Distant Networks: STELA reauth, DNS and LiL

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by slice1900, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. Nov 4, 2019 #81 of 598
    n2radio

    n2radio Cool Member

    22
    1
    Oct 1, 2007
    Maybe they aren't going to kick the can down the road this time around. However, it looks like the broadcasters will mostly get what they want.

    Sen. Graham Proposes STELAR Sunset Transition Plan
    Seeks one-year of carriage at compulsory license rate before move to 'free market'
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  2. Nov 4, 2019 #82 of 598
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,507
    2,123
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    "Graham's offer sounds like one broadcasters would craft themselves, and likely jump at.
    In fact, the National Association of Broadcasters was already jumping."

    Kick the can five years might be the best deal DIRECTV and DISH can get. The one year plan isn't one the satellite companies want.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  3. Nov 4, 2019 #83 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    This is a crock. It basically just says they want each provider to negotiate for the channels after the year. How is that going to narrow down the blackouts we see? Come up with a plan that fixes all of the issues including orphan counties and short markets. Not just negotiate. We all already see how those negotiations already go. Its a record year each year on blackouts. Why just saying everyone should negotiate will fix the issue is beyond me. Of course this is something the NAB would agree with.

    Id agree to this if I could pay what ever the realistic wage was for other markets locals. Id pay $5 a channel for my neighboring markets local channels. As long as they were not subject to blackout restrictions. Id pay for my markets locals to. Do that and I would support this bill. Till then, fix the real problems.
     
    n2radio, cielohajames2005 and 242424 like this.
  4. Nov 4, 2019 #84 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    It is funny how he talks about moving to "free markets" when networks have a monopoly in each DMA. Why is the people pushing free markets the hardest as the solution to everything rarely understand basic economics?

    Graham's proposal doesn't fix most of the things STELA is intended to address, nor does it do anything for the increasing number of blackouts of local channels. Like the article says, this proposal is NAB's wet dream. I'm sure if you looked up Graham's contributions you'd see a yearly donation from NAB, they obviously own him.
     
  5. Nov 4, 2019 #85 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    100% agree. So he does mention making sure that RVers and tailgaters are taken care of but the lack of what making sure they are taken care of really means and leaving that up to the broadcasters to determine is NOT going to fix anything. As soon as DNS is taken away not only will the short markets be screwed but the 12 markets will be as well.

    I keep saying it, why is it okay that the locals that serve those 12 markets do such a poor job that an antenna wont service them but they want a provider to take that burden on for them. If they need DirecTV to do that for them, then DirecTV should get a reduced rate (& Dish Network too for that matter). If they dont want those things to happen to them then fix their signal in their own market. How can you claim its so damn important that the people in those markets get your signal when you dont care enough to make sure they can get it. We all know how this works in the other markets. When there is a blackout the affiliate and its ownership make a huge deal out of the free OTA signal. They cant do that in these 12 markets. Instead they want to complain that its important that people get their signal but they want someone else to make it happen for them.

    Im sure Chevy would love it if Bose paid to build the entire dash of every car Bose is in but that isnt really Bose's responsibility is it? If you have a product and you are demanding people have it, you should at least be responsible for making sure it works and they have a way to have it. This last hearing proved that the 12 markets could put up repeaters but choose not to. So that to me says its not that important to them unless someone else does the heavy lifting. NOT FAIR AND BS!! The NAB and the local broadcasters need to wake up. They should be focusing on a new revenue model. Every time these price hikes happen it kicks the can to the next one but one day, there wont be a next one as people wont pay it. They already admitted that ad revenue is down and not able to make the money they need. Now they rely on retransmission and they are just screwing that over and over too. The day is coming. I read today that Playstation Vue is closing as they cant make money. Thats not a good sign. Could be a matter of time for Sling and DirecTV Now as well. Cord cutting does not solve the problem. In the end the broadcasters and the TV/internet providers will find a way to get their money. Its no wonder so many are going to jailbroken devices to steam TV. I am happy to pay a provider to get what I need but geeze its getting crazy.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  6. Nov 7, 2019 #86 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Senator Wicker scheduled the 'markup' of the STELA bill for Nov. 13, so it will probably be voted on in committee next week. Currently the bill is just a simple five year extension, unless someone successfully attaches an amendment to change it.

    So it appears the "kick the can" scenario is most likely at this time.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  7. Nov 7, 2019 #87 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Happens every time. They wait till later in the year to really work on it when they know its super complex then run out of time and renew it. At least it will get renewed but jesus christ. Lets fix the darn thing already. The bill needs and over hall.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  8. Nov 7, 2019 #88 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    At this point they're probably just hoping one more renewal and satellite (or at least satellite delivered locals, if ATSC 3.0 & SFNs take off) will be obsolete in 2029 :D
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  9. Nov 14, 2019 #89 of 598
    DavidLyle

    DavidLyle Cool Member

    15
    0
    Jul 5, 2005
    Saw this tidbit this morning:

    Sources: STELAR Reauthorization Pulled From Markup
    According to multiple sources, the STAR Act stellar reauthorization bill is being pulled from today's (Nov. 13) markup in the Senate Commerce Committee. The House is scheduled to markup its version today (11-14)

    You can read the full article here
     
  10. Nov 14, 2019 #90 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Yeah that Senator is wanting it to go away after 1 year and has no plan on working out the details. He thought asking each player in the game (local channel owners, DTV , ETC) as good enough. Obviously we cant get this down without government assistance. Its a joke. Extend it another 5 years or get serious about fixing the short markets, orphan counties and the good faith provisions. Fix it or extend it. Dont have ass it though.
     
