DTV breaks the LAW on so many levels [Archive]

megados

August 6th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Yes I pledge outside my area too, since I can get PBS from several cities around me. :D

That's not the point, though. DTV has got to, by law, devote 4% of it's bandwidth resources to unencrypted PBS programming. I never said that they had to carry all of it for free! All I'm saying here, is that 4% of their usable bandwidth has to be allocated for PBS unencrypted, and that by doing so, would allow PBS viewing without any subscription at all. If they're roughly carrying 250 channels at present, they should be offering ten (10) yes, count 'em 10, channels of PBS programming that anyone, anywhere, (even in Canada, since they're unencrypted) can view with any working receiver, and a good card with no modifications.

I think it behooves us all to look into it more, since DTV's broadcasting into Canada anyway, and they're so very concerned with everyone else obeying the law.

And it's possible too, that current and past subscribers might be entitled to a refund, or a month's free HBO or something. :D

REDx

August 6th, 2003, 10:40 PM

very good point. shouldnt that have been brought up during
the purchase hearings.

megados

August 7th, 2003, 08:56 AM

I'm not sure which purchase hearings you mean. If you mean the end-user letters/suits, I don't think it'd have any bearing. In those, you'd have to pretty much stick to the issues at hand, and not try to bring that up.

I should clarify where I'm going with this:

If DTV were forced to comply with the law in this matter, it'd give a legitimate reason for Canadians to posess and sell US satellite systems, and make it much harder to raid and sue people for simply owning or selling US satellite equipment. If those channels were offered unencrypted, (as they should be), a US satellite system in Canada would have a perfectly legal use in Canada, even under the Supreme Court re-interpretation of the RC act which prohibits the reception of foreign encrypted signals.

Meanwhile, US citezens who have subscribed to DTV, (possibly for the purpose of receiving those signals), would have a course of action, and could be due a refund, since they were supposed to be able to get those signals for free. Instead, they had to purchase a package, which they may or may not have wanted.

I'm thinking that if enough people bring pressure in this area, it might give DTV something else to think about, instead of sitting and thinking up ways to try and screw the consumers. :D

Tygh

August 7th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Way back when, I had access to the PBS broadcast in the 380 range. Now, I am relegated to my local PBS only (which sucks). They do a pledge drive every other month and programming is interrupted as a result.

Any way to get the "standard" PBS that still shows on my guide? I was able to get the east coast feeds of the others (ABC, CBS, etc).

NotHome

August 9th, 2003, 09:14 AM

I subscribe for the kids channels. I too believe that the letter and intent of the law is to provide those channels in the clear. US taxpayers already pay a significant portion of the costs to run the channels through government funding.

It will take a lot of money to force Dave into supplying those channels for free though.

NotHome

To The Real King!!

August 10th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Hi Guys,

Actually I was around when PBS first started encrypting and they did it supposedly because they wanted better sound on the Vcipher System. You had to be encrypted with that to get digital audio.

Since then there has been lots of water under the bridge and I do not know what their current reasoning is. But if someone in the States writes them and asks them why, I am sure they will get an answer and it may be simpler than we all thinkhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

choctawba

August 10th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by To The Real King!!
Hi Guys,

Actually I was around when PBS first started encrypting and they did it supposedly because they wanted better sound on the Vcipher System. You had to be encrypted with that to get digital audio.

Since then there has been lots of water under the bridge and I do not know what their current reasoning is. But if someone in the States writes them and asks them why, I am sure they will get an answer and it may be simpler than we all thinkhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

UM TRUE TO A POINT...BUT THEY COULD HAVE CHOOSEN TO RUN ENCYPTED OPEN KEY AND THEY DIDNT WITH VIDEOCIPHER. INSTEAD YOU HAD TO SUBSCRIBE TO A PACKAGE. IF THEY HAD TRULY WANTED THEIR PROGRAMMING TO GET OUT TO THE MASSES AT NO CHARGE THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT ENCRYPTED OPEN KEY THUS ALLOWING ALL PEOPLE WITH VC TECHNOLOGY TO RECEIVE THE SIGNAL REGARDLESS OF PAID STATUS OR NOT.

Decibel

August 11th, 2003, 04:11 PM

The law says,

U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications

(c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming
No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite
delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the
Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by
retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as
long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any
program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection
shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of
the same program.

(3) the term ''encrypt'', when used with respect to satellite
cable programming, means to transmit such programming in a form
whereby the aural and visual characteristics (or both) are
modified or altered for the purpose of preventing the
unauthorized receipt of such programming by persons without
authorized equipment which is designed to eliminate the effects
of such modification or alteration;

Am I reading this incorrectly or does paragraph 3 say, in layman's terms, that I should be able to use a non sub receiver to view PBS programming of the National Program Service ??? :Z :Z :Z

If so, what law or exemption to the law allows them to get away with it ??? :mad: :mad: :mad:

megados

August 11th, 2003, 04:38 PM

Hi Decibel,

I think you are 100% correct in your interpretation, and I think it's a very important point. That's why I linked to your thread on Freedomfight, and that's why I'm "obsessing" over this issue. :D

It's a very important point, both from a legal standpoint, (DTV and the LAW) but also has the potential to unravel the prohibition of US dishes in Canada. Since the signal is to be re-transmitted in an unencrypted form, it would make owning a US dish and receiver perfectly legal, since the re-interpretation of the RC act refers only to "encrypted foreign signals". Also in the US, I believe if one could show that a person were forced to buy "packages" in order to get the PBS feeds, and that all they wanted were those feeds in the first place, they'd be due a refund of some kind.

TTRK, knowing how corporations work, and DTV in particular, I'd have a hard time believing they'd give that a straight answer! :D hehe I think the only way to get such an answer would be for a Judge to demand one. :)

Decibel

August 11th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Megados,

You're not the only one obsessing over this. While DTV is running wild & reckless right now, I also strongly believe something like this, with the right legal representation, does have the potential to blow apart the US Dish in Canada issue. But first, it must be shown in the US forum, that not only DTV but also Dish is in clear violation of this statute.

Once this is shown to be true, not only would refunds be due, but many end user cases could potentially benefit from a victory of this sort and yes, the canadian (US Dish) issue would most certainly have to be re-evaluated.

All said and done, DTV and Dish would probably be subject to many suits against them (for malicous damage and anything else one could think off).

I have been searching thru FCC Filed Comments (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi)and haven't found anything yet that would remotely even suggest that they can encrypt the PBS programming.

Now while DTV has decided to adopt a "carpet bomb" style of attack for which they are trying to pass of as a sucess, I do believe that it will come back to bite them in the ass.
Problem now though is that the RIAA sees an easy fight and wants to adopt the same kind of tactics.

While the law is open to interpretation, it was not written just for the giant corporation.

Here lies the potential to deliver a huge punch to DTV and Dish folks.

There's now quite a few attorney's out there making some good money defending end user's. Rightfully earned I may add, but how about one of ya coming foward and making a comment on this issue???

Please !!!!

There now, I was polite !!! :cool:

Decibel

August 11th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Ok, found this DTV response as to why they charge for PBS programming...

:mad:
Directv (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/learn/FAQ_DTVProgramming_Local.jsp#5)

Q: Why do you charge for local channels and PBS? Aren't they free?

A: We charge for subscriptions to broadcast networks for many different reasons. First, we must pay a copyright fee in order to be able to distribute the service. Then, just as with any signal we carry, we incur costs associated with receiving, encoding and transmitting it with our satellite and monitoring the signal quality. Also, we don't distribute local channels via satellite in all areas of the country. Therefore, we charge separately for local channel service so only customers receiving the service have to pay for it.

Well at least they recognize the fact they charge for it.....

:Z
Ok, I need help with this one....too long and complicated for me...
:Z

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Implementation of the Satellite Home (http://stations.cpb.org/pdfs/system/comments/0007carriage.pdf)
) CS Docket No. 00-96
)
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues
)
)
To: The Commission
JOINT COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Somewhere in here explains their authority and requirement towards PBS programming. Nowhere does it give them authorization to encrypt the PBS prgramming, making it unaccessible for public viewing.

:R

jameson71

August 12th, 2003, 05:00 PM

I don't have anything very usefull to add to this thread, just wanted to show some encouragement. I think this is a great point for investigation. The little guy isn't the only one who should have to follow the laws. :R

megados

August 12th, 2003, 06:32 PM

Okay! That was an interesting read.

In a nutshell, I understand it to say that wherever locals are carried, the noncommercial stations must also be carried, with no discrimination or prejudice, in signal quality, menu/guide positioning, and cost. It's basically PBS asking that the playing field be leveled with respect to cable vs DBS providers, such that the constraints upon cable operators, be applied to DBS operators, to ensure that preference not be given to comercial stations within a local market. It also provides for carriage of multiple PBS, noncommercial stations where programming is not duplicated to an extent of 50% over a three month period.

Interesting to note, is that it only asks that the PBS carriage fall within the most basic subscription level, and does not address the question of encryption at all. It's only objective is to clarify the must-carry regulations. The intent, is that PBS providers be given the same opportunity for coverage within a market that is enjoyed by their commercial counterparts.

While it's an interesting read, it doesn't address the law, in that the signal not be encrypted.

What's clear though, is that the PBS providers have not really pressed the issue of non-encryption. That might be somewhere pressure needs to be applied - from the providers themselves. If the public could somehow prod the PBS content providers into looking into the application of law as far as encryption goes, they might stand a better chance of getting a response. They don't stand to gain from it though, since their funding comes from the public, and the government. Possibly a very modest increase in viewership, but that's about it.

The thing is, the PBS content providers are, in a way, a stumbling block here. The reason I say that, is because they want a level playing field, but there's an obvious difference between cable, and DBS - that being that to order cable, you have to pay a basic rate, even if you only get the "free channels". I'm sure that's why DBS providers encrypt them - to ensure that you must have a minimum subscription, and their not doing so would put them at a disadvantage to cable companies, who can charge you to "hook that wire up" and maintain it for you. Their advantage is a physical link to your home. They can turn off a single household for non-payment, and DBS providers want that same ability.

However the law against non - encryption does not take that into account. In any case brought against them, I'm sure tey'd be quick to point out the disadvantage of having to stop encrypting PBS feeds. I know I would.

The whole thing becomes a question of whether it's the letter, or the intent of the law which is followed, and more importantly, the interpretation.

Decibel

August 12th, 2003, 08:44 PM

Interesting read indeed...

Amazing though how so much effort was put in place to to try to make the playing field somewhat balanced between the the cable industry and also the satelite industry, attempting to ensure that PBS or non commercial broadcasting did not get squashed right out of the market.

