LOCALS & DISTANTS

[goldengoose]

Bend,Redmond and the rest of Central Oregon are hurting right along with you.

But at least a lot of the folks got "RV's"

and some even have figured out to "buy" a property in a nearby market.

 

[shkarter1985]

My Reply

You've got to read those articles and enjoy.

http://www.winnfreenet.com/wp/2009/...tive-by-legislation-that-favors-broadcasters/

http://www.winnfreenet.com/wp/2009/03/join-to-fight-for-networks-via-satellite/

 

[talk000]

How do you do this? I see short excerpts (a minute or two on a specific news item along with extra ads) of some news broadcasts in my general area (Atlanta to Charlotte), but nothing that remotely resembles a rebroadcast of a local news program. Would love to pick up Atlanta, Charlotte and Knoxville local news broadcasts among others, but do not believe it is possible, internet or satellite. The removal of Atlanta from the distant networks was a big loss here.

. If you have internet you can view replays of most local channel's news broadcasts already. .

 

[shkarter1985]

My editorial about locals/distant networks

I've got my mother and father, my uncle, and my two friends signed the petition at MyTVRights.com . Wouldn't it be nice to watch "local" news from any area in the USA (like New York or Los Angeles and Chicago or Honolulu). But that's not possible, satellite companies have spotbeams to beam locals in your area instead of Conus. If you already have locals on satellite, unfortunately, you can't get distant locals from NYC/LA. It's because of an outdated law known as The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) passed by congress thanks to lobbylists from the National Assoiciation of Broadcasters. This law is messed up. I think the NAB think about themselves rather than the public. Does this law protects the local broadcasters profit? Like if you're watching a California station in South Carolina, the SC broadcasters lose half of the money on advertising, and they don't like competition. I've contaced my congressman's secretary on the phone to forward my views to Washington yesterday. This is America, we believe in freedom of choice, but that's impossible. We deserved to have the stations we should already have. I've got a petition posted earlier at SatelliteGuys.us Abolish The Satellite Home Viewer Extenstion and Reauthorization Act Petition , but unfortuately I've got 14 signatures at the moment. Help spread the word. But when I tried to post this petition at DBSTalk.com, I've got in trouble for posting a petition because their rules said "You can't post petitions on their site". I've complained to them. But I thought it violates freedom of speech. But that's their site and respect their rules.

It's okay to listen to radio stations from other cities online and get newspapers from other cities, but why not TV stations on satellite? The law doesn't allow it unfortuately. But in my earlier posts, how would you feel if your local station pre-empts network programming? We deserved more information, not less information just in your home market. Everybody has their views and opinions. Most locals aren't available on satellite like DirecTV or Dish Network (notably Columbus, Georgia). And locals who don't have HD locals available on satellite (like for example Columbia, South Carolina on DirecTV), they had frustration to have hopes of getting so-called 'waivers' approved by the local stations. But sometimes, they get denied and lived without getting ABC, or CBS, or NBC, and FOX. I read an article online about a woman being denied by her ABC affiliate somewhere in Georgia for getting distant ABC network from other cities. She said it's "Corporate greed". I agree with her.

Fortuately, SHVERA is up for renewal at the end of this year. And I think we need to correct this law. For example, do you have parents in Florida, or your son/daughter going to college in California? Another example, do you want to know the weather and the special reports in the town you're visiting? Imagine you 'living' in Los Angeles watching network shows three hours later (like 11pm ET actually 8pm PT) in the east coast. We need this law changed. Remember when Echostar's Dish Network (DirecTV's rival) ruled a court injunction for delivering distant networks for inelligible customers three years ago and being prevented from delivering distants again?

People talking about "moving" (calling them and lying about their new service address to get another market's locals). But that's illegal. In my petition, one signer said "If a subscriber wants to subscribe to out of market television station it should be legal for him to do so. Stop the government regulation and interference in the lives of its citizens." Another petition signer in my petition said "I want the SHVERA dropped againsts satellite TV subscribers. It's completely unfair. All this to help cable companies to make more of a profit. Why? Because more coin in the states pocket. What a crock. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's the United States of America." I agree with them we deserved to watch out of market locals besides our home locals on satellite. I'm against the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA) (It should be called the Satellite Home Viewer Disimprovement Act, LOL), and of course I'm against the SHVERA law. That's my editorial and thank you for your time.

 

[Derwin0]

Fortuately, SHVERA is up for renewal at the end of this year. And I think we need to correct this law.

You are misreading how SHVERA works.

Currently Copyright laws allow the networks to distribute their program how they wish. Currently they choose to do this using an affiliate model, where the affiliates align with the Network, and in turn get exclusive rights to carry the network's shows in their market.

SHERVA works by carving exemptions into copywrite laws, and removing the networks rights in controlling how it's property is distributed.

A blanket waiver such as the site you linked would never excape a court ruling, as it entails taking of the network's property (ie distribution rights). The only reason SHERVA can be court challenged proof, is because it's a narrow exemption to allow those shows to be shown where they currently are unavailable.

