Dish Network: Distant Networks

[Greg Bimson]

Is it? Then why are you even bothering to worry about the issue?

Because the government is telling me what channels I can and can't watch.

Actually, this is incorrect.

Without any government intervention at all, in 1988, NBC would have went dark on C-Band. This would have been followed by the rest of the networks at some point.

The government stepped in. The government realized the networks were about to cut-off those that had no way of receiving network TV, those in a truly white-area. Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewers Act of 1988, and President Reagan signed it into law. This allowed anyone to rebroadcast any network station to a consumer, provided they lived outside of the Grade B broadcasting area of a local affiliate.

So, the government wasn't dictating which channels you could not watch. The government gave access to channels that you could watch.

The same issue applies to the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act (SHVIA) of 1999. The only difference in this bill is that the copyrights were cleared for in-market viewing. The government again did not dictate which channels you could not watch, just enable access to those you could watch.

Think about it. If KTTV, the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, wanted to be shown nationwide, they could. All they need to do is sign a nationwide carriage contract like ESPN does, and also clear all their copyrighted content, which ESPN does. There is no laws forbidding this.

However, there are contracts in place between any local affiliate and the network and the syndicators, which do not allow resale of broadcast outside of the viewing area. So, truth be told, it isn't that the local affiliate has an issue here. The network has granted first run rights to their affiliates, including their owned-and-operated stations. The affiliates have the exclusive, first shot at programming.

Which means what inhibits distant network service is the networks themselves. And maybe Congress and the FCC can be blamed because the networks themselves can only own affilates that reach a total of 35 percent of the nation's households, which means affiliates are required for a nationwide reach.

 

[ThomasRz]

Think about it. If KTTV,...

You are asking the impossible of some....

Which means what inhibits distant network service is the networks themselves. And maybe Congress and the FCC can be blamed because the networks themselves can only own affilates that reach a total of 35 percent of the nation's households, which means affiliates are required for a nationwide reach.

To be fair, while the FCC has a lot of room to maneuver, it is the statutes and court decisions that determine the contours of these issues. I'm all for bashing Congress on occasion but everybody should remember that it is not just technology but also public policy issues (what is in the interest of people, as a whole) that drive some of these decisions. The much belittled principle of localism is one example. While their is a certain percentage of the population that desires DNS, most people prefer their local stations. Without the protections that the local affiliates have, the networks and content producers might very well decide to make programming NY or LA-centric and force it upon everybody. Even easier to do if all the local stations were O&O. Is this good? I think not and Congress agrees. That of course could change. Perhaps some of the DNS-philic here could run for Congress. I say run because once your view of localism and its ramifications were known, you would have to keep your day job. I have gleaned an interesting phenomenon from this discussion. That is that most of the people who want DNS do so because of the excitement it brings. It's cool, it's novel, it's well you know... Now many will argue that their own locals "suck," or that it's for sports programming, or that they used to live "there" and in many cases this may be true. Nonetheless, I think those who are not dependent on DNS (non-white area/truckers like those who have LIL or good OTA) generally lose interest after the "newness" has worn off.

 

[waltinvt]

Why does it matter?

Thanks. And yes, it just makes it a little easier to follow who said what.

 

[Mr Tony]

Thanks. And yes, it just makes it a little easier to follow who said what.

so true. Much easier when people use the quote system

 

[srbond]

You are asking the impossible of some....



To be fair, while the FCC has a lot of room to maneuver, it is the statutes and court decisions that determine the contours of these issues. I'm all for bashing Congress on occasion but everybody should remember that it is not just technology but also public policy issues (what is in the interest of people, as a whole) that drive some of these decisions. The much belittled principle of localism is one example. While their is a certain percentage of the population that desires DNS, most people prefer their local stations. Without the protections that the local affiliates have, the networks and content producers might very well decide to make programming NY or LA-centric and force it upon everybody. Even easier to do if all the local stations were O&O. Is this good? I think not and Congress agrees. That of course could change. Perhaps some of the DNS-philic here could run for Congress. I say run because once your view of localism and its ramifications were known, you would have to keep your day job. I have gleaned an interesting phenomenon from this discussion. That is that most of the people who want DNS do so because of the excitement it brings. It's cool, it's novel, it's well you know... Now many will argue that their own locals "suck," or that it's for sports programming, or that they used to live "there" and in many cases this may be true. Nonetheless, I think those who are not dependent on DNS (non-white area/truckers like those who have LIL or good OTA) generally lose interest after the "newness" has worn off.

