Dish Network: Distant Networks

[Mr Tony]

Angels/Sox are on KCOP

Local listings for Week 11 — Saturday, July 29
(as of 7/24/06 @ 12:30 p.m. - Games and listings subject to change)

1 P.M. GAME SUMMARIES:
1=Angels @ Red Sox - 28% — Josh Lewin, Jerry Remy, Ken Rosenthal
2=Mets @ Braves - 32% — Kenny Albert, Lou Piniella


4 P.M. GAME SUMMARIES:
3=Cardinals @ Cubs - 24% — Joe Buck, Tim McCarver
4=Nationals @ Dodgers - 15% — Thom Brennaman, Steve Lyons


* NOTE: Los Angeles / KCOP will air Angels @ Red Sox at 1 p.m., while Los Angeles / KTTV will air Nationals @ Dodgers at 4 p.m.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Drat

I figured that based on prior expierence. Much as I love the Dodgers the Angels are much farther up in the standings but the Dodgers good or bad always get priority when the two are on the air at the same time.

KCOP aka UPN 13 Los Angeles is the over the air broadcaster for the Angels and is owned by FOX. . . .

Watched that station quite a bit when I was back in LA in June for the first time in 11 years. It figures both the Dodgers and the Angels are on over the air stations that are not available on DNS. While the Yankees and Mets over the air stations are available to some of us WWOR NY Yankees who beat up Tampa Bay tonight and WPIX NY Mets who seemed to have the Atlanta Braves under control.


You would think they would have some form of MLB Extra Innings for the FOX game of the week like they do with the NFL on Sunday.


Bob

 

[micklewhite]

I give up. You don't get it and are never going to get it. Your second paragraph shows that you don't even have a grasp of how DBS works. If it were as you say, why do you need E* or D*? You also have no clue as to how OTA is financed. I may choose to give money to Person X. But that does not mean that Person Y may raid my bank account just because he has the technological means to do so. How do people develop such warped values?

No. YOU are the one missing the point. We are not stealing anything. Those signals are already broadcast FREE via OTA. We wish to use technology to view those signals in areas other than they are originally broadcast.

These signals are not decrypted. They do not require a special subscription. You do not have to pay for these signals in any way other than for the hardware to receive them. They are FREE from the source.

I wish to view these FREE broadcast televison signals. Unfortunately, my regular TV reception hardware is not capable of receiving NY stations in CA. However, with the help of Dish Network (or DirecTV, or a SlingBox, or a PC with a TV Tuner card) I can now receive those FREE broadcast signals.

Why is there a law preventing me from doing this, which is my right as a US citizen? (I know there is no laws against the SlingBox YET. But, if things continue as they are, THERE WILL BE. That is the main reason SlingMedia did not build DVR functions into the SlingPlayer software. They are worried about lawsuits. As it is, the MLB is already trying to stop the SlingBox because it allows people to see out of market games. )

Is there a law against bigass antennas and signal boosters? Of course not. These also allow some people to receive signals outside of their DMA. Why is my cable company allowed to provide some out of market stations on my cable system? Granted, they are from nearby DMA's. But, they are still outside DMA's.

Of course, if the technology provider is charging a specific fee to retransmit these signals, then they need to share this fee with the original providers. But, otherwise, FREE broadcast television from any area in the country should be available to watch in any other area of the country.

It couldn't be any simpler than that.

The thing that's really crazy about the broadcasters being against this is that it increases viewership! You'd think they'd want MORE viewers. I guess the quality of their programming isn't the only clue that these people are morons.

 

[GaryPen]

I give up. You don't get it and are never going to get it. Your second paragraph shows that you don't even have a grasp of how DBS works. If it were as you say, why do you need E* or D*? You also have no clue as to how OTA is financed. I may choose to give money to Person X. But that does not mean that Person Y may raid my bank account just because he has the technological means to do so. How do people develop such warped values?

I get it just fine, if by "get it" you mean understand how it works. I just disagree with "it", because it is simply wrong. I understand fully well how OTA is financed. It is based on a broadcasting model that dates back to the radio days of the 1920's when the physical limitations of the OTA broadcast signal forced it to be that way.

