Posted on 09/07/2006 2:38:31 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
Colorado's two U.S. senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate a dispute between DIRECTV and EchoStar over network channels.
News Corp., DIRECTV's parent, last week asked a federal court to stop EchoStar from providing 'distant' network signals to nearly one million subscribers. The signals, which originate from New York and Los Angeles, include both analog and High-Definition TV feeds.
EchoStar says it will pay $100 million to local stations to settle the nine-year-old legal battle over 'distant' network TV signals. The local stations are concerned that EchoStar's subscribers will watch the national signals instead of their feeds.
However, the satcaster says the Fox network, which is owned by News Corp., refused to go along with the agreement.
Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Ken Salazar, D-Colo., have asked the Senate panel to examine whether DIRECTV and News Corp. "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viability of the satellite TV market."
The senators represent Colorado where EchoStar has its headquarters.
The Associated Press reports that the Judiciary Committee is "looking into the situation and urging all parties to settle this matter to ensure uninterrupted service to consumers."
As part of the $100 million agreement with local stations, EchoStar said it would agree to expand its local network service to 95 percent of the U.S. population, making it less likely that its subscribers will need the distant signals to receive network programming.
AP writes that DIRECTV is running advertisements in the affected areas, suggesting that EchoStar subscribers may soon lose their network signals.
A Fox network spokesman says his company is doing nothing wrong, according to the AP.
My local market refuses to be carried, so bite me Senators!
Leave my Dishnetwork alone.
I just checked, my Denver, LA and NYC networks are still there. I think DirecTV is doing this to get us Dish Network subscribers to switch. I ain't switchin'. I've been a loyal Dish Network subscriber since 1998.
Leave it to a couple of dingbat pols to bollux things up. I've finally got the network channels I want, even though I'm not supposed to have them. Three of those channels are from NH and I live in NH but I'm not supposed to have them because they are part of the "Boston" market area and I'm supposed to be in the Burlington, VT - Plattsburgh, NY area. Makes perfect sense to me. /s
I started with Primestar, went to Direct when it bought out Primestar and have now had Dish for many years. And I ain't switching again neither! And there's no cable out here in the woods so that's not an option.
I asked a few years ago if I could switch to the Billings, Montana market (for Montana news), they said I couldn't, and I said I would want things left the way they are. Echostar agreed with my request and since then, hasn't turned those distant stations off. The market I am in (Minot/Bismarck, ND) two stations refuse to be carried, so Dish Network only carries one. I ain't paying $5.99 for one channel, but I am however paying $12.99 for three distant markets that have all 4 networks.
Echostar knows I have NY, LA, and Denver, but I have not told them to switch to what is considered my local market. They won't switch or turn them off without your approval. As long as your happy, I wouldn't say anything to them. :)
The fact that nobody is watching the big three networks anymore has little to do with distribution channels and everything to do with the product.
Network TV does still have value and viewers. I personally don't watch the network news, it's the only thing I refuse to watch. The biggest PLUS with having networks from clear across the country is "time shifting". If I miss an episode of '24' on WNYW-NY, I can time shift an hour later and watch it on KDVR-Denver, or three hours later on KTLA-LA.
these senators on a last dutch effort to appear relevant?
With these goobers messing with the sat companies only means one thing.....
MY SAT BILL WILL BE GOING UP!!!!!!
Thanks for nothing, MORONS!!!!!
My oldest son had a bumper sticker on his government notebook in high school that read "US Government Policy: If It Ain't Broke, Fix It 'til It Is!" Ain't it the truth!
Local station's argue that local advertisers are getting the shaft from those of us like you and me who opt to subscribe to distant networks. That's mainly the reason why they wanted you and I to be denied the option of distant networks because Joe Blow's Ford/Mercury/Cadillac located "on the edge of town" ain't getting business from you and I. Even if Joe Blow's Ford/Mercury/Cadillac ads were being seen by me, the chances of me dropping in to see his show room clear across the state are slim to none.
I went through this years ago and finally got distant signals after Direct TV made a deal with the locals. I live in a rural area and cable is not an option either.
