[Nick]

Attention: DirecTV & DishNetwork Subscibers

What if... you could get distant nets from any city, whether you are with DishNetwork or DirecTV?

What if... you could get distant nets from more than one DMA, or as many as you are able to get?

What if... the choice was yours alone and not up to some FCC official or well-paid NAB lobbyist?

Anyone in America who has satellite tv, whether with Dish Network or DirecTV should have the
absolute right to receive their choice of any and all broadcasts from anywhere in the country as
long as they have the technical ability to do so.

Distant nets should be accessible all satellite subs, regardless! The way to make this happen is to
let your voice be heard in the halls of Congress, at the portals of the FCC, and within the darkened
boardrooms of the NAB.

Whether you are with D* or E* , let's come together on this important issue to make Washington sit
up and pay attention to the collective voice of 25 million satellite subscribers.

There is a way. This is the way: www.savemychannels.com. Let the Viewer Revolution begin!

DISH Urges Subs to Act

In an effort to influence lawmakers in Washington, D.C., DISH Network has launched SaveMyChannels.com
urging customers, retailers and DISH employees to take action on the company's distant network dilemma.
The website is being billed as a resource to explain the impact of the recent judicial action against DISH
subscribers and other TV consumers.

Savemychannels "provides details on how affected customers and interested parties can help efforts to
preserve distant network channels for as many DISH Network customers as possible, but only if they act
right away," the site says.

On the site, DISH has posted separate avenues of action for company subscribers, retailers and workers
to contact their senators and representatives to help preserve their distant network signals. By calling
888.267.1127, those interested and participating in the campaign can contact a congressional operator
who will in turn forward the caller along to their appropriate legislator's office.

DISH says on the site that due to the limited time provided by the court to implement the decision and
preserve distant nets (Dec. 1), the company "will continue to do everything possible to prevent customers
from losing their distant network channels... Congress can pass legislation to protect customers, and we
will ask the courts to reconsider their decision."

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission

 

[James Long]

Was that sarcasm?

About 8 years late, but good luck with that request!

 

[FTA Michael]

I agree with Nick. If they can work out a fair compensation pool for content providers (see Canada), there's no reason why viewers shouldn't be able to pay for any OTA channel that they want to watch.

 

[James Long]

It just seems like such a large "government interference in private contracts" issue.

 

[Nick]

No, James, it's the Government (FCC+NAB) that is interfering in the public's right to
receive broadcasts made over the publicly owned airwaves, whether by OTA, cable
or by a national provider such as D* or E*.

I am in the JAX DMA, but as a cable sub I get JAX and SAV tv stations over cable.

Simple question -- why can't satellite do that?

 

[James Long]

Because of the narrowly written laws that favor cable.

Cable systems define local based on what they receive ... with SVs added when a station has to prove that they have enough OTA viewers in an an area to force their signals on to cable systems. Satellite systems must follow defined market lines regardless of the station's OTA of cable coverage.

What stops a NY NBC channel from broadcasting their signal via satellite to my home in the South Bend television market? The affiliation agreement that the NBC station signed with WNDU TV --- NBC has granted first run rights for their network progamming to the local affiliates --- in my market that means WNDU. THAT is what prohibits WNBC from trying to sell their signal to me via satellite. They, as an affiliate, have promised not to interfere with WNDU.

SHVA through SHVERA have honored that contract and have not granted me permission to view WNBC without WNDU's permission (a waiver).

What you seem to be requesting is that the government override the private affilate contracts and force WNDU to give up its rights as an affiliate.

 

[FavreJL04]

My thought would be this. ASSUMING every market in the US was covered with the appropriate set of locals why not have it where you can pay for whatever set of locals you want AS LONG AS YOU FIRST pay for your own set of locals. For example, someone moves from Denver to Miami and wants to keep their Denver locals to follow events and sports from that area. That should be allowed as long as that person first subscribes to their current locals, which would be the Miami ones. That way the Miami subscribers are still supporting their own locals before they go off and support another set. Of course that would mean the satellite providers would have to supply every market's locals on a national beam. Wanna talk about some serious compressing issues (at least until they get their new birds up).

 

[James Long]

There is no way that E* (or D*) is going to offer all markets as ConUS. We are going to see that with HDs in some markets, but the spotbeam satellites are here to stay.

Offering a second market still interferes with the affiliate contract. If it is a second signal that can normally be viewed OTA or is defined as SV for cable it could be considered a shared customer ... but a Miami network station doesn't share viewers with Denver network station OTA or on cable ... why should the affilate contract be violated via satellite?

