Slashdot Mirror
EchoStar Asks Supreme Court to Let Unlock Local Channels
Consul writes "For a long time, satellite television systems were not allowed to broadcast local television signals outside of that local area. But EchoStar is asking the Supreme Court for that to be changed." This particular
issue drives me insane and I hope the courts throw out the lame laws. I don't
care about local programming, they shouldn't force it on me. The same tactics
with Newspapers would be obviously illegal.
The idea here is that local broadcasters are highly regulated by the FCC, and allowing competitors to carry the same network material would alter the balance severely enough that the entire local bandwidth / ownership / affiliation regulations would have to be overhauled.
So, in typical government fashion, they decided that that would be quite a bit of work, and there's always some chance that the clock could roll back fifty years, so better to make something illegal than deal with its repurcussions in a modern, thoughtfull way.
Or, at least, that's the way I see it.
Me, I hate network TV. My first choice for a Supreme Court verdict would be "Not only is it illegal for EchoStar to broadcast this crap, it's illegal for local stations or cable companies, too." Failing that, I'd settle for "The networks own the content, and if they license it to EchoStar, it's between them and their local affiliates who they're screwing."
Cheers
-b
You want real competition? This would let local broadcasts all over the f'cking nation compete with each other. Like the news presented better in New York than in Salt Lake City? Or you've got family in Kentucky and want to know what's going on out there with your high school sports?
The biggest change this could have is with advertising dollars. Local vendors would get national coverage - but if a local show suddenly became popular, it could get national dollars.
I'm not saying things are going to be perfect. Local channels that, well, suck, will find themselves really competing nationwide, and have to either get better, or change their tactics to find their niche.
There will always be local stories that are important - but for those who really want a choice, well, I hope that Echostar wins.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I am a Canadian, and I had no idea you guys had weirdo laws like this. Up here it is standard to have multiple timeshifted feeds of all network programming, which is naturally accomplished by picking up a local feed and rebroadcasting it nationwide. It is very convienent to be able to get home an hour late for a show, and still be able to watch the feed from Ontario, or even later, the one from Vancouver (I live out east). I dunno why the companies put up with it for this long!
Today, consumers living outside of New York are permitted to subscribe to their local newspaper as well as the N.Y. Times, Washington Post or other newspapers across the country, yet those same consumers are denied access to New York television news.
Personally, I think it would be good for the country to be able to see what the local news is like in LA, Houston, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, etc.
And it would make it much more difficult for national politicians to get away with lines spun for one market. This would at least allow a shot at something interesting to see on the TV. I am tired of all the same old junk.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The only problem i can see here is the license fees paid by local stations for movies etc. are tied to the number of viewers - so by making the channel available to the whole country could force up these costs.
I hope that the law gets over turned. It was a pretty stupid law in the first place. Granted, with three hundred CBS/ABC/NBS networks at your fingure tips your gonna get pounded with the same programming, but having the news could prove to be very useful.
If your going to go to LA for the weekend and you have access to the Local News on your TV (yes, I realize you can get this all from the internet etc..) then you can quickly get aquianted with what has been going on recently over there, weather, traffic etc....
Also, consider this quote from the article... "Even Congressional members are today prevented by this antiquated law from monitoring TV news coverage from their home states while working in their offices in Washington, D.C". This seems to be unreasonable. These people are supposed to be represnting the people, how can you expect someone to stay in touch if they can't even see the news! ;)
Any the real reason this would be awesome is to avoid that damn local blackout for sporting events ;)
-ryanHate local channels?!? Yeah, I hate some of my local channels too. There are also channels that I like that I cannot get because of the retarted local channel rules.
For instance, until recently, I was able to receive the nationwide PBS feed on my DirecTV satellite system. Unfortunately, DTV recently switched my PBS to the local PBS. Now, instead of getting all the high budget, awesome PBS programming like Nova, Frontline, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, etc. I have to watch all the terrible (not all of it, mind you, but a lot) local, low budget shite. I'm sorry, all you PBS workers, but even in Chicago, a good deal of the locally produced public television is little better than cable access tv.
