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

Press Release - DISH Network Statement on House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Jason Nipp, Oct 15, 2009.

  1. James Long

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

    46,119
    1,067
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is OTA reception that matters for AAD. It doesn't matter if you can get the same networks in market via DISH or DirecTV. What matters is if you can receive any affiliate of the said network - in or out of market - OTA. If you are predicted to receive an OTA affiliate (in or out of market) you will need a waiver from all of that network you are predicted to receive. Actual testing can be done to "prove" a prediction is wrong, but it is easier if you are simply outside of the predicted coverage.
     
  2. Tower Guy

    Tower Guy Godfather

    450
    0
    Jul 27, 2005
    I'm sure that's true, but the question is, are there enough people like you to make AAD a viable business? I doubt it.

    I predict that Dish buys AAD to say "thank you" for rescuing Dish.
     
  3. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    They wont need to buy them after the reauthorization. E* could be given the rights back to sell DNS feeds. If thats the case then they would not need AAD to do it for them. They would make more money to do it themselves.
     
  4. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I guess I am gonna have to disagree. Maybe not for E* but for D* if you are getting locals from your DMA they will not let you get a DNS feed from another affiliate since they are providing you one already. I highly doubt E* will either. I just called All American Direct. If you are getting locals already from E* then you can apply for waivers. That means you ask your local affiliate to give you permission to get feeds from an affiliate somewhere else. I doubt any of them are gonna grant that if you are already getting their feed from E*. Also All American Direct charges to submit the waiver lol. So if you already get locals with E* and you want to pay $12 to have your local affiliate tell you they wont let you get DNS feeds then you can try. I bet there is a 99% fail rate from DMA's that are offering locals. The only way I can see someone getting one approved in a market that offers locals is if its a short market which means missing at least one of the big 4 networks.
     
  5. scrybigtv

    scrybigtv Godfather

    337
    5
    Jan 25, 2008
    I don't much care about DNS feeds, but I wonder if this might possibly address DBS subs like myself whose so-called "locals" actually come from someplace other than our home state.

    If I could receive in-state network channels (I can't receive OTA broadcasts from ANY state – they're all too far away), it would be a dream come true. Until Congress, the FCC, or the courts address this problem – which is more common than many of you realize – satellite TV will never provide the level of service that it could and should provide for millions of citizens throughout rural America.
     
  6. James Long

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

    46,119
    1,067
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Disagree all you want ... I based my response off of federal law. D* cannot offer a distant in markets where they offer locals of that network (if you have an in market Fox they can't offer an out of market Fox, regardless of OTA reception). E* currently can't offer any distants because they were found guilty of illegally selling distants. AAD does not fall under either category. Since they don't offer locals the federal restriction that applies to D* isn't there ... and they have never been found guilty of illegally offering distants the restriction that applies to E* is there.

    Per court ruling AAD is a separate company from E*. It isn't E* you are dealing with.

    Waivers are only needed if you can receive stations OTA (per defined coverage areas). Whether you receive locals via D*, E* or cable is irrelevant to getting them via AAD.
     
  7. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Where in Oklahoma are you located at?
     
  8. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Again I am going to have to disagree. I called All American Direct and OTA is not the only thing that matters. If you have locals from E* then you can send waivers for DNS feeds but are very unlikely to get them. I think you are taking me the wrong way and I also think you posted wrong in the first one on this. There are some people that can get locals from E* that can not get any via OTA and per ADD they told me that they can only submit waivers for them. Thats kind of the same way for D*. You could submitt the waivers on your own but its doubtful they would be granted and even if they were I dont think D* would turn them on if you were already getting locals from them. In some ways I am agreeing with you. In others I called ADD personally and verified I was right.

    I can tell you part of the reauthorization process is to eliminate things like this from happening. They dont want you getting your locals and DNS feeds unless you are grandfathered in. Since no one from E* can be that pretty much leaves us at D*. Also I am not saying that I think its right for what ever reason all I know is what I was told and that is if you are getting locals from E* that you have to submitt waivers even if you dont get OTA reception.
     
  9. blc

    blc Legend

    122
    0
    Sep 29, 2007
    James is correct on this one. As a "provider," All Am. Direct does not offer any local-in-local rebroadcasts. Thus, the only relevant issue in determining availability of ADD DNS is whether someone receives a grade b analog signal. This is where the AAD representative promissed congress that ADD would not take advantage of the "loophole." That "loophole" being that there is no longer ANY analog coverage at a grade B signal strength. Thus, AAD could, theoretically, offer DNS to anyone and everyone, regardless of where the subscriber lived in relation to the local broadcast tower. AAD chose not to do that and continues to operate under the now-defunct analog grade B predictive models from the past.

    Once the statute is re-authorized, the grade b analog model will be written out of it. It still will make no difference for AAD subscribers whether they can get Dish or DirecTV locals. The only thing that will matter is whether the subscriber can receive an acceptable signal from the local tower. This still has to be defined by the FCC at some point after the statute is re-authorized. That could take the FCC some time to define new boundaries for acceptable signal strenghts.
     