 

[FTA Michael]

What you seem to be requesting is that the government override the private affilate contracts and force WNDU to give up its rights as an affiliate.

I really am not trying to be flip, but yes, that should be obvious.

Governmental changes designed to benefit the greater good often override private contracts. Maybe a waste management company promised X controls in its landfill, then the EPA makes them add Y. Maybe an old neighborhood covenant specifies what flavors of people are not eligible to purchase houses. Maybe a lease forbids satellite dishes on apartment balconies. Sometimes changes are good. I'm sure you can find examples where changes at least appear to be bad.

The government (in theory "We") must decide how to balance individual rights with the greater good. Given that WNDU's license, its charter from the people, is to serve its viewing audience, I don't think it's beyond the realm of discussion that an absolute local monopoly on certain programming is in the best interests of those viewers.

The Superstations are available in most markets, yet local stations continue to thrive. Do you believe that it is impossible to create a mechanism whereby viewers may pay extra for distant networks?

PS, FavreJL04, I'm with you about "must buy locals first". On sports, that might be a sticking point, or it might drive up the fees to the content-provider pool.

 

[James Long]

Superstations are not members of a major network. Until The CW puts NBC into 5th place I doubt if the presence of national CW affiliates on satellite will harm local stations.

Perhaps they should handle this like Syndicated Exclusivity rules. Black out the out of market station when they are airing national programming that a local station holds the rights for. If people are really wanting the distants for news and other local information from another market a blacked out service would serve the purpose. Of course, they would have to black out syndicated programming as well as network programming.

 

[FTA Michael]

I agree that you're either going to have to use SyndEx-style treatment for network programming OR create a mechanism to otherwise compensate content creators. That could be one hairy mechanism!

But I don't understand your distinction about the Supers. Are you saying that distant CW programming doesn't harm local CW stations because nobody watches CW? To use a recent example, how is the ability to watch Enterprise on a different channel less harmful to locals than the ability to watch House?

 

[James Long]

Supers are a tightly defined set of stations. It isn't like just any CW station could become the next superstation. CW affiliates may or may not like the fact that there are optional sources for their programming. The stations didn't get added to satellite because they were CW affiliates - their purpose isn't to compete with local affiliates.

Distants were added precisely because of the network they are affiliated with. Do you believe a station like WNBC would be on satellite outside of its local market if it were not for it's NBC affiliation? Some might watch it for NY news ... but I would be suprised to find that nearly all of the viewership of WNBC as a distant is of NBC network programming.

Why should "House" be more protected than "Enterprise"? It probably shouldn't be. But you'll have to ask the CW. They gave permission to supers to be affiliates knowing that their stations are available via satellite in markets with other CW affiliates. Perhaps they are not as uptight about the rights as the big four networks. Perhaps being an affiliate of the CW is not as valuable as being a big four affiliate. Perhaps the CW would rather get their programs out than protect their local affiliates.

The law doesn't consider CW stations to be network stations. Even if they pushed NBC into fifth place they would not be considered network stations. If that is upsetting to the CW network and/or its affitates they can always press to change the law.

 

[Nick]

"...from the land of no DirecTV, no satellite radio, no WildBlue, no Nextel, no
Sprint, no Cingular, no Verizon, and no Vonage, and now no Super Bowl."

SkyREPORT: Letters to the Editor

Re: DIRECTV: Open Season on DISH Subs (http://www.skyreport.com/view.cfm?ReleaseID=62)

In a little over two weeks several thousand Alaskans are going to have to forgo football on the weekends, soap operas during the week, and whatever they find enjoyable in prime time network fare. It seems the action of a federal judge in the opposite corner of the country has decided a pretty significant number of DISH Network customers in Alaska will lose their distant networks. It seems a good number of these subs can't get any of the Alaska locals because the spot beam transponder doesn't reach them (and) it'll cost $1,000 to get another dish or one large enough to view that spot beam in their area.

The good news is that the judge in this case is not solely to blame. There is a little publicized part of SHVERA that prohibits importing a distant network into Alaska if a local channel package is available. The problem is the law didn't define "available" and the FCC didn't think it required clarification in a rule making. So now we have people who live in a DMA, without broadcast reception, who can't see the satellite with their local package being told they aren't allowed to have the big four networks. Even if they went through the process of getting a waiver from their local broadcaster, his Honor has still said no. We call this the "double whammy."