  11. Nov 14, 2019 #91 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
  12. Nov 14, 2019 #92 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    There was some talk in the house about fixing the orphan counties problem, something I know you were looking for @joshjr
     
    joshjr likes this.
  13. Nov 21, 2019 #93 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Now the House looks to be pushing a bill that ignores the orphan counties, but would require Directv to cover those 12 markets in 180 days (with "automatic 90 day extensions if they're making good faith efforts to do so") or lose their DNS license. DNS would be made permanent for short markets, RVs and truckers. Things seem to be changing on this front almost daily, so who knows what we will actually end up with.

    It would be interesting to see what happens if they do end up forcing this issue with Directv. They have unused spotbeams dedicated to some of the unserved markets. For example, D14 has a beam dedicated to the Ottumwa Iowa/Kirksville Missouri DMA. They probably determined they wouldn't get payback from the cost of setting up an LRF in that market, and add the necessary equipment (encoders/muxes/etc.) in the broadcast centers, when measured against the incremental revenue they might get from winning a few additional customers in that market.

    There are other unused beams dedicated to markets, as well as some unused beams that probably could be used for some markets, so I think they could cover most of the markets that way. Those they couldn't they could cover with national beams - that would be a perfect use of reverse band since customers with DNS always get grandfathered they could leave it up to the customer to decide if they want to upgrade, and request an LNB swap to get their own locals (and lose DNS) if they prefer their own.

    Or they could claim "we're working on it" and see how many automatic 90 day extensions they get until the FCC says "this is your last one" and only then actually do anything. I could easily see them using the looming MPEG2 SD shutdown as an excuse for delay and the FCC buying it...
     
    cielohajames2005 and joshjr like this.
  14. Nov 21, 2019 #94 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Time is running out. Interesting to see what they are going to do. I would be shocked if they address the orphan county issue. It will take time and they wont address it. Ill be shocked if its addressed in the next 5 years and probably wont in the next 10 years.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  15. Nov 21, 2019 #95 of 598
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,811
    1,578
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Time is running out, but not really. Several articles I've seen have mentioned the possibility of a short term extension to the current law to allow them to deal with it early next year instead of trying to fit it in before the holidays.
     
    joshjr and cielohajames2005 like this.
  16. Nov 22, 2019 #96 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I would be fine with that to. Not sure I am a fan of them forcing DirecTV to get the last 12 markets. Dish didnt have to. They had the option to and chose to. Why force DirecTV? Is it the right thing to do (offer them) sure but maybe not if it will end up costing them money and not really pay for itself for a long time if ever. Dish was not forced to. They wanted the DNS Feeds back and that was the out they were given. Just seems to me that some people are forgetting that. Before Dish was given an incentive, they didnt wanna do it either. Some might say that well give DirecTV the same incentive. That isnt fair either as Dish was breaking the law. That is why their rights to DNS were removed. DirecTV never did that so why put them in the same boat? Also, I still say DirecTV should not have to pay what ever it costs to bail out these locals. They refuse to pay for repeaters to cover their own areas even OTA so its not fair to claim a market you actually really dont even cover but force someone else to do it for you! Thats just wrong!!!!
     
  17. Nov 22, 2019 #97 of 598
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,507
    2,123
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Selective memory? DIRECTV broke the law as well and the major networks and major network affiliate groups sued both DISH and DIRECTV. Both DISH and DIRECTV lost. The issue was that DISH was not careful enough in how they qualified customers for distants. When the courts determined that DISH was continuing to break the law (in the court's opinion) the sanction was imposed. Please don't pretend that DIRECTV's hands are 100% clean.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  18. Nov 27, 2019 #98 of 598
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Fine, they both broke the law and one didnt give a crap if they continued to break it and the other did. There is a reason that Dish had to add the last 12 markets and DirecTV didnt. Lets not act like they should both be held to the same standard. Dish was punished because they wouldnt go by the same standard DirecTV was.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  19. Nov 27, 2019 #99 of 598
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,507
    2,123
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    DISH was not required to add the final markets. They could have chosen the status quo ... no distants (including short markets). It wasn't the best situation, but it wasn't fatal.

    It won't be fatal if AT&T|DIRECTV chooses not to add the final 12 markets - even if the changes are made to the law and they lose distants due to their non-compliance. It will be their choice. Satellite services are not required to offer locals or distants. They just have to follow the rules in place if they choose to offer those channels.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  20. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,948
    126
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Not sure why your making this so complicated. Dish was required to add the final 12 markets if they wanted to offer DNS. It was punishment for not following the rules for DNS. DirecTV did follow them and was therefor not punished. Just because time passed does not mean that DirecTV should now be forced to do the same thing for DNS when they did comply.

    The reason I am for DirecTV not having to add them is that I have a feeling its not cost effective which is what they have said a few times and it gives those channels in the 12 markets a pass on them not making their own signals strong enough for OTA like they should be. I would feel differently if those 12 markets had solid signal in their markets via OTA and this was just something DirecTV should do. Looking for DirecTV to do their job for them and not sharing in the costs to do it is not what I call fair. Since DirecTV would be forced to do this to keep the distants and they did comply before, the stations should share that cost or lower the cost per sub for DirecTV.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.

Share This Page

spam firewall