RSSDirecTV and DISH Network want compensation for carrying local channels in all markets
By Tim Conneally | Published February 25, 2009, 7:35 PM
Before January 1, 2010, Congress must reinstate SHVIA (the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999), the pro-competition law that lets satellite television companies carry local broadcast TV stations, so a rare opportunity has been presented to change the law in its period of review. Congressman Bart Stupak (R-Michigan) proposed a bill this month that would ultimately require satellite TV companies to provide local TV signals in all of their markets. Stupak proposed H.R. 927, or the "Satellite Consumers' Right to Local Channels Act," because two of the thirty satellite markets that cannot receive local TV broadcasts are in his district. Satellite coverage in the U.S. is comprised of 210 market areas.
DISH Network's CEO Charles Ergen reportedly told the House communications and technology subcommittee this week that DISH would love to do that... provided it were given the "right incentives."
Ergen, and DirecTV Senior Vice President Bob Gabrelli made the case that H.R. 927 could actually be anticompetitive.
In Gabrelli's testimony yesterday, he said "Last week, legislation was introduced that would require satellite carriers to serve all remaining local markets by satellite within a year. Very respectfully, while expanding the reach of broadcast service might be a worthy goal, H.R. 927 is the wrong approach...[it] would unintentionally create real inequality." "Broadcasters already make their signals available in every market over the air, for free. More people could surely receive those signals if offered over satellite. But more people could also receive those signals if broadcasters themselves invested in the infrastructure to increase their own footprint so everyone in the market could receive a free over the air signal. We suggest that it is inequitable, especially in this economy, to place the financial burden of expanding broadcast coverage on satellite subscribers alone."
As far as I'm concerned, government doesn't have the right to force them to carry ALL of these stations. People should get rabbit ears if they want local stations.
Score: 0
|the prices they charge, they deserve prison time instead.
Score: 1
|In the old days you could get the straight network feeds from DirecTV. It was excellent because you got both the east and west feeds which meant you could catch shows early and late. I think that providing local channels should be optional if you can easily get them off air. If you want to have your local channels then either hook up an antenna or pay your satellite provide for the channels. If you cannot get the channels because of your location, then the feeds should be provided at no cost.
DirecTV and Dish make an excellent point. It is the burden of the local network to ensure their customer gets the signal. It is unfair and anti-competitive to force the satellite providers to carry the cost of ensuring all their customers get the feeds. The cost of carrying all 210 markets may be too big a burden to them if there are not enough customers to pay for the service.
However, I understand that if cable is required to carry the local channels then the same rule should apply to the satellite services. However, the cable company charges for basic access and as such, so should the satellite providers. Personally, I love DirecTV and am not as concerned about my local programming. Generally speaking, most of what the local affiliates provide is simply a feed to the networks and mediocre television news.
Score: 0
|This is why I still have cable, because satellite companies do not offer my local channels and they actually end up costing more than cable, despite what they tell you. Even the weather forecast from The Weather Channel isn't local, but from a city 80 miles away (where my "regional" DirecTV and Dish providers are located).
Score: 0
|Dish subscribers already pay extra to view local channels in any market. The crazy thing about this is that "local TV" consists of the big networks, which has been reduced to reality fare and slick, silly crime/DNA shows that have no resemblance to the real world. If I want "local" sports, I still have to pay extra for that package, too. I guess Stupak is pushing the oprah/obama connection since obama is on my TeeVee every single day. (yuck)
Score: 1
|Can't argue with them there. It takes bandwidth to broadcast those locals and bandwidth cost money. If they are going to require that they carry them, then they need to pay for it. Personally I think they need to just leave it up to them though. The less stuff the government controls the better! If anyone has tried to get a loan from one of the big lenders lately you know exactly what I mean. Government paperwork sucks!!!
Score: 1
|I'm with the sat companies here. They shouldn't be forced to show channels especially those channels that aren't going to make them any money.
Score: 1
|