Now if an affiliate wants to distribute it's own property nationwide (news, local shows, but not network programming), they can. In fact some do stream their news on the internet. But no satellite carrier is going to distribute nationwide a local news channel.

 

[sam_gordon]

SHVERA doesn't change anything about how much money cable/sat companies get. Let's say you get charged $5/month for your local programming. You think if you drop your local and pick up Los Angeles they won't charge you the same?

It affects the local broadcaster. THAT'S who stands to lose $$$. Less eyes on the station = less advertising $$$. THAT"S why you get the response from NAB.

 

[KKlare]

There is a technical reason for the spot beams, too. This way they can reuse the downlink frequencies for multiple sets of stations, which have little overlap in viewership. If all station were CONUS they would need much more spectrum. I'm in favor of a national feed for the networks but that is only a few CONUS beams. In that case I see an owner of a local objecting to "losing" his exclusivity to these airwave--not his. It sure would be nice when the local decided show their selection instead of the national. (Second try.)
-Ken

 

[shkarter1985]

But no satellite carrier is going to distribute nationwide a local news channel.

I disagree with your post. This is America, we stand for freedom and choice.

 

[Derwin0]

I disagree with your post. This is America, we stand for freedom and choice.

We also have a Constitution that protects property rights. And the distribution of a network's PROPERTY is part of that right. That's why SHERVA has to be narrowly written, or a court would have killed it for taking too much of the networks copyright rights.

As for the part you quoted about no satellite distributor distributing a local news program nationwide, please give one example of someone doing that. Because right now, local channels are allowed to do that, but no satellite/cable carrier is going to waste that bandwidth doing it.

If NBC wanted to distribute it's OTA product nationwide, it could easily set up a NBC-Cable channel (same as they do when shows are put up online the next day). But they choose not to, and instead go the affiliate route.

Their is no Constitutional right to watch whatever television program you want, but there is one that protects their property rights.

I would love to be able to see any channels programming that I want, but I understand why system is setup like it is.

 

[harshness]

But no satellite carrier is going to distribute nationwide a local news channel.

I can recall when my local CBS affiliate, KOIN, was carried on PrimeStar.

The so-called Superstations used to be local channels but that seems to have faded as well.

 

[Tomboy257]

Why would someone without a connection to a particular area care about their local news?

 

[Peter Parker]

I can recall when my local CBS affiliate, KOIN, was carried on PrimeStar.

The so-called Superstations used to be local channels but that seems to have faded as well.

What seems to have faded? The remaining superstations are all locals. Are you somehow referring to the former superstations WTBS and WGN.

 

[jrt926]

AAD

AAD told me that on Saturday all waivers that are pending will be automatically granted because of the digital changeover. is this correct?

 

[tornado]

We also have a Constitution that protects property rights. And the distribution of a network's PROPERTY is part of that right. That's why SHERVA has to be narrowly written, or a court would have killed it for taking too much of the networks copyright rights.

As for the part you quoted about no satellite distributor distributing a local news program nationwide, please give one example of someone doing that. Because right now, local channels are allowed to do that, but no satellite/cable carrier is going to waste that bandwidth doing it.

If NBC wanted to distribute it's OTA product nationwide, it could easily set up a NBC-Cable channel (same as they do when shows are put up online the next day). But they choose not to, and instead go the affiliate route.

Their is no Constitutional right to watch whatever television program you want, but there is one that protects their property rights.

I would love to be able to see any channels programming that I want, but I understand why system is setup like it is.

I am not trying to create a war zone and this is not a personal attack, but I disagree with most of your post.

 

[Derwin0]

I am not trying to create a war zone and this is not a personal attack, but I disagree with most of your post.

Which parts? and why?

 

[tornado]

DerwinO,
I agree with the idea of property rights and I know this is going to sound vauge and non-specific to you, but in my Oklahoma way, I think of our land as being for the people by the people and of the people and I think that originally when the technology of television was invented even though I am not old enough to have been around then, and this is again just my Oklahoma way of thinking, television was an awe inspiring technology and I feel that the people that controlled it in principle felt a responsibility to give back to the people from what they had so graciously been given in the form of this great technology. I think satellite technology and the technology that we have today is just as awesome and in my opinion is being hampered in it's mission by the television broadcasters of today because somewhere along the way from the inception of this great and wonderous technology of television somebody involved with the processes has gotten selfish and they are hampering the satellite people from fullfilling their responsibility to the people and the technology. The people involved broadcasting have started to serve their own selfish personal interests above those of the people of this country. Instead of what I personally believe to be a founding principle of our great democracy people have started to put their interests above the publics. In this respect I believe the system is broken. The technology of today in my own opinion was created to be able to spread information and never to block it. If the technology exists to be able to transmit public broadcasts that are not deemed to be harmful from one area to another through satellite it should not be witheld. If they want to control what you are able recieve outside of a given area they should not broadcast publically. I do not care much how they have invested in the creation of the content, they are broadcasting publicly. If we do not get what I believe we should in this area then in my personal opinion it is not the end of the world, life will go on. This is the land of the free and the the home of the brave. Again this is just my opinion.
tornado