[opendtv] Re: Fox v. Echostar
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:28:10 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Sigh. I'll assume that you are merely ignorant here, and not trying to
deliberately engage in something between a non-sequitur to a malaproprism.
First, interference. The FCC doesn't permit co-channel stations within a
certain (distance or interference critera) on the same channel. But, for the
sake of argument, let's assume they do.
Second, the FCC requires an applicant to actually program content. Nowhere that
I know of does the FCC permit a station to merely jam another station -- IN ANY
SERVICE. Also, a jamming station would clearly be a restraint of trade, and I
suspect the cost of actual content would exceed the potential benefit to keep
out "foreign" content.
Third, stations can, at their discretion, operate at an authorized power level,
provided that station meets the minimum requirements (100 watts ERP, provides a
"city grade" signal over all (or pursuant to a waiver granted under a seriously
difficult showing, virtually all) of the city of license (the first city listed
in a station ID, if more than one is listed). Stations may not exceed the
maximum ERP for a channel, after HAAT is taken into account.
If a station bleeds over into an adjacent (or any other) market, so be it.
Many do. It's a viewer bonus, but Craig will have problems with it, thinking
that the FCC should limit power.
The Communcations Act, however, requires the FCC to provide for widespread,
effective use of the spectrum. That seldom requires them to limit power.
The FCC in the 1950s (earlier?) instituted rules that limit the terrestrial
exclusivity rights of TV stations to a zone only within 35 miles of their
principal transmitter site. This is reflected using specific language in
network affiliation agreements and programming contracts.
I'm not saying that this hasn't been effectively extended here and there with a
wink and a nod. There are many cases where new entrants at least 35.5 miles
from the existing station's tx site have acquired network affiliations despite
the objections of the existing station and the disinterest of the network.
There are different rules that apply to cable and satellite operations. They
are called "network non-duplication" and "syndicated exclusivity" rules. If
you had ever been a cable subscriber and had access to multiple network
affiliates, you would see how extensive this can be with blackouts. (There are
additional blackout situations having to do with live sports broadcasts and, in
the case of NFL football, the number of butts in the stadium's seats, and the
distance of the stadium from the transmitter site and/or the cable system's
principal headend.)
Network non-duplication DOES NOT apply to non-commerical content.
The FCC is required by the act to maintain widespread availibility of TV
signals without the U.S. government subsidizing commercial stations. So, they
tend to be interested in situations where non-broadcast operators create
situations where a distant station siphons off viewers (hence advertising
revenues) from local stations.
You seem to have no problem with Echostar -- a giant, distant corporation,
unless we're talking about Cheyenne WY) misconstruing the rules, thereby
permitting New York or Los Angeles stations (all owned by major networks) to
unfairly siphon off viewers and the potential for revenues from their
affiliates in distant markets.
There are many exceptions here, provided by SHVIA and SHVERA, basically where
the local station gives a waiver (fat chance) to permit the signal importation,
or where the local station just can't or won't provide a usable signal (using
methods discussed here last week on a different thread) to a household.
The stations, per the Communications Act, FCC rules and contract law, have
extensive rights, but rightfully, it's the viewer's interest (in local news,
emergency messages and other content, including network programs) that is
paramount. (Not Paramount. :-))
Mark Schubin understands this situation as well or better than I. You could
acquire a clue, were you willing.
hth
John Willkie
Bert wrote:
Mark Schubin wrote:
> I think this is an interesting example of media-ownership
> issues:
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6367824.html
So Fox got upset because Echostar was offering the NY version of ABC, NBC, CBS,
and Fox even to customers that could get the local station's signal over DISH.
Just out of curiosity, why does Echostar do this if they don't need to? At the
bottom, the article says:
"The case is not about EchoStar's ability to provide local TV stations within
their home markets. As part of the settlement, EchoStar agreed to expand local
service from 165 market to 175 by Dec. 31 and pay $100 million to the stations."
I trust Fox isn't going to install a Channel 45 jammer in the Wash area, to
prevent us from picking up the Baltimore affilitate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: