# Distant Networks Taken Away



## DeeCee98 (Jan 6, 2004)

FYI - was on the DirecTV website today & looking at my billing etc - notice that total choice plus w/locals was added (had TC plus with NO locals)....i called retension dept & they told me a Macro was sent to remove the DNS per toughening Federal Regulations - especially in larger citys such as LA (where i am)

Would have been nice if they sent me a card/email or something

any ideas how i can get my DNS back ? loved having East coast feeds!


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

Got a relative in New York City??
Do a move. Become a New York City Paperless bill resident. Live in LA and get your New York stations.
Or find an address on the web in New York City that you can use. But make sure you do not plug in your TIVOs to the phone. Got to go under the radar.

I kind have been doing this for the last 10 years. I still live at my original billing address but have moved 4 times. Still get the networks grandfathered in and also the HD ones too.

Wish you luck.


----------



## ayrton911 (Sep 4, 2000)

I'm pretty sure you can still connect the phone line as long as you're in the United States and all receivers call on the same number.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I received an automated call from DirecTV today. My wife picked it up and tried to copy down what it said but she didn't get all the details. From what she did write down, it sounds as if I'm going to lose my distant HD networks (CBSE and FOXE) because I can now get the local stations in HD. Which I can on the HR21, but not the HR10. I have asked for clarification and a cutoff date. What I don't know is if this is a prelude to those channels disappearing from MPEG2, which I'm sure is going to happen later this year. Stay tooned.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Hersheytx said:


> Got a relative in New York City??
> Do a move. Become a New York City Paperless bill resident. Live in LA and get your New York stations.
> Or find an address on the web in New York City that you can use. But make sure you do not plug in your TIVOs to the phone. Got to go under the radar.
> 
> ...


While there actually is no grandfathering anymore (completely struck down both proactively and retroactively in a Florida circuit court in 2000) and it only appears that you are legally getting these channels (you aren't), this will not work unless you also meet 2 requirements:

1) Ability to receive MPEG-4 reception, implying a HR2x and excluding the HR10. The MPEG-2 DNS HD signals are going bye bye. LA stations are already gone.

2) Physical location inside the NYC spot beam. This can be from 250-400 miles in diameter. Possibly Nashua is that close to NYC, I do not know.

It works OK for CONUS channels in MPEG-2, but for spot-beamed MPEG-4 channels, not so much (I once "lived" on a remote indian reservation in northern Arizona for 3 years to get NDS channels from NYC and LA when I was with DISH). My understanding is that the previously-CONUS DNS channels will not be available as MPEG-4 CONUS, but only as spot beams. You will get nag crawls for months, if the LA experience applies.

And I wouldn't worry about the reverse caller ID issue. Nobody is checking that closely, and while they are officially not allowed to sell you NDS, they still want to and will always look the other way.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

DNS has been going away for those that don't qualify (per the government) for years. They haven't got to everyone yet but they run batches of them every few months. While DirecTV would love to give you NY DNS, since you live in LA you don't qualify and DirecTV breaks the law by allowing you to have NY DNS.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I don't believe that the government has anything to do with DNS. It's the networks managing how their signal is distributed and protecting their affiliates. There is no law that says you can't have it, only that the network has the right to deny it if they choose.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

From the discussion over at dbstalk.com, August 7 is the date. They made a LOT of these calls... I am in NH and had a valid reason for the HD distant networks back before DirecTV started offering the Boston locals in HD. I figured they'd catch up eventually. This also helps reduce the number of users of those channels for when they do the MPEG4 cutover.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

SkyReport.com is reporting (the article is on their main page today) that another company just won a court case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for this company to broadcast distant networks. It seems they leased space to broadcast the Distant Nets from Echostar in 2006 after E* lost the their Florida court case. Now the circuit court is saying they have the right to lease the space for retransmission. This company (National Programming Service - NPS) has been in the C-band business since the 80's. They and the courts apparently determined the SHIVA act gave them permission to broadcast - maybe because of their ties to the C-band industry. Perhaps the distant network broadcasting thing isn't over with yet.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

hefe said:


> I don't believe that the government has anything to do with DNS. It's the networks managing how their signal is distributed and protecting their affiliates. There is no law that says you can't have it, only that the network has the right to deny it if they choose.