What I would really like to be able to have is both, and I did for a month...but because of these ridiculous FCC rules, I can no longer have the nationwide PBS feed, and have lost most of the programming I was accustomed to getting in a timely manner.
Hell, I'd pay more for the nationwide PBS than I do for HBO.
is to keep the local stations from going out of business. local stations make their money on advertising for local businesses. if you don't watch your local station, then the local station cannot charge as much for advertising. the station in NY is not selling advertising time that is targeted to billy bob in rural oklahoma, the station in oklahoma city is. if you give viewers a choice, then you dilute the advertising market and stations lose money. thats the arguement of the NAB (national asso. of broadcasters). but I do favor removing the rules, I like to see news from other parts of the country, and its better to timeshift (and would allow greater flexibility in scheduling my tivo). For a message board that is packed with this discussion, visit www.dbsforums.com, where there are geeks such as yourself there who do nothing but debate satellite delivered television. (no, i dont work for them)
The regulation has to do with advertising. If a small, local company advertises on your local NBC affiliate during the news, that company only has to pay the local affiliate for the airtime. If a big company wants to target an advertisement to a local population, they do the same thing--for about the same price (politics and all that aside).
If everyone can watch, say, the DC NBC news and it seems that many people outside of the DC area actually prefer that station over, say, the Baltimore NBC station, then the problem becomes how much to charge for ad slots. The local companies are paying per TV that is turned on during their commerical (ratings, etc) regardless of location. If half of these TVs aren't even anywhere close to you--like on the other side of the country--then the company is paying too much for little benefit. The DC NBC station then charges huge amounts for the ad slots and then only big corporations can afford the time. This isn't fair for small business.
In a perfect technological world, the solution would be that you could watch any affiliate you like of NBC, CBS, ABC, etc, and since they all have the same national feed you would always get the same national ads. When the remote affiliate inserts their own commercial, though, you would be forced instead to watch a commercial that is inserted at your local level. In other words, I could still watch Enterprise via UPN in Detroit (because ours always sucks) but when the Detroit station cuts to a local commercial, I would instead watch a Columbus commercial. That seems reasonable to me--but technologically its not quite there yet.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Guys, do you really think that the Sat. companies are going to broadcast 100s of NBC stations instead of 2 (New York and LA, to get the east coast and west coast network stuff) and provice 198 more pay per view channels?
People don't really care about the local as much as they care about the network programming.
However, there is some good in this country to have local news. Any more eliminatation of local involvement jeopardizes the Republic, that needs a citizenry knowledgable of what is going on at the local level. The separation of powers between the state and federal governments is weakened if you don't get information on local officials without jumping through hoops...
Alex
I don't have the specific history in front of me, but I believe that the regulations came about to prevent a local market from losing advertising revenue to a remote market. That and the whole "Providing service to the local community" requirement that's part of every broadcaster's license.
I'll pick an extreme example - let's say you live in Napa, California. Napa has its own affiliate network stations who depend on local ad revenues. The stations wouldn't have to worry about losing business to stations from Chicago.
But if your satellite provider can't/won't/doesn't carry Napa local stations because there isn't enough of a market, but does provide San Francisco channels - it's kind of local news (weather, etc.), but the Napa stations lose ad revenues to San Francisco. Especially since reception in Napa is spotty because of the mountains, so most people go with Dish. (Purely hypothetical example, and probably not based in reality.)
This is most important for very small markets that are near a major market - small towns that are about 40 miles from a major city, for example.
The other thing that Echo is trying to do is get the FCC to tell them that they don't *have* to carry local programming because they don't have the bandwidth to do so for every market they serve. I see their point, but a lot of people are going to be upset if they can't easily get the farm report from their local channel because the nearest locals they can get from the satellite company is 60 miles away.