I am not stealing a damn thing by viewing FREE OVER THE AIR broadcasts from outside of the stations DMA. Even using your inappropriate analogy, of person Y stealing person X's money. You see, if you were to throw money in the air (the public air) , thinking that with the weight and shape of the money combined with existing air currents, that money will only travel far enough for person X to retrieve it... But, person Y had the means to retreive that money OUT OF THE AIR from a far greater distance, person Y certainly is not stealing that money that was thrown in the air and offered to the public FOR FREE to begin with.

If broadcasters don't want Person Y to receive signals they only want Person X to receive, then they need to transmit those signals to him in a closed system, either through a direct cable, satellite, microwave, fiber, IP, etc system, or through encryption of the OTA signal. But, they are not doing that. They are broadcasting via OPEN, FREE-TO-THE-PUBLIC airwaves. As such, those signals are FREE TO THE PUBLIC. Why do YOU not get this?

As for the antiquated way they their ad revenue system is currently run...well...they need to change it to catch up with the 21st century. If local broadcaster are worried about losing local viewers, they should think about GAINING distant viewers. They simply need to keep track of how many people subscribe to which channels. I should be able to choose ANY distant channels from ANY market, and the ad revenues should be based on how many people actually subscribe to the various channels, combined with Neilson and other traditional methods.

And remember, they will still keep the bulk of their local viewers, who mostly use OTA or cable systems incapable of providing distant stations.

It always amazes me how many people are always so willing to throw themselves on the grenade in defense of corporations greedy practices at the expense of consumers. Guys like you probably defend oil companies, Enron, Wal-mart, and the pharmaceutical companies that fight tooth and nail against fair competition, consumer protection, workers' rights, or environmental responsibility.

Yeah. It's great to be rich. Having lots of money really rocks. I'll be the first to admit it. It's even a goal of mine. But, there is plenty of money to be made by doing the right thing and serving the public properly. (as well as your own employees.) No need to screw the public. It should be a symbiotic relationship, not an adversarial one.

 

[micklewhite]

We are not talking about OTA. We are talking about satellite delivery. You do understand that E* and D* are satellite television companies, don't you? The signals ARE encrypted. That is why you have to subscribe to them. That is why you need a receiver. E* is just a delivery mechanism. The content doesn't belong to them. I can't believe you are this dense so you must be just jerking my chain. Let's try a different analogy. It is like the owner of Picassos (network) hiring Loomis Armored (E*) to deliver the art (programming) to clients (subscribers). Under the agreement, Loomis is to deliver to the people the owners have agreed to sell to. You cannot hijack the truck and take the art even if you leave the equivalent value in cash. Nor can you bribe Loomis to deliver to you instead of/in addition to the intended recipients. It ain't yours. The owners ARE NOT putting it out for anybody. Now if they do decide to put stuff out on the street that anyone can pick up (local broadcasting), you are free to take as much as you want/can (obviously you have to be in the neighborhood). This in no way affects the status of the armored car delivery EVEN IF the objects are identical. You are stealing - you are taking something from the rightful owner without permission or legal authority. The fact that E* acts as an intermediary or that you pay E* for the product doesn't change the situation any more that a receiver of stolen goods paying the local fence. Nor does your ability to get it for free under other circumstances.

 

[micklewhite]

Just a few words about Slingbox. I am not familiar with this product but I gather it is essentially a way to relay TV via the internet. How does this impact this issue? I don't know that it does. The reception of the signal is still being accomplished at the same location. In some respects, relaying the local MLB game to Aunt Tilly's is not much different than if you had recorded it and took the tape. If you are a legal subscriber, I don't think many people are going to care unless you set up a company to do wholesale retransmission. It will still have the local commercials. Frankly, I would think it would be too much of a hassle to use except on rare occasions. How the law develops depends upon the technology and how it is used. This is always true. You seem to have a "if I can do it, I should be able to do it" mentality. Our society does not work that way and the law reflects it. If you really think about it, I'm sure you will understand why.