Government....courts....hard to tell the difference sometimes. 

But it is against the law if DirecTV (or Dish) violates the court order and they will be fined by the government (FCC). Just look at what Dish has gone thru over the past 8 years over this. The government has fined them many times for violating the law on this.

In any case DirecTV isn't doing this because they want to nor are they out to get anyone, they are simply following the rules so they don't get in trouble.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

shibby191 said:


> Government....courts....hard to tell the difference sometimes.
> 
> But it is against the law if DirecTV (or Dish) violates the court order and they will be fined by the government (FCC). Just look at what Dish has gone thru over the past 8 years over this. The government has fined them many times for violating the law on this.
> 
> In any case DirecTV isn't doing this because they want to nor are they out to get anyone, they are simply following the rules so they don't get in trouble.


What rules? What court order? Can you point to one? I'm not aware of any legal reason why DirecTv could not carry a network signal into another market unless they were doing so against the wishes of the content owner, the network itself.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

hefe said:


> What rules? What court order? Can you point to one? I'm not aware of any legal reason why DirecTv could not carry a network signal into another market unless they were doing so against the wishes of the content owner, the network itself.


I believe that Dish Network got burned for this a year or so ago. The local channels want you to view their commercials.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

joed32 said:


> I believe that Dish Network got burned for this a year or so ago. The local channels want you to view their commercials.


The only thing I'm aware of where a law was involved is "must-carry" where a service must include all the stations in a market.

Distant networks are based on networks giving permission to rebroadcast where they have an affiliate broadcasting locally. We always had to get a sign-off from the local affiliate if it was independent, or permission from the network if the affiliate was network owned and operated. It was up to the station/network to grant permission, and they could revoke that permission at any time. It's up to them. Unless I've missed something since I dealt with this in my market several years back, government had nothing to do with it, except that I suppose they could be called on for recourse if a network's wishes were not honored since they hold the rights to determine how their content is distributed.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

hefe said:


> What rules? What court order? Can you point to one? I'm not aware of any legal reason why DirecTv could not carry a network signal into another market unless they were doing so against the wishes of the content owner, the network itself.


Wow.

The Miami court ruling of nearly 10 years ago?

Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 ring a bell? This actually is the *law* that makes it illegal. And was recently amended to enforce the rules against those that were grandfathered (and no longer qualify of course) from before 1998 (which we are now seeing the action on). See DirecTV is actually following up on that law vs. Dish Network who keeps on suing the government.

Just a quick google will offer you up tons of articles over the past 8-10 years about this subject.

Here is some SEC info: http://www.secinfo.com/dvjdn.5pr.htm
Only link I'll provide you.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

shibby191 said:


> Wow.
> 
> The Miami court ruling of nearly 10 years ago?
> 
> ...


That supports what I said. 

The government is not saying they can't carry distant networks. The networks are saying that, and the court is upholding that right.



> In March 2000, *the networks* filed an emergency motion again asking the
> court to issue an injunction requiring us to turn off network programming to
> certain of our customers.


If the networks want to allow it, they can. If they don't, they don't. It was asserted above that it was a government mandate that forbade DNS, but I don't see where any of what you linked is saying that, and that is the misconception that I think many people have...that some law says you can't get DNS.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

hefe said:


> That supports what I said.
> 
> The government is not saying they can't carry distant networks. The networks are saying that, and the court is upholding that right.
> 
> If the networks want to allow it, they can. If they don't, they don't. It was asserted above that it was a government mandate that forbade DNS, but I don't see where any of what you linked is saying that, and that is the misconception that I think many people have...that some law says you can't get DNS.


The law states, and I quote:



> *Distant stations provided to some subscribers*
> The new SHVIA also addresses the satellite retransmission of distant television stations to subscribers. This applies to television broadcast stations that are not from the subscriber's local market. Subscribers who cannot receive an over-the-air signal of Grade B intensity using a conventional, stationary rooftop antenna are eligible to receive these distant signals.
> 
> In addition, subscribers who were receiving distant signals as of October 31, 1999, or had distant signals terminated after July 11, 1998, may still be eligible to receive distant signals provided they cannot receive over-the-air signals of Grade A intensity. Both Grade A and Grade B signal intensity are defined by FCC rules. If a consumer is eligible to receive distant signals under these provisions, it is still up to the satellite carrier to decide whether to provide the distant signals to eligible subscribers.


