1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DIRECTV Applauds House Passage of Satellite TV Bill

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by thelucky1, Dec 4, 2009.

  1. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    Not finished...just reaching down into his wallet in places that haven't seen the light of day in years. :D
  2. bjlc

    bjlc Icon

    Aug 20, 2004
    what does this mean for people who are in border areas.. where I live.. in the Wisconsin/ Minnesota/ Iowa area.. we are stuck by artificial boarders with D*.. if I have cable, I can get fox from at least two different areas.. LaCrosse and Rochester, Minnesota.. and you say, why is that.. well Minnesotan's like the Vikings and the Twins.. and people from Wisconsin like the Packers and the Brewers.. and my local cable offers them both.. or at least one of the competitiors does..

    does this bill allow, or suggest that "other locals "or significant locals will be served as part of the process? and available on Directv?
  3. tedb3rd

    tedb3rd Godfather DBSTalk Club

    Feb 2, 2006
    "The bill also would require satellite TV providers currently carrying 'multicast' affiliates — which broadcast multiple signals on one channel — to continue carrying them. Within three years, satellite TV providers would be required to carry any multicast affiliate that is up and running."

    Call this a stupid question but: Does 'multicast' refer to the 'sub-channels'? As in/example: WSB-TV in Atlanta has their ABC feed (ch 2.1) and RTV (ch 2.2).... Is this saying that Dish and Direct would be required to carry both of those channels?
  4. lwilli201

    lwilli201 Hall Of Fame

    Dec 22, 2006
    What is problematic for sat providers with carriage of sub channels of network affiliates is the possibility of signal degradation with 2 HD and possibly more sub channels on the same channel. You would see an increase in "poor PQ" complaints. The solution to this problem is hard wire/fiber to the station. This solution is more expensive than OTA grab of the signal.
  5. kevinwmsn

    kevinwmsn Hall Of Fame

    Aug 19, 2006
    A lot of us are going to have multiple local weather channels.
  6. TardisCaptain

    TardisCaptain New Member

    Dec 5, 2009
    Ok some newbie questions on this to help me understand.

    1- Will the satellites have to pay to broadcast the digital sub-channels?

    2- If 1 is yes, who do they pay? The network or the local station?

    3- If they have to pay the local station, will this increase the number of digital sub-channels that the local stations will air?

    3a- If they do pay for the local sub-channels, is there a limit? I understand that one station in the San Jose area has over 10 digital sub-channels. Most stations that I've seen are broadcasting 1-3 digital sub-channels.

    4- Are the cable companies required to pay to air the local digital sub-channels as well?

    IMHO I think that paying the local stations for the digital sub-channels will help keep local stations on the air by providing additional revenue streams.

    Thanks in advance
  7. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    It means nothing yet as it has a ways to go before going into affect. As I understand it the Senate has this in their bill they are about to vote on but nothing is set in stone yet. It should be all finalized by the end of this month though and we will know what we can expect. So dont read to much into this just yet.
  8. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
    I have to admit I did not follow this one near as closely as I did the previous one.

    What is the implication for those who are grandfathered in that receive Distant Digital Signals? Whether or not they receive local digital signals?
  9. Bob Coxner

    Bob Coxner Icon

    Dec 28, 2005
    I don't read that. It says "networks" and no local weather channels are part of a network. In my area, the CW is a sub-channel. The CW is a network. It's already carried by DTV here but this would require it for similar situations elsewhere.
  10. carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    Ok...so this was passed and it's nice & all...

    But what I want to see is true choice. Why should we be restricted to just local network broadcasts? Why not have the option to get networks or other locals from other areas? I know...the cable companies would wet themselves if D* & E* allowed me to receive network/other local feeds from New York or LA.

    Sorry for ranting...just would like to see other programming options. :)
  11. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Suffice it to say that carlsbad_bolt_fan's vision of ideal is probably not going to happen.

    It doesn't impact cable as they can just as easily import feeds as D* and E* do. It is the local affiliates stand to lose their customers.