I'd like to have the option to watch local programming from other markets (places I've lived in the past, etc.), but I also want to make sure that most local markets are available... a difficult proposition, especially if they really don't have the bandwidth to carry them...
These are only semi-informed opinions, BTW... hopefully someone with more concrete knowledge will chime in.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Charlie is as cheap and greedy as they come. He doesn't want to broadcast every local market feed on CONUS. In fact, he can't. There simply isn't enough satellite bandwidth for that many locals. What he really wants is to offer just a few big markets nationwide. Want your locals from the UP of Michigan? Too bad. You get Detroit.
For the next Charlie Chat, ask him why he doesn't carry west coast feeds of most channels. Answer? "Takes up bandwidth." "Redundant programming." I can see the same argument from him for local networks.
Don't be fooled into thinking you'll get 500 locals to choose from one day.
Here's the gist:
:D
Originally, they just gave network stations to anyone who asked for them. Mostly New York/LA feeds. Naturally, the local stations were ticked off about this, as they have exclusive copyright over their network's programming for their area (so they argued). They tried to get it prohibited outright. But a lot of people don't get all the networks. My parents have no CBS channel over the antenna, for example.
So, in the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) (1996? 97?), Congress granted a limited exception to the exclusive programming copyrights enjoyed by TV networks and their affiliated stations because it recognized that limited numbers of households are unable to receive network signals over the air. The exception is a very narrow compulsory copyright license that direct-to-home satellite video providers may use for retransmitting signals of a defined class of television network stations to "persons who reside in unserved households." If defines "unserved household" as someone who:
"cannot receive, through the use of a conventional outdoor rooftop antenna, an over-the-air signal of grade B intensity (as defined by the Federal Communications Commission) of a primary network station affiliated with that network, and has not, with 90 days before the date on which that household subscribes, either initially or on renewal, to receive secondary transmissions by a satellite carrier of a network station affiliated with that network, subscribed to a cable system that provides the signal of a primary network station affiliated with that network."
So my parents would be able to buy CBS, but nobody else. It did provide for waivers as well, which allows my parents to obtain waivers from, say, the local NBC station, and get New York's NBC over the dish.
In 1999, the SHVA was amended by Congress, resulting in the passage of the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act (SHVIA). The SHVIA also amends both the 1988 copyright laws and the Communications Act of 1934. One of the key elements of the SHVIA is that it, for the first time, permits satellite carriers to transmit local television broadcast signals into local markets, also known as "local-into-local." This Act also authorizes satellite carriers to provide distant or national broadcast programming to subscribers. "Local-into-local" means that if a satellite customer lives in an area where the satellite company has decided to provide the service, the customer can receive local TV channels.
In short, the satellite company can decide to carry a local markets channels on their feed and offer those channels to that local market without getting waivers or anything. Obviously, they have to work out carry rights with the local stations involved, but that pretty well covers it.
More recently, cable companies have gotten "must-carry" approved into satellite feeds. The principle here basically says "if you carry any local stations in a market, then you have to carry all local stations in that market" in somewhat more complex terms. There's a few catches, such as they don't have to pay to carry a station if the station invokes their must-carry privilege, and so on, but the upshot is that even pointless locals like religious channels nobody watches can get satellite coverage for their area.
DirecTV responded by launching their spot beam satellite. This lets them broadcast to a single spot on the ground, covering one market. The upshot of this is that it vastly increases their total bandwidth, as they can reuse the same frequencies for locals in a bunch of different spots. St. Louis can only see St. Louis, for example. Actually, the spots are quite large, and St. Louis can probably see Chicago stations too, but the principle is basically that. Thus, by reusing all this bandwidth, they have a very simple way to put locals down all over the country without having to waste half their total bandwidth on 300+ "local" channels.
Echostar hasn't got spot beams. And they are subject to must carry too. So they're getting screwed right now. They're looking for any way out they can find. They're trying to eliminate local restrictions, they're trying to get must carry suspended, they're trying to buy DirecTV to have more bandwidth, anything. Because if they don't, they're going to go out of business. Unless they can get some spot beams up real fast. And they can't, for at least a year.
