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
- - - - -

No. You can't watch that channel!!


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

#1 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 16 March 2005 - 01:07 PM

Why? Because we said so and this is Afghanistan!...I meant America!!

I'm so sorry to hear of the tragic news in Atlanta recently. I lived in Atlanta once upon a time and used to sit in on court cases in that very building for cheap entertainment when I was broke and in college.

In a related note I’m a little ticked off to say the least about the federal ban on being able to view local network affiliate stations from other cities. If I'm correct the basis for the ban is some but not all local ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC stations got congress to pass a law that gives network stations exclusive rights to network programming within their respective markets. In other words in you live in Orlando you can only watch Who Wants to Marry a Complete Stranger from the local Orlando station and not Atlanta. It boils down to making sure the Orlando station can continue to make money from the local Ford dealership when the network breaks away for local commercials.

I can understand this and will grant it that the local stations have an exclusive right to network programming in communities they serve. What I do not agree with is the 100% of the time total ban on out of town stations even when they do not carry national network programs, which is currently the case. Because of going overboard to protect market exclusivity on national programs local newscasts and other local programs are banned if you don’t live in the city of origin. Suppose you relocated from Miami to Atlanta but wish to keep up with the news from back home. Its illegal for you to watch the 6 o’clock LOCAL news from Miami if you are not physically in the Miami area. This despite that fact that the satellite signal is being broadcast right into your living room via satellite but it's blacked out. IMHO this is a direct assault on the 1st amendment to the constitution. Congress shall make no law that abridges freedom of the press. The way most people in 2005 get their news is via the electronic media.

The fair solution is to get the law changed as to allow distant market stations on a schedule. If national network programming is being broadcast then block the out of town station from being viewable. But if local programming is being broadcast then let satellite subscribers see the channel. The satellite services already use this method when people order pay per view movies or if a game is blacked out locally. I would have loved to watch Atlanta local news here in Florida but because of this ridiculous and unconstitutional ban on out of town TV newscasts I cannot. It seems nobody at either satellite service cares and my own congressman won't reply to my email. I'm not asking to see network programs on 25 different stations. All I'm asking for is limited access to network affiliates only when they do not broadcast network programs. Does anyone agrees that this is not right?

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

#2 OFFLINE   Phil T

Phil T

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,184 posts
Joined: Mar 24, 2002

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:16 PM

I totally agree that congress is paying way to much attention to broadcasters rights and not citizen rights.

I keep hoping at a minimum for a all local news channel that would show local newscasts from different areas of the country. (IE 4:00 Boston, 5:00 Atlanta, 6:00 Miami etc.)

It seems like it would be very easy for one of the major networks to have such a channel.

#3 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:54 PM

In a related note I’m a little ticked off to say the least about the federal ban on being able to view local network affiliate stations from other cities. If I'm correct the basis for the ban is some but not all local ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC stations got congress to pass a law that gives network stations exclusive rights to network programming within their respective markets.

But then you'd be incorrect.

Let's forget the law, for the moment. In order for a local network channel to broadcast their local newscasts nationally, the local channel would need to come to a contractual agreement with any multichannel provider in order to gain nationwide carriage of their newscasts. This is not happening.

The reason is because of copyright law. Remember that little statement during an NFL television broadcast?

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

Local news falls into that category, as well. The difference is that there is a law that provides stringent requirements to allow a distant network broadcast which supercedes copyright law.

There is no "federal ban on being able to view local network affiliate stations from other cities." It is just that none of these channels want to have a multichannel provider rebroadcast only their local news, nationally.

#4 OFFLINE   TonyM

TonyM

    Banned User

  • Banned User
  • 1,385 posts
Joined: Aug 14, 2003

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:59 PM

The fair solution is to get the law changed as to allow distant market stations on a schedule. If national network programming is being broadcast then block the out of town station from being viewable. But if local programming is being broadcast then let satellite subscribers see the channel. The satellite services already use this method when people order pay per view movies or if a game is blacked out locally. I would have loved to watch Atlanta local news here in Florida but because of this ridiculous and unconstitutional ban on out of town TV newscasts I cannot. It seems nobody at either satellite service cares and my own congressman won't reply to my email. I'm not asking to see network programs on 25 different stations. All I'm asking for is limited access to network affiliates only when they do not broadcast network programs. Does anyone agrees that this is not right?


