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

Interesting reply from D* on SV channels


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

#1 OFFLINE   cobaltblue

cobaltblue

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 85 posts
Joined: Feb 22, 2006

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:29 AM

Thanks for writing. I'm sorry to hear about any frustration this may have caused you. Recent changes in the law allow DIRECTV to offer local channels from nearby cities if the FCC determines they have a significant level of viewership outside of their home market.

We are working hard to get our systems ready to deliver neighboring local channels and to determine what markets will be receiving new channels, but it may take some time. Although there’s no set timetable right now, it’s possible that we'll be ready in some cities later this year. More information will be available on DIRECTV.com as it is announced. We appreciate your patience.


Is this just the same old nonsense being handed to me? Does anyone think they really will have the sv channels up by the end of this year ????

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

#2 OFFLINE   JLucPicard

JLucPicard

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,983 posts
Joined: Apr 26, 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:40 AM

Are you talking about HD? If so, they are right now undertaking getting the locals rolled out to the areas that those locals service. I imagine that involves programming of the spot beams to reach the areas they need to. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that they may give precedence to that before having to spot beam a bunch of local channels to areas outside the normal coverage area.

If you're talking SD, then maybe that's a bit of a different story, but still seems to me their focus right now would be on rolling out the MPEG4 HD locals. The dicussions I've been reading, though, regarding SV has been HD related, IIRC.

I think a little patience would not be a bad thing here.

#3 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 09:00 AM

They have had some SV channels go up in North Carolina (IIRC) about a month or so ago. I "thought" they were SD.

http://www.tivocommu...ad.php?t=284249
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#4 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,949 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:05 AM

They also provide WMUR/9 to all of New Hampshire.

#5 OFFLINE   NVBlue

NVBlue

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 106 posts
Joined: Aug 03, 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 11:08 AM

Since they already transmit those SV channels, it seems to be just a software programming to bring them all in. In another post I read that some local stations are playing hardball in negotiating carriage of their stations on D* unless they agree not to transmit SV from neighboring cities. I believe the SV statutes require them to notify the local channel before transmitting that network's SV signal from a neighboring city. That may be the explanation as to why it is taking so long.

#6 OFFLINE   NVBlue

NVBlue

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 106 posts
Joined: Aug 03, 2005

Posted 06 March 2006 - 08:54 AM

from http://www.skyreport.com/ on March 6, 2006
Broadcasters Take on Significantly-Viewed
Broadcasters approached the Federal Communications Commission late last week concerning a push by DirecTV and EchoStar to get the agency to re-think regulations tied to satellite delivery of significantly-viewed TV stations, telling those at the Portals that the DBS services' arguments don't hold water.

The satellite TV companies petitioned the FCC earlier this year with issues about the rules governing delivery of significantly-viewed stations. They asked the commission to reconsider what they said is a narrow interpretation of the local service requirement contained in the regulations. The companies said they are pushing for an interpretation that will prevent local network affiliate stations from blocking carriage of significantly-viewed analog signals.

The significantly-viewed provisions are contained in the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA).

In their joint arguments, broadcasters tackled the satellite TV companies' objection to an FCC requirement that before a subscriber can receive an analog signal of an out-of-market significantly-viewed station affiliated with a particular network the subscriber must first receive the analog signal of a local station affiliated with that network.

What the satellite TV companies want, the broadcasters said, "is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations. But the commission correctly recognized that SHVERA was intended not to enhance the negotiating leverage of either broadcasters or satellite carriers, but rather to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from by-passing local stations or using the threat of delivery of out-of-market stations to extract more favorable retransmission consent terms."

Broadcast affiliate associations participating in the FCC filing represent stations carrying ABC, CBS and NBC. The National Association of Broadcasters also was part of the filing.