The following two excerpts from the
JOINT COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS, (http://stations.cpb.org/pdfs/system/comments/0007carriage.pdf) (CS Docket No. 00-96) Clearly demonstrates the intent of Congress....
The concern for public access to public television is in keeping with a long history of
congressional support for strong and diverse NCE stations that are accessible by everyone with a
television set, regardless of whether those stations are received over-the-air or through a
multichannel video program distributor. Since spectrum was set aside exclusively for use by
public television stations in 1952, Congress “repeatedly and unequivocally has supported public telecommunications services.”
When considering the 1992 Cable Act, Congress observed that itself, along with:
the American taxpayer have given public television unprecedented
support over the last three decades, and public television stations
have developed a wide variety of distinctive, award-winning
program services. The government has a compelling interest in
ensuring that these services remain fully accessible to the widest
possible audience without regard for the technology used to deliver
these educational and information services.

I have yet to find any document so far that specifically authorizes ANY industry to encrypt PBS programming without providing an unencrypted transmission of the same.

U.S. Code : Title 47 : Section 605 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/5/subchapters/vi/sections/section_605.html) specifically addresses this issue.

Our lawmakers, while tried to to their best, left the back door wide open folks. The cable industry and DBS providers probably know this, but do you think they care? Do you think they want to provide anything for free?

Of course not!!! They will take every last cent we have and then when you have no more money they will disconnect your account....NO MORE SESAME STREET !!!

Like Megados said,
The whole thing becomes a question of whether it's the letter, or the intent of the law which is followed, and more importantly, the interpretation.

Congress has clearly stated it's intent and also spelled it out into law. The problem lies in that somewhere, someone did not connect the dots correctly.

Time to contact our goverment and start asking why this has been allowed to happen...

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (WWW.HOUSE.GOV)
US SENATORS (WWW.SENATE.GOV)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html)

Let's turn up the heat and see what happens.....

:cool:

:D ANY LAWYERS HERE ???:D

To The Real King!!

August 12th, 2003, 08:52 PM

Hi Megados,

I did not mean to write DTV but rather PBS. I think they may give a straight answer. From what I read DTV do not have the right to encrypt at least one channel no matter what they say about costs. They can charge for the others but one has to be in the clear.

MegaDos I like your idea here and you are 100% right. This would allow Canadians to own a receiver and dish so that they could get the free PBS channel. This would be VERY upsetting to their apple cart but I think they would capitulate if people could get PBS to push for compliance with the law. After all the law goes for DTV just as much as for anyone else or at least it could. Why do they always manage to BREAK THE LAW and it seems nobody can ever do anything about it.

Here its a little different with PBS since they count on their drives for public funding as a very important source of Income. If people threatened NOT to fund them until they put up that one CLEAR channel, they may be forced to take action with DTV or offer all the PBS to Charlie instead. Or does he have them now?

Its a brilliant idea MegaDos, now how do we go about implementing ithttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

Bye the way PBS was transmitted in Fixed key mode (FA) at first on the Videocipher along with the Science Fiction Channel. I guess later on (since they shared a tier,) that when SF went commercial, they encrypted PBS too.
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

megados

August 13th, 2003, 06:18 PM

In answer to DTV's response on having to pay for the PBS channels:

Q: Why do you charge for local channels and PBS? Aren't they free?

A: We charge for subscriptions to broadcast networks for many different reasons. First, we must pay a copyright fee in order to be able to distribute the service. Then, just as with any signal we carry, we incur costs associated with receiving, encoding and transmitting it with our satellite and monitoring the signal quality. Also, we don't distribute local channels via satellite in all areas of the country. Therefore, we charge separately for local channel service so only customers receiving the service have to pay for it.

From Title 47 Sec 335 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/5/subchapters/iii/parts/i/sections/section%5F335.html)

(3) Prices, terms, and conditions; editorial control
A provider of direct broadcast satellite service shall meet the requirements of this subsection by making channel capacity available to national educational programming suppliers, upon reasonable prices, terms, and conditions, as determined by the Commission under paragraph (4). The provider of direct broadcast satellite service shall not exercise any editorial control over any video programming provided pursuant to this subsection.
(4) Limitations
In determining reasonable prices under paragraph (3) -
(A) the Commission shall take into account the nonprofit character of the programming provider and any Federal funds used to support such programming;
(B) the Commission shall not permit such prices to exceed, for any channel made available under this subsection, 50 percent of the total direct costs of making such channel available; and
(C) in the calculation of total direct costs, the Commission shall exclude -
(i) marketing costs, general administrative costs, and similar overhead costs of the provider of direct broadcast satellite service; and
(ii) the revenue that such provider might have obtained by making such channel available to a commercial provider of video programming.

They've eliminated marketing costs, general administrative costs, and similar overhead costs of the provider of direct broadcast satellite service; and the revenue that such provider might have obtained by making such channel available to a commercial provider of video programming.

To me this reads in such a way as to contradict DTV's response here, no? They can't pass on these costs, the way I read it, and the 50% they would charge has to be no more than 50% of the remaining costs, but for the life of me, I can't think of any other costs that this would be a percentage of. ;) So in essence 50% of 0 is 0, (at least it was when I went to school), so if they can come up with a cost figure not comprised of any of the above, and divide it between their number of subscribers, it certainly would be far less than one of their "package" deals.

But I digress. :)

I have read and re-read section 605, and have searched some, (Not as much as you have, Decibel :D ), and have yet to find one loophole that would allow them to encrypt the PBS feeds without carrying one of each of them in the clear. Maybe a query to one of the PBS stations as TTRK suggests, might shed a little light on it. They may know of something, and possibly asking the National distributors the same question might also. Included in the query, might be some of what we've dug up on this so far. Also, a person might proffer the thought, that it could mean an increase in PBS viewership, (without mentioning the fact the increase might not be large), and as PBS stations are always looking for ways to increase viewership, and the public donations, they might look into it enough, at least, to answer the query.

TTRK, I'm not sure exactly how to push this, with the exception of asking some questions of these providers, and hoping for a response that'd give some direction to it. They might be in agreement enough to be helpful, or they may not be. One never knows. :)

BTW, though, I have to defer credit to Decibel, since he was the one who originally brought this to our attention! :D I merely thought it interesting enough to try to give it a wider audience.

Decibel

August 13th, 2003, 07:38 PM

Megados,

Thanks for the credits but the one who deserves it most is Rise for not folding when the heat was turned up on him.

I also like to give credit to DTV for introducing me to Title 47 (hehe)....

And I like to thank YOU for taking a serious interest in this issue !!

Standing up and fighting for what one believes in is sometimes no walk in the park. But by working together like this, we can help deliver a mighty punch !

With respect to "(3) Prices, terms, and conditions; editorial control", it appears to me that this section is directed to the national educational programming suppliers, not the consumer, hence, DTV has no justification for charging the viewer for PBS programming which was originally intended to be for free, supported and financed with member contributions and federal funding.

The 50 percent of the total direct costs for making such channel available, is a charge to the PBS provider. It's clear to me that congress intent was to not provide an avenue for profit in providing the PBS programming to the public.

I'm quite sure there are plenty more documents that we have yet to uncover, hopefully more people reading this thread will join in on the research.

With what we have uncovered so far, I ask if we are heading in the right direction for a class action Anti-Trust suit.:D :cool: :)

If anyone can help with drafting a well written letter to send out to the PBS Providers, your efforts would truly be welcomed. ;)

:cool:

A Chronological history of Television and Video Technologies (http://members.tripod.com/jonchew_producer/History_of_Television.htm)

1986 - Scrambling of satellite signals begins, by HBO. Programs and decoders are sold to home dish owners who had been receiving pay and basic cable programming without charge.

1994 - DirecTV and USSB begin digitally compressed home satellite services, using a 18-inch dish. The technology becomes the fastest-growing consumer electronic item in history, with 1.1 million subscribers signing up the 1st year.

1986 PBS programming unscrambled.....1994 who gave DTV authority to scramble PBS programming ??? :mad:

:cool:

Zoomer

August 14th, 2003, 12:47 AM

Defense

http://www.directvdefense.org/index.shtml

Good reading.
Zoomer

This site provides scientists, researchers, innovators their rights.

Decibel

August 14th, 2003, 06:22 AM

Thanks Zoomer,

I sent them an email, hope they read the thread and comment.

:cool:

megados

August 14th, 2003, 05:05 PM

I went to PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org) and looked around some at what they say about DirecTV (link at bottom of page) and they don't seem to care that DTV's charging for the PBS programming. They only talk about how to get the various PBS stations, etc. I don't think they have even looked at this issue. Here's (http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/satellite/emailform.html) a form to fill out to ask about this subject, and they give this link to you only after you've gone through their FAQs about home satellite PBS channel reception.

It appears they're totally oblivious to this as an issue.

Decibel

August 14th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Here's what I sent them.....Let's see what they reply....

Why is it that US Code title 47, chap 605 prohibits the encryption of the PBS programming but yet to view via satellite, either Dishnetwork or Directv, I must PAY to view it unencrypted!!!
The DBS providers have the "must carry" obligation that requires them to carry PBS programming, the law allows them to charge PBS providers a max amount of 50% of their direct costs, PBS providers receive federal funding and private grants, not to mention viewer donations, but yet I must still pay Directv or Dishnetwork to view the PBS programming!!!
Why is this, Please explain !!!!
The next contribution I make towards PBS programming depends on the answer I receive!!!

:cool:

Now if they received say...a couple of thousand e-mails this week asking the same question, do ya think they might get a little concerned over this issue???

;)

megados

August 15th, 2003, 06:16 PM

The next contribution I make towards PBS programming depends on the answer I receive!!!

Now that's a very good angle:

Bring it up to them questioning DTV's dooubl-dipping, and skew it in such a way as to make it known that donating to PBS is supposed to ensure that they can be seen, without "extra charges" being tacked on to negate the fact that you donated.

"If I have to pay DTV to watch these programs, then why don't you ask DTV to fund your pledge drive?"

:D

Decibel

August 15th, 2003, 10:17 PM

Here's the reply to the E-Mail I sent to PBS.ORG (http://www.pbs.org)

Thank you for contacting PBS. I assume from your email that you are
referring to the fee that DirecTV and DishNetwork charge for their local
channels. DirecTV and DishNetwork do not pay any of the funds they
receive from these fees to the local stations, be those stations CBS,
FOX, etc. or PBS.

In regards to PBS's requirement to provide unencrypted national feeds:
PBS provides the required feed via our C-band signal. This is provided
free and clear to anyone who can receive it.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me
know.

Thank you,

Brady Bowling
Distribution Services Associate
satellite@pbs.org

Well now we got it straight from the source....

DirecTV and DishNetwork do not pay any of the funds they
receive from these fees to the local stations, be those stations CBS,
FOX, etc. or PBS.

:mad:

Anybody else send them an e-mail??? :Z

To The Real King!!

August 15th, 2003, 11:45 PM

Hi People,

Does anyone know what that means that they do not pay a cent. Are they stealing copyrighted material to rebroadcast or what.

