No I did not mean it that way. It just that I have been to many stations in MI which has been set up this way. I asked about OTA and everyone says your kidding right ?
Import Distant Networks?
- Thread starter Tampa8
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 153
- Views 13K
I'm saying the out of market locals may have their own exclusivity clauses with their own network franchisers to consider that may prevent them from allowing Dish to import them.
That's precisely what a franchise is. It guarantees that your territory is your territory.
If both the local and the distant local have contract provisions prohibiting them from infringing on each others franchised territories, do you really think the local will just roll over while the distant local moves in?
I'm not saying the FCC rules change won't be helpful in carriage disputes, just that it may not be as helpful as we might hope for.
I am saying that they do not have exclusivity once their contract expires. If they want to have another exclusivity contract, then they need to make a reasonable deal with the MVPD, otherwise the distant will be allowed to move in. My guess is there are stations out there for each major channel, that does not have an exclusivity contract for just their region.
I'm not referring to their MVPD carriage contract, but rather a franchise contract with their own network that has it's own territorial exclusivity provisions. Neither Dish nor the FCC have anything to say about that contract.
That would not make sense as DMA boundaries get changed fairly frequently, and it applies to all 4 locals, not just individual contracts. They may say "you can only be carried in Alabama" and if that is the case, another one can be introduced from Alabama, for example
I'm not sure how limited the exclusivity is, but it's not just for network carriage. It also includes syndicated shows and commercials.
If NBC affiliate station 'A' drops off Dish due to a contract dispute, and NBC affiliate station 'B' has an affiliate contract provision that says their signal cannot be imported into station 'A's market area, than Dish will not be given permission to import it. Rinse, repeat, for CBS, ABC, etc... Do all network affiliate stations have that provision in their existing contracts? Beats me, but if the FCC drops their exclusivity rules, I'll bet they soon will.
Who cares about any of their contracts. Unless you personally signed on to those contracts you should be free to watch anything you want from anywhere at any time. This should be true for anyone retransmitting the feed as long as it is not altered. I am sick and tired of corporate america trying to dictate by fiat what U.S. or citizens of any country can do by fiat.
I agree that would probably happen. Let them fight and make the lawyers happy! They have no right to territories or that they own us by such. Don't feel sorry for that bunch at all!
This is the whole point I am making. All it takes is one channel from each of the networks somewhere in the country to not have that in the DISH contract(what they have with someone else is irrelevant if not included in their carriage agreement with Dish) and with 214 DMA's I am betting that there is atleast 1. That is all it will take.
It's not irrelevant. Station 'A' (pick your network affiliation) has a contract to show Wheel of Fortune. That contract says the station is not allowed to show Wheel of Fortune outside of the DMA. Therefore, that station wouldn't allow themselves to be imported. Based on reading here, there are exceptions for "short" markets. Think about it... if locals were allowed to show their content outside of their DMA, why wouldn't they stream their programming 24/7?
If that station doesn't have a clause in their contract with Dish about where it can and cannot be shown, then yes their contracts with others is irrelevant. As long as Dish isn't excluded by the contract, Dish can do as they please with the channel. Now if their contract with Dish says that Dish cannot do this, then Dish cannot. If it doesn't, this was a screw up on the stations part, and likely the court would side with Dish(it would settle to keep a relationship in the future) but the point is exactly the same. They must have it in writing to Dish, or else Dish can do as they please legally, as long as it is in accordance with current FCC and other agency guidelines.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
All the posts about exclusive rights, that would have no bearing anymore, that's the WHOLE point and is in my link in my OP.
"the Chairman is proposing to his fellow Commissioners that the FCC adopt an order eliminating what he termed "outdated exclusivity rules"–the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. These "non-dup" and "syndex" rules, as they are more commonly known, essentially provide a process by which TV broadcasters can efficiently implement the geographic exclusivity they negotiated in their programming agreements without the need for expensive court actions. The purpose of these rules is to prevent multi-channel video program distributors (MVPDs) from violating that exclusivity by importing the exclusive programming from out-of-market TV stations"
As it is now, the only thing preventing DISH from using an out of market network during a dispute is the FCC rule and that it immediately prohibits bringing in a Distant network during a dispute. Take away that rule, and until the case is heard in Court DISH will take whatever local they want to and fill the void.
Yes, Dish may lose later,(or may not) but the whole point is making the negotiations more even. Is it worth it to the local to have the programming still on DISH while their channel/news is not? Is it worth it to spend the money on a Court case?
The only thing not clear to me is can a Local refuse to be imported and what kind of compensation if any do they get. I do believe when Distants were more prevalent and allowed in White zones, permission was not needed from the Local being imported. Bottom line, the FCC would not being thinking of doing this if it had no real effect.
"the Chairman is proposing to his fellow Commissioners that the FCC adopt an order eliminating what he termed "outdated exclusivity rules"–the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. These "non-dup" and "syndex" rules, as they are more commonly known, essentially provide a process by which TV broadcasters can efficiently implement the geographic exclusivity they negotiated in their programming agreements without the need for expensive court actions. The purpose of these rules is to prevent multi-channel video program distributors (MVPDs) from violating that exclusivity by importing the exclusive programming from out-of-market TV stations"
As it is now, the only thing preventing DISH from using an out of market network during a dispute is the FCC rule and that it immediately prohibits bringing in a Distant network during a dispute. Take away that rule, and until the case is heard in Court DISH will take whatever local they want to and fill the void.
Yes, Dish may lose later,(or may not) but the whole point is making the negotiations more even. Is it worth it to the local to have the programming still on DISH while their channel/news is not? Is it worth it to spend the money on a Court case?
The only thing not clear to me is can a Local refuse to be imported and what kind of compensation if any do they get. I do believe when Distants were more prevalent and allowed in White zones, permission was not needed from the Local being imported. Bottom line, the FCC would not being thinking of doing this if it had no real effect.
Then you should move to Canada where the government dictates directly what you can and can't watch.
The BBC isn't a whole lot different.
