Posted on 09/07/2006 2:38:31 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
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.