Perhaps this conversation could go a little further with Mr. Bowling. He could be asked "do DTV have the authority to do this since these programs are copyright? Do you allow them to rebroadcast them without any payment, yet resell them for a profit? Can anybody do this?

Do the public who support PBS know that DTV make a profit from their donations yet pay nothing for the programming? What about the government who also provide the financing. Are they aware that DTV make a net profit from rebroadcasting PBS yet pay nothing for it or towards its production.

Effectively this is stealing and I wonder how they get away with that Sir. In closing Mr. Bowling, I would ask you why it is that you (PBS) take no steps to be remunerates for your programing.

---------------------

It would be very interesting to see what answers he gets and why they do nothing about this. If you had the time Decibel it would be very interesting if you would do this and then report back here with the answer as you previously did. Maybe we can put the kibosh to it and force them to run these stations in the clear. This would then remove the prohibition in Canada giving the Community a place to operate from legallyhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

Decibel

August 16th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Here's the New e-mail I sent.....Let's see how they reply to this one...

Mr Bowling,

Thank you for your speedy reply.

My concern is; why is it that PBS programming which was originally intended
for access to ALL the public, for free, has now been allowed to be
privatized?

I say privatized because in order to view PBS programming via DBS providers,
I must now pay a fee.
While I do agree with paying a fee for commercial programming via DBS
providers, I cannot understand why the oppurtunity now exists for the DBS
providers to earn a profit from the non commercial PBS programming.

While the PBS provider may state that it is included for free in their basic
subscription, if you pay for something then it cannot be for
free....Furthermore, they strenghten the point of privatization by
encrypting the PBS feed. So in order to view the PBS feed on a DBS system
you must pay them for the conditional access. Conditional as in NO Money, No
PBS. The DBS provider can very easily provide open access to the PBS
programming on their conditional access system.
They do that now with their preview channels. To view their preview channels
you do not have to send them one red cent.

With all the private monies that is provided by the general public to
maintain the non commercial and educational programming to the general
public, for free I might add, I ask you, what is the official postion of
the PBS community with respect to allowing the DBS provider to privatize
acces to PBS programming.
The following two excerpts from the FCC - JOINT COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICAS PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS - (CS Docket No. 00-96)

http://stations.cpb.org/pdfs/system/comments/0007carriage.pdf

Cleary demonstrates the position on the government....
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The concern for public access to public television is in keeping with a
long history of congressional support for strong and diverse NCE stations
that are accessible by everyone with a television set, regardless of whether
those stations are received over-the-air or through a multichannel video
program distributor. Since spectrum was set aside exclusively for use by
public television stations in 1952, Congress "repeatedly and unequivocally
has supported public telecommunications services."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
When considering the 1992 Cable Act, Congress observed that itself, along
with: the American taxpayer have given public television unprecedented
support over the last three decades, and public television stations have
developed a wide variety of distinctive, award-winning program services. The
government has a compelling interest in ensuring that these services remain
fully accessible to the widest possible audience without regard for the
technology used to deliver these educational and information services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Now, if one must pay then it is not accessible to everyone.
A prime example would be a low income family living in a rural area with
poor television reception who could not afford the monthly subcription or
conditional access fee, would be denied access to the PBS feed via a DBS
provider even though Congress has a compelling interest in insuring that
these services remain fully accessible to the widest audience without regard
for the technology used to deliver the PBS feed.

If congress has adopted this position, then please attempt to explain why
the Public Broadcasting Service Providers have not fought for the same
interests as the one of Congress and of the general Public whom wish to
ensure that the PBS feed does not turn into a conditionally accessible, non
public extension of the Public Broadcasting Service.

As I said before, The next contribution I make towards PBS programming &
support depends on the favorable answer I receive!!!

Thanks for your attention.....

Private Contributor.....

:) :) :)

Ok, folks, time to mount an E-mail & letter campaign to PBS asking why and how is this been possible to exist....
You don't have to identify yourself in your communication as they are perfectly accustommed to annonymity, they have lot's of annonymous contributors.
If they start feeling lots of pressure from the public, they might just be concerned enough to look at the issue a little bit closer.

A letter to the FCC would be nice too!

:cool:

:) Any lawyers here care to give a non commiting opinion on the subject matter here ???

megados

August 16th, 2003, 08:03 AM

Lets all read this again together:

(c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming
No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of the same program.

(3) the term ''encrypt'', when used with respect to satellite cable programming, means to transmit such programming in a form whereby the aural and visual characteristics (or both) are modified or altered for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized receipt of such programming by persons without authorized equipment which is designed to eliminate the effects of such modification or alteration;

They define encrypt when used with respect to satellite cable programming, which means the feed into the head-end of a cable system. They do not offer a definition other than that one.

In regards to PBS's requirement to provide unencrypted national feeds: PBS provides the required feed via our C-band signal. This is provided free and clear to anyone who can receive it.

It's clear that PBS is fulfilling their end of the bargain. It also sounds like they don't want to have to deal with anything that's not directly under their control. (somewhat understandable)

No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt . . .

They give only the one definition as it applies to provider feeds, but do not define it further, but to me that does not leave out DBS providers, only that it hasn't been addressed. No person, to me, means just that; not the provider, not the re-transmission carrier, no one. Not even a person in his own household, encrypting it before it reaches his TV. (Why you'd do that I have no idea . . :D ) DirecTV and Dish are both violating this stipulation here. Whether it was or wasn't intended, I believe that they fall under this rule, and should be forced by whatever means, to discontinue encryption of the PBS feeds. PBS is doing their part, and I believe the DBS providers should be doing the same.

Decibel,

I have not sent anything yet, and was hoping to do so later today. That which you have sent, though, is very good, and has provided myself, and hopefully others, some ideas on how to present this. :)

I too would like to see some legal input on this, as to how we're interpreting this. I know we have some good attorneys looking at these boards, as well as some non-professionals who are well versed in law. I also hope they'll chime in, and let us know if we're off-track here. :)

Decibel

August 16th, 2003, 10:44 AM

Some more resources....

Corporation for Public Broadcsating (http://www.cpb.org/about/)

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967-- 47 USC Sec. 396 (http://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html)

President Johnson's Remarks Upon Signing the Act (http://www.cpb.org/about/history/johnsonspeech.html)

Appropriations History (http://www.cpb.org/about/funding/appropriation.html)

Historical Timeline of Public Broadcasting (http://www.cpb.org/about/history/timeline.html)

In1967 President Johnson said:
It will get part of its support from our Government. But it will be carefully guarded from Government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent--and it will belong to all of our people.
1967 - Public Broadcasting Act of 1967-- 47 USC Sec. 396 (http://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html)
1968 - The FCC authorizes pay-cable transmissions, ruling that only 1 pay TV station is allowed per market, only markets with 4 commercial stations can have pay, decoders can only be leased, and each pay outlet must carry a minimum of 28 hrs of free TV. Despite the restrictions, the National Association of Theatre Owners and the joint committee Against Toll TV go to court to block pay TV.
1971 - Sync suppression scrambling of television signals is demonstrated at the National Cable Association convention. This allows cable operators to offer basic and premium service tiers.
(empahsis on demonsrated, not yet in commercial use or approved by FCC).
1972 - 1) FCC creates the Cable Television Report and Order, creating must-carry and may-carry stations and requiring all cable systems to be built with a capacity of at least 20 channels.
2) The first HBO programming is transmitted to 365 Service Electric subscribers in Pennsylvania.
1975 - HBO begins distribution of its programming via satellite, becomming, in effect, a network.
1980 - Conditional access is born - The introduction of addressable cable TV converters allows operators to control which channels each subscriber will receive, without having to send a technician to the home. With remote control of channel reception, pay-per-view events become a reality.
1984 - DSS is born - Hughes receives an FCC permit to build and operate a high-power direct-broadcast satellite system (DSS).
1986 - Scrambling of satellite signals begins, by HBO. Programs and decoders are sold to home dish owners who had been receiving pay and basic cable programming without charge.
1994 - DirecTV and USSB begin digitally compressed home satellite services, using a 18-inch dish. The technology becomes the fastest-growing consumer electronic item in history, with 1.1 million subscribers signing up the 1st year.

As you can see, Preseident Johnson said "It will be free".
USC Title 47 ch5 section 605 says NO ENCRYTPION !

Where and when was the privatization and conditionally accessible viewing of the PBS programming authorized ???:mad:

I need help here trying to find it....MAYBE IT DON'T EXIST !!!:cool:

blub5555

August 16th, 2003, 10:47 AM

Very interesting reading and factual indeed. I would say that you have all brought out a VERY GOOD POINT that MUST be addressed TO and By the DBS Satellite Providers, including our Canadian re-runners, Bell included. Not only this, but instead of increasing the Subscription fees, we now should get a DECREASE in fees, or a REFUND to every Subscriber from whom they've OVERCHARGED, and that's only from PBS. Maybe there are OTHERS that the public are not aware of, and I consider myself as " one of the public". I will continue to watch this issue with interest and will let others know what I have read here in "a PUBLIC forum". Thanks for the enlightment, blub5555!!

Zoomer

August 16th, 2003, 03:52 PM

Here a good one, interesting reading.
http://www.digital-law.org/
Check out,COUNTERFEIT and FABRICATED FALSE EVIDENCE FROM DirecTV
(they are NOT genuine invoices)
Copys:
DO NOT REPRESENT real DATA of any kind including purchases (which they tell the courts this represents) and are documents which THEY fabricate on a computer.
Bye Bye Dave
Zoomer
:)

Decibel

August 16th, 2003, 05:28 PM

DISHNETWORK CHARGES $1 FOR PBS PROGRAMMING ! :mad:

FCC 01-389 (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-389A1.pdf) (page 30 par 59 & page 31)
Found this FCC document which says:

EchoStar transmits a local network package to its subscribers in 35 markets for $4.99 and offers the national PBS feed as an option for one dollar extra.

DirecTV offers for $5.99 the local affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX in 41 markets, and a national PBS feed with every local station package.

More to come as I find it.......:cool:

Found some more....
According to PBS.ORG (http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/facts/faq10.html)

PBS KIDS Programming Is Free, Universal and Noncommercial
Only PBS makes nonviolent educational children's programming available to youngsters in virtually every American household, regardless of income.

PBS says...Free !
President Johnson said...Free !

Dish says...$1.00
DTV says...$5.99

:Z

tvman357

August 18th, 2003, 08:25 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PBS KIDS Programming Is Free, Universal and Noncommercial
Only PBS makes nonviolent educational children's programming available to youngsters in virtually every American household, regardless of income.

PBSK is not even in the least expensive package that is no longer available unless you had it before they changed some packages.

Decibel

August 18th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Found this document at Federal Register (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/1999/64fr71659.html) December 22, 1999
(Volume 64, Number 245)[Rules and Regulations][Page 71659-71660]

It deals with royalty rates - Rate Adjustment of the Satellite Carrier Statutory License.

