Ahem. With all due respect, John’s answer was a bit disingenuous.
The holdup with SV, and the reason it hasn’t panned out as many viewers naively hoped, is retrans consent. Unlike DNS, SV is not exempt from retrans consent requirements. The FCC’s SV list indicates which stations are eligible for statutory copyright licensing in which areas, but it does NOT confer actual permission to carry any channels anywhere. Further, there is no must-carry eligibility outside a station’s DMA, so the only way an SV station can be carried is if the station grants retrans consent rights. This is problematic because a station’s contracts with its network and/or syndicated program suppliers could preclude it from granting retrans consent outside its DMA.
Also, DBS companies have complained to the FCC that stations are not negotiating in good faith for retrans consent in SV areas, and I think there are still some ongoing proceedings on that issue.
Basically, E* either has the necessary agreements in place to offer a station as SV or it doesn’t, and calling and asking for it is neither more nor less likely to influence that process than asking for any other channel that E* doesn’t currently carry for whatever reason. Although CSRs may be uninformed about SV, this isn’t really the problem. You can talk to whomever you want, and you can play CSR roulette to your heart’s content, but you won’t get any SV stations E* does not have a contractual right to carry.
Finally, since SV is licensed under the same U.S. Code section as DNS, and thus potentially subject to the December 1 shutoff along with DNS, adding SV stations isn’t likely to be a high priority at E* right now.
Bottom line: if E* isn’t providing an SV affiliate for any given network in your area right now, it’s highly unlikely to start providing one by December 1, no matter what you do.
Sorry.