The problem is with DirecTV and Dish allowing DNS to those that don't qualify. Thus, *against the law*. Can't make it any clearer then that. DirecTV is (and has been for a while) turning off DNS to those that truely don't qualify anymore. Also the latest update to this act a couple years ago took away the grandfathering clause in the 2nd paragraph. But believe whatever you want, doesn't change anything.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Well, it's just a semantic argument then. I know that there is legal code giving recourse to the networks to enforce their policy as owners of the content. My point was that the government wasn't the big baddie unilaterally taking something away. It's the networks' decision to do that. They can still allow it if they want to under current rules. But if they don't, they have the right not to, and the law is merely upholding the decision they make with their content.

(BTW, I receive CBS from New York, as I was able to secure waivers from both Milwaukee and Chicago in September of 2004)


----------



## scooby_doo_53 (Jul 19, 2004)

OK, so I have read through everything here, and yes, my wife received one of these phone calls from D* on Monday, but I am still a bit confused.

First off, I live in the Denver area. For those of you that don't know, over the air HD signals here have been through a lot of legal wrangling about putting a new HD antenna on the mountain the currently services the regular signals. For a few years now, the HD antennas for the local stations have been low power antennas on a tall building downtown. For a long time, I didn't even receive NBC or ABC local HD programming. 

That being said, Denver's CBS station (channel 4) is owned by CBS network. Because of this, a few years ago, CBS said that as long as you belonged to one of the CBS owned stations, you were eligible to get the HD signal from LA (or NY depending on where you were). I don't remember the exact number of CBS owned stations in the country, but it seemed to me to be around 15 or 20.

Thus, D* let me get the CBS-HD feed from LA. I have had this for 3 or 4 years now. Frankly it was great for programming, as their primetime schedule in LA didn't start until 9:00 PM in Denver (8:00 PM in LA), which meant I could record shows on NBC and ABC during Denver primetime, and then record CBS shows from the LA feed - I didn't run into conflicts this way.

That all changed in March when LA went over the MPEG 4 only programming. I have 2 HR-700 machines that still get the LA feed, but my HR10-250 units don't get the feed anymore.

So, after all of that, I guess I'm confused as to why it's being taken away for me (and the only distant network I had was CBS-HD), since CBS has said that their owned and operated stations were eligible for this. Note that I didn't get the HD feed until well after the 1999 ruling being talked about here.

I'm not expecting an answer - just ranting because I really found the convenience of taping shows later in the evening to be great, and I only have 2 Tivo units at the time, not the 4 I currently have with the 2 additional D* units.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

If DirecTV is offering the Denver HD locals, which I believe it is, then they are required to remove the distant networks. That you can't get the Denver HD locals with an HR10 is not relevant - DirecTV will swap you for an HR2x for free (usually).

The waiver issue is no longer relevant.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

hefe said:


> I don't believe that the government has anything to do with DNS. It's the networks managing how their signal is distributed and protecting their affiliates. There is no law that says you can't have it, only that the network has the right to deny it if they choose.


Believe what you want, but law and government have everything to do with NDS. While it is the NAB that has bought the lobbyists that forced legislators to create and pass such laws, since DBS vendors still really want to sell you all of the services you ask for, it takes the threat of law and government to keep them from doing it for those who don't qualify. The laws exist, and are on the books. Enforcement? Spotty at best.

But you are correct, even if you don't qualify you are not breaking the law by receiving NDS or paying for it, but the vendors are most certainly breaking the law if they sell NDS to those who don't qualify.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

hefe said:


> ...The government is not saying they can't carry distant networks. The networks are saying that, and the court is upholding that right...If the networks want to allow it, they can. If they don't, they don't. It was asserted above that it was a government mandate that forbade DNS, but I don't see where any of what you linked is saying that, and that is the misconception that I think many people have...that some law says you can't get DNS.


