Direct will be adding these to locals when D11 begans operation in July or August or September.
Pbs Hd?
- Thread starter brad1138
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 6K
Direct will be adding these to locals when D11 begans operation in July or August or September.
The situation regarding PBS-HD is complicated by the FCC's rules about carrying HD channels in markets.
DirecTV and Dish Network jointly petitioned the FCC, and they agreed to phase-in the carriage of Local HD channels - 25% per year.
So, in Feb 2010, 25% of markets where Dish Network has locals must carry ALL HD Locals in that market. A year later, 50% and so on.
PBS channels also have LOTS of SD subchannels and they tend to want providers to carry ALL of them.
Dish Network has negotiated with PBS, but could not come to an agreement amenable to both parties.
Remember that DirecTV has had more success with satellite launches in the near term, and so Dish Network would want more flexibility, but clearly PBS was not willing to accomodate them.
DirecTV and Dish Network jointly petitioned the FCC, and they agreed to phase-in the carriage of Local HD channels - 25% per year.
So, in Feb 2010, 25% of markets where Dish Network has locals must carry ALL HD Locals in that market. A year later, 50% and so on.
PBS channels also have LOTS of SD subchannels and they tend to want providers to carry ALL of them.
Dish Network has negotiated with PBS, but could not come to an agreement amenable to both parties.
Remember that DirecTV has had more success with satellite launches in the near term, and so Dish Network would want more flexibility, but clearly PBS was not willing to accomodate them.
There were variants presented in today's discussions that will require further analysis in depicting what will be its final outcome... but this may turn out to be very well it.
At issue, one (1) local PBS HD will be uplinked and made available from each market that is serviced local into local, while two (2) National SD feeds would be made available via DirecTV. These 2 (two) National Feeds are to be National Feeds with no reference to the local affiliate.
I expressed concern over the potential ramifications of the other two National SD feeds, as they could impact the local PBS affiliate's by viewers who do not make the HD jump (the local portion). The National Feeds received, could possibly circumvent pledge drives to National via SD viewers with the majority of pledges going National... Ouch!
Secondly, alarmingly - Hope this isn't fact, but it appears PBS HD affiliates will be carried on a market level, BUT there will be absolutely no compensation (no per sub fee structure).
It will be all GRATIS.
I found the agreement surreal - It's simply unfathomable that commercial's can, will, and do receive carriage compensation, NONE for PBS!??
Let's hope the latter is fact-less! It could be devastating for PBS locals.
Rumblings... Dish elected not to entertain DirecTV's forward thinking, at present.
more to follow...
Last edited:
They have a good reason though. they want the DBs providers to carry the locals and not a national feed.
As for compensation SOME commercialil stations get compensation but frankly not all of them are ina position to do so. In the case of PBS it si unlikely that they would be able to get it and frankly the nature of their mission is suchthat they would prefer to maximize carriage of their stations as opposed to revenue.
Anything beyond ABC CBS NBC and fox stations do not receive compensation from Dish as a general rule. Stations that are part of groups with many network affiliates are the biggest exceptions. Others either have to claim "must carry" status (which by definition bars them from seaking retransmission consent payments) or have some other kind of compensation in kind with Dish.
PERSONAL OPINION: Any station that asks for compensation from a cable company or satellite carrier to redistribute the station's signal to within their licensed designated marketing area should imediately have their license to broadcast revoked and sold to the highest local bidder within 48 hours!
See ya
Tony
PERSONAL OPINION: Any station that asks for compensation from a cable company or satellite carrier to redistribute the station's signal to within their licensed designated marketing area should imediately have their license to broadcast revoked and sold to the highest local bidder within 48 hours!
See ya
Tony
Tony, and all... I'm having a tough time with this one...
As I see it, if Dish, DirecTV, Cable, iP company, etc, no matter their size, manages to turn a profit by retransmitting my efforts (charging for access for locals into locals), then I should get a piece of the action — it's a symbiotic relationship and it's just sound business practice.
If it were not for the program originators, there would be no, DirecTV, Dish, Cable, iP, etc.
Here's my spin, and it's different, so please, hear me out...
YES (The Yankees Entertainment and Sports [YES] Network) has a UCA (Universal Carriage Agreement) in place with all carriers; everyone pays the same per/sub fee. Period. End of story. Cablevision didn't like being dictated to, so they withheld service. Through mediation, they eventually saw the light, and now they carry YES, and pay the same per/sub fee, just like everyone else. Charlie opposes being dictated to as well and wants his own special agreement concerning carriage of YES. Hence, no YES on Dish. YES is on DirecTV and they pay just like everyone else.
As you can see, everyone thinks they are a prima donna and believe they are entitled to something special, every time. In Charlie's case, it appears he's a habitual poker player. Everything through his eyes is a game and something to play for.
Now imagine, if you will, this negotiating is done for each individual organization involved in the process, no matter how miniscule, as each one is expecting, demanding special treatment...
In my opinion, the YES model is the best option, why? As long as no one is being gouged, and if everyone is treated equally... it's without question the most cost effective and least abusive. In the end, everyone's happy and attorney's don't end up walking away with unGodly amounts of cash; no carriage holdouts, etc., of which we've all experienced.
