannot verify that though for specific reasons

Thanks.

Jason


Just gonna take a guess here. Having to look uo your zip code and not able to verify it sounds to me like it means one of two things. Either you dont have any locals which you probably would of just stated that and been excited you could get something or you use a different service address. Am I getting close?
Directv & Sunday Ticket Sub Since 8/19/2008
HR24-200 Leased, HR24-200 Owned, R22-200 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR34-700 Leased. 5 LNB Setup W/SWM 16 Switch
Sony KDL-46HX800

#59 OFFLINE   jep8821

jep8821

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 41 posts
Joined: Jun 23, 2007

Posted 01 October 2010 - 05:21 PM

Just gonna take a guess here. Having to look uo your zip code and not able to verify it sounds to me like it means one of two things. Either you dont have any locals which you probably would of just stated that and been excited you could get something or you use a different service address. Am I getting close?


I moved to Saint Joe this past January. Before that I lived in a small town south of Saint Joe but still in buchanan county. I might have "moved" to a KC serveral years ago to get KC locals. I actually tried last year to change my service address back to my real address because with an out door antenna I could get all of the KC local HD stations but the Directv rep saw I would loose the KC locals from them and only changed the address in one location and not the other. I also already have the east and west DNS SD feeds(used to have HD as well but the took them away) from when I had waivers on file. Since I moved to Saint Joe this past January, I don't have an out door antenna so I want to keep the KC stations so I don't want to change anything.

Thanks,

Jason

Edited by jep8821, 01 October 2010 - 05:28 PM.

All Owned:
HR34-700
HR24-500
HR23-100
HR21-200
SWM 16
DECA (self installed)

#60 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,353 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 01 October 2010 - 05:43 PM

I moved to Saint Joe this past January. Before that I lived in a small town south of Saint Joe but still in buchanan county. I might have "moved" to a KC serveral years ago to get KC locals. I actually tried last year to change my service address back to my real address because with an out door antenna I could get all of the KC local HD stations but the Directv rep saw I would loose the KC locals from them and only changed the address in one location and not the other. I also already have the east and west DNS SD feeds(used to have HD as well but the took them away) from when I had waivers on file. Since I moved to Saint Joe this past January, I don't have an out door antenna so I want to keep the KC stations so I don't want to change anything.

Thanks,

Jason

I'm not judging. I have thought about it numerous times myself. I am missing FOX and CBS here but could fib about my address and get the Tulsa DMA which is what I want anyways but I dont. To each their own. I just take what the law and D* says I am supposed to have. I wont say that they make it easy to decide to keep doing the right thing. I live on Oklahoma but get my locals from Kansas and Missouri. Thats just wrong but I have to live with it. Supposedly the remaining locals will be added sometime this year. When that happens I have to decide if I want to keep paying $14 a month for SD DNS feeds. Im thinking add another DVR and then I will have all the tuners I need so I wont need the west coast stations anymore but I dont know. The DNS feeds are nice.
Directv & Sunday Ticket Sub Since 8/19/2008
HR24-200 Leased, HR24-200 Owned, R22-200 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR34-700 Leased. 5 LNB Setup W/SWM 16 Switch
Sony KDL-46HX800




Protected By... spam firewall...And...