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
- - - - -

FCC Proposed Rules from SHVERA


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
103 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   rocatman

rocatman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 815 posts
Joined: Nov 27, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 01:56 PM

Here it is, hot off the presses all 460 pages. Enjoy the read.

Adobe Acrobat: http://hraunfoss.fcc...FCC-05-24A1.pdf
Word: http://hraunfoss.fcc...FCC-05-24A1.doc

Added: Here is the press release from the FCC:
Adobe Acrobat: http://hraunfoss.fcc...OC-256592A1.pdf
Word: http://hraunfoss.fcc...OC-256592A1.doc
- Holtz


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:13 PM

is this list that sat companyes are supposed to use if they offer sig viewed?
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#3 OFFLINE   waltinvt

waltinvt

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 368 posts
Joined: Feb 09, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:35 PM

Here it is, hot off the presses all 460 pages. Enjoy the read.


http://hraunfoss.fcc...FCC-05-24A1.pdf


I started reading but it's very long and full of the usual legal bable. Hope some of you can give us a better understanding of it soon.

One thing I did see (I think) is something to the effect that they want satellite carriers to go ahead and start using the list.

#4 OFFLINE   gor88

gor88

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 576 posts
Joined: May 09, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:52 PM

NOTE: skip to page 38 for the start of the signficantly viewed stations by county. :)

#5 OFFLINE   gor88

gor88

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 576 posts
Joined: May 09, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:01 PM

I find it interesting that they include stations already in the market for many of the counties. My county shows four stations, but I already receive all four of those stations in the locals package. They could have saved a lot of space in the report by saying "no significantly viewed stations in this county". :(

My mother, who is on the border with Memphis and Greenwood-Greenville, MS, could receive the following:

CBS3, NBC5, and FOX13 from Memphis
ABC6 from Greenwood (once available on sat)

She would be tickled pink to receive the Memphis stations. :)

#6 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:06 PM

arent they supposed to mirror cable sig viewed?
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#7 OFFLINE   mwgiii

mwgiii

    Gaming Guru and Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 799 posts
Joined: Jul 19, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:08 PM

I think I will wait for the Cliff Notes.:lol:

#8 OFFLINE   gor88

gor88

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 576 posts
Joined: May 09, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:13 PM

not necessarily...I think the rules are a little different.

I noticed that our new FOX station in Vicksburg/Jackson, MS is not listed on any county list in MS. The ABC affiliate in Tupelo-Columbus (online in 2001) is not listed either. This list is probably NOT complete.

I suspect that as public feedback arrives, this list will be modified. They used a 1972 list and then added new stations coming on line since then. Many of the stations in 1972 are broadcasting at higher power or have taller towers today (which means greater coverage).

IMHO, this was a "thrown together" list to meet the deadline. They probably allow for feedback. If cable carries an SV station in your county not on the list, send the FCC feedback.

#9 OFFLINE   YOUNGTOO

YOUNGTOO

    Registered User

  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmatio
  • 20 posts
Joined: Feb 04, 2005

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:36 PM

a little confused , so are they going to go by county? because where I live in JEFFERSON COUNTY ,THEIR IS 2 CABLE CO. ONE CARRIES ST.LOUIS PLUS MY LOCALS (PADUCAH,KY.) AND THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT! AND THE CUT OFF FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS ABOUT A MILE. I REALLY HOPE ITS BY COUNTY?? THANKS FOR ANY INFO !

#10 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,690 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:50 PM

I note the WHME 46 (LeSea South Bend) is NOT significantly viewed in its own county, but has been added to the SigView list in Elkhart, Fulton and Noble Counties. Only two of the South Bend stations make it into neighboring LaPorte county (NBC and CBS) while the FOX and independent with similar coverage contours didn't make the cut.

BTW: Make sure you check the end of the state list. Some cities get more than their counties.

Well, at least we have some more FACTS to deal with. :D

JL

#11 OFFLINE   toomuchtv

toomuchtv

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 314 posts
Joined: May 17, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:03 PM

No FOX affiliate for my county but do show one for a neighboring county. Very frustrating!

#12 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:10 PM

this is not accurate not at all i know of cumberland counties in nj that have both ny and phili stations . ocean countys as well and southern monmouth county . so this list is not only flawed but dam wrong . by the way doea anybody have the list for sig viewed that cable uses
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#13 OFFLINE   JohnH

JohnH

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,802 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:48 PM

It is important to remember that if a station is reasonably new and in your DMA, there is no reason to list it as a significantly viewed station in your county. It may not qualify as significantly viewed outside your DMA and therefore not be listed at all.

Also, this list was started in 1972(which predates DMA classification) and is THE list.

#14 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:50 PM

none of my stations are new except for upn 57
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#15 OFFLINE   chaddux

chaddux

    Banned User

  • Banned User
  • 989 posts
Joined: Oct 10, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:56 PM

Five stations for my county. Two of them I would like to have.
Chad

"The problem with the gene pool is that there aren't enough lifeguards." - Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources

#16 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,979 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 04:58 PM

This is DEFINATELY not accurate - our NBC station is not listed - even in the county where its transmitter tower is !
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

#17 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 05:04 PM

and i bet the people who made this list make more monay then we do
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#18 OFFLINE   JohnH

JohnH

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,802 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 05:10 PM

Of course, there is the possibillity the cable company has a waiver because its headend serves more than one county. There are many reasons that the list might not look correct.

