Broadcasters are trying to prevent you from receiving HDTV via satellite

[waltinvt]

Broadcasters are trying to prevent you from receiving HDTV via satellite!



Are you going to let them get away with that?



Did you know that since the year 2000, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Political Action Committee has made more than $2 million in political contributions to candidates and members of Congress? All of this is meant to do one thing – deny satellite customers choice.



If consumers don’t speak up and tell their elected officials to resist the persuasion of the powerful broadcast lobby, our laws won’t reflect the needs of television consumers.



As satellite television has grown to more than 20 million subscribers nationwide, the broadcasters, from their palatial headquarters in Washington, DC have stepped up their fight against legislation that benefits consumers all while they drag their feet in transitioning to digital television.



Fight Back!

Thanks for your previous work on this issues. Your letter and emails are helping. What we need now is for customers to pick up and phone and tell your Senator to stand up to the powerful broadcast lobby! Tell him or her that you are a satellite television consumer who deserves a voice in the laws being passed in Congress. It shouldn’t be all about the broadcasters!



Tell your Senator to vote YES on S.2644 the Ensign Satellite bill. This bill would allow satellite companies to deliver an HDTV signal to many customers who cannot receive one today. The first vote on this important piece of legislation will take place on Tuesday morning.




Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121


Ask to be connected to your Senator’s office.



Senate Commerce Committee Members








Sen. John McCain, Chairman (R-AZ)


Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)


Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)


Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)


Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)


Sen. Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL)


Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)


Sen. John B. Breaux (R-LA)


Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)


Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA)


Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)


Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)


Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)


Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)


Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)


Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)


Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)


Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)


Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)


Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)


Sen. George Allen (R-VA)


Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)


Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)

[brector]

I just emailed both of our Senators in TN.

[twonami]

I'm on the side of the broadcasters. Why would company XYZ want to pay the local station when I can pay network HQ the money instead.
Because tiny company ABC wants to only attract the local citizenry to his tiny little shop and can't afford the big bucks.
Big network says sure you can put your commercial for high heel shoes on the air and reach all 50 states at a price of $250,000 per .30 seconds but the little shop that sells fertilizer for farmers in Bumblecluck, IA is not going to pay that kind of money. People in NYC don't care about your fertilizer but the folks of Bumblecluck need a fertilizer that can stop corn fungus.
TV stations survive on advertising and if you lose the little network affiliates the programming is going to attract only those people living in large urban areas and the little guys will be left in the cold. You lose the little stations you lose your network.
No more local/regional sports. How would you like to live in Green Bay Wisconsin and the only football that is shown is the east, west coast and Da'bears because thats what the big cities want to see. you would be pretty unhappy with the state of affairs.
If you want to see the big network TV stations buy a antenna and if you can't see anything then you get a waiver but the waiver gives you a choice of East coast or west coast. If the Sat companys offered local coverage for all their customers the bandwidth would be used up. Until the technology improves you'll have to deal with it just like everyone else.
I'll agree the rules need to be updated for the 21st century.

[gchasse]

Twonami,

I have both an indoor and outdoor antenna to try to capture my local HD channels, and I cannot get most of them regularly, even though I live in the city. I have no other option. Further, Comcast does not broadcast all the local channels in HD. What do you propose I do? I see the CBS HD feeds offered on DirecTV, but cannot see the broadcasts because the local station's HD feed does not get to me in HD and I live in the city. I have a carrot dangling in front of me and cannot have it.

I don't have any sympathy for any of these cable companies. They have had a monopoly for years and they have been a model for customer no service. It is truly pathetic how poor they have been in delivering to their customers.

As far as the local channels, I already pay for the analog signals on DirecTV. They get their money. What the satellites want is to be able to compete with the local cable companies, and I have no problem with that. Competition is a good thing. Bandwidth is an issue, I agree, and there is no way DirecTV can deliver all these local channels in HD, so I don't see a problem with them being able to deliver HD programming for the networks this way. The local cable company won't deliver all of them, and they don't care, because they have no competition to do this. I am so sick and tired of that.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I respectfully disagree.

[Splicer]

gchasse, I realize how difficult it can be not having what the Jones's have. But patience my friend. Comcast will be delivering the HD content sooner than you think. The closer the deadline approaches for total conversion to Digital, the more channels you will get. Last I heard the deadline is December 31, 2005. But the deadline before that was December 31, 2003 and we see where that went. As unlikely as it seems, it is still possible the FCC may change the deadline again. Trust me, with all the fiber optics in place, bandwidth is not as a big of concern as it was in the past. :smokin:

[woodman]

... The closer the deadline approaches for total conversion to Digital, the more channels you will get. Last I heard the deadline is December 31, 2005. But the deadline before that was December 31, 2003 and we see where that went. As unlikely as it seems, it is still possible the FCC may change the deadline again. Trust me, with all the fiber optics in place, bandwidth is not as a big of concern as it was in the past. :smokin:

No, Splicer, you're not correct with your dates ... not even close. There never was a date set of December 31, 2003 - nor was there ever a date set at December 31, 2005 either! The original date set by the FCC for the cutoff of all analog TV transmitters was December 31, 2006 but that date was scrapped several years ago as being completely unrealistic. The current plan calls for the transition to DTV (digital television ) to be completed when 85% of the viewing public is equipped with the necessary equipment to receive the digital transmissions. No one knows just when that's likely to be at this point in time. Best educated guesses put the date as somewhere between 2007 and 2010, with the latter probably being closer to accuracy! :wow:

[Splicer]

Well then, there you go. :smokin:

[brector]

I'm on the side of the broadcasters. Why would company XYZ want to pay the local station when I can pay network HQ the money instead.
Because tiny company ABC wants to only attract the local citizenry to his tiny little shop and can't afford the big bucks.
Big network says sure you can put your commercial for high heel shoes on the air and reach all 50 states at a price of $250,000 per .30 seconds but the little shop that sells fertilizer for farmers in Bumblecluck, IA is not going to pay that kind of money. People in NYC don't care about your fertilizer but the folks of Bumblecluck need a fertilizer that can stop corn fungus.
TV stations survive on advertising and if you lose the little network affiliates the programming is going to attract only those people living in large urban areas and the little guys will be left in the cold. You lose the little stations you lose your network.
No more local/regional sports. How would you like to live in Green Bay Wisconsin and the only football that is shown is the east, west coast and Da'bears because thats what the big cities want to see. you would be pretty unhappy with the state of affairs.
If you want to see the big network TV stations buy a antenna and if you can't see anything then you get a waiver but the waiver gives you a choice of East coast or west coast. If the Sat companys offered local coverage for all their customers the bandwidth would be used up. Until the technology improves you'll have to deal with it just like everyone else.
I'll agree the rules need to be updated for the 21st century.

Now what about Directv rebroadcasting my local stations in HD??? They already rebroadcast the regular feed.

[mikehbkwm]

i seriously doubt they have the bandwidth to do that...

[gchasse]

Splicer,

The reason I have DirecTV is mainly to get the New England sports channels, which I cannot get with Comcast, and I don't expect Comcast to start carrying anytime soon. In essence, I cannot get all I really want in one place. You are right that eventually Comcast will pick up the other local channels in HD format, but I also know that the analog channels will not come in as well on cable as DirecTV.

I just have to be patient with all this. That is what happens to us who are at the beginning of this, we have to go through the growing pains.