ALL AMERICAN DIRECT HDTV CHANNELS

[Hall]

I thought there was no law with digital distants, and the current law was for analoge only...

Any know how to look this "law" up ? I'd be surprised that they made a distinction between analog and digital. Did digital channels even exist when it was written ? Presume it didn't distinguish... Viewers and or companies such as Dish, DirecTV, and cablecos will interpret it so it's in their favor. The broadcasters will interpret it 180' opposite. Neither side is right (and neither side is wrong).

 

[levibluewa]

The rumor is that HD is tied to the new 129 sat and how much Charlie is going to charge AAD for transponder space. Can they get 8hd channels on 1 transponder without making it look worse than analog!

 

[MikeD-C05]

So if eastern arc subs want hd distants , and they are on 129 sat (someday soon if rumor is true), then it looks like they will need a side sat dish for 129 .

 

[levibluewa]

I think it would be wise to wait till they're confirmed on! I suppose Charlie could mirror the channels on 72.7 for free so eastern arc folk wouldn't have to put up a side dish.

 

[amoni]

It's almost 2009. If I can walk into any Borders or major newsstand in the country and pick up the NY or LA Times, or watch any city's news free on line I should be able to pay to get distant channels. I can see having to subscribe to my own locals to "protect" their advertisers, as a requirement to get the distant even though my own so called "locals" are two and half hours away and I've never had any desire to travel to that area for a pizza.

 

[Yes616]

It's almost 2009. If I can walk into any Borders or major newsstand in the country and pick up the NY or LA Times, or watch any city's news free on line I should be able to pay to get distant channels. I can see having to subscribe to my own locals to "protect" their advertisers, as a requirement to get the distant even though my own so called "locals" are two and half hours away and I've never had any desire to travel to that area for a pizza.

:up

 

[kstuart]

Only meaning that historically democrats have written laws that benefit the common populace.

That doesn't match the actual record. Both sides make that claim, and actually most laws make life more difficult for everyone, especially laws added in the past 150 years.

The DMCA is a good example of that, and it passed with heavy support of both parties.

I can hear the politicians now writing their lines about how the local channels benefit the common populace.

 

[MikeD-C05]

That doesn't match the actual record. Both sides make that claim, and actually most laws make life more difficult for everyone, especially laws added in the past 150 years.

The DMCA is a good example of that, and it passed with heavy support of both parties.

I can hear the politicians now writing their lines about how the local channels benefit the common populace.

Okay politics aside, my point is that I believe that the next congress will write some laws that benefit the majority of the populace in regards to hd distants if they do indeed allow them at all. I think in order to make sure that no one is left without access to hd networks, they will allow more people to get them . It is extremely hard to receive hd or digital ota broadcast in some wide areas of the country. Due to terrain or mountains, or just the digital signal doesn't cover as wide an area as the analog signal did. I'm betting that since there is no specific law written about digital white areas, that the new congress will feel the need to address it . Especially if sat providers like Charlie ,decide that the old rules for analog distants, no longer apply in the digital world. By then quite a few people could already be subbing to digital hd distants. You know Charlie -anything for a buck.

 

[photoman76]

The rumor is that HD is tied to the new 129 sat and how much Charlie is going to charge AAD for transponder space. Can they get 8hd channels on 1 transponder without making it look worse than analog!

AAD is currently using two C band transponders to send the San Francisco and Atlanta locals to Dish Network. If they switch to HD, they are going to need more C band bandwidth also. I'm not sure the increased costs will be made up by more subscribers.

 

[MikeD-C05]

IF ADD did do Hd distants I am sure that DISH could provide a nice link to the ADD website so the DISH customers who didn't have hd locals yet could get them . This would benefit DISH because it would fill a gap in programming that DISH can't fill yet and it could also mean more rent paid to DISH for every sub that AAD creates with the new hd service. I am sure that we here on this web board would help spread the word as well to all we know and the subs would continue to grow.

 

[nrholland]

I have a Superdish pointed at 110, 119, and 118.5, as well as a side dish for 61.5. If the rumor is true that the distant HD S.F.-Atlanta channels are going to 129, will Dish or AAD provide me with a new dish so I can get 129? I really don't want a third dish on my roof to get 129. By then, I will have two 722 receivers that can pick up everything on the eastern arc (61.5, 72, 77). Dish should give me a new ea dish and a side dish for 129. Hopefully Euronews would stay at 61.5, because with a new setup like I described I would lose 118.5.

 

[levibluewa]

RE: 129

Sounds like you have a dish 500+ (110/118.75/119). You could replace it with a 1000+ (110/118.75/119/129) and still just have 2 dishes. Why would you want "easter arc"? I doubt DISH will give you a freebie upgrade. DISH is not suppose to have anything to do with AAD, and if you want their signals I'm sure AAD does not have the resources to pay for your dish. They may not have the resources to pay Charlie for the transponder space on the new 129. I think it would be in Charlie's interest to see that this happens, but not everyone shares my perspective on the world and finances.

 

[levibluewa]

Sorry...

Eastern Arc, oh well, its all Biblical!