Remember, a tv station does not have to have significantly viewed status if it is in your DMA and already provided by your provider.

#19 OFFLINE   Mark Holtz

Mark Holtz

    Day Sleeper

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 10,017 posts
  • LocationSacramento, CA
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 05:12 PM

You can file comments at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ (read the instructions). Be sure to refer to MB Docket No. 05-49. Also, once posted, the comments will be available for public viewing.

There is also a Express Filing system, but since this was released today, it's not on the list yet.

"In an effort to increase your cable and satellite bills beyond the point of affordability and to further pad the pockets of our executives..."
Check out my list of links.


#20 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,690 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 05:26 PM

This is DEFINATELY not accurate - our NBC station is not listed - even in the county where its transmitter tower is !

How are the ratings for that station?

As JohnH noted, this is THE LIST. Please, before you fill the FCC comments box with pleas for "corrections" read the rules on how the list is made and how the corrections are to be made. Most likely the stations "missing" don't have trouble getting on cable in the counties they are missing from and it is a non-harmful oversight.

Also as JohnH noted, a station does not have to be on "the list" to be carried in its own DMA. So if that is your "correction" please avoid comment.

What the FCC really needs is opinions on what THEY have written - for example where options are given or you believe their interpretation of the law isn't right. Remember they do have their own lawyers for interpretation and the big players will keep the FCC to the law.

And if you feel driven to speak out, remember that the deadline for comments is two months away. Relax ... take a breath ... and get all your comments in one well written public letter. Help the FCC.

JL

#21 OFFLINE   beasst37799

beasst37799

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 118 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2004

Posted 07 February 2005 - 05:45 PM

Remember, a tv station does not have to have significantly viewed status if it is in your DMA and already provided by your provider.

well it might be true if the only staions listed in the report is all the stations in my dma already :nono2:
Rather die on my feet than live on my knees :soapbox:

#22 OFFLINE   dfergie

dfergie

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,166 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2003

Posted 07 February 2005 - 06:09 PM

It shows 2 stations that we have not gotten in years... they were bought out...

#23 OFFLINE   MikeW

MikeW

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,553 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 06:58 PM

Links have gone dead! Somebody save that file!!!

#24 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,979 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 07:25 PM

I've got the Word version of the file.

In persusing over it - note this remark in the document

"34. We note that the SHVERA requires that local stations must be carried on a single dish. Does this requirement with respect to local stations apply to out-of-market significantly viewed signals? If so, does the statute necessarily require that out of market significantly viewed signals be carried such that the subscriber would receive them on the same
antenna and equipment as the local signals? We seek comment on these questions."

And some more parpagraphs -

"superstations and network stations. Thus, it appears that a satellite carrier must be offering local-into-local service and a subscriber must be receiving this service as a pre-condition to offering an out-of-market significantly viewed station’s signal to that subscriber (subject to the exception described below). We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.
39. Because the statute specifically applies to the receipt of local service “pursuant to Section 338,” we believe that subscribers would not qualify for satellite retransmission of out-of-market significantly viewed signals if they are obtaining local stations via an over-the-air TV antenna, including one that is integrated with a satellite dish. It is not clear what the result would be if a subscriber is receiving local-into-local service but the local affiliate of the network with which the significantly viewed station is affiliated is not carried by the satellite carrier. Such situation could arise if the local station failed to request carriage, refused to grant retransmission consent, or otherwise did not qualify for carriage pursuant to Section 338. We tentatively conclude that a subscriber receiving local-into-local service in a market is eligible for out-of-market significantly viewed stations even if the local stations retransmitted by the satellite carrier exclude an affiliate of the network with which a significantly viewed station is affiliated. We do not think that a subscriber should be deprived of access to a significantly viewed station because the local station refused to grant retransmission consent or is otherwise ineligible for local carriage, but we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
40. Although Section 340 does not specifically restrict application of this subscriber eligibility requirement to markets in which satellite carriers are offering “local-into-local” service to subscribers, Section 119(a)(3)(B) of title 17 limits application of the statutory copyright license to the retransmission of significantly viewed stations to subscribers who receive local service pursuant to Section 122 of title 17. Therefore, we believe that the SHVERA, as a whole, contemplates that subscribers in a market in which “local-into-local” service is not being offered are not eligible for significantly viewed stations retransmitted by such carriers, except in the situations described in Section III.B.4., infra, in which there is no affiliate of a given network in the market. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions. "


In general - no real surprises in this document.
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

#25 OFFLINE   wkomorow

wkomorow

    DBSTalk Club Member

  • Registered
  • 337 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 07 February 2005 - 07:29 PM

I think most people will be surprised by the list. For example, Hartford stations are listed as significantly viewed in the Berkshire, but Springfield is between us and Hartford and the Springfield stations (on all cable systems in the county) are not listed. Back when we had antennas on the house, we could pull in the Springfield stations. I also noticed the list includes Canadian and Mexican stations. This gives DBS the ability to transmit these within the country with just normal copyright payments?




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