Thats exactly what happens in Canada on ExpressVu (or at least, what SHOULD be happening)

Most of the networks there (CBC, CTV, Global) are each owned by one company. So I can see CBC from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, or Halifax. There are some areas (Thunder Bay being one), where its affiliate owned. What is suppose to happen is such
-Apprentice is on at 9PM on CBC Thunder Bay (Global Feed). Its also on Global Toronto & Global Newfoundland. What happens is if you tune to Global Toronto or Newfoundland is it should be blacked out, forcing you to watch TB CBC.

However, there are plenty of times that they don't match. Red Green is on at 7PM Fridays on CBC (local time), but TB CBC has "that 70's show" (they only need to carry 40 hours of the CBC to be classified as an affiliate. So I could watch Red on Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa CBC with no blackouts :)

These affiliates are only available in the "local" area. The only problem with this in the US is, how much blacking out needs to be done? A Lot

#5 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:38 PM

But then you'd be incorrect.

...there is a law that provides stringent requirements to allow a distant network broadcast which supercedes copyright law.


With all due respect I must disagree. The "stringent requirements to allow" a distant broadcast would be more accurately described stringent requirements to disallow. Lets take a walk down memory lane. Whatever contractual agreements required for satellite services to rebroadcast the newscasts and every other portion of their broadcast day was in fact in place for the LOCAL stations of New York and Los Angeles available to all satellite subscribers across America. Whatever consideration for having access to DNS should be adequately covered by the $2.00+/- per station per month presently charged to those grandfathered into waivers or DISH Network customers who subscibe be to distant WB and UPN stations for numerous cities. Fortunately the ban on distant market local stations does not apply to WB and UPN affiliates and DISH network is kind enough to offer their customers about a half a dozen from various cities. But this does show the invalidity of your argument. No rocket science needed for UPN or WB stations to get broadcast nationally (Okay, it does require rocket science but you know what I mean. :lol: LOL)

In all candor this has little to do with contractual mumbo jumbo but corporate control of over what commercials the people watch in disregard of the liberties this nation was founded upon. Certainly contractual agreements will need to be in place. They WERE until corporate TV lobbyist stepped in and forced LA and NY stations to discontinue their exercise of freedom of the press based on only a portion of their broadcast day being locally duplicated in cities that held market exclusive rights on some of their programming. The congress reacted by banning all of their programming 24/7. No legal mumbo jumbo will make me think reading the NY times in Miami is illegal just because the Miami paper also features Parade Magazine. The answer is simple REMOVE the Parade Magazine insert before NY Times papers are shipped to Florida. Likewise, remove the network programming from distant market TV stations as to not duplicate the stations already serving Miami with network program. Charge satellite customers the same $2.00+/- per month they would have to pay if waivers were allowed.

#6 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:54 PM

Whatever contractual agreements required for satellite services to rebroadcast the newscasts and every other portion of their broadcast day was in fact in place for the LOCAL stations of New York and Los Angeles available to all satellite subscribers across America.

Nope.

In 1988, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, the Satellite Home Viewers Act (SHVA). This allowed any satellite company to take any network affiliate and rebroadcast it into areas without a given network affiliate, without the need for a contract.

There never has been a contract between the networks and the satellite companies to deliver the New York and Los Angeles network feeds nationwide.

As to the WB and UPN argument, once again, there is a portion of the law that allows for "superstations". A satellite company is allowed to rebroadcast these stations without the need for a contract. There are only five superstations: WWOR, WPIX, WSBK, KTLA, and KWGN. They are spelled out in the law.