Not sure how to interpret this....who pays who...and from where does the money come from ?

What happens after Jan 2002?

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act also amends the section
119 satellite license to include retransmissions of the Public
Broadcasting Service satellite feed, which is not a television
broadcast station. The Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed is
treated like a network station for purposes of the royalty fee, and
therefore incurs the 14.85-cent fee. The section 119 license for the
Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, however, is in effect only
until January 1, 2002.

:cool:

tvman357 - PBSKids, order it online - TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS with Local Channels (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/learn/Packages_TotalChoice_Plus.jsp)

megados

August 19th, 2003, 05:11 PM

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret it either, and I hope someone'll correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

I think that's the rate that the satellite carriers have to reimburse to the PBS providers for each subscriber getting that particular station. If that's the case, and DTV does have to pay the content providers, then it makes sense that a person pledging to a PBS station take that into account when making their pledge! ;)

Decibel

August 19th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Here's (http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/1998/nrmm8041.txt) another interesting FCC document (dated Nov, 1998)

where the FCC initiated a proceeding to explore issues associated with allowing noncommercial educational TV stations to use their new Digital Television (DTV) channels to offer ancillary or supplementary services, including subscription TV, on a remunerative basis.

Basically, the FCC took a look at this idea and asked raised the question on how could this be done without comprimising the basic fundamental mission of non commercial broadcasting.

It's interesting to see that when the Public Broadcasting Service began operation, their was no issue's of "Private Airwaves" (satelite direct to home or cable wire to home) to deal with.

When HBO began encrypting their signal,they opened the doors for the birth of coditional access to the "Private Airwaves".

Congress took measures to ensure that the non commercial programming of the Public Broadcasting Service was to survive in this era of "Private Airwaves" by enacting laws...the most important one in Title 47 ch5 sec 605 in which clearly states that no person shall encrypt the PBS signal.

Somewhere either someone understood or agreed that by merely placing the PBS signal onto a conditionally accessible (private Airwave)system, that they would be in compliance with the must carry obligations imposed onto them by the FCC. Wether or not any thought was put into the Encryption aspect of the PBS signal is still a mystery.

On one hand a valid argument could be created in which one could defend the reasons on why it IS encrypted and why one must at the very least, purchase a basic subscription to this "Private Airwave" system.

On the other hand, I believe a stronger argument could be made on why it is fundamentally wrong to encrypt the PBS feed.
It is wrong to do so because the basic fundamental mission of the pbs programming is to provide non commercial, educational programming free of charge to all, without regard for the technology used to deliver these educational and information services.

I have found FCC documents in where both DIrectv and Dishnetwork cried foul, cried that the must carry obligations imposed upon their First Ammendment Constitutional rights. They sought to obliviate the must carry obligations placed upon them, but they lost that fight for now.

It's obviously clear that both DTV and Dish would much rather use that 4% of minimum bandwith reserved for NON commercial programming, in a commercial manner. They want to squeeze every last dollar that they possibly can without giving anything back to the same people whom have allowed them to exist.

I am no attorney, but this scenario to me appears to open a door of Anti-Trust.
The cable and satelite industry don't seem to want to remember that way back in the begining, in order to get the legal OK to operate their "Private Airwaves", they had to agree to provide the non commercial, educational programming of the Public Broadcasting Service.

Anti-Trust I say, because only an idiot would think that they (sat & cable) did not sit in their war rooms and say, F**k it, let's not give anything away for free....Let's charge them a dollar or tell them it included for free, but ya got to pay me first.

Anti-trust I say, because they chose to encrypt it, without any regards to the prohibition set forth in title 47.

Anti-Trust I say because in 1967, President Johnson said, "it will be carefully guarded from Government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent--and it will belong to all of our people".
Their response was, If I like ya (gimme your money), I'll let ya see the PBS program.....

I have yet to find any documents in which "Conditional Access" or encryption of PBS programming are discussed, authorized or denied.
Some help is needed here folks. I know that their are alot of intelligent people here with contacts in both the high and low places.

Anybody know an Erin Brockavich type lawyer looking for something to do?

If this issue is on the right track it has the potential for a big impact... Let me run some small figures..... .50cent refund to both DTV and dish subscribers (15 million subs ???)= 7.5mil by let's say 10 years (total time of PBS violation) = 75 mil ??? :cool:

:)Yeah, I know...I'm dreamin....:)

Hey Directv & Dish.....you don't own the airwave's you transmit over....you only got permission to use it. That permission came with a condition, 4% of non commercial programming, you still got 96% for you to do with what you wish!
What documents can you provide us that shows clear authorization to encrypt & charge for the right to view PBS programming???

:R Any lawyers here ? :R

megados

August 20th, 2003, 03:31 PM

Decibel, I too, believe someone's asleep at the switch. First and foremost because the encryption issue is ignored by DTV and Dish, but also, nor most recently, because it seems we haven't seen any comments by our legal experts here regarding this issue.

If a law firm, or attorney could bring this to trial, and were sucessful in litigating the case as a class action, it's be worth a lot in legal fees as well, and unless there is something fundamentally wrong with our interpretations, the case would more than likely be successful. Yeah, I know, a person might say, "Dream on, but I don't see it as a dream, I see it as more of an "As yet unsubstantiated reality" :D

Decibel

August 20th, 2003, 06:24 PM

Megados,

I found another F.C.C. Document (http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01306.pdf) - Ancillary or Supplementary Use of Digital Television Capacity by Noncommercial Licensees, MM Docket
No. 98-203, REPORT AND ORDER, Adopted: October 11, 2001; Which has made me see an angle on how this whole issue at hand may have had the oppurtunity to happen.

Paragraph 1 reads as follows:

1. With this Report and Order, we clarify the manner in which noncommercial educational ("NCE")television licensees may use their excess digital television ("DTV") capacity for remunerative purposes.
Among other things, we amend Section 73.621 of our rules to apply to the entire digital bitstream, including ancillary or supplementary services, thereby requiring NCE licensees to use their digital capacity primarily for a noncommercial, nonprofit, educational broadcast service. We also amend Sections 73.642 and 73.644 of our rules to clarify that NCE licenses may offer subscription services on their excess digital capacity. We determine that Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the provision restricting advertising by NCE licensees, continues to apply to all broadcasting by NCE licensees, but does not apply to nonbroadcast services, such as subscription services provided on their DTV channels. Finally, we amend Section 73.624(g) of our rules to apply to NCE licensees the program for assessing and collecting fees upon feeable ancillary or supplementary services provided on their DTV capacity that we have established for commercial licensees, as required by the telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act").

While this document deals with the issue of Digital Television Capacity, it also brings to light :
A) Non commercial broadcasting providers (PBS) can now offer a pay subscription service
and
B)nonbroadcast services such as subscription services can charge for access to their signal.
This still does not address the encryption issue.

One question on my mind, are Directv and Dish Network Broadcasting services or merely subscription services.
Another question that comes to me, will we one day have NO MORE free tv of any kind? Will we have to pay for everything that we want to watch on the TV screen?
Could possibly happen folks.....

It's quite obvious to me that the original intent of the must carry obligations were to preserve the free and unrestricted access to PBS programming. It was a trade off, they got the right to put up a satellite and beam down a signal, make millions of dollars and all they had to do was carry on with the fundamental mission of the Public Broadcasting Service.
Where o where did this interpretation change???

I still am of the opinion that PBS Programming should be available, free and without restrictions!

I sure do wish a legal professional would take the time and offer their thoughts on this....

:)

megados

August 20th, 2003, 06:42 PM

No, no, no, wait wait, wait! :D

That applies to excess capacity of digital carriage capacity of noncommercial educational ("NCE") providers, which I make the distinction of not confusing with subscription, or conditional access systems.

I'm interpreting that to mean it's applying to the PBS originators, whose excess digital capacity can be used in that way, and not applying to conditional access systems primarily used as "for profit" subscription entities. I could be wrong on this; I'm far from being anything resembling a legal expert. :D

*hint hint* ;)

Decibel

August 20th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Motherload???
Found another FCC Document (http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/newmedia/comments/dbs.htm) , this one speaks much much clearer the obligations of the DBS provider.

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
_____________________________________________

In the Matter of

Implementation of Section 25
of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act
of 1992

Direct Broadcast Satellite
Public Service Obligations
_____________________ MM Docket No. 93-25 ________________________

I. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 25 SETS STRICT PARAMETERS FOR DBS PUBLIC INTEREST AND CAPACITY SET-ASIDE OBLIGATIONS.

II. THE PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 25(a) SHOULD INCLUDE A RESERVATION OF CAPACITY FOR CIVIC, CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL AND/OR FINE ARTS PROGRAMMING

III. UNDER SECTION 25(a), DBS PROVIDERS HAVE A DISTINCT DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES, AND TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TO OPPOSING CANDIDATES.

IV. CONGRESS EXPRESSLY INTENDED THAT THE SECTION 25(b) CAPACITY BE USED FOR "NONCOMMERCIAL" PROGRAMMING PROVIDED BY "PUBLIC" ENTITIES.

V. ALL DBS PROVIDERS MUST RESERVE NO LESS THAN 4% OF CAPACITY FOR NONCOMMERCIAL PROGRAMMING OF AN EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL NATURE.

VI. DBS PROVIDERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM EXERCISING ANY EDITORIAL CONTROL OVER SECTION 25(b) PROGRAMMING.

VII. THE CAPACITY AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 25(b) MUST BE PRICED TO ENSURE BROAD, AFFORDABLE ACCESS BY NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMERS. - this one clearly explains who pays who for the cost of transmission.

IX. THE COMMISSION SHOULD PUT DBS PROVIDERS ON NOTICE THAT THEY MUST MAKE CAPACITY AVAILABLE WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE RELEASE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IMPLEMENTING SECTION 25(b).

Still looking for something authorizing encryption.

:)

rssrara

August 20th, 2003, 09:32 PM

While ya'll are at it check into the same situation with NASA Select. It is broadcast commercial free 24 hours a day and supported solely by taxpayer money and available free (no encryption on c-band) to all taxpayers. Is DTV charging for it also?

PS - It is one of my favorite channels :)

Decibel

August 21st, 2003, 08:59 PM

DBS INDUSTRY PRESSURES FCC TO VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW (http://www.cni.org/Hforums/roundtable/1997-02/0088.html)

A very interesting article dated May, 1997.

The Alliance's written remarks call on the DBS industry to comply with federal law by providing a forum for public interest educational and informational programming free of charge. "There are schools and universities, churches and synagogues, and a range of independent producers of quality programming who have been waiting for years for an opportunity to build distance learning programs, reach out to their communities, and display their finished creative work," stated Forbes. " Congress thought this was a good idea, and last summer the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled that the law was Constitutional. Now the industry is trying to sneak around their commitment to serve our children and our communities -- and doing it in a rather obvious and shameful way."

