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

NAB says it's time to stop selling distant signals

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by FTA Michael, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    Jul 21, 2002
    According to a report by Broadcasting & Cable's John Eggerton, the NAB plans to tell a House Communications Subcommittee today to allow the satellite distant signal compulsory license to expire when it takes up the reauthorization of Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA). That's the license that allows Dish to sell subscriptions to the five grandfathered superstations (WPIX, WWOR, WSBK, KWGN, KTLA) and all other distant signals.

    "While originally adopted to provide network programming to the large number of satellite viewers unable to receive it from their local station, today more than 98% of viewers have the option of viewing network programming from their local affiliate," Eggerton quoted, apparently as part of prepared testimony for Jane Mago, the NAB's executive vice president and general counsel. It's all couched in protecting and promoting "localism". Don't get me started on that.

    Eggerton says the NAB might settle for narrowing the range of viewers for distant signals. You really should read the full story here: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...ider_Expiration_of_Distant_Signal_License.php
     
  2. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I say it's time to stop the NAB.
     
  3. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,052
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The critical piece of information is in this paragraph:
    And then we have this juxtaposition of paragraphs:
    They propose to allow the free market to determine the price the locals will extract from you and me by using a Congressional mandate?

    The problem is those Congress members want those local stations reaching every voter for political ads every two years, ads paid for by lobbyists like the NAB.

    And this isn't just about Dish, though Charlie has miffed the NAB members and Congress members with the Hopper automatically skipping those political ads.

    It's time to get rid of paying for local broadcast stations.
     
  4. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    Ten years ago I got a letter from Dish saying KBCW a CBS station ask to block KTLA in my zipcode, and the rest of the Superstations. So I was out of luck.
     
  5. nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    946
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    So, here we have technology which allows someone to view any over the air TV station anywhere in the US. Tough, there are spot beams; it is technologically possible for me in Longmont, Colorado to get a TV station in New York City.

    Let's face it, with the merger of the media industry, locally owned TV stations have more or less gone the way of locally owned radio stations. If you watch KUSA in Denver, their newscast is no different that the one at WUSA in Washington DC (both owned by Gannett). Yet, there is an appeal to watch out of market TV, besides newscasts and network shows; local produced programming and movies.

    Though, when I was a DSIH subscriber, having access to the Superstations, watching news from LA, Boston and New York proved useful and some cases valuable. While Denver is reporting the Broncos, or a wild fire, wall to wall in newscasts, and something was going on in New York, I could watch that coverage.

    Yet, the NAB is about making money and limiting competition. The government is bad, until private industry needs the government for their pocketbook. Trying to get a waver is impossible. Where I live, I have two choices satellite or Comcast. Getting over the air is next to impossible. But, the FCC, forced by the NAB, still use coverage maps for analog TV to determine which zip code is in which market area fro Satellite.

    So, again paid lobbyists, and a [paid off Congress, will support the big media companies. Yes, we live in a free market system, but that free market is manipulated to the betterment of profits. Another case where the so called land of opportunity lacks an even playing field.
     
  6. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    And yet I don't get their objections when so many of them stream at least part of their broadcasts, especially their local news and some local sports events.

    What difference does it make if I'm not watching my local news because I'm watching a distant local news on satellite or watching a distant local news on the web?
     
  7. James Long

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

    45,945
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    DISH has the Superstations, which were more important when they were not network stations. DISH decided to no longer sell distant networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) last year.

    If I wrote the rules the NAB would not like me. :) There would be no consent to carry and every station would be carried under a statutory license (as the superstations and distants were carried) where the fee is set by the government instead of negotiations. I'd rather see no carriage fees but statutory fees are better than "whatever the station demands".

    Stations would be carried where they covered. White spaces would be filled by an in market station (if available) or an in state station if there were no station of that network in the market. Stations would be rewarded for their coverage with carriage.