    If you don't like what's available where you live, consider living somewhere that better suits your tastes.
  12. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    There is none yet as this has not passed all branches yet. From my understanding the Senate has a bill that says we can keep DNS feeds even if we get LIL after the fact. But that has to be passed and not just by the Senate. Basically so far this means nothing until its all passed and signed off by the President. Wait till closer to the end of this month and then we will know what is truly going to happen.
  13. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Or be like me and get DNS feeds from both coasts, use an antenna for your DMA's locals and hope it gets passed that you can get In State Out of DMA Locals as well. With a larger antenna I can get 2-4 DMA's as well as D* providing New York and LA DNS feeds. That should pretty much cover me.
  14. Wapello County Iowa Resi

    Wapello County Iowa Resi New Member

    Dec 5, 2009
    I live in an area of southern Iowa in which 4 counties do not have local-into-local coverage on the satellite at this time. We are unable to receive adequate tv reception from an adjacent DMA because of the present law. Currently we must have an outside antenna with rotor to get ABC, FOX and PBS as each station is broadcasting from a different direction. We do not access to NBC or CBS as the new digital tv is not reaching our area. It would be nice to get the channels on satellite in order to watch the local news, weather and emergency information. It is my hope that the bill will be passed and signed with provisions for us to select adjacent DMA's in order to watch satisfactory television. Those that reside in cities are able to get the television channels on cable, but those of us that reside in the country are left without satisfactory tv coverage.
    We should not have to move as mentioned in another post in order to get satisfactory tv.
  15. mhking

    mhking Legend

    Oct 27, 2002
    While I agree with you 110%, I doubt that'll ever happen, thanks to the greedy SOBs at the NAB who are more concerned with revenue than with any sort of convenience or choice for end users. The closest you might get is to get a Canadian satellite system. Both of those systems not only provide true choice among multiple Canadian cities, but also provide both an Eastern and Pacific time zone choice of US signals.

    Some of us are lucky enough to have (or be grandfathered for) NY/LA locals, but those folks among us are few.
  16. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Hang in there. I have high hopes that it will be addressed and this time around. It wont do what you were sayng though. You wont be able to choose which DMA you get. From all that I read what they are trying to do is get you In-State-Out-of-DMA locals. You would be able to get what they offer not what you want. Hopefully if you dont get all the major affiliates then you would qualify for the DNS feeds to get the remaining and keep an antenna as well. I wonder though if you used a 100+ mile antenna if you would get the other channels you seek via OTA.
  17. Wapello County Iowa Resi

    Wapello County Iowa Resi New Member

    Dec 5, 2009
    The signals of the other DMA is already being beamed down and it would appear that they only need to make a change that permits me to receive the signal. Some individuals are currently getting the signals since they are using a fake address out of this DMA. If I live 15 miles to the West of North in different counties in the state I would qualify to get the signals legally. With the switch to digital it covers less area than the analog. The outside antenna will receive some of the broadcasts from adjacent DMA some of the time. It comes in clear and then it goes blank. The outside antenna must be used to receive the local tv stations and it is necessary top have rotor to change directions since all 3 broadcasts come from different directions. It is nearly impossible to find service people to install and maintain outside antennas in this area. With luck they might make the change for better tv reception for the citizens in our area.
  18. gomezma1

    gomezma1 Godfather

    Mar 28, 2006
    If they start carrying the sub channels I guess I'll throw my digital converter box and antenna away.I guess the goverenment wasted money on the $40 coupons.
  19. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    No problem. 2011 isn't today and the means will be in place in plenty of time.

    This is a deal that DISH has pushed for ... being able to serve markets with missing networks a full slate of programming from neighboring markets makes it cost effective to finish the list and give people via satellite what cable has been able to do under their separate and unequal rules.

    Unless DISH suffers a serious problem launching the channels and I expect we'll be seeing 210 markets covered - with distants filling gaps - by the middle of next year.
  20. Kithron

    Kithron Mentor

    Jul 24, 2008
    Does this part of the bill apply to OTA low power stations?

    "Extends through December 31, 2014 (under current law, December 31, 2009) the copyright liability moratorium allowing a subscriber who does not receive a signal of Grade A intensity of a local network broadcast station to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber had satellite service terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999 or received such service on October 31, 1999."

    My local NBC in my area is low powered and has no subchannel yet and probely never has any plans of getting a subchannel either.

Share This Page