Locals and Distant Networks

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Scoob8888, Feb 23, 2019.

  1. Michael H..

    Michael H.. Member

    May 31, 2007
    This act is a low priority for the legislators.
    Rarely do they act on this until the last minute.
    I think I've seen the act pass the house of representatives in December and get senate approval after the new year.
    If the act is impending, but delayed beyond expiration, DirecTV won't and hasn't shut DNS down.
    The 2014-2019 STELA version had minimal changes from the 2010-2014 STELA and the 2019-2024 will be basically the same.
  2. cpalmer2k

    cpalmer2k New Member

    May 24, 2010
  3. Phil T

    Phil T Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Mar 25, 2002
    Does anybody think AT&T will really care?
  4. James Long

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

    Apr 17, 2003
    "The requirement that broadcast TV stations and pay-TV (satellite and cable TV) companies both negotiate carriage of local broadcast signals in good faith."

    Yep ... I can see why broadcast stations and their networks would be against that. :)

    I'd love to flip the coin and introduce statutory licensing for ALL broadcast stations. If the issue is really fair compensation for rebroadcasting the station's signals the playing field should be made level. With the current laws popular local stations can charge whatever license fee they want - at the risk of not being carried but knowing that the popular stations can get away with a certain level of extortion. Meanwhile less popular stations are get zero compensation for the copyrighted programming they carry. A level playing field would have statutory rates that paid a reasonable copyright fee (as distant networks are paid) not extortion level bargaining.
  5. Michael H..

    Michael H.. Member

    May 31, 2007
    NAB flyer: "... it is estimated that only around 500,000 households..."
    I think ATT might care.
    A BIG part of the reason that I've kept DirecTV since 1994 and am spending ~$300.00/month is DNS.
    If DNS goes, so do I.
    If the playing field is leveled, and DirecTV offers no programming advantage, I know I can save a good chunk of money by switching providers.
    I have no idea how many of the ONLY half-million would follow suit.
    I don't think ATT really wants to chance it.
    If the number were 500 or 5,000, they definitely wouldn't care.
    I didn't cash out over the PAC12 thing, and I'm a UCLA alum, but honestly, Larry Scott has always sold off the marquee games to outside networks, and hasn't retained anything I would have watched anyway.

    ... with each renewal, NAB has voiced opposition, and the amount of shouting this go-around is comparable to the past, which I consider no more than a whisper.
    Outside of a few sites such as this one, no one is even aware of this issue.
  6. James Long

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

    Apr 17, 2003
    The last "kick the can" in 2014 was changing the date from Dec 31, 2014, to Dec 31, 2019, and some very minor tweaks relating to how markets are defined. That legislation was introduced November 18th, 2014, presented to the president November 24th and became law December 4th, 2014. Quick and simple.

    The renewal in 2009/2010 was more extended. Laws were passed nearly every month to add another month to the expiration. The final extension to Dec 2014 came in May 2010.

    I have not looked in detail at what will actually expire if the can is not kicked another five years. "Significantly Viewed" stations (stations outside of the customer's designated market area that have proven that they are significantly viewed in the customer's community) was moved out of Title 17 Section 119 so that carriage does not expire. "Local into Local" is not in Title 17 Section 119 so that carriage does not expire. But both DISH and DIRECTV rely on the expiring law to deliver "distant" channels. DISH uses the law to import foreign market stations of their choice when there is no network station in a market and one would not be available via the significantly viewed rules. Most DISH distant channel customers probably don't know that those channels are being delivered courtesy of Title 17 Section 119 - all they know is that they get the channels.

    "Only 500,000" would include DISH and DIRECTV subscribers who would not receive one or more network channels if it were not for Title 17 Section 119. (They may and most do receive other network channels via Local into Local.) The NAB document above promises that the networks will work with satellite to find some way of getting that content to those subscribers. I assume that it will be at a much higher rate than the statutory licensing is currently paying. "Only 500,000" is a large number when one considers that there are less than 30 million satellite subscribers in the US. 1.7% of satellite subscribers are benefiting from Title 17 Section 119.

    There is room for improvement in the carriage laws. The biggest problems I see are the differences between satellite and cable carriage (stations prohibited from carriage on satellite to the same customer who can get the channel on cable) and no oversight on the fees stations can charge. A station's license granting them access to broadcast spectrum should include the responsibility to allow their signal to be delivered via cable or satellite to the same customers they are licensed to cover over the air. A satellite carrier's license to use satellite spectrum should include the responsibility to deliver all local stations that are licensed to cover that customer's location - regardless of DMA. Only insurmountable technological restrictions should prevent such delivery (for example, spot beam coverage that does not cover the entire licensed OTA area of a station). But I doubt my desires will ever be enacted into law.

    With DISH no longer including locals in tiers and DIRECTV moving in that direction with the introduction of the LCC I wonder how the NAB will react to the loss of "Local into Local" carriage. Will they play that as "satellite refusing to deliver locals" or will they see that as a reason to negotiate better carriage deals so they don't lose satellite delivery to people who cannot receive OTA signals. Unfortunately I expect that the NAB has decided that they don't need satellite to deliver their content and will rely on spotty Internet delivery to reach people with no OTA reception. (A weird situations as they are losing spectrum to 5G then relying on the promise of 5G to deliver their content.)

Share This Page

spam firewall