 

[GaryPen]

Just a few words about Slingbox. I am not familiar with this product but I gather it is essentially a way to relay TV via the internet. How does this impact this issue? I don't know that it does. The reception of the signal is still being accomplished at the same location. In some respects, relaying the local MLB game to Aunt Tilly's is not much different than if you had recorded it and took the tape. If you are a legal subscriber, I don't think many people are going to care unless you set up a company to do wholesale retransmission. It will still have the local commercials. Frankly, I would think it would be too much of a hassle to use except on rare occasions. How the law develops depends upon the technology and how it is used. This is always true. You seem to have a "if I can do it, I should be able to do it" mentality. Our society does not work that way and the law reflects it. If you really think about it, I'm sure you will understand why.

This shows how much YOU understand the technology. I can setup a Slingbox in NYC. It will receive local free OTA broadcasts and convert them to a digital stream to transmit via the Internet to my PC 3000 miles away in California. It is no trouble at all to use, can be used 24/7, and costs less than $200 with no monthly fee. (Of course, you need a host location, such as a friend or relative's home or business, with a broadband connection. No big deal.)

If you see no ethical, moral, or legal issue with using the Slingbox system to view out-of-market programming, then you are a huge hypocrite that obviously has some personal issue with Dish. There is no difference between the two other than Dish charging a fee. Obviously, and I don't think anyone would argue this point, a portion of that fee should be given to the orginal broadcast stations/networks.

If you do see a problem with the Slingbox, in addition to your weak argument against DNS via satellite, then you are obviously either a shill for the broadcasters (work or have some other vested interest in their business), or just have a weird emotional attachment to them. (It wouldn't surpise me. You should see how many people are attached to Dish like it was a member of their family.)

 

[GaryPen]

We are not talking about OTA. We are talking about satellite delivery. You do understand that E* and D* are satellite television companies, don't you? The signals ARE encrypted. That is why you have to subscribe to them. That is why you need a receiver. E* is just a delivery mechanism. The content doesn't belong to them. I can't believe you are this dense so you must be just jerking my chain. Let's try a different analogy. It is like the owner of Picassos (network) hiring Loomis Armored (E*) to deliver the art (programming) to clients (subscribers). Under the agreement, Loomis is to deliver to the people the owners have agreed to sell to. You cannot hijack the truck and take the art even if you leave the equivalent value in cash. Nor can you bribe Loomis to deliver to you instead of/in addition to the intended recipients. It ain't yours. The owners ARE NOT putting it out for anybody. Now if they do decide to put stuff out on the street that anyone can pick up (local broadcasting), you are free to take as much as you want/can (obviously you have to be in the neighborhood). This in no way affects the status of the armored car delivery EVEN IF the objects are identical. You are stealing - you are taking something from the rightful owner without permission or legal authority. The fact that E* acts as an intermediary or that you pay E* for the product doesn't change the situation any more that a receiver of stolen goods paying the local fence. Nor does your ability to get it for free under other circumstances.

Again, you are wrong. We are indeed talking about a signal that is originally broadcast for FREE, OVER THE AIR.

And, again, to use your analogy to prove my point (as I did so succesfully a few posts above), the broadcasters are not locking their Picasso in an armored car. They are putting it out on the street FOR FREE, for all passersby to see. However, they are assuming that only the local passers-by will be able to view it. But wait! Along comes a 3rd party with a video camera, and transmits the image of the Picasso 3000 miles away so people who don't live in the originating city can still view it.

Is this wrong? Should it be against the law? Of course not.

 

[Tampa8]

If there were no specific laws, it would be correct that if you had technology to "pick" the signal from the "free" air from a distance you should have the right to watch it. But there are laws, especially content right laws. Thus you have the DMA's established, and where there are and are not "free air" signals. You have the right under the law to view the content that belongs to the broadcaster if you live in the DMA. If you do not live in the DMA, if the broadcaster who also has the rights for that content but in your DMA allows you to watch from the distant broadcaster then you can too. Also, if the broadcaster in your DMA cannot deliver a good enough signal OTA, then you may also receive the out of DMA signal.