If you bought a book out of state, and brought it in state, would you have to pay the local book store a royalty fee before you read it? This is not a perfect analogy but I think it is like what the locals are asking for.
I subscribed to Dish Network, and the gal on the phone asked me if I had cable service within the last 90 days, and I said no and that I live 20 miles from the nearest town with cable.
I know, it is goofy, and 9 times out of 10 the government doesn't know what the hell it's doing and mucks things up trying to find a solution.
This is insane. One should be able to have a subscription to whichever programming they wish to watch.
I just recently signed up, got their "everything" package. I can't believe I never signed up before. I adore it and would probably have a difficult time ever giving it up.
I've had the AT+120 package with networks since I became a subscriber. I'm inclined to upgrade to the "everything" package once my current annual subscription runs out in a few months. One station in particular that I'd love to be able to watch is The Military Channel.
The government should not be involved at all.
Because their affiliation deal with the networks are based on the premise of exclusivity. As far as I understand it, the deal essentially is:
Now, if a third party comes along, like Dish Network, and essentially puts the networks in violation of their part of the deal by providing a different feed of supposedly exclusive material, then the affiliates should have some legal recourse to fix the situation.
This is one time where I think the regulatory side has got things pretty close to right. They've established rules that say when people qualify for "distant markets" that balance the demands of consumers and the providers about as well as possibile.
That is the year I installed my first dish with a 4000 receiver.
Nope. That's a separate issue.
I think the cable lobby is behind many of these things. They either sit in the side lines and promote the fights or they start them directly. Dish came in kicking their butts in quality and price and now they are only driving up the cost. The phone companies are now hitting the market. It is going to get bloody. I will stick with Dish. My new 622 receiver has a picture quality I have never seen before until now.
I think the cable lobby is behind many of these things. The either sit in the side lines a promote the fights or they start them directly. Dish came in kicking their butts in quality and price and now they are only driving up the cost. The phone companies are now hitting the market. It is going to get bloody. I will stick with Dish. My new 622 receiver has a picture quality I have never seen before until now.
don't these pricks have anything better to do?
The National Association of Broadcasters, (NAB) the wired ones, (cable) and local stations, who are really just an extension of the NAB have been screwing this up for years, while they could have been reaping financial, political, and customer service rewards, they have instead been playing hardball with the american public especially the ones who do not have access to local television stations except through satellite carriers.
I am fortunate that I live close enough to a town with all networks, not that I love network television, but it does give access not just to dumb tv, but things going on that the public might be interested in. It is a joke to watch these folks attempt to protect their so-called turf by playing the game devised by the NAB. The game: You can't get local because you are only able to get it through our arch ememy the satellite dish.
Anyone take a look at a network stations dish farm lately. The local channels would be laughed out of town, without their arch enemy, the satellite dish. They get much of their content via satellite, but that really isn't the issue, they have taken it upon themselves to invoke the law of the affiliate, which allows only one network station in a given area never mind the major metro areas that overlap coverage to the tune of numerous like networks in cities in the east.
There used to be a waiver option, that would allow the local station to sign off your access via satellite. You could tell who the good guys (customer concerned) were by who in town would sign the waver and let you have their local via satellite. The only option for some who met the hardline networks, was to put up in many cases a 40 foot tower and an antenna. That isn't cheap for one local channel but that was the only option, other than no local.
As we see from this little tidbit it isn't over yet and now the idiots from DTV are fighting Dishnetwork because Dish has more networks available than DTV and now HD is in the mix. You would think that local stations, instead of trying to deny service, would figure a way to make this a big plus for them rather than a boxing match or all out war. It makes no sense at all to the folks who can't get local on an antenna or a satellite dish. All they are producing are enemies.
The local station may have the exclusive right to broadcast to "Rabbit ears", and they still do. Dish Network is not broadcasting to "Rabbit ears".
If the local station is unable to provide a clean signal, they shouldn't demand to be paid as if they were, when in fact they are not.