 

[jacmyoung]

The reason DISH was prohibited from providing the SD distants was because DISH gave the programming to people who were not qualified to receive them.

DISH can make a very strong case to be allowed to offer the distant HD signals if provisions can be put in to ensure only the people in the true white areas get them, or those that get proper waiver.

 

[kstuart]

I have a Superdish pointed at 110, 119, and 118.5, as well as a side dish for 61.5. If the rumor is true that the distant HD S.F.-Atlanta channels are going to 129, will Dish or AAD provide me with a new dish so I can get 129? I really don't want a third dish on my roof to get 129. By then, I will have two 722 receivers that can pick up everything on the eastern arc (61.5, 72, 77). Dish should give me a new ea dish and a side dish for 129. Hopefully Euronews would stay at 61.5, because with a new setup like I described I would lose 118.5.

If that rumor were true, you just repoint your 61.5 dish to 129.

The only things on 61.5 that are not on 129 are locals, and you can't subscribe to locals and distants.

 

[Derwin0]

and you can't subscribe to locals and distants.

Actually you can. If you are in a white area, legally you can get your locals from Dish and distants from AAD.

 

[kstuart]

Okay politics aside, my point is that I believe that the next congress will write some laws that benefit the majority of the populace in regards to hd distants if they do indeed allow them at all. I think in order to make sure that no one is left without access to hd networks, they will allow more people to get them.

But that has been the same argument made over the past 10 years to Congress, and they (both Democrats and Republicans) have consistently sided with the argument that " local channels need to be protected " ( and the unstated followup " because we air your political ads " ).

Just about everyone can get HD network by cable or OTA, and the ones who cannot are generally covered by DirecTV and Dish, and the ones who have none of the above are a tiny fraction.

Most of the whining about HD locals in this Forum are from people who have some alternative, but prefer the 722, or have a 24-month commitment, or hate their cable company, etc.

The ones who truly have no way to see HD network TV are a tiny fraction who do not constitute any sort of voting block.

 

[MikeD-C05]

But that has been the same argument made over the past 10 years to Congress, and they (both Democrats and Republicans) have consistently sided with the argument that " local channels need to be protected " ( and the unstated followup " because we air your political ads " ).

Just about everyone can get HD network by cable or OTA, and the ones who cannot are generally covered by DirecTV and Dish, and the ones who have none of the above are a tiny fraction.

Most of the whining about HD locals in this Forum are from people who have some alternative, but prefer the 722, or have a 24-month commitment, or hate their cable company, etc.

The ones who truly have no way to see HD network TV are a tiny fraction who do not constitute any sort of voting block.

Well I hope that this time that congress does what I said and allow more people access to hd distants rather than protect broadcasters.

 

[jacmyoung]

But that has been the same argument made over the past 10 years to Congress, and they (both Democrats and Republicans) have consistently sided with the argument that " local channels need to be protected " ( and the unstated followup " because we air your political ads " ).

Just about everyone can get HD network by cable or OTA, and the ones who cannot are generally covered by DirecTV and Dish, and the ones who have none of the above are a tiny fraction.

Most of the whining about HD locals in this Forum are from people who have some alternative, but prefer the 722, or have a 24-month commitment, or hate their cable company, etc.

The ones who truly have no way to see HD network TV are a tiny fraction who do not constitute any sort of voting block.

It is mostly economics rather politics. Your local networks affilliates invest a great deal to build and keep the facilities and personnel, and get the exclusive right to broadcast the network signals, in the hope that the programming will sell enough local ads to provide the revenue streams to cover the expenses and make a profit. It is a business model still in use in the US today.

It is not up to the Congress to say hey people not in the viewing area should be allowed to receive out of the market signals, because your local affilliates' exclusive broadcast rights are protected by law, the Congress cannot simply create a new law to override an existing law, if the new law is itself not constitutional.

The Congress can have a law today to force the distant signals be received everywhere, but such law stands no chance from NAB challenge on constitutional ground.

The political ad dollars are small compared to the commercial ad money your local stations get.

 

[jayn_j]

It is mostly economics rather politics. Your local networks affilliates invest a great deal to build and keep the facilities and personnel, and get the exclusive right to broadcast the network signals, in the hope that the programming will sell enough local ads to provide the revenue streams to cover the expenses and make a profit. It is a business model still in use in the US today.

Actually, I see the networks steadily eroding the value of the network programming to the affiliates. The content is generally available on the web as soon as it is broadcast on the west coast. Popular programs are increasingly available on the secondary networks (usa, bravo, soapnet, family, etc) a day after being on network. More and more quality shows are being premiered on the networks cable only feeds as well (i.e. Monk, Burn Notice, etc)

The Congress can have a law today to force the distant signals be received everywhere, but such law stands no chance from NAB challenge on constitutional ground.

Where is the constitutional issue here? States' rights? I just don't see any constitutional precedent that protects such a regional monopoly. Yes, there are laws and FCC rulings that protect the affiliates, but laws and rules can be changed by congress through simple legislation. Show me where the founding fathers foresaw broadcast exclusivity

The political ad dollars are small compared to the commercial ad money your local stations get.

Yeah, but they are a big deal to the politicians that make these laws.