:D

megados

August 22nd, 2003, 03:55 PM

Ohhhh! Now That's juicy! :D

Yes indeed, they have been neglecting their duty! We know through experience with DTV, and with corporations in general, that it's necessary to bring legal pressure to bear, if we want them to the things that they ought to be doing, but wouold affect their corporate "bottom line".

C'mon legal experts, lets hear some input as to how we can go about this. :D :D :D

Decibel

August 22nd, 2003, 06:54 PM

Megados, you want JUICY !!!:) :) :)

As permitted by the FCC, DBS providers intend to charge set-aside programmers for half of the direct costs they incur in making the programming available. These include labor costs associated with uplinking feeds or authorizing viewers to receive channels, and incremental costs of compression equipment, according to a summary provided by Echostar.

Pilkey says that Echostar has set these costs at $10,000 a month. DirecTV intends to charge about $6,300 a month.
Somewhere must lay a document that spells out whether or not the "authorizing of viewers" is being included (or not) in the charge that the DBS provider is charging the set aside programmer(PBS)...

Sooner or later, I WILL FIND SOMETHING !!!

Read it HERE (http://www.current.org/in/in915s.html)

;)

I'm still searching.....:Z

:) :D :cool:

Legal Scholars, Please....for the sake of my spouse who keeps bitching to come to bed....HOW ABOUT SOME INPUT ???? :Z :Z :Z

Decibel

August 23rd, 2003, 01:57 PM

Questions and answers from PBS.ORG (http://www.pbs.org/whatson/dbs/directv_faq.html)

Q. If I receive the PBS National Satellite Service, can I still be a member of and contribute to my local PBS station?

A. Absolutely. The PBS National Satellite Service is made possible in part by your support of your local PBS member stations. To find out more on how to contribute contact your local PBS member station.
Lol...Absolutely....go ahead and pay for it twice is what they are really saying.

Q. What other PBS services are available from DIRECTV?

A. For no additional cost, you will have access to PBS YOU, an educational channel featuring for-credit telecourses as well as a variety of informational programming. This includes an afternoon program block for teachers and teens and an evening lineup of public affairs and how-to programming. Click here for the program schedule.

You'll also find the PBS KIDS Channel, the 24-hour source for award-winning PBS children's programs. PBS KIDS is available as part of a separate programming package from DIRECTV. To subscribe to PBS KIDS, call DIRECTV at (800) DIRECTV (347-3288) or click here for DIRECTV customer service.

NO ADDITIONAL COST??? You mean I gott pay to see PBS YOU??? Didn't PBS tell me that they don't receive any of the monies that Directv charges us for these programs??? Sounds like their trying to make a profit on it boyz....

YOu mean I got to get an extra package (more money) to watch PBS KIDS??? Are they using PBS programming as a marketing tool for their programming? Why isn't ALL of the PBS programming available in their most basic package??? (It should be free anyway, they shouldn't be allowed to use it for private commercial gain)

Q. How much does the local channels package from DIRECTV cost?

A. The fee is $5.99 per month.

Only $5.99 !!! What a great deal!!! Six bucks a month is my only cost. You mean I can go out and buy a receiver right now and only pay six bucks a month! That's it??? What am I complaining about, I could afford that!!!
Oh, wait a minute. I forgot....Viewing PBS programming was ment to be for FREE......

C'mon folks...nothing is ever gonna happen if more people don't get involoved...... Unless we're wrong here, this could be big !!!!

:cool:

megados

August 23rd, 2003, 06:51 PM

The main thing is going to have to be some legal challenge based on the law. Decibel, what you have found thus far says to me, that the law is on our side. The PBS content providers want to stick their heads in the sand about this also, unless it means that the public is going to shift a good portion of their pledge contributions away because of this. That's going to be difficult to organize . . . :(

What we really need here is a GOOD LEGAL OPINION on this. I can't see why they're getting away with this, unless there's something we're missing.

Decibel

August 23rd, 2003, 07:45 PM

The PBS content providers want to stick their heads in the sand about this also.

You're not kidding! They still haven't responded to my second e-mail.
:mad:

Where there's a will, there's a way!

:cool:

Decibel

August 24th, 2003, 07:03 PM

We've seen the violations, here the law that provides relief for:

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > Sec. 206.

Sec. 206. - Carriers' liability for damages (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/206.html)

In case any common carrier shall do, or cause or permit to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this chapter, together with a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of recovery, which attorney's fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in the case

Here's the same law, ammended by S 1264, the "FCC Reauthorization Act of 2003", intorduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

Sen. McCain Introduces Telecom Bill (http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2003/06/16.asp)

S 1264 would amend 47 U.S.C. § 206 to read as follows: "A common carrier that does, or causes or permits to be done, any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared to be unlawful in this Act, or in any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, or that fails to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done by this Act, or by any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission is liable to any person injured by such act or failure for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such act or failure, together with a reasonable attorney's fee. The amount of the attorney's fee shall be -- (1) fixed by the court in every case of recovery in a judicial proceeding; or (2) fixed by the Commission in every case of recovery in a Commission proceeding.''

:cool:

megados

August 24th, 2003, 07:24 PM

That looks like it's addressing ownership laws, antitrust, etc. I'm not sure it it can be applied to the encryption scenario, but I'm not saying that it can't either. I really don't know. In fact, now that you bring it up, if that's not the remedy for our current issue, then where do we find the applicable remedy, or would that be something that has to be decided by a court? Even if the only remedy would be to stop the encryption, then I'd be happy with that! :D

Decibel

August 24th, 2003, 09:26 PM

That looks like it's addressing ownership laws, antitrust, etc. I'm not sure it it can be applied to the encryption scenario,

From what I can see, the"Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003", sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) does addreess ownership issues & antitrust.
It also addresses FCC enforcement, private causes of actions against common carriers.

The questions that need to be answered:
1)is the DBS industry in violation of sec 605(c),
if so,
2)are they commiting acts of anti-trust by:
a) charging (privatizing) for access to view the PBS programming,
b)utilizing PBS programming as to entice or unfairly coerce subscribers into purchasing a higher cost package to view intended "for free viewing" PBS programming.

Two potential issues here; Unlawful encryption & anti-trust.

Ownership is not an issue here because the DBS industry does not own PBS programming.

Simple questions here, but i'm sure they will twist and contort the answer to make it look like they are actually not doing anything wrong.

I can only do simple reading and my simple mind tells me that they are doing something wrong. They are getting away with it because no one has chose to fight it. If it is a valid issue, It will probably take a very long time to settle....but what the hell....maybe a courageous, creative team of wild spirited attornies can kick the DBS industry in the ass.

:Z Unfortunately we have not heard from any of the legal scholars here so it's really hard to say if we are chasing down a dead issue.:Z

:cool:

Decibel

August 26th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Hrrmmm...
After reading these two articles I got a better picture on how directv is getting away with violating section 605, encrypting the national PBS feed.

Stations to PBS: protect us from Schedule X (http://www.current.org/TECH/tech920dbs.html) dated Nov. 1, 1999

"The ability to receive PBS direct from satellites undermines stations' relationships with their viewers" and the local/national mixture of services that define public television, Howe said in his speech to PBS members. During the debate that followed, several managers described Schedule X as a bargaining chip in pressuring DBS companies to include public TV stations in their local-to-local line-ups."

and also

PUBLIC TELEVISION ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT WITH DIRECTV, INC. FOR EXPANSION AND CONTINUATION OF SERVICE ON DIRECTV (http://www.current.org/TECH/tech920dbs.html ) dated December 20, 2001.

As part of the multi-year agreement, DIRECTV will continue to carry the PBS national service in non-local-into-local markets subject to the consent of the stations serving those markets. DIRECTV currently has the right to carry this service under a statutory license provided by the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), but this license ends December 31, 2001. The new agreement would permit DIRECTV to continue to carry the feed in areas where it is not carrying local broadcast signals until such time as DIRECTV begins providing a local broadcast package which would include the local public television station(s).

It easy to see that due to high corporate greed and the desperation to survive in a market being slowly choked into extinction, seems like nobody even measured the fact that Directv would in fact be encrypting the national feed and control the marketing or viewablity of it to enhance their financial goals.
:Z

Where o where can I find the documents that spells out this agreement between PBS and Directv......:Z

whitecrow

August 27th, 2003, 03:04 PM

I found this site thru a foreign SAT. info site. Most of these are public stations or preveiw stations. Appears DTV offers nothing for free. http://www.lyngsat.com/freetv/indx.shtml :o

Decibel

August 27th, 2003, 08:14 PM

FIRST AMMENDMENT ISSUE ???

Directv and Dish both offer subscription services, one may think that they have a private forum in which they can charge for what ever programming they seem fit to provide.
While I can agree with this statement, imposed upon them were the public "Must carry obligations". For some strange reason, it's easy to accept the statement that the DBS porviders are entitled to charge for the PBS programming. They did it unchallenged and will continue to do it.

The intention of Congress is very clear. The PBS programming is not to be encrypted unless it is also provided un-encrypted.

While the DBS is a private pay service, impossed upon them was a public "must carry" obligation that served the Public interest, not the private interest.

I came accross another interesting document;
Read it here. (http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/dbsami1571.pdf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
____________________________________
SATELLITE BROADCASTING &
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, et al.
) Civil Action No. 00-1571-A
Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, et al.
in whichh states DBS IS A BROADCASTING SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, AND SHVIA IS THEREFORE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT BALANCING APPLICABLE TO BROADCASTER BROADCASTERS UNDER RED LION .
Now, as a broadcasting company it seems that they are subject not only to USC 47:605 but also to issues dealing with the First Ammendment.

Now bear wwith me here....the following excerpts were taken from .”Civil Action No. 00-1571-A (http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/dbsami1571.pdf)

1) Since 1980, when the FCC first proposed to initiate DBS service, it has been regulated as a Title III “broadcast” service within the meaning of §153(o) of the Communications Act. The D.C. Circuit explicitly affirmed that DBS is a broadcast service as early as 1982, National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“NAB ”), and Congress and the FCC have consistently regulated it as such thereafter.
2)a court must weigh the First Amendment rights of broadcasters against the superior First Amendment “right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences.”. When conducting this balancing “[i]t is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount".
3)(SHVIA is “intended to preserve free television for those not served by satellite or cable systems and to promote widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources”). See also Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 190-195 (1997)(explaining and upholding federal interest in preserving local broadcast television stations through must carry obligations).

From reading this document I get the immpression that viewers (all viewers) first ammendment rights are now a variable in this situation.

I sure do wish some sort of opinion would be offered here by a legal mind.:Z :Z :Z

megados

August 28th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Decibel

The intention of Congress is very clear. The PBS programming is not to be encrypted unless it is also provided un-encrypted.