So I don't really see the arguement that it is "free" to watch to be really correct. That statement would be it is free to watch in the designated DMA

And if there were a way, they would probably block you from watching on your OTA antenna if you were out of the DMA.

 

[GaryPen]

If there were no specific laws, it would be correct that if you had technology to "pick" the signal from the "free" air from a distance you should have the right to watch it. But there are laws, especially content right laws. Thus you have the DMA's established, and where there are and are not "free air" signals. You have the right under the law to view the content that belongs to the broadcaster if you live in the DMA. If you do not live in the DMA, if the broadcaster who also has the rights for that content but in your DMA allows you to watch from the distant broadcaster then you can too. Also, if the broadcaster in your DMA cannot deliver a good enough signal OTA, then you may also receive the out of DMA signal.

An antiquated system based on technology almost a century old that has created local monopolies using free airwave spectrum owned by the citizens of this country. To defend it is the same as defending the cable companies who tried to prevent dbs from ever being offered, as they had exclusive franchise rights to provide closed system programming in specific geographical areas.

So I don't really see the arguement that it is "free" to watch to be really correct. That statement would be it is free to watch in the designated DMA

By the current law, yes. The point is that the law needs to be changed, as has created geographic monopolies.

And if there were a way, they would probably block you from watching on your OTA antenna if you were out of the DMA.

Possibly, out of some neanderthal mentality. But, they'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The fact is... MORE viewers, the better. And.. a strong argument could be made against the coinstituationality of such blockage of (I know I sound like a broken record here, but some people don't get it) FREE BROADCAST SIGNALS VIA FREE BROADCAST SPECTRUM.

 

[micklewhite]

Please read carefully. You didn't do so with my last post.

This shows how much YOU understand the technology. I can setup a Slingbox in NYC. It will receive local free OTA broadcasts and convert them to a digital stream to transmit via the Internet to my PC 3000 miles away in California. It is no trouble at all to use, can be used 24/7, and costs less than $200 with no monthly fee. (Of course, you need a host location, such as a friend or relative's home or business, with a broadband connection. No big deal.)

You are quite a nasty person, aren't you? If you read carefully, I indicated that I was not familiar with Slingbox. However, your description is essentially what I wrote. You set up a Slingbox in Town X. This device captures OTA signals and forwards them to a computer in Town Y. What commercials are you watching? Town X's. In essence you are remotely watching Town X in Town Y. Except for timing, this is no different than recording the Town X signal and playing it on a VCR in Town Y. Will this be a problem? I don't know but since the signal is free OTA and being used only for personal purposes, I doubt it. If you tried to set up a commercial enterprise to rebroadcast OTA signals you would be in deep doo doo. This is NOT the same as receiving Town X signals in Town Y via DBS. If it were not for the fact that the signals are encrypted, you could receive them FTA. This would be analogous to local OTA. No problem. The content owners DO protect it and license its distribution (e.g. via E*) under the law and contractual obligations. You apparently cannot understand this distinction.

If you see no ethical, moral, or legal issue with using the Slingbox system to view out-of-market programming, then you are a huge hypocrite that obviously has some personal issue with Dish. There is no difference between the two other than Dish charging a fee. Obviously, and I don't think anyone would argue this point, a portion of that fee should be given to the orginal broadcast stations/networks.

Again it depends. As far as I know there is no specific prohibition against Slingbox-type technology. The copyright law still applies. However your little operation is probably permitted under the fair use exception. If it becomes a problem, the law will change to address it. It is no different than people who own scanners that can pick up cellular calls. It is now illegal to do so (intercept the call, not own the scanner). The fact that you have a (older) scanner (with no modifications whatsoever) that can pick up cell calls does not give you the right to do so.

If you do see a problem with the Slingbox, in addition to your weak argument against DNS via satellite, then you are obviously either a shill for the broadcasters (work or have some other vested interest in their business), or just have a weird emotional attachment to them. (It wouldn't surpise me. You should see how many people are attached to Dish like it was a member of their family.)

No. Once again I am for doing what is right. DNS via satellite is permitted under certain conditions. I have no problem with legal DNS. I do not agree that anybody who can find a technological way around the law or can convince a DBS company to provide DNS illegally is somehow a virtuous freedom fighter. He is a thief, pure and simple. To answer your last point neither I nor any member of my family works for or has an financial interest in any aspect of the broadcasting industry including DBS.