If as you say, most people want their locals, how is letting those who do not want to watch locals have DNS will undermine the locals?

I have had DNS for at least eight years now, so it is not the 'newness' for me or that they are 'cool', they are simply the stations I want to buy.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Wanting to buy DNS instead of locals is the whole crux of the issue. The FCC is trying to protect local stations from people like you (and me).

They know that if they allow everyone to receive national networks, or to select from a few large city networks, that locals will lose a significant number of viewers. If you desire to watch network programming, and you have local network affiliates, then they want to force you to watch them.

Now I think the role of the feds is not to protect local TV stations from viewers who would rather watch other providers. This is archaic. There are many products that at one time were purchased from local manufacturers. However our economies changed and they had to compete or fold. Local stations already have to compete with hundreds of cable channels, why should they get a free pass for providing network programs?

Nevertheless that is current law and we might see the enforcement of it, no matter how ridiculous the concept is.

And no matter that many network programs are now becoming available over the internet.

 

[srbond]

Wanting to buy DNS instead of locals is the whole crux of the issue. The FCC is trying to protect local stations from people like you (and me).

They know that if they allow everyone to receive national networks, or to select from a few large city networks, that locals will lose a significant number of viewers. If you desire to watch network programming, and you have local network affiliates, then they want to force you to watch them.

Now I think the role of the feds is not to protect local TV stations from viewers who would rather watch other providers. This is archaic. There are many products that at one time were purchased from local manufacturers. However our economies changed and they had to compete or fold. Local stations already have to compete with hundreds of cable channels, why should they get a free pass for providing network programs?

Nevertheless that is current law and we might see the enforcement of it, no matter how ridiculous the concept is.

And no matter that many network programs are now becoming available over the internet.

YOU NAILED IT ON THE HEAD!

No one can argue with your post.

It will be interesting to see how the NAB will try to handle (stop) IPTV... especially since ABC is already posting it's own programming free on the net for downloads.

 

[uhlesses]

Just don't make no sense folks. You can close American factories and send our jobs to China in the name of free trade. Free trade has cost our country thousands upon thousands of jobs. Why do the TV stations get special treatment? Why don't the local affilates compete like Ford and GM for customers.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Guess what website has been updated and is back...

http://www.savemychannels.com/atstake/

BTW we will have LIVE coverage of tommorows emergency Retailer Chat here at SatelliteGuys starting tommorow at NOON EST.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Why do the TV stations get special treatment? Why don't the local affilates compete like Ford and GM for customers.

Ford doesn't truly compete against Ford. Ford competes against other car companies.

You can make Ford compete against itself. You have to physically go to different dealerships in order to get a competition where one Ford dealer is competing for your business against another.

But using that analogy, you would have to go to the delivery (OTA coverage) area of each ABC station that you want in order to get competing ABC stations. Don't ask for a government handout to get something hundreds of miles away that you wouldn't normally get.

After all, it is this "government handout" which Dish Network has abused that is causing the injunction.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

How is it a "government handout?"

National providers have the capability of providing any channel to any location. The only reason they don't is due to government restrictions. The government is limiting the free market.

In this case the government created regulations which allowed for a very limited distribution of national channels. I don't consider these to be a handout, but rather an inadequate set of protectionist regulations, which are not in the public's best interest.

Interesting that we are using car dealerships as an analogy, because our capability to price shop on new cars is also limited by government restrictions, which protect local dealerships. Otherwise we'd have national discount houses offering low prices on cars that would be shipped to a local pickup location. Sort of like how one can buy HDTVs and have them shipped to you - the government does not restrict dealers from offering you whatever price they want to on any HDTV set.

I think it should follow the newspaper model. You can buy a subscription to any newspaper you want. You don't have to read your local newspaper and you don't have to get their permission to buy another newspaper. Local newspapers must compete with other newspapers, magazines, the internet, et al, for your business.

Multiple newspapers are also owned by single companies, and many of the stories in each newspaper come from "national networks" of news, like AP, Reuters, etc.. Newspapers owned by the same company do compete against each other.

In olden days people read their local papers because it was almost impossible to get newspapers from distant cities with any reliability. Likewise for TV channels. Now we have readily at-hand technology which enables us to watch distant channels but our government won't allow it.