#7 OFFLINE   moonman

moonman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 798 posts
Joined: Oct 27, 2004

Posted 09 March 2006 - 03:43 PM

Same source as NVBLUE..........
NAB, Net Affiliates Oppose SHVERA Petition for Reconsideration
On Jan. 6, 2006, DirecTV and EchoStar Satellite filed a Petition for Reconsideration in MB Docket 05-49, Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. The DBS companies argued that in this proceeding, "the Commission has adopted two overly restrictive conditions for satellite carriage of significantly viewed signals that are inconsistent with the text of SHVERA and risk undermining the very purposes for which SHVERA was enacted." DirecTV and EchoStar argued against the "equivalent bandwidth" provision requiring carriers to give equal bandwidth to local and significantly viewed network station pairs and to adjust to programming changes on a real time basis. They also objected to the FCC's interpretation that SHVERA requires a subscriber receive local-into-local service before receiving distant-into-local analog service. This was interpreted by the companies as meaning that a subscriber must receive a specific local network analog network signal as a precondition to receiving the analog signal of a distant station affiliated with the same network.


In their Joint Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration, NAB and the ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC Television Affiliate Associations said, "The various objections of DirecTV and EchoStar ("Petitioners") to the Commission's interpretations of SHVERA's requirements for satellite delivery of significantly viewed signals are without merit." NAB and the affiliate groups said the comparative bid rate approach does not equate to an "equal bandwidth" requirement, noting that SHVERA precludes "identical bandwidth" and that the FCC explains at least five ways why its comparative bit rate approach is not an "equal bandwidth" or "identical bandwidth" requirement.


NAB and the affiliates also said there is no merit to the satellite carriers' objection to the FCC's interpretation of SHVERA requirements to receive an analog signal of the local station affiliated with a network before the subscriber can receive a significantly viewed station affiliated with the same network. According to the groups, "The Commission correctly explained in the Report and Order how Section 340(B)(1) must be construed together with Sections 340(B)(3) and 340(B)(4) and with the legislative history of SHVERA. Petitioners would have the Commission read and interpret specific provisions of SHVERA in isolation, out of context, and in obvious disregard of other interrelated provisions and the statute's legislative history."


The groups added, "What Petitioners really request is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations."


NAB and the affiliate groups felt that the commission had correctly recognized that the intent of SHVERA was to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from bypassing local broadcasters or threatening to deliver out-of-market signals to gain better retransmission consent terms, and not to enhance negotiating leverage from either side. According to the statement from the groups, "Petitioners would ascribe to the statute a meaning and result that is completely at odds with the stated will of Congress."


For a complete understanding of the arguments, use the FCC's Search for Filed Comments page and enter 05-49 for the proceeding. This will provide a listing of all filings in this proceeding, including DirecTV and EchoStar's Petition for Reconsideration.

#8 OFFLINE   Adamv2

Adamv2

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 14 posts
Joined: Feb 04, 2006

Posted 12 March 2006 - 11:59 PM

So is there any chance I will get NYC locals with my Philadelphia ones? Really I would only like Ch11. I had ch11 with cable. Use to have channel 9 also. Still it would be cool to see local programing from the #1 market.

#9 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,949 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 13 March 2006 - 03:29 AM

It depends on what county you live in. The city of Philadelphia itself won't be seeing any SV Channels, but outside of the city there's a chance you could get them.

#10 OFFLINE   Adamv2

Adamv2

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 14 posts
Joined: Feb 04, 2006

Posted 14 March 2006 - 01:12 AM

I live in Gloucester County NJ, which is basically South Philadelphia with grass, so i'm guessing no despite the fact so many New Yorkers live in this area. My Aunt will probably get it. She lives in OCean county, and already with cable has always gotton both NYC, and Philly locals.

#11 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,949 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 14 March 2006 - 08:29 AM

According to the list by the FCC, your county doesn't have any NYC Channels available for SV. As for Ocean county, it's considered part of the NYC market, but the list includes WPVI, from Philly as being SV.

#12 OFFLINE   Adamv2

Adamv2

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 14 posts
Joined: Feb 04, 2006

Posted 15 March 2006 - 09:45 AM

Thanks for the help. Hmmm, maybe I should use my aunts address. Ch6 is the only Philly station I really watch anyway :D




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