 

[minnow]

Mickelwhite posted this from another Board which seems to indicate all the local channels he is qualified for:

Congratulations! You live in the Sacramento DMA, the 19th largest in the country and are eligible for the following LOCAL channels. Why the heck do you need distants?

SACRAMENTO ABC-KXTV 10
SACRAMENTO ABC-KXTV IN HD 10
SACRAMENTO AZTECA-KTNC 42
SACRAMENTO CBS-KOVR 13
SACRAMENTO CBS-KOVR IN HD 13
SACRAMENTO FOX-KTXL 40
SACRAMENTO NBC-KCRA 3
SACRAMENTO NBC-KCRA IN HD 3
SACRAMENTO PAX-KSPX 29
SACRAMENTO PBS-KVIE 6
SACRAMENTO TELEF-KTFK 64
SACRAMENTO UNVSN-KUVS 19
SACRAMENTO UPN-KMAX 31
SACRAMENTO WB-KQCA 58
SACRAMENTO WB-KQCA IN HD 58


Which explains why he could care less about those of us that don't have any selection of locals. It's either Distants or nothing. If I had the ability to choose even half the # of network choices Mickle had, I too could afford to sport a caviler attitude.

 

[Mr Tony]

minnow

That wasn't this person's. Since I can see more than the average viewer (ie: staff rights) Mickle isn't in California.

But Mickle either
A. Works for a TV station (or someone close to it)
B. Works for the NAB
C. just wants to post to piss people off
D. Has a book report due on the 1st day of school of "what did I do on my summer vacation"

 

[cj9788]

People want DNS. Peeople are willing to pay for them. Why the NAB and their members do not see the revenue that can be generated by alowing DBS or even cable for that matter to deliver as many local markets as the bandwidth would allow boggels the mind. There could be a DNS package of say 5 or 6 or how ever many local markets for say 30.00 bucks a month. People would eat that up.

Some people would rather argue that you have no reason to want any thing more than what you can get from your local DMA. Others argue that they want as many DMA's that they can get. I am on the side of the consumer. The market should decide this not the NAB and their enforcers in D.C. They are the ones holding on to a 60 year old business model that is in need of a makeover.

They are begining to learn this by the recent availabilty of programing content for sale on the internet. If they can only see the millions of customers that want DNS and will pay $$ to have them. But hey they want to keep things the way they are. They refuse to see what is right in front of them an audience all over the country just wishing and waiting for them to see the obvious.

 

[micklewhite]

Not quite. While I admire your detective work, your premise is flawed. This was a response to someone who (if I recall correctly) couldn't live without DNS. I merely listed his LIL eligibility to demonstrate that the motivation for many "any DNS to anybody at anytime, anywhere" proponents has got to be something other than the programming. Nice try though. And you do realize that this an ad hominem attack. That is you are attacking the person (me) rather than my arguments. Even if this were a list of my locals and I were receiving same it would not impact the validity, strength (or lack thereof, if you like) the points I have made. And I have not, repeat, have not said one negative word about people who are legally receiving DNS. My problem is with those who refuse to acknowledge that there are other (more important) considerations in this issue than their own desires and demand DNS even though they are not legally eligible.

P.S. "Could care less" means that I am not at the nadir of my caring. Perhaps you meant "could NOT care less"? Curiously the way you phrased it is the accurate characterization.

Mickelwhite posted this from another Board which seems to indicate all the local channels he is qualified for:

Congratulations! You live in the Sacramento DMA, the 19th largest in the country and are eligible for the following LOCAL channels. Why the heck do you need distants?