While the DBS is a private pay service, impossed upon them was a public "must carry" obligation that served the Public interest, not the private interest.

I came accross another interesting document;
Read it here. (http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/dbsami1571.pdf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
____________________________________
SATELLITE BROADCASTING &
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, et al.
) Civil Action No. 00-1571-A
Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, et al.
in whichh states
Now, as a broadcasting company it seems that they are subject not only to USC 47:605 but also to issues dealing with the First Ammendment.

Now bear wwith me here....the following excerpts were taken from .”Civil Action No. 00-1571-A (http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/dbsami1571.pdf)

1) Since 1980, when the FCC first proposed to initiate DBS service, it has been regulated as a Title III “broadcast” service within the meaning of §153(o) of the Communications Act. The D.C. Circuit explicitly affirmed that DBS is a broadcast service as early as 1982, National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“NAB ”), and Congress and the FCC have consistently regulated it as such thereafter.
2)a court must weigh the First Amendment rights of broadcasters against the superior First Amendment “right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences.”. When conducting this balancing “[i]t is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount".
3)(SHVIA is “intended to preserve free television for those not served by satellite or cable systems and to promote widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources”). See also Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 190-195 (1997)(explaining and upholding federal interest in preserving local broadcast television stations through must carry obligations).

From reading this document I get the immpression that viewers (all viewers) first ammendment rights are now a variable in this situation.

I sure do wish some sort of opinion would be offered here by a legal mind.:Z :Z :Z

The must carry obligations, only allow for a set-aside of 4% of total capacity for allocation of non-commercial programming. When we go back to the statement that "No person shall encrypt, or continue to encrypt . . ." , this tells me that all the carriage must be in the clear. So in essence, it's not just one national feed that must be carried unencrypted, but the whole shootin match. :D That's not to say they couldn't carry dupplicates, which are encrypted, but in order to do that they have to first carry each one in the clear. Simple, huh? :)

It's clear, that the ball has been dropped somewhere. The law (at least to me) is clear on the matter; They're not supposed to be encrypting any of the PBS (non-commercial) feeds, without providing clear-view versions of each. They can encrypt all they want, as long as in the cases of each non-commercial feed, there's a duplicate in the clear. If this brings down their locals scheme, then that's really a shame, but the law states what they're supposed to be doing, and it seems all the remedies, and guidlines subsequent to that are icing on the cake. :)

SHIVA is the closest that I see to actually addressing this issue, but why does it not DEMAND that these signals be unencrypted? I cannot see for the life of me, why this isn't being addressed by the entities, such as CPB the FCC, Congress, and everyone else with the means to do so. The status-quo seems to be self-maintaining in this case. Could it be that the DBS providers are funnelling money into these outlets to keep it from becoming an issue where it counts?

What I'm asking is this:
is the reason it's not being addressed, because of some sort of corruption at the higher levels of the regulating bodies, and even possibly the PBS organizations themselves? :o

Decibel

August 28th, 2003, 10:32 PM

Found another FCC Document - Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service - IB Docket No. 98-21 (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-110A1.pdf).

Page 4, paragraph 5 reads:The Commission has traditionally regulated the DBS service differently than other satellite
services.22 When the DBS service rules were adopted in 1982, the Commission envisioned that DBS would be primarily a broadcast service. However, it left open the possibility that a DBS licensee could provide service on a subscription or common carrier basis."23 This policy gave DBS providers the choice of being regulated as broadcasters, common carriers, or non-broadcast, non-common carriers. To date, all DBS licensees have chosen to offer subscription service on a non-broadcast, non-common carrier basis.24

Could it be that since the commission thought the DBS would be open air (no encryption or subscription), they pulled a fast one and went subsription only. This is maybe why the Encryption issue was never addressed. The door was left wide open to them to be either common carrier or subscription based. when they made up their mind, the sentry at the gate was asleep!
Now then, since they are technically in compliance with the must carry obligations, they are also technically in violation of the no encryption issue.

Another interesting quote from this same document (page2 para 1)

The current rules in Part 100, for the most part, were adopted almost 20 years ago when DBS was envisioned to be essentially a broadcast-type service.2 Since that time, the service has instead grown into a robust and successful segment of the satellite industry with programming services provided on a subscription basis. The service rules should now be revised to comport with the way that DBS actually operates.

:cool:

megados

August 29th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Decibel
Found another FCC Document - Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service - IB Docket No. 98-21 (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-110A1.pdf).

Page 4, paragraph 5 reads:

Could it be that since the commission thought the DBS would be open air (no encryption or subscription), they pulled a fast one and went subsription only. This is maybe why the Encryption issue was never addressed. The door was left wide open to them to be either common carrier or subscription based. when they made up their mind, the sentry at the gate was asleep!

Yep someone's asleep alright, as in comatose. :D If they've slipped through the cracks in this way, I'd have to say that the sentry is probably dead . . . The no-encryption issue doesn't take into account any difference in broadcast- or subscription- regulated satellite entities, anywhere I've seen.

Now then, since they are technically in compliance with the must carry obligations, they are also technically in violation of the no encryption issue.

Another interesting quote from this same document (page2 para 1)

:cool:

They're in compliance with must carry. No one has disputed that. What they're NOT in compliance with, is the no-encryption section. We don't seem to be finding anything that explicitly removes their obligations under section 605, and unless we're missing something really obvious, I don't think they're in compliance.

Thing is, though, it'll still take some input from one of our legal experts to point out, here, what needs to be done next.

I wish Mr Zakarian, or Mr Willens, or any of our other visiting attorneys would give us a thumbs up or thumbs down, if they don't care to offer an opinion either way.

IOW if this is a viable case, we'd like to know that, or if not, then at least we would know that also.

Any qualified legal opinions welcome! :D

Decibel

August 30th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Seems that this encryption issue was once before noticed by some folks in South Carolina.

IF SCETV or PBS national is encrypting or otherwise making available a SINGLE moment of video which was financed with a single CENT of tax money, then these entities have FORFEITED their public trust and should be called on the carpet by you and I.

Read the comments here (http://www.skybirdradio.org/id64.htm)
This page is dated Firday, August 28, 1998.

I wonder how far they got .....:Z

Decibel

September 1st, 2003, 10:14 PM

Smartcard question:

Without going into any in depth details on how the card works as I don't want to violate the rules and my emphasis here is not on hacking the card, please correct me if I am wrong.

The card does not decrypt the video, it acts more like the key to the lock.
The lock being the receiver itself?
The card gets it's command and opens the locks,each channel having it's own unique lock.
Q. Once the lock is opened, are all the video signals actually encrypted or is it an unencrypted feed?

Is it at all possible that the PBS feed is not actually encrypted?
That all that is missing here is the key to the lock?
Is this how the sneaky bastards are making millions from PBS programming?
By making us pay for the key to the lock?:Z

Couldn't find any law, ruling or FCC comments that authorized the encryption so I took a look in another direction and asked myself these same questions....

anyone??:Z

megados

September 2nd, 2003, 05:09 PM

Decibel, your explanation is a good one for staying inside the guidelines.

If you think of a lock and key, that's more or less it. The signal is encrypted, except for the previews, etc. The way we know that is that an old F card, or H card would be able to get video on those channels even though their encryption schemes have been discontinued. Using your analogy, the stream has locks on it all over the place. The card has to generate the right key for each of those locks in order for the signal to be decrypted. The receiver does it using the keys provided by the card.

So all in all, if the PBS feeds were, in fact, unencrypted, a person with an old F card would be able to get the PBS offerings in his or her area.

Decibel

September 2nd, 2003, 06:36 PM

Megados,
Thanks for helping me think this through. I was trying to look at it for a moment from the other side of the fence. I asked my self, If I was dave, what kind of possible answers could I give that might be believable to the public.

I don't think I'll ever find anything in writing that authorizes encryption.:Z This situation has obviously been allowed to occur due to mis-interpretation of the the rules set forth by our wonderful leaders and who have given in time and time again to the corporate pupeteers of the world.

I sure do wish we could get some sort of a non committing opinion from the legal folks who visit here.

I remember there used to be alot of folks here who used to know a friend of a brother of a neigbor's cousin who used to live next door to a guy that heard about......

I wonder if those same folks know of any PBS corporate sponsors or maybe a friend of a friend who is an attorney looking for a good fight.
:cool:

Salty Jizm

September 2nd, 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Decibel
This situation has obviously been allowed to occur due to mis-interpretation of the the rules set forth by our wonderful leaders and who have given in time and time again to the corporate pupeteers of the world.

No... It has been allowed to happen because nobody that cared knew there were laws to protect the public. Now, with your help, there are potentially 100,000 letter receipients that might think it is a good idea for DTV to follow the law.

To The Real King!!

September 3rd, 2003, 03:03 AM

Hi Guys,

Salty is 100% right and the only reason this was never changed is that nobody ever made enough noise to draw attention to it.

Its the same as the fact that marijuana Web Pages are much MORE illegal by far than DSS ones. But since there are no commercial sites that could have competitors, who is going to make a fuss. So its basically the case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. And the further the amount of time this goes on, the more noise is going to have to be made. When things stay the same for a long time, everyone gets used to it and it almost causes a right under "common law".

I don't believe that is the case yet, but this guy SURE WAS RIGHT at:

http://www.skybirdradio.org/id64.htm

But if YOU don't take action NOW, then don't cry about losing your signals…your PUBLICLY FUNDED signals…later on.

Talk about being ahead of your time.

But it can still be done. What we need to do is settle on a good argument or severalgood arguments, and there are lots of them, and then pepper your representatives, the PBS channel and many others with cancellations of support and the media who may like the story and propagate it all over the place. Its a winner for SURE for us but we have to get the attention of the FCC and enough of the public being very concerned to cause them to act. It will be difficult but the ramifications are REALLY important and could be the beginning of the end for them forcing people to pay for what they just take.

Remember there are enough stations (NASA, The Government house channels, and the locals. PBS and others) to cause it to be a serious consideration to buy receivers (which they support financially) to get only these channels without a sub. Imagine they get no funding from you and they support the sales of receivers by discounting them over 50% from their cost. They lose a bundle on every sale but hope to make that up on the subs.

So the trick is to organize this, to put together several good reasons and then to get the cooperation of the community to send out the letter agreed on to perhaps 10 or 15 places form the FCC to PBS, NASA and the whole gang of them. I sure hope we could do it and WIN a battle like this outright. It has VERY significant ramifications to everyone in the community.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

Salty Jizm

September 3rd, 2003, 02:19 PM

Just think how difficult it will be for them to support this. Allowing PBS channels with no subscription. Geeeze, they never thought they would be fighting this battle! But, when you start shooting a sawed off shotgun at a crowd, you are going to piss off a few individuals.

megados

September 3rd, 2003, 06:58 PM

Well DTV doesn't have to lose any money, in that they can opt to only subsiduize part of the cost of the receiver when you sub:

In the form of a rebate. They could offer to pay back half the receiver cost if you agree to a 1 year setup. Those that buy the receivers only for the free stuff would have to pay full price . . . big deal. lol There's plenty of used receivers around, so you'd only be stuck if you wanted to go buy a new one.

