MaryB

staticMHZ

It's the same with comcast. They only give you the main networks. In some areas they do have the sub-channels but alot of them don't. You have to use an antenna to get them.

__________________
DTV USA Forum is not affiliated with the converter box coupon program in any way, visit http://DTV2009.gov for more info.

bicker

The Must-Carry law specifies that each broadcaster can specify one of their signals as their Must-Carry signal.

Having said that, I think we're now getting all of our local broadcast channels, main signal and sub-channels.

Piggie

Cable legally like you say only had to carry the main.

But how long will it be before customer demand wants the subs on cable.

On satellite the way I understand it, is they don't have to carry locals (that part I am sure), but if they carry any locals they must carrying them all, but only the main program.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

Aries

The way cable companies are assholes to customers (rising prices is the #1 reason I switched), I laugh every time customers fight back and make life Hell for them.

bicker

Well, as I indicated above, apparently that demand is already here, since we've got most if not all of the sub-channels, and have already. Many of them are on our 200-tier.

I think you're correct, but surely that's so incredibly unfair that that law should be changed. Satellite service should be subject to the same Must-Carry laws as terrestrial services, regardless of the technical limitations they endure. As it is, they are abusing the fact that they do not have to comply with Must-Carry and filling their available bandwidth, instead, with more HD channels, an advantage that they're using as a bludgeon in the marketplace. So essentially, their advantage stems directly from their refusal to voluntarily comply with laws intended to get customers access to the most critical television channels for those customers, as defined by the SEC and the FCC. Ridiculously unfair.

Everyone has the right to evaluate for themselves whether cable/satellite is a good value for them or not. Good for you for determining that it isn't a good choice for your and doing without. However, as I respect your evaluation of what's of value to you, I would expect that you respect my evaluation of what's of value to me. Cable prices have not risen any faster than the value being provided to my wife any I.

Orrymain

You know there are probably two things that need to be done here. First, to complain to our carriers, be it cable or satellite, and say we want the subchannels. Second, we need to talk to the legislature about the 'must carry' law. Were sub channels even a thing when that law was made? Sub channels as I know them are recent, and the must carry law has been around a while, hasn't it? I think it needs a tweak.

Piggie

The must carry not law for satellite goes back to the days of them being fledgling companies with one bird each. There wasn't room. Those days are long gone now.

Dish network is listening. Dish network recently added Gainesville locals first in SD to get them going about 3 months ago to HD, but no subchannels. The local Cox Cable doesn't carry the subs either. Gainesville is in the 160 to 162 market, so that means Dish is working their way through the lower 100 markets.

Interesting according to a month old Nielsen report that came out 2 months after Dish went with HD locals, Cox Cable had an all time low market share, in the low 60%. 12% was OTA and the remaining part was mostly Dish, that took customers from both Cox and DirecTV. DirecTV acted as expected, so what? it's a small market, let Dish have it. And Dish too it with slightly lower prices plus locals in HD. So that is happening already without laws.

Adding local subs within spot beams will be the next demand. I am sure just like Dish adding Gainesville Locals as soon as they had the extra capacity due to demand, they may be the one that steps up and leaves DirecTV behind on the smaller markets.

Another factor is it wasn't until recently that many new sub channels have emerged now as must see by viewers. In the past subs in small markets were actually mains in big markets. So DirecTV and Dish in somewhere like the Orlando Market carries everything (I am in the Orlando DMA but way closer to Gainesville towers) I get off the Gainesville OTA subs, just CW and MyN. Even ION is on OTA as a main in Orlando, along with many Spanish networks on main of digital CA and LP stations.

The only think Orlando doesn't carry are the PBS subs and some of the newer networks like ThisTV, RTN, etc. Now I would love to be able to see them. But I am double out of luck. I can't see UHF from Jacksonville or Orlando, and barely VHF out of Jacksonville. To boot the ION in Jax is up in Brunswick GA. Works for them but not me.

We have an analog CA on the air now that stands a chance of becoming digital with some of those channels. But it's years down the road.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

bicker

Yes. The law explicitly specifies that stations with multiple signals may designate one of them as the Must-Carry signal. The flexibility was deliberate, a reflection of balance between consumerist and business considerations.

bicker

The Must-Carry law we're discussing applies to terrestrial service providers. Only they are actually compelled to carry local broadcast channels for every locality within they offer service.

There is a new Must-Carry law applicable to satellite, adopted in 2000. It actually is more like "Must-Carry If" since, unlike cable companies, satellite providers are not required to carry any local broadcast channels whatsoever, for a locality within which they offer service, if they so choose.