  10. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I'm just quoting ADD directly. They are the ones that said they dont offer DNS feeds to area's that are getting locals from E* even if they are not able to recieve any OTA reception.
     
  11. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,080
    327
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Everything is backwards given current technology standards. If you start with the facts that
    • within the United States satellite TV could deliver all TV networks/cable channels to almost every home
    • cable systems could offer all TV networks/cable channels within most urban and suburban communities
    • local stations using digital subchannels could offer OTA many, maybe most TV networks/cable channels in most large urban areas
    one can envision an entirely different, very robust system than the one the FCC regulates right now.

    :rant:

    Yes, over the years Dish took advantage of the lack of enforcement and abused the law, so they lost their right to deliver distant locals.

    At the time, I chose to receive Sacramento locals even though I'm in the San Francisco DMA. I made that choice because the Sacramento locals offered weather and a rare news story for our area which San Francisco stations did not, and despite my complaining never have for the most part.

    In other words, the DMA designations are a figment of someone's imagination which should make everyone realize that this is a "my lobby is bigger than your lobby" thing having nothing to do with what's good for the public.

    After Dish lost the case, I went to AAD and got East and West feeds with only one waiver required, Fox. It was easy, because San Francisco was the West feed. So I had network TV from two time zones.

    From what I read at the time, the network locals were very inconsistent. So a guy in a farm house miles from any cable system in a DMA where a local network affiliate was not only beyond the grade B but in another state couldn't get that network's programming because the "local" wouldn't grant a waiver. In other words, local station owners licensed in our name abuse the public trust all the time.

    I'm sure the FCC will get around to creating a standard for this new NAB written bill while the local station owner members of the NAB in most DMA's are eliminating what little meaningful local programming (including news) they offer and while one-by-one they go bankrupt because the anti-public regulations didn't force them to use their innovative creativity to adapt.

    This ongoing protection of the local station owners in this new bill is still a head in the sand "let's pretend it's 1958" technophobic regulatory system. If it weren't for the federal regulations, at least half the nation's locals would have gone the way of many newspapers over the last decade. Even with the protection, they will go that way in the next decade.

    The reality of 210 DMA's is that the top 8 contain over 25% of TV homes. Almost 50% of the TV Homes are in 25 DMA's. Almost 75% of TV homes are in 66 DMA's. The remaining 25% of TV homes are divided up between 144 DMA's all of which would be shown not economically viable for more than one TV station by any standard used by a venture capitalist.

    But until what happened to the American auto manufacturers happens to American broadcast TV, we'll continue to have these absurd regulations that prevent me from seeing what's going on locally in Atlanta and Boston. And it's all being justified by asserting capitalism and the public interest at the same time!

    :rant:
     
  12. scrybigtv

    scrybigtv Godfather

    337
    5
    Jan 25, 2008
    A long way from Miami! :)
     
  13. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,821
    86
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I was on a conferrence call with my congressman (Dan Boran) Monday night and I asked about all this. He stands for orphin counties getting in-state out of market programming which is fine for me cause I would much rather have Tulsa then Joplin/Pittsburg anyday of the week. I was just curious if you were part of his district and also what DMA you fall in. I guess he said there are other counties in the state that are having issues to. Personally I would like to see the DMA's restructured and me just be added to the Tulsa DMA. Make it official dont just make a temp fix that will have to be reauthorized again in another 5 years.
     
  14. James Long

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

    46,119
    1,067
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I'd like to see DMAs be permissive and not restrict carriage. Give people every channel based on the old analog coverage area (which, in theory, is what digital OTA should be replicating) regardless of DMA. In other words, give people what they would get if cable served their homes.

    That is the biggest problem - people who can't get the same locals via satellite that they can get via cable because the law actually prohibits carriage. The "Significantly Viewed" legislation five years ago was supposed to fix that, but it didn't because 1) it was tied to actual OTA reception by people, not the coverage area of a station. (If a person watched via cable and not OTA they didn't count toward the percentage needed for the station to gain "SV" status.) and 2) the SV rules were added to the distants section of the law and not the locals section, so when DISH lost permission to carry any distant station they also lost permission to carry the SV stations. DirecTV did not bother to take advantage of the SV law.

    The law should be written to level the playing field ... let satellite carry any local that cable can carry if they served that customer. The proposal is a big step ahead ... at the cost of carrying all 210 markets. I believe it is worth the price as long as DISH can carry any out of market signal as that customer's "distant" signal ... including the one from the neighboring market that cable could provide.

    I'd also write the rule so no waiver is needed for a satellite provider to carry a station out of market within it's own coverage area. It seems silly to need a waiver from DFOX to carry DFOX's broadcast within DFOX's own coverage area simply because of a DMA line. (I'd actually go as far as allow carriage within a station's market without the station's permission or payment, but the lobby would never let that pass.)
     
  15. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    46
    Mar 18, 2008
    Since this is the Dish forum I won't go into that much but DirecTV does have SV markets and many more are changing as well. I think they didn't jump on it as much due to waiting for the SHVRA to be renewed in case it was changed, but they did have some markets already setup like that.
     

Share This Page