Which is the state of satellite TV.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
When the satellite system started becoming popular, the local broadcasters and cable companies lobbied Wasington to protect the licenses that they had paid to broadcast their networks (from THEIR POV, this makes sense. They had paid for the right to a certain spectrum to the government when there was no other competition)
And they made the cable companies offer drop rate local only packages, normally cheaper than $10... (BTW, you can still get this package, if you call and ask they will tell you about their "cheapest package" at $30, but if you push them they will offer the $10 package)
It also seems perfectly reasonable, IF you could get the local affiliate from an Over the Air Antenna or Cable, no harm done right?
WRONG!!!!
What if your cable company sucked and (like many companies at that time) went out every time the wind changed direction? And it didn't matter if you actually HAD cable, what mattered was IF it was provided in your neighborhood you had to get the networks through cable.
And if you could receive the local stations signal was determined by: THE LOCAL STATIONS!!! And they based their determinations on distances from their broadcasting towers WHEN USING A ROOFMOUNTED ANTENNA!!! Didn't matter if you were on the other side of a mountain blocking the signal in West Virginia or not, you were within their broadcast area...
And about the only way around it was to get a letter from the local affiliate saying they exempted you.
As the satellite provider we were bound by the laws and by the whim of the local stations, and man did it suck!
Please don't ask me about conditional sports blackouts:ARGHHH!!!!
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
The fact that you can get all those papers is exactly the point. It is ILLEGAL in the US for them to do that with TV. I live in Kansas. And it is illegal for me to recieve out of market stations on a satalite dish, unless I pay extra to make up for "the economic loss that I'm causing by watching their commercials." The newspaper arguement is a perfect one. If I can get out of area news papers, why can't I get out of area TV stations? It's a stupid law.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
When Taco said "I don't care about local programming, they shouldn't force it on me" he was saying that he doesn't want to be forced to watch only his local network channels (via antenna). Having the choice of watching other local stations' crappy programming (via satellite) would be preferable to him.
At least that's my interpretation of the Book of Taco. Other scholars may have different views on this.
I was a satellite dish salesman from 1994 to 2000.
On either of the little dish companies, Dish Network and DirecTV, or for that matter the BUDs (big, ugly dishes) you can get broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX) from various cities around the country. Actually you can't get them because your elected officials kowtow to the National Association of Broadcasters. If you work in the saltellite business you hate the NAB with the same passion as people here hate the RIAA and Disney. Something called the Satellite Home Viewers Act prohibits you from having broadcast channels from any city other than the one you live closest to. The thing about the newspapers is an analogy to explain the unfairness and of prohibiting you from watching NBC from any city other than the one you live near.
Do you get fuzzy recepting off the antenna from the local broadcast stations? Tough. If you live inside a line on a map called a "grade B contour" you cannot get the distant networks. The standard is severe. For example, here in Missouri, people who live 75 miles west of St. Louis as the crow flies out in the sticks who get crappy reception with big, expensive rooftop antennas are still prohibited from getting distand locals. Very few people in this country live outside the grade signal. Unless you're in the middle of Montana or someplace like that you are prohibited by law from receiving distant broadcast networks.
The NAB has an unusually powerfull hold on our congress because no politician wants to piss off the TV stations in their district. And since satellite dish owners are a small percentage of the electorate, then our elected scumbags side with the rich and powerfull NAB even though the prohibition on distant broadcast signals is unfair and certainly unconstitutional.
I got very involved writting letters to my congressman and senators and talking to customers about this issue back in '97 and '98 before the last Satellite Home Viewers Act and, at the end of it, became totally disgusted with the politcal process because it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats side with the rich and powerfull against the rights of individuals whenever they can get away with it.
Since getting out of the satellite business I've simply stopped watching TV and that's what I reccomend to you. Read a good book, meet friends at Starbucks for conversation, play the new Jedi Knight game. Screw TV.