#7 OFFLINE   derwin0

derwin0

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 538 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2005

Posted 17 March 2005 - 06:09 AM

On a related point. Having the Atlanta networks, they almost over saturated the airways with the shooting news. My Dad complained that the ACC & SEC tournaments got preempted.
On my York stations, I still got some news about the shooting, so wasn't totally in the dark. Afterall, that's what I have CNN, MSNBC, and Fox for, non-local news.

As far as letting you see everything from everywhere. There are reasons thats not done. Spotbeams being one. Another is that if Directv and Dish could give everyone NY & LA, then they would never put any other markets up, thus putting every other market at a disadvantage and depriving people of their local news. I know for myself, I could care less about NY & LA news, and would prefer my own backyard.

#8 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:37 AM

Greg,

I'm starting to think you're a lawyer for the corporate censorship lobby!!! Please help me understand something. You said : "In order for a local network channel to broadcast their local newscasts nationally, the local channel would need to come to a contractual agreement with any multichannel provider in order to gain nationwide carriage of their newscasts. This is not happening. " Are you saying all it would take for the very limited access to distant market local network stations to be veiwed nationally again, not when the network programs are on but ONLY when their local programs are broadcast is for DirecTV or DISH Network to enter into a "contractual agreement" with the local stations to do so and the present problem is not because it is prohibited by Ronald Reagan :grin: LOL but because no local network DNS and satellite service have not agreed that they would offer this limited acces to subscribers?

Thanks so much for your insight into this matter. The only thing more frustrating than knowing the LOCAL newscasts, LOCAL public affairs program or whatever else LOCAL programing is being broadcast is to bring these concerns to your satellite subscription service and getting no clear answer, writing you congressman and getting ignored and writing your US Senator and getting a form letter that proved nobody bothered to actually read your specific request for limited access to olnly the local programing from out of town since the form letter you get deals only with why network programming shouldn't be duplicated.

Appreciate you.
NJ

#9 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:08 AM

You got it, News Junky.

You have to remember the entire reason for DNS in the first place was because of the proliferation of the big dishes back in the mid-to-late 1980's. Some of the networks were going to start to scramble their feeds, and rural America spoke up. They still wanted access to the network programming. The law was created to allow rural America access to the network programming they could not receive over the air. And the narrow exception to copyright provided by the law allowed any satellite company to distribute any network affilate to a subscriber that could not receive that given network's programming over-the-air.

It was not intended to provide local news across the nation, but that is what you get when a satellite company can uplink any local network affiliate.

I seem to recall Gannett, owners of USA Today, as well as many NBC affilaites in large markets, was going to start some kind of news channel that would show the local news from their local affilates nationwide. I don't believe Gannett ever followed through.

#10 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 17 March 2005 - 12:10 PM

You got it, News Junky.

You have to remember the entire reason for DNS in the first place was because of the proliferation of the big dishes back in the mid-to-late 1980's. Some of the networks were going to start to scramble their feeds, and rural America spoke up. They still wanted access to the network programming. The law was created to allow rural America access to the network programming they could not receive over the air. And the narrow exception to copyright provided by the law allowed any satellite company to distribute any network affilate to a subscriber that could not receive that given network's programming over-the-air.

It was not intended to provide local news across the nation, but that is what you get when a satellite company can uplink any local network affiliate.

I seem to recall Gannett, owners of USA Today, as well as many NBC affilaites in large markets, was going to start some kind of news channel that would show the local news from their local affilates nationwide. I don't believe Gannett ever followed through.



Thanks for the straight forward answer. I for one and I'm sure the thousands of others who requested DNS waivers did not do so in order to be able to watch Eat These Insects for $50,000.00 on 5 stations at the same time. I and they requested them for the same reason people in St. Loius read the New York Times. This happens to be America where we hare supposed to have access to an unabridged news media. I'm sure the original publishers of the NY Times never envisioned their paper being widely read not only within the city limits of the New York. However thanks to advancements in technology and the first amendment to the constitution it is now read nationally.

So I know what to do know. Let my satellite service and local TV stations I wish to watch from distant markets I want then to enter into contractual agreements to distribute their local programming only nationially. Basically the techno equalvalent to getting the post office and the Chicago Tribune agree to mail the paper to Ohio but remove the Parade Magazine first. Great info. I wasn't sure if it was legally prohibited or what.