 

[ThomasRz]

Charlie has got to have the biggest set of cojones in the free world. Not only does he attempt to draft the very customers he's screwed into fighting his losing battle but he blatantly lies in the process. It's the NAB, it's the law, it's Congress, it's the phase of the moon. Anything but old Charlie. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The only thing that is more amazing is how many people here have bought into this alternative reality. Note to those who would still try to explain the facts: The battle for those "minds" is over. Charlie has won. They are so filled with emotion - anger/rage/indignity that any rational explanation of the legal framework and history will be rejected. Once the hammer falls, the anger and frustration will increase and Charlie will be there to stir the pot. Pretty amazing actually - this ought to be a case study in an MBA textbook.

 

[ThomasRz]

If as you say, most people want their locals, how is letting those who do not want to watch locals have DNS will undermine the locals?

Egad man, the anwer is right in the post. Read more carefully.

I have had DNS for at least eight years now, so it is not the 'newness' for me or that they are 'cool', they are simply the stations I want to buy.

Well maybe you're the exception. So what's your reason? Is "Big Brother" on WCBS different than your local station? Are you that interested in the temperature in NY? Is the news reporterette than much hotter than the local skank? Is it just something to drop at cocktail parties? "Yes, this year Muffy and I are vacationing on the Riviera and did I mention we have New York channels? The locals are soooo Mayberry RFD..."

 

[JH1949]

is this new settlement news ?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060828/echostar_settlement.html?.v=1

 

[riffjim4069]

Yep, it was just announced that EchoStar reached a settlement will eveyone, with the exception of Fox Network and 25 affiliates, pending court approval.

 

[SHADO 1]

Here is the whole article...

EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliate Associations
ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 28, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq,DISH) announced today that it has settled its nine year litigation with the ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliate Associations.

Under terms of the settlement, EchoStar agreed to expand its industry leading local network channel by satellite service from approximately 165 markets, to 175 markets by the end of 2006, offering over 95 percent of the U.S. population more fully effective competition to cable. EchoStar also agreed to pay the Affiliate Associations $100 million to protect its subscribers from the potential shut off of their distant network channels.

Distant channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox network channels that originate from a market outside the community in which the subscriber lives. The litigation does not involve, and there is no danger, that consumers could lose their local ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox network channels, or any of the other great programming available from EchoStar's DISH Network. While EchoStar has over 12 million subscribers, less than one million of those customers receive distant network channels. As part of the settlement, EchoStar agreed to re-qualify its distant network subscribers and terminate those channels later this year to the small percentage of customers who are not eligible to receive them today.

During the nine year course of litigation, EchoStar previously settled with hundreds of TV stations and station groups, including the ABC, NBC and CBS networks. With today's announcement, EchoStar has reached settlements with almost 800 total stations. EchoStar had hoped and expected to resolve the dispute with all remaining litigants, but late last week Fox Network declined EchoStar's universal settlement offer and pulled out of the discussions. Consequently, litigation with approximately 25 Fox owned-and-operated stations continues. Though unlikely, it is possible Fox's last minute tactic could derail the entire settlement and force EchoStar to seek legislation to protect its subscribers from disruption.

The settlement is contingent on confirmation by the Federal District Court in Florida.

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq,DISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.


CONTACT: EchoStar Communications Corporation
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351
press@echostar.com

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation

 

[JH1949]

.......Under terms of the settlement, EchoStar agreed to expand its industry leading local network channel by satellite service from approximately 165 markets, to 175 markets by the end of 2006......

Who will the lucky additional 10 DMA be ?

Is this why additional HD LIL were put on hold ?

 

[Lucky]

What does this settlement mean for people with waivers from their local stations ? Can people with waivers continue to get the DNS ?

 

[minnow]

Who will the lucky additional 10 DMA be ?

Well depending on the quality of the retransmissions and professionalism of the affiliates of these 10 new DMA's, will decide how lucky those now receiving DNS truly are.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I just got up to see this flurry of messages. But when I went to savemychannels.com it came up with Directory Listing Denied.

I am also confused by the nature of this thread - the fight continues -vs. the message on the home page of SatelliteGuys that says that Dish Settled with the Networks. That's just not clesar to me what the settlement was. Maybe my head is still in a fog, since is only 7am, but could somebody explain....


EDIT: DOH!!! This thread was started in July. Its a bit confusing since there is a link on the front page. I didn't even see the date.