Maybe you are trying to put too fine a point on it.

There is very little difference between it being illegal, and it being illegal without a waiver, especially when all networks now have a policy of NEVER granting waivers anymore. The end result is exactly the same, no matter how you try to slice it. DNS is all but dead. Stick a fork in it.

That said, there is no "waiver" process for digital OTA signals, nor has there ever been one, only for analog OTA signals. The rules are completely different. It has nothing to do with getting a free pass from the local station, and everything to do with whether there is a network owned and operated station in the market your zip code defaults to. And now, those rules are becoming more restrictive. HD NDS was not a right granted by virtue of your address, it was a privilege. A freebie. Privileges sometimes get revoked, and that appears to be the trend here.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> Maybe you are trying to put too fine a point on it.
> 
> There is very little difference between it being illegal, and it being illegal without a waiver, especially when all networks now have a policy of NEVER granting waivers anymore. The end result is exactly the same, no matter how you try to slice it. DNS is all but dead. Stick a fork in it.


The difference is in who is saying "no" to DNS. The networks are. That's my point. I was just shifting the "blame" to the proper party.

If an artist releases a song, and then says everybody may download a free copy and distribute it however they like, that is their right. If they revoke that permission, that is also their right. And, they will have the backing of copyright law to enforce their decision. But the government is not the entity saying "you can't do this." They are merely backing the decision of the one that holds the right to decide.

That was my point. The government is not making a decision to disallow, they only enforce the decision the networks make. Maybe it is a fine point, but I see a difference. I'm all for blaming the government for lots of stuff. This just isn't on my list.


----------



## codespy (Jan 7, 2006)

Bump

Well, my ch 88 finally went 721 yesterday and today on all my IRD's. With no digital Fox OTA in Central WI at our camping land, it was nice to have for the football games in fall.

To my surprise, installing a slimline dish gets my Fox HD affilliate 170 miles away from Milwaukee. The standard 18" dishes on SD network were just out of range for locals, which a 30" dish took care of.

I'm liking the slimline thing.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

codespy said:


> To my surprise, installing a slimline dish gets my Fox HD affilliate 170 miles away from Milwaukee. The standard 18" dishes on SD network were just out of range for locals, which a 30" dish took care of.
> 
> I'm liking the slimline thing.


i hope someone else chimes in here because i thought all the channels came from the satellite and if you can get one in (on the same satellite) they would all come in

i dont understand what ...oh wait, you said new dish. That means you have MPEG4 locals and that's probably what you mean. I thought you were using your dish to get OTA 170 miles away based on how you wrote it


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Locals mainly come from spot beams, so you may not be able to receive them if you are far outside the intended market area, even if DirecTV thinks you are eligible for them.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

codespy said:


> ...Well, my ch 88 finally went 721 yesterday and today on all my IRD's...To my surprise, installing a slimline dish gets my Fox HD affilliate 170 miles away from Milwaukee. The standard 18" dishes on SD network were just out of range for locals, which a 30" dish took care of.
> 
> I'm liking the slimline thing.


I lost 399 finally this week. Not sure why, not sure it's worth complaining about to DTV (in that I would probably be speaking to a brick wall), but I sure liked that second FOX HD feed, which came in handy if I blew a recording earlier in the evening. I's like to think it was an entitlement, but DTV probably considered it a privelige instead, and one they apparently have no problem revoking capriciously. (bastids!) 

The Slimline is surprisingly hot. I would have assumed they would have engineered it to perform like the Phase III, but apparently, and possibly because of the nature of the Ka channels, it performs a lot better. I gained about 15 points accross the board over my Phase III.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

I got notice today that I'm losing my SD LA DNS channels. I can't say I'm that sad about it, indeed, over a year ago one of the D* reps told me that I had to be careful about adjusting programming packages since I shouldn't really have the DNS feeds anymore since Burlington DMA has had locals for a while now. 

For that matter, the SD NY DNS channels are basically never watched unless it's pouring rain outside (less fade on those).

I also expect to lose both sets of HD DNS in September once the Burlington, VT DMA gets HD channels.


----------