YES stands by its UCA, why...? Because they don't want to renegotiate on a platform by platform basis. It's extremely expensive, time consuming, and someone always manages to through a bomb into the mix.
Now, I believe all of us are in agreement, there are significant costs in operating a network or station.
Everything in the world of commerce holds a value.
If you manage to profit from my efforts, I'm entitled to some compensation for that effort.
Funding for PBS stations has been eroding; be it Federal, foundational or independent contributors, like you and I. I'm a firm believer, PBS stations are entitled to a share in those proceeds in that FOR PROFIT DBS, Cable companies are making profits from the PBS station's efforts.
Again, no providers, no DBS/Cable.
As I see it, if Dish, DirecTV, Cable, iP company, etc, no matter their size, manages to turn a profit by retransmitting my efforts (charging for access for locals into locals), then I should get a piece of the action — it's a symbiotic relationship and it's just sound business practice.
If it were not for the program originators, there would be no, DirecTV, Dish, Cable, iP, etc.
Here's my spin, and it's different, so please, hear me out...
YES (The Yankees Entertainment and Sports [YES] Network) has a UCA (Universal Carriage Agreement) in place with all carriers; everyone pays the same per/sub fee. Period. End of story. Cablevision didn't like being dictated to, so they withheld service. Through mediation, they eventually saw the light, and now they carry YES, and pay the same per/sub fee, just like everyone else. Charlie opposes being dictated to as well and wants his own special agreement concerning carriage of YES. Hence, no YES on Dish. YES is on DirecTV and they pay just like everyone else.
As you can see, everyone thinks they are a prima donna and believe they are entitled to something special, every time. In Charlie's case, it appears he's a habitual poker player. Everything through his eyes is a game and something to play for.
Now imagine, if you will, this negotiating is done for each individual organization involved in the process, no matter how miniscule, as each one is expecting, demanding special treatment...
In my opinion, the YES model is the best option, why? As long as no one is being gouged, and if everyone is treated equally... it's without question the most cost effective and least abusive. In the end, everyone's happy and attorney's don't end up walking away with unGodly amounts of cash; no carriage holdouts, etc., of which we've all experienced.
YES stands by its UCA, why...? Because they don't want to renegotiate on a platform by platform basis. It's extremely expensive, time consuming, and someone always manages to through a bomb into the mix.
Now, I believe all of us are in agreement, there are significant costs in operating a network or station.
Everything in the world of commerce holds a value.
If you manage to profit from my efforts, I'm entitled to some compensation for that effort.
Funding for PBS stations has been eroding; be it Federal, foundational or independent contributors, like you and I. I'm a firm believer, PBS stations are entitled to a share in those proceeds in that FOR PROFIT DBS, Cable companies are making profits from the PBS station's efforts.
Again, no providers, no DBS/Cable.
Last edited:
I have no problems with cable channels charging for their service. My statement had nothing to do with cable networks at all.
Look at what I wrote again. Then we can talk.
BTW, I did leave out the other part of the "If I were king" statement:
Cable and satellite companies would have to provide the local channels FOR FREE (FTA for satellite (within the DMA only) and Unscrambled for cable) to any subscriber to any level of service. Cable has something close called the lifeline service which runs about $12 a month, but that's not free.
See ya
Tony
Look at what I wrote again. Then we can talk.
BTW, I did leave out the other part of the "If I were king" statement:
Cable and satellite companies would have to provide the local channels FOR FREE (FTA for satellite (within the DMA only) and Unscrambled for cable) to any subscriber to any level of service. Cable has something close called the lifeline service which runs about $12 a month, but that's not free.
See ya
Tony
This' the part I'm having problems with... (were you just being cynical?!!)
I find it difiicult to comprehend APTS(1), PBS' lobying arm, couldn't produce more.
What's your buzz on locals into locals per/sub compensation, and UCA's?
(1) The Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) was established to support the continued growth and development of a strong and financially sound noncommercial television service for the American public. As broadcasters make the transition to digital, APTS is working to ensure the federal government continues its commitment to universal public television services and that those services are available across all platforms.
That is the part that you used cable stations to make your point. Cable TV stations are not licensed by the FCC nor do they have "Designated Marketing Areas". Both those things are reserved for over the air TV stations which are licensed to serve THE PUBLIC INTEREST of their licensed community. Charging the population of that community directly or indirectly should be punishable by a loss of license to operate.
See ya
Tony
See ya
Tony
Yes model is gouging everyone, it's not cost effective and extremely abusive.
Yes charges per subscriber on your service (for Dish Network, times 12 million).
This despite the fact that cable only has to pay per subscriber in the NY area, because their subscribers in other areas are served by different coporations.
So, cable subscribers in Los Angeles do not have to pay anything for cable subscribers in NY area to receive Yes, while Dish Network subscribers in Los Angeles would have to pay for Dish Network subscribers in NY to receive Yes.
It's the same sort of unthinking policy as most of your long scribes, which have not one iota of considering the other side...