If a local consumer has chosen not to use their service, a signal broadcast to "rabbit ears" the local consumer should not have to pay for the privilege of paying someone else for a clean signal.
As long as a network does not sell the same area to two "rabbit ear" broadcasters in the same area, their exclusivity is maintained.
Dish Network: Distant Networks
The following is from an email which will be going out Monday to all Dish Network retailers from Charlie Ergen regarding Distant Networks.
While SatelliteGuys.US was the first to post this information, we encourage all other forums to spread the word and encourage our members to write congress and tell them we want a choice. We do have a powerfull voice, lets use it!
In addition the www.savemychannels.com website is now active.Quote:
As you may have already heard, a group of network broadcasters are trying to force DISH Network to stop delivering distant network channels to our customers.
Distant network channels are the ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX broadcast channels customers get from us by satellite that originate outside their community. For example, if customers live in rural Texas and purchase New York, Los Angeles, Denver or other network channels from us, they are at serious risk of being shut off. This would NOT affect or upset in any way our ability to offer local network channels to local markets, and the good news is that we offer local channels by satellite to over 96% of the United States. Nor would it affect any other programming we offer.
The problem is a court case that has been going on for eight years. We strongly believe consumers have the right to choose their TV viewing experience, and should be allowed to watch televised news and other information originating outside their hometown. They are free to choose to read The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, or any other newspaper regardless of where in the United States they live. These same choices should be available for TV news. Unfortunately, the broadcasters were able to get a special interest law passed that prohibits this, except in very limited circumstances. And now the broadcasters are trying to take even that limited choice away from our customers.
We fought hard for years to allow our customers the choice to receive televised news and other information originating outside their hometown.
This is particularly important in times of national or local emergency.
During Hurricane Katrina, when local channels went off the air, DISH Network provided distant network channels to relief stations, police and fire stations, military installations and thousands of displaced families. Similarly, after 9/11, DISH Network supplied distant network channels crucial to relief efforts.
While we have reached reasonable settlements with hundreds of stations over the years, a small group of broadcasters continues to stonewall – to the detriment of our customers. A recent court decision clearly favors the self-interests of these broadcasters over protecting the rights of hundreds of thousands of consumers who choose to receive their network channels by satellite. Unfortunately, broadcaster special interests used their big money to preserve a law that takes away customers’ freedom of choice.
You can help stop this by immediately going to www.savemychannels.com, which will assist you in contacting and emailing your Congressmen and asking them to fight for our subscribers’ rights to keep their distant network channels.
Our goal is to avoid disruption to our customers who currently receive distant networks, and we continue to try to reach fair settlements with the broadcasters and to lobby members of Congress. If necessary, we will take our case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
We will continue to keep you informed of significant developments. In the meantime, please go to www.savemychannels.com today to help our customers save their distant channels.
It's based on "DMA's." Neilsen Media's "Designated Market Areas" which are shown here:
http://www.truckads.com/licensed_affiliates1.asp#usamap
Whichever city's stations are most viewed in that area are what you get, period. Which sucks, because it's always done county-by-county. The exception is in parts of Southern California where the counties are physically so large that the county is 400 miles across. I guess they have to draw the line SOMEWHERE but it's annoying.
I'd favor a system that just lets you pick one or multiple markets to get your networks from. Or, perhaps even you can pick stations a la carte. If you never watch CBS, you don't have to pay for it, etc. If you moved from Dayton, OH to Raleigh, NC, they ought to let you get the Dayton stations if you wish to keep up on local news (although I don't know why anyone would watch local TV news...but I digress...)
Even a compromise where you can get your home "DMA" plus one other market is reasonable.
See the map on my last post. Do you live in the West somewhere? They have to put you SOMEWHERE in a Designated Market Area. Not that I agree with it, but I guess they figure there's no other way to do it.
Many many moons ago when I had a C-band system I could get L.A., Denver, DC, NYC, and North Carolina I think. At first networks were free as were some of the premium channels. The when the digital encoding started {I can't remember the name of it} you could still pick up network feeds commercial free in a lot of cases and even see some shows days early :>}.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.