TTRK, do you have any idea why any of our visiting legal minds haven't offered any comment, either positive or negative or neutral? This seems like an important and interesting piece of the overall puzzle.

Decibel

September 3rd, 2003, 08:40 PM

Well, as usual I've been doing some more reading.
This Copyright (http://www.copyright.gov/reports/study.pdf) document is 137 pages long and full of information.

I learned today what a "Compulsory Liecense" is and the effects it possess with regards to retransmission of broadcast signals.

A compulsory license is a statutory copyright licensing scheme whereby copyright owners are required to license their works to users at a government-fixed price and under government-set terms and conditions.

The cable compulsory license allows a cable system to intercept over-the-air television and radio broadcast signals (comprised of copyrighted programming) and to retransmit the signals to its subscribers who pay a fee for such service.

THE SATELLITE CARRIER COMPULSORY LICENSE allows satellite carriers to retransmit television broadcast signals (but not radio) to their subscribers upon semiannual submissions of statements of account and royalty fees to the Copyright Office. The satellite carrier compulsory license permits a satellite carrier to intercept television (but not radio) signals and retransmit the signals to satellite home dish owners for their private home viewing.
The satellite compulsory license allows satellite carriers to retransmit superstation signals to home dish owner subscribers located anywhere in the United States, and to retransmit network signals only to "unserved households."

This document pretty much spells out the differences between cable and satellite retransmissions and royalty fees, how they are calculated.

Under the umbrella of this compulsory license, I believe that both Directv and Dish are violating 47:605(c) and for what ever reason they have, they must feel that this compulsory license authorizes them to retransmitt PBS programming encrypted.

On page 115 of this document you'll finally see that they address the "PBS ISSUE". This document is 137 pages long and only half a page of it cover the PBS Issue. Ironically, the only concern at this point was the unserved household restriction.

We've taken the laws and ripped them apart, now we need a direct response in writing from bith Directv and Dishnetwork, their position on PBS programming retransmission authorization.

:cool:

Decibel

September 3rd, 2003, 08:57 PM

Just found something new....

:D :D :D

Sec. 119. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of superstations and network stations for private home viewing

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 119. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/119.html)

...secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a superstation or by the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed...

Need some help here. Anyone see anything that authorizes encryption?

:cool:

XMyth

September 4th, 2003, 10:32 AM

What's weird is....DTV can *NOT* encrypt that channel and it still work with their system. Channel 100, 500, etc aren't encrypted for example.

http://www.lyngsat.com/dig/directvusa101.shtml

whitecrow

September 4th, 2003, 10:42 AM

DTV, Dishnetwork and Cable deliver (HBO, Cinemax, Showtime ect...)several days of freeviews every now and then as promotional views. Sometimes they will even add channels as freeviews.
Now PBS analog signals are delivered unencrypted by C-BAND to the public for free. Pay TV has to capture these signals from PBS just as you or I would with some type of antena. They then convert them to digital signal and deliver them encrypted to the paying customer. I would bet they
are probably using a LINUX BOX to do it. :eek:
This was a bit of older news that can also be found through the Elecronic Frontier Site, but here is the direct URL to this article: http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20021213S0034

There is more going on here then meets the eye. If You are a DTV employee reading this and care about your rights and you grandchildrens rights as an American citazen, then you had better think twice about what your boss is doing. Just remember it's your wallet or purse he's stealing from also.:cool: [B]

To The Real King!!

September 4th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Hi MegaDos,

I will email Mr. Zakarian and ask him to comment. Particularly as to if it requires a lawsuit or perhaps just a letter from him to PBS or what exactly would force this rule. Even perhaps tell us what part of the law is required since there seems to be a little confusion as to what to apply.

It would be so valuable if they were required to send PBS, the NASA channel and others that the rules say have to be in the clear, WITHOUT A SUB. I think he will understand the reason and the fact its not illegal ANYWHERE to view unencrypted signals. It also gives a reason to buy their subsidized box for people who do not want to sub but would like those public channelshttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

bones9965

September 6th, 2003, 12:26 PM

OH MY GOD. Direct tv is not airing PBS for free..LMAO Call the police. This is just sad. Give me a break. You have got to be kidding. Yea im sure Dave's in big trouble.

LemonHead

September 6th, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by bones9965
OH MY GOD. Direct tv is not airing PBS for free..LMAO Call the police. This is just sad. Give me a break. You have got to be kidding. Yea im sure Dave's in big trouble.

Obviously you are not familar with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

"It will get part of its support from our Government. But it will be carefully guarded from Government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent--and it will belong to all of our people"

Go learn more here:

http://www.cpb.org/about/history/johnsonspeech.html

jameson71

September 6th, 2003, 01:33 PM

So you are saying it is not a big deal to violate federal statutes? You have been a member here for nearly 3 years, yet when I search on you username, All I see are 6 posts from today about how bad it is to "steal tv." If I were to ask you why it is BAD, you would probably say "because it is against the law" or because people need to be reimbursed for their "intellectual property." Is it not equally bad, or worse, for Directv to take publically funded programming, retransmit it, and then charge the same people who PAID FOR THE PROGRAMMING to be created a charge to VIEW it? It looks like Dave is NOT reimbursing the intellectual property owners for the content he is selling in this case. Under this light his little "letter campaign" is starting to look like the pot calling the kettle black. And speaking of his little extortion campaign, the increased amount of TROLLS like you on this board make it pretty obvious Directv is recruiting people he bullies into settling as PR spokesmen on the internet.

giveupdave

September 6th, 2003, 03:46 PM

DTV has to uplink(cost money) it to there satellite(cost money) and then beam it back to you. There is nothing amatter with including it in a package for you to pay for. Samething for cable, you get charge for PBS aswell. Get your cable disconnected and see if you still get PBS... Besides, your not really paying for it, DTV or your cable company simply throws it in with another pacakge or under a basic sub.

jameson71

September 6th, 2003, 04:04 PM

First thing is, cable is not a BROADCAST. Cable pipes the signal over a wire, direct to the houses of paying subscribers. This is inherently MUCH more secure than broadcasting a signal over the open air waves, and does not subject a CABLE company to the same FCC and FEDERAL LAWS as a BROADCASTER would be sugject to. Second thing is, If you have to PAY to recieve a BROADCAST, then, yes, they are in fact charging you for it. Thirdly, if it costs SO much money to uplink it and broadcast it, whats with channels 100 and 500? Those are broadcast in unencrypted format.

Decibel

September 6th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Need some help here folks.

The followong statements can be found in this DOCUMENT (http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/newmedia/comments/dbs.htm)

IV. CONGRESS EXPRESSLY INTENDED THAT THE SECTION 25(b) CAPACITY BE USED FOR "NONCOMMERCIAL" PROGRAMMING PROVIDED BY "PUBLIC" ENTITIES.

A. Sections 399A and 399B Provide Excellent Guidelines For What Constitutes "Noncommercial" Programming...

Section 25(b)(1) of the Act requires that a DBS provider reserve its channel capacity "exclusively for noncommercial programming of an educational and informational nature." [Emphasis added]. The Commission seeks comment on how to define the term "noncommercial" Public Notice at 2....

B. Eligibility For Section 25(b) is Limited to "Public" and "NonProfit" Entities.

A. All DBS Providers Should Collectively Create and Fund a Non-profit Corporation Outside of Their Control to Select Qualified Section 25(b) Programming.

Question: Have the DBS providers created and funded this non profit corporation OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL to select section 25 programming? If so,who are they? Where are they? Or are they doing it at their own discretion?

Originally posted by giveupdave

DTV has to uplink(cost money) it to there satellite(cost money) and then beam it back to you.

giveupdave, they are already getting paid for the uplink, so it (it no cost money). read on.....

VII. THE CAPACITY AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 25(b) MUST BE PRICED TO ENSURE BROAD, AFFORDABLE ACCESS BY NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMERS.
It is apparent from the plain language of Section 25(b) that Congress intended to make the capacity for noncommercial, educational programming widely available to, and affordable for, nonprofit and public entities. Perhaps taking a lesson from its mistakes in the 1984 Cable Act (fixed in the 1992 Cable Act), which permitted cable operators to set prices for commercial leased access,12 Congress legislated in great detail, requiring the FCC to ensure that DBS providers make the capacity available "upon reasonable prices, terms and conditions." It further mandated that the Commission define that term to "take into account the nonprofit character of the programming provider," 47 USC §335(b)(4)(A), and to prohibit any prices from exceeding, for any available channel, "50 percent of the total direct costs of making such channel available." 47 USC §335(b)(4)(B). In calculating the "total direct costs," the Commission is required to exclude

(i) marketing costs, general administrative costs, and similar overhead costs....and;

(ii) the revenue that such provider might have obtained by making such channel available to a commercial provider of video programming.

Originally posted by bones9965
OH MY GOD. Direct tv is not airing PBS for free..LMAO Call the police. This is just sad. Give me a break. You have got to be kidding. Yea im sure Dave's in big trouble.

Hey bones, just in case you weren't aware, the same federal goverment who wrote the laws on the matter of signal theft wrote some laws that the DBS providers must adhere to. If the DBS providers expect you to comply with laws that work in their favor then why shouldn't we expect them to follow the same rules? That is, unless you just want to lay down and get run over by the Directv.....
:cool:

Read, ask a few questions, and if we ever get some sort of comment from the visiting legal minds here that supports our findings, JOIN THE FIGHT!

:D

LemonHead

September 6th, 2003, 09:40 PM

Decibel and jameson71, a big round of applause for you both.

Very good!

Decibel

September 10th, 2003, 07:50 PM

For those of you interested in this subject, Mr Zakarian has arrived !!:cool:

originally posted by Zakarian at FreedomFight
If you will allow me, I need to do some research, using the very helpful cites given in this thread as well as my own to see if I can intelligently address this issue.

I am trully looking foward to his response !!!:D

As usuall, I've been doing some more reading....
I've come to the conclusion that a loophole does exist and the snakes have slithered right on thru.
47:605(c) cleary says no one shall encrypt.... the way I see it whomever encrypts it should be the one responsible for providing the un-encrypted transmission.
While it is true that PBS provides an un-encrypted transmission on C-band, PBS does not transmit on the ku band.

So, while PBS conducts itself in a compliant manner, the DBS providers whom pretty much control the ku-band do not comply with the un-encrypted transmission requirement.

The loophole that appears to exist could only be based on the DBS providers argument that since PBS provides the national feed un-encrypted on C-band, they can transmit the feed encrypted on KU-band.
Seems like their mixing apples with oranges to me.