The main problem in broadcast TV in the US, it is that it is a complete mish-mash of regulation, subsidy and free market (which actually applies to lots of industries these days, such as agriculture and health care).
As such, the principles described by fcom and Tony are not being applied consistently, so the whole thing makes no sense.
Prior to cable, there was a system of federally licensed local broadcast affiliates of networks,
As soon as things transitioned to cable/satellite/fiber delivered channels, the OTA broadcasting model became meaningless, but it remains heavily protected by endless federal legislation.
The perennial example still applies - can you imagine being prohibited from reading the New York Times in Los Angeles ? But in Soviet Union Style, we are prohibited from viewing New York WABC in Los Angeles...
As such, the principles described by fcom and Tony are not being applied consistently, so the whole thing makes no sense.
Prior to cable, there was a system of federally licensed local broadcast affiliates of networks,
As soon as things transitioned to cable/satellite/fiber delivered channels, the OTA broadcasting model became meaningless, but it remains heavily protected by endless federal legislation.
The perennial example still applies - can you imagine being prohibited from reading the New York Times in Los Angeles ? But in Soviet Union Style, we are prohibited from viewing New York WABC in Los Angeles...
There is great inconsistency as to rules and applications regarding the FCC.
I will say this, and I imagine some may be offend by my comment, but I find the deregulation process we've seen FCC go through as unfathomable and inexcusable.
To hear Chairman Martin say he will endorse the Sirius/XM merger is unthinkable! Both Sirius/XM willfully ignored FCC directives requiring them to build receivers that could receive all services. Now they're crying because they've spent too much, and continue to do so on unsustainable programming and services.
Media ownership, be it radio, TV, SAT, and print is basically unrestricted compared to yesteryear. There were reasons why you couldn't hold conflicting media positions in a single market nor dominate... theses days, anything goes.
I'm glad to see PBS HD regionals finally made it on SAT. I'm not happy how PBS wasn't seen as mainstream. I'm a firm believer, PBS should receive carriage compensation, just as the others do, but if their lobbying group settled gratis, so be it.
Dish will eventually add PBS HD.
I take my 21 locals OTA and will continue to do so.
I will say this, and I imagine some may be offend by my comment, but I find the deregulation process we've seen FCC go through as unfathomable and inexcusable.
To hear Chairman Martin say he will endorse the Sirius/XM merger is unthinkable! Both Sirius/XM willfully ignored FCC directives requiring them to build receivers that could receive all services. Now they're crying because they've spent too much, and continue to do so on unsustainable programming and services.
Media ownership, be it radio, TV, SAT, and print is basically unrestricted compared to yesteryear. There were reasons why you couldn't hold conflicting media positions in a single market nor dominate... theses days, anything goes.
I'm glad to see PBS HD regionals finally made it on SAT. I'm not happy how PBS wasn't seen as mainstream. I'm a firm believer, PBS should receive carriage compensation, just as the others do, but if their lobbying group settled gratis, so be it.
Dish will eventually add PBS HD.
I take my 21 locals OTA and will continue to do so.
PREACH IT BROTHER! Amen! Hallelujah!
I guess we do agree on something!
I want the 7-7-7 / Newspaper Cross-ownership rule reinstated on a grandfathered basis! Any property sold/bought must go back to the 7-7-7 / Cross-Ownership! And no leased programming either! You own it, YOU program it!
The rules were set in place in 1934. The reasons for those rules exist TODAY!
See ya
Tony
I guess we do agree on something!
I want the 7-7-7 / Newspaper Cross-ownership rule reinstated on a grandfathered basis! Any property sold/bought must go back to the 7-7-7 / Cross-Ownership! And no leased programming either! You own it, YOU program it!
The rules were set in place in 1934. The reasons for those rules exist TODAY!
See ya
Tony
CPB, PBS...with "public" in their names. Founded, funded, and programmed for public purposes, and with a public charter.
Yes--a private, locally oriented for profit network which I wouldn't watch even if Dish carried it. Charlie: don't do it. Say no to YES. Now and for as long as we both shall live.
Regards, Fitzie
Yes--a private, locally oriented for profit network which I wouldn't watch even if Dish carried it. Charlie: don't do it. Say no to YES. Now and for as long as we both shall live.
Regards, Fitzie
(I tried to edit but I guess it was too old)
I got in contact with Alabama PBS, they said the national HD as a different feed will never be back, because it's so expensive for them to subscribe to. HD will continue to be a simulcast and "PBS is converting all their programming to HD in the coming months".
Ugh. Somebody who has influence over the rules, please give me the option of paying to subscribe to the national HD that my local station refuses to even carry.
Your main problem in life is that you added "regarding the FCC" to the end of the sentence.
Ain't that the sad truth!
You must subscribe to local channels (SD and/or HD) through Dish for $5/mo to get the guide info from the OTA antenna. Otherwise you just get "Digital Service" on your program guide. You can set up manual recordings but not just press record on a program listing unless you subscribe to locals. Think of it as an EPG fee.
If you do not have locals available in your area you are SOL when it comes to guide info.
See ya
Tony
If you do not have locals available in your area you are SOL when it comes to guide info.
See ya
Tony