SACRAMENTO ABC-KXTV 10
SACRAMENTO ABC-KXTV IN HD 10
SACRAMENTO AZTECA-KTNC 42
SACRAMENTO CBS-KOVR 13
SACRAMENTO CBS-KOVR IN HD 13
SACRAMENTO FOX-KTXL 40
SACRAMENTO NBC-KCRA 3
SACRAMENTO NBC-KCRA IN HD 3
SACRAMENTO PAX-KSPX 29
SACRAMENTO PBS-KVIE 6
SACRAMENTO TELEF-KTFK 64
SACRAMENTO UNVSN-KUVS 19
SACRAMENTO UPN-KMAX 31
SACRAMENTO WB-KQCA 58
SACRAMENTO WB-KQCA IN HD 58


Which explains why he could care less about those of us that don't have any selection of locals. It's either Distants or nothing. If I had the ability to choose even half the # of network choices Mickle had, I too could afford to sport a caviler attitude.

 

[micklewhite]

minnow

That wasn't this person's. Since I can see more than the average viewer (ie: staff rights) Mickle isn't in California.

But Mickle either
A. Works for a TV station (or someone close to it)
B. Works for the NAB
C. just wants to post to piss people off
D. Has a book report due on the 1st day of school of "what did I do on my summer vacation"

Well, your staff rights aren't all they're cracked up to be.
A, B, C, D are all false. As I explained to minnow, my position is that if you can legally receive DNS - have at it. Feel free to express your desire for more and more DNS. However, the way the law is - you do not get each and every DNS you might want. It isn't a conspiracy against your constitutional rights. You might want to read Article I, Section 8 for starters. I find it quite disheartening to find people who think the most important consideration in this whole affair is what they want. Property rights be damned. Local affiliate survival be damned. It's all about them. I don't know how one becomes a staff member but I would guess that the basics of copyright and the statutory license are something you understand. But I've been surprised before.....

 

[micklewhite]

By the way, don't be too confident about what you know. I don't live in California but the Midwest as is indicated on every post (don't know why minnow didn't see that) but I happen to be in Georgia at the moment (bet you didn't guess that). The relay router I use (with about a hundred other people) is back home. I only have a telephone line here. Techniques such as IP analysis or route tracing are of limited use. I could spoof being in New York and Seattle simultaneously.

 

[cj9788]

Mick,

You have an agenda and it is clear that YOU do not want any one to receive DNS. Does this look familiar?

"How many NETWORK feeds do you need? DNS was not authorized so you can watch the local news or sports in a different city. It was to provide network programming to those who could not receive it any other way."

" If you have LIL (or can get it) there is no reason for you to get DNS (and it is a violation of the law). "

"Your distants are somebody Else's locals. So why are you willing to pay for multiple buckets of 20 hour a day INFOMERCIAL crap!"

"I watch very little network TV but I have a plethora of other choices. What exactly do you get from a distant network that you don't on the local that is so important to you? "

You are a smart poster you have a lot of valid points but your holier than thou attitude is oozing and dripping from most of your posts. It is clear that you do not approve of DNS for every one but if people want it and are willing to pay for it why does it bother you so much?

I am upset with E* as well. They should have had the records available to the courts. There are thousands of subs that are in white areas and with waivers able to recv DNS and E* failed to produce the records. Why? I do not know, but i do know that E* did do alot to comply especially after the June 2003 ruling. E* cut many many many subs of. They changed the address broker to limit the number of eligible DNS subs. They re-qualified every one. Why was that evidence not provided to the court. After 2003 if you did not reside in or "move" to a white area you could not have DNS with E*. So how you or the NAB can say E* did not do enough is beyond comprehension.

 

[dodge]

"I watch very little network TV but I have a plethora of other choices. What exactly do you get from a distant network that you don't on the local that is so important to you? "[/I]



1.Out of Market sports (nfl games)
2.News from another city that you may be from catch up whats going on at home
3.Timeshifted programming
4. Great locally originated programming
5. tons of more great syndicated shows such as the simpsons, seinfeld and every loves raymond...

 

[wayne231]

Mick: You seem to expouse a lot about something being the law. This country was founded on certain beliefs and the founders went to great pain to guarantee those beliefs. Later generations have interpreted what the founders "meant" and formulated "law" that is guite contrary to what was intended. The pre-amble to the constituition states what can and can-not be a law. Please provide me with your reason's why the current "law" passes any of these requirements: form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. I dare to venture that current "law" even violates the provisions.