    But I don't write the rules. :(
     
  8. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,316
    36
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC

    James- those are too common sense - no way would anybody accept them :)
     
  9. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    If I did, I'd find a way to allow anyone to buy locals from any city they wish. If someone moves from Dayton, OH to Phoenix, AZ and wants to see the stations from their former home, they should be able to.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, there are technical issues with that, but years ago there were technical issues getting locals at all.
     
  10. kc1ih

    kc1ih Legend

    275
    1
    May 22, 2004
    Hudson, FL
     
  11. sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    This is what viewers want, and I think we could at least see some markets (say, the top 10 or so) have nationwide coverage if it was permitted. But the problem is copyright law gives the holder the right to set the terms and conditions of distribution, and the networks do not want you watching a distant signal. It hurts local commercial revenue, which ultimately harms the network's ability to charge the affiliates for membership.
     
  12. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    Jul 21, 2002
    John Eggerton, the hardest-working man in Washington, follows up with a _lengthy_ report about the "informational" hearing yesterday. The good news is that Dish brought up fixing the retransmission consent system, a thought echoed by a ranking member of the subcommittee, Anna Eshoo (D-CA). The bad news is those people who wanted to scrap distant signals altogether or limit their availability.

    The story is much too long to summarize easily, so go read it: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...r_Not_of_Satellite_Distant_Signal_License.php
     
  13. Grandude

    Grandude RichardParker II

    939
    12
    Oct 21, 2004
    That is exactly what I would love to have. Living the first 20 years of my life in Duluth, MN, it would be nice to be able to watch the local news from there.

    I do watch a couple of web cams from back there on a daily basis. Nice to see that it is snowing there while I'm basking in the sunshine here in the SF Bay area.:grin:
     
  14. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    If I am not mistaken the authority for distant networks is separate and distinct from the authority for Superstations. This article reds like it applies to the former and not the latter especially when it talks about "affiliated stations" and STELA Specifically states that the superstations do not meet that definition.

    Am I mistaken?
     
  15. dishrich

    dishrich Hall Of Fame

    1,552
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    You're not, & I have NO idea where in that B&C article, that the OP got ANY word of the "superstations" being mentioned - ONLY distant (network) stations... :confused:
     
  16. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Well he is not exactly the fisrt person to report the pending death of the superstations. IT used to happen quite frequently and I suppose this report could be considered overdue.
     
  17. James Long

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

    45,945
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Regardless of if it is mentioned in the articles, the right to carry "superstations" under a statutory license expires along with the right to carry "distants". Congress could extend one without extending the other. So far they just keep changing the expiration dates on both types of service.

    I agree that the satellite providers have not used significantly viewed as much as I expected ... but they set stations by market and significantly viewed stations don't cover entire adjacent markets. And carriage of a competing station can tick off the in-market stations. As long as it is a choice, satellite providers can choose not to carry them.

    That is one of the big differences between cable and satellite carriage law. Where significantly viewed was originally written to FORCE cable providers to carry stations that people watched OTA (the threshold for being significantly viewed set by OTA reception ratings) when Congress applied it to satellite they made it an option. I believe the rules should be the same. If cable is forced to carry/offer carriage to a channel satellite should be forced to carry/offer carriage to the channel.

    The next two years of discussion should be interesting. Hopefully we're not waiting for a new bill while the old expires. Get it done in plenty of time.
     
  18. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    That might be true. But it does not change the fact that article is about distant nets and the NAB has not challenged the carriage of superstations. They need to revisit STELA AS a whole. The article discusses opposition to one provison that requires e authorization. It simply does not discuss the other and the thread has possibly created confusion about what the NAB concerns were.
     
  19. jsk

    jsk Icon

    780
    12
    Dec 27, 2006
    Fallston, MD
    Allow me to not have to pay for locals that I don't need via satellite and can get OTA, while still providing guide data.
     
  20. gregsgoatfarm

    gregsgoatfarm New Member

    7
    0
    Mar 9, 2009
    My wife would never stand for that. She likes being able to record 3 programs simultaneously.
     

Share This Page