While the SHVIA does provide a compulsory license to DBS providers for the transmission of PBS natioanl feed programming, it primarily addresses copyright issues. It is clear that it does not authorize the DBS provider to transmitt the feed encrypted.

Section 1006. Public Broadcasting Service Satellite Feed

The conference agreement follows the Senate bill with an amendment that applies the network copyright royalty rate to the Public Broadcasting Service the satellite feed. The conference agreement grants satellite carriers a section 119 compulsory license to retransmit a national satellite feed distributed and designated by PBS. The license would apply to educational and informational programming to which PBS currently holds broadcast rights. The license, which would extend to all households in the United States, would sunset on January 1, 2002, the date when local-to-local must-carry obligations become effective. Under the conference agreement, PBS will designate the national satellite feed for purposes of this section.
While this provision has a sunset attached with it, 47:605(c) does not. If the DBS provider provides the National Feed to ANYONE, it must do so in compliance with 47:605(c).

If any one is interested in reading:
Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 1948 (http://www.aipla.org/html/s1948analysis.html) [Congressional Record, November 17, 1999, page S14708].

:cool:

megados

September 11th, 2003, 05:51 PM

Well I'm very glad to see something happening here, in the last few days.

I'm glad to see Mr Zakarian taking an interest in it; and giving scrutiny to our thinking here. I think it's an important point, and needs to be aired

In light of the accusations flying against those they percieve to be wrong-doers, it behooves them to be in full compliance with applicable laws themselves.

I can't for the life of me, see anything that authorizes encryption. The only references I see, only allude to some nebulous things that don't seem to authorize it directly. The written intents, however, are, attempting to encompass technologies not yet expanded to the levels they are now, but the meaning is clear: PBS access was meant to be publicly funded and accessable. There was never any intent for a corporation, to profit from content owned by the public.

To The Real King!!

September 11th, 2003, 08:51 PM

Hi MegaDos,

You seem to have a real good handle on this with Decibel on this thread and now we have Mr. Zakarian interested. So my friend, don’t give in if you feel there is an obligation for them to broadcast in the clear. If they do and they have to be coerced into doing what is right, lord knows that it will take a few dedicated people for push it to happen so.

I don't understand it as well as you guys do but I urge you to go ahead with this and have Mr. Zakarian look into it at its deepest levels and have them do what should rightly be done. And the best of luck with it.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please

megados

September 14th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Thanks TTRK, we'll need all the luck we can get!

As we go ahead and define what the options are here, I urge everyone to submit queries to representatives of PBS local providers as well as their respective representatives, the CPB, and the DBS providers. Any answers they give may point us in the right direction, as we try to piece this together. TTRK is right, and if you believe that PBS should once again be free to all, then you have to act and do something to make it that way. :D

I posted a possible argument to bolster our interpretation in the corresponding thread on FreedomFight, toward the language interpretation by Mr Zakarian, and not being an attorney I could be out in left field again; he had stated that we have to look closely at the wording. The possible loophole that he put forth, interprets the paragraph to mean that since there is a PBS feed on C-band, the obligation is fulfilled for all satellite providers. My argument is meant to circumvent their use of that as a loophole. Hopefully it'd be useful. :Z

The more people that get involved though, the better our chances are gonna be!

Decibel

September 15th, 2003, 07:19 AM

Question:

Can anybody give me the compete El Sugundo address for Directv, please.

Also, does anybody know if this building/address is used/occupied only by Directv?

thanks

:cool:

HotRodTodd

September 15th, 2003, 08:00 AM

:eek: Decibel, we arent going to see you on the news are we?:eek:

To The Real King!!

September 15th, 2003, 09:50 AM

Hi Decibel,

I don't have their address but I can assure you that they are in a building alone. I attended a trade show in San Diago a few years ago (maybe 1996 or so) and there was a visit to their El Segundo location. Very impressive and their own single standing building. Have you tried their web site for the address?

I just spent 15 minutes there and cannot find a street address. Maybe you can call them for it at 1-888-238-7177

The only damn address on their website seems to be their billing address at DIRECTV 1313 NW 167th Street Miami, FL 33169 Use the U.S. Postal...

Sorry about thathttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Plea

Mechanic

September 15th, 2003, 10:17 AM

http://www.freedomfight.ca/forum/showthread.php?threadid=967

To The Real King!!

September 15th, 2003, 10:41 AM

Hi Guys,

Yes I would believe that the address is:

DirecTv, Inc
2230 East Imperial Hwy
El Segundo, CA 90245

I hope this helpshttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Plea

giveupdave

September 15th, 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by jameson71
First thing is, cable is not a BROADCAST. Cable pipes the signal over a wire, direct to the houses of paying subscribers. This is inherently MUCH more secure than broadcasting a signal over the open air waves, and does not subject a CABLE company to the same FCC and FEDERAL LAWS as a BROADCASTER would be sugject to. Second thing is, If you have to PAY to recieve a BROADCAST, then, yes, they are in fact charging you for it. Thirdly, if it costs SO much money to uplink it and broadcast it, whats with channels 100 and 500? Those are broadcast in unencrypted format.

It my not be subject tot he same regulations but both Cable and satille do have to spend a pretty dollar to get the signal to you. The problem with comparing the two, is with cable, you don't get PBS unless you sub to them. Expecting to get PBS in the clear on satille without a sub is the same as getting PBS by hooking up cable that you don't sub to.

"If you have to PAY to recieve a BROADCAST, then, yes, they are in fact charging you for it." The same goes for cable, so cable bills you for PBS aswell. You may of found one law but I'm sure their is others out there.

"Thirdly, if it costs SO much money to uplink it and broadcast it, whats with channels 100 and 500? Those are broadcast in unencrypted format"
They own the company, they can do whatever they want. Besides all satellite companies have a few channels in the clear.

Its not that I want to defend DTV, but trying to take this case to court is going to turn out rather assuming

megados

September 15th, 2003, 05:04 PM

It my not be subject tot he same regulations but both Cable and satille do have to spend a pretty dollar to get the signal to you. The problem with comparing the two, is with cable, you don't get PBS unless you sub to them. Expecting to get PBS in the clear on satille without a sub is the same as getting PBS by hooking up cable that you don't sub to.

Cable and satellite are not the same thing by a long shot. When you sub to cable you're asking them to set up a physical link (cable) to your home. That cable is physical property that they maintain the rights to. They also have the right to remove it. Satellite is different in the obvious way, that there's no physical link; instead the signal is broadcast. It falls into public domain, and contains public material.

"If you have to PAY to recieve a BROADCAST, then, yes, they are in fact charging you for it." The same goes for cable, so cable bills you for PBS aswell. You may of found one law but I'm sure their is others out there.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Cable has to levy a basic charge, just as your electric company does even if you don't use any electricity in a particular billing period. Think of satellite as wind power. Would you say that only electric utulities should be allowed to generate power?

"Thirdly, if it costs SO much money to uplink it and broadcast it, whats with channels 100 and 500? Those are broadcast in unencrypted format"
They own the company, they can do whatever they want. Besides all satellite companies have a few channels in the clear.

Its not that I want to defend DTV, but trying to take this case to court is going to turn out rather assuming

It's their company and they can do as they please, yes, but not when it's unlawful. The law regarding non-encryption of non-commercial content is clear. It applies to satellite transmissions, not cable. Bringing cable into the argument carries little weight, owing to differences in the governing laws, as well as the media.

jameson71

September 15th, 2003, 05:04 PM

Expecting to get PBS in the clear on satille without a sub is the same as getting PBS by hooking up cable that you don't sub to.
Funny, I see it being much more similar to C-Band, where you pay to recieve HBO, yet PBS is in the clear for anyone with the equipment. I find that a much more natural analogy than satellite to cable comparison. With cable, as has been said umpteen million times before, you don't get anything if you do not subscribe because they are not obligated to pipe the infrastructure to your house. Directv is already pumping the signal to your house by default.

Dave, I know you are trying to build a base infrastructure of equipment out there with your "leave your dish when you move, and we will install a new one" campaign. Don't you think you could get a lot of people who are fed up with lousy antenna recepton in rural areas, who are not big tv watchers (maybe because lousy reception is all they have ever had?) to buy some UNsubsidized DTV equipment to improve their reception CONSIDERABLE of what they already recieve for free??? These are all potential future subs once they have the equipment Dave.

You may of found one law but I'm sure their is others out there.

Sounds quite factual, educated, and well researched :R

Besides all satellite companies have a few channels in the clear.

This is the point. We think PBS should be one of them.

giveupdave

September 15th, 2003, 06:59 PM

"Cable and satellite are not the same thing by a long shot. When you sub to cable you're asking them to set up a physical link (cable) to your home. That cable is physical property that they maintain the rights to. They also have the right to remove it. Satellite is different in the obvious way, that there's no physical link; instead the signal is broadcast. It falls into public domain, and contains public material. "

There is no difference to a link whether physical or a radio signal beamed down. The satellite signal isn't public domain.

"Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Cable has to levy a basic charge, just as your electric company does even if you don't use any electricity in a particular billing period. Think of satellite as wind power. Would you say that only electric utulities should be allowed to generate power?"

satellite, cable or electricity its all the same. I think your confusing between a physical link to one linked via radio signal.

giveupdave

September 15th, 2003, 07:09 PM

"Funny, I see it being much more similar to C-Band, where you pay to recieve HBO, yet PBS is in the clear for anyone with the equipment. I find that a much more natural analogy than satellite to cable comparison. With cable, as has been said umpteen million times before, you don't get anything if you do not subscribe because they are not obligated to pipe the infrastructure to your house. Directv is already pumping the signal to your house by default."

C band is a different case. PBS isn't scrambled there, sort of public domain.
DTV isn't pumping the signal to your house by default and nor does cable leave their feed live if you don't sub to them. DTV pumps the signal to anyone who subs to them and comparing that to cable, they connect your cable if you sub to them. The point I'm making is simple, if DTV has to leave PBS in the clear then cable ashould be doing the same. both compaines have infrastructure to get the signal to you so why should one leave it clear and the other one doesn't?

jameson71

September 15th, 2003, 07:25 PM

giveupdave, you seem to be a very confused character, so let me clear you up on this:
***If you do not subscribe to cable, there is no cable wire, and thus signal, coming to your house. If you do not subscribe to DIRECTV, the signal STILL comes to your house. It is not a point and shoot radio transmission.***

C band is a different case. PBS isn't scrambled there, sort of public domain.

BINGO!! PBS is PUBLIC DOMAIN CONTENT, paid for by the donations of the PUBLIC, no "sort of" about it.

As for "There is no difference to a link whether physical or a radio signal beamed down.", I think YOU are "confused between a physical link to one linked via radio signal."

Perhaps you should actually RTFT and do a little research to see the differences. Other than that, I think this trolling is wasting valuable space in this thread.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 03:14 PM

Trolling, I don't think so.

"