For those wishing to join me it never hurts to ask I think we'll get better results with DISH Network than trying to get DirecTV on board with this idea (broadcasting local content only from network stations nation wide). I located a letter signed by them actually ASKING the congress to be even more restrictive in newly created barriers to stop customers from even being able to ask permission to watch an out network station. Incredible! I like this Charlie Chat guy becaiuse he at least seems to want to put subscibers first and isn't in bed with the censorship lobby.

BTW: I can understand and respect local rural stations needs not to have WCBS in New York, etc. marginalize them out of exsistance. My suggestion would elevate them to a potential national audience and help put their towns on the map spawning economic development and business growth into rural communities exposed to a national audience.

#11 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:19 AM

Just so everybody knows what each player’s position is in the ongoing frustration many satellite customers have in being told absolutely not over and over again. Some people I guess take the view that the subscriber’s wishes should come first. It seems at least to me others are saying:

“You want to see what? Who do you think you are? You have some nerve! You don’t tell us what channels you want to see, WE tell you what channels we’ll let you see! By the way, do you want to make a payment on you account at this time?”

http://www.nab.org/x.....at letter.doc

#12 OFFLINE   aguilazul206

aguilazul206

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 18 posts
Joined: Sep 05, 2004

Posted 18 March 2005 - 08:46 AM

I have noticed that a few local affiliates put their local news on-line. Let's say someone who lived in Miami and now in Philadelphia wants to keep up with Miami news, perhaps they should let the affiliate in Miami know that they wish Channel X would put their news on the internet. With all kinds of on-line petitions they may even get more people on board saying they wish to watch Miami news while living in another area.

This may be the only way for now that local affiliates can show their programming across the country. The other plus for this is news would be on demand and the viewer could watch it when ever they wanted.

Just a thought, not sure of the cost or legality and perhaps that is why it is not being done.

Sebastián

#13 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 18 March 2005 - 09:09 AM

Stations generally don't have much of a problem FOR THEIR LOCALLY PRODUCED content - where they would start violating copyright laws/ distribution agreements is on syndicated / network programming - so your station in Miami could not show Jeopardy over the net. The other problem is the cost of sending it - it takes a pretty good size pipe. What my local CBS affiliate (WRAL) does is put up a text-type stories of what they broadcast, some small video clips.
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

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

#14 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 18 March 2005 - 10:55 AM

A TV station im Miami has their newscasts online and some others as well but compared to satelle the quality of the feed is lousy. Besides, who wants to watch TV on a computer when you have a TV and that's what its for?

Yeah, they'd need to only carry local content and not network or syndicated programs either. The thing people need to rembember is most local channels are already being brodcast via satellite so it wouldn't be a big deal technically to unlock them for subscribers who wants them however on an on/off schedule to protect national program rights for the local stations in the subriber's home market. BTW: I have it on good authority that the "spotbeam" thing is really more likely "regional beam". An installer once told me he was installing a relocating sat customer and his former local channels from out in Texas somewhere came in with perfect clarity all the way on the east coast until he reconfigured the subriber's system for his new east coast city's local channels at which time the Texas channels were no longer veiwable.

The censorship lobby needs to understand there's money to be made by this and not money to lose. The only way they'll know is by hearing from us.

#15 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 23 March 2005 - 04:46 PM

Good news! The topic of offering limited access to distant market local network stations only when they broadcast local programming is now working up the chain at DISH Network to possibly be addressed in the next Charlie Chat telecast. They could make no prommises but I was told the question is being passed on to the Charlinator with excerpts taken from this very thread!

Lets all pray he can address this question and it wouldn't hurt if others contact DISH Network too expessing an interst in getting the LOCAL broadcasts from distant network affiliate stations. I told them its not about wanting to watch Who Wants to Marry a Total Stranger on 10 different stations at the same time. People who request waivers and get angry when they are denied do so to get programming NOT available locally.

Thanks DISH if you're monitoring!




spam firewall