Does anybody really think that DIRECTV will provide a free DVR upgrade, no start up costs, next day installation, and $150 to someone in Egegik (58 11 08 N 157 22 32 W). Thanks for the offer, but we'd prefer your support in Congress no matter how long the odds. If you are really up for it then we will take a couple thousand. Just remember to supersize that antenna.

Why would the big four network presidents and all the broadcast affiliates ever seek a court injunction to deny your product to your customers? You might argue on who gets the right to sell it, but to seek a remedy that eliminates customers is pretty far out there. As a result the Super Bowl will get to some portions of rural Alaska when the VHS tape arrives from Anchorage a day or two later.

This has been brought to you from the land of no DIRECTV, no satellite radio, no WildBlue, no Nextel, no Sprint, no Cingular, no Verizon, and no Vonage, and now no Super Bowl.

-- Tom Brady

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission

 

[Dipper]

Alaska is in a very interesting situation. However, the article posted above is somewhat erroneous.

Legally, the Anchorage DMA consists of Anchorage, Kenai, and Mat-Su boroughs. The Fairbanks DMA consists only of Fairbanks North Star Borough. The Juneau DMA consists only of the City and Borough of Juneau. That leaves the remaining 22 boroughs and census areas (well over 75% of the state) as true "white" areas-- not part of any DMA. No other state in the US has such areas. In the other 49 states, every county or parish is in some city's DMA, even if you can't get a signal over the air.

So let's take Egegik, for example (as mentioned above). Egegik is located outside of all three Alaska DMAs. It is legal for Egegik residents to receive local stations from no more than 2 markets. Court decision or not, that will not change.

As for limited spot beam coverage, that is correct. But you also have to realize that Alaska is so large that in the extreme western parts of the state, 110 and 119 are below the horizon altogether.

Not that I'm defending the networks or their cohorts in congress. Just clearing up some misconceptions. We don't have Nextel, WildBlue, Cingular, satellite radio, Sprint, Verizon, or Vonage (unless you use an out-of-state area code). We're used to seeing things advertised on TV that we can't buy. But it's a pretty good bet we will have the Superbowl. Besides, even if rural Alaska does have its distant locals yanked by Dish, there's always Equity Broadcasting on Galaxy 10.

 

[James Long]

Please check the changes that SHVERA made for Alaska.
Special targeted legislation that allows the satellite carrier to define "non-DMA areas" as part of one of the DMA.

 

[Dipper]

It does allow the satellite carrier (emphasis) to define non-DMA areas as part of a DMA. But the satellite carrier (in this case Dish) wants to make distant locals available wherever legal. They are mounting a huge legal fight to be able to do so. If they had their way everyone would have the option to receive distant locals. So it makes sense that distant locals would continue to be available outside the legal DMAs.

 

[Mark Holtz]

I, personally, would not mind subscribing to San Francisco locals if, as a compromise, I first have to subscribe to the Sacramento locals. I can live with that.

But, the broadcasters can't live with that. Why? Because, under the guise of "local community service", they do not want to lose out on local advertising revenue. They aren't concerned about the viewers watching the programming, instead, they are concerned about the viewers watching the advertising.

And, in some cases, they play games with the viewer. How many have a channel horror story to share? How about:

• A CBS affiliate stick with "early prime", and is the only station to do so in the pacific time zone.
• A few drops of rain fall in a area, and, after a commerical break, programming is interrupted for wall-to-wall weather coverage.
• Stations that decide to pre-empt a pivital drama for a locally produced program.
• Stations which withhold programming from a DBS provider for compensation reasons, and won't allow you to subscribe to an alternative.

Also, there is the issue of Syndication Exclusivity that we have to deal with that pre-dates DBS providers.

Oh well, it's only TV... that we pay for.

Sigh... just think of the games that the NFL Sunday Ticket plays with local broadcasters.

 

[James Long]

For reference:

17 USC 122 (D)(2) Local market. -
(D) CERTAIN AREAS OUTSIDE OF ANY DESIGNATED MARKET AREA.-
Any census area, borough, or other area in the State of Alaska that is outside of a designated market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research, shall be deemed to be part of one of the local markets in the State of Alaska. A satellite carrier may determine which local market in the State of Alaska will be deemed to be the relevant local market in connection with each subscriber in such census area, borough, or other area.​

Who determines which market any out of DMA area belongs to? A satellite carrier.

BTW: E* is losing distants due to the permanent injunction, but they would have lost them anyways in Alaska to any customer to whom any Alaskan local market was available. See 17 USC 119 (a)(16). The good news is that E* can carry any Alaskan LIL in non-DMA areas and people can legally receive networks without 17 USC 119.