Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

The WB as a distant network?


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

#1 OFFLINE   Antennaguy

Antennaguy

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 50 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2004

Posted 19 September 2005 - 09:42 AM

I understand that D* customers who lived in a DMA with no WB affiliate have a station from Miami or San Diego added to their locals package at no additional cost. Why can't those of us who live in remote areas and neither have locals offered over satellite nor can receive a WB channel with the antenna purchase one of these channels on an ala carte basis as we are offered the major 4 networks? I have read that D* is justifying using Miami or San Diego stations rather than Superstations in that the WB now has enough hours of programming per week to qualify as a major network (unlike UPN).
Has anyone challenged this policy or been able to get the WB as a distant network without a locals package?

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

#2 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,295 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:37 AM

There was a lot of debate about how DTV was able to do this. I dont think it was ever firmly established. As far as i know no one has sucesfully done what you are asking about.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#3 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:45 AM

I have read that D* is justifying using Miami or San Diego stations rather than Superstations in that the WB now has enough hours of programming per week to qualify as a major network (unlike UPN).

Has anyone challenged this policy or been able to get the WB as a distant network without a locals package?

My guess here is that this may not be a "distant network service". I think that the WB affiliate board and DirecTV came to some kind of an agreement to provide a WB feed into local markets DirecTV offers, only if there is not a WB affiliate rebroadcasting on DirecTV in the local market.

Case in point: Charleston/Huntington, West Virginia. There is a full-power WB affiilate that also is the UPN affiiate. It is not on DirecTV, yet local package subscribers there receive the Miami WB.

The belief here is that the only way a distant WB could be offered in this market is if WB and DirecTV have an agreement. If the actual "distant network" provisions were being used, the local WB would stop this distant WB feed, as a good chunk of the market is covered by the local WB. This must be some kind of contract between WB and DirecTV, as this is being done outside of the "distant network" portion of the law.

#4 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,295 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:50 AM

Then again why can't local WB affiliates stop that?

The argument FOR it being offered as a distant net is that syndex does not apply to distant nets and it does to ststions offered by other means. WB ststiosn show more than just WB programmign they sho a lot of syndicated programming. Admittedly DTV may only be offereing it in markets without syndex complaints but since they won't say whaat their bassi we don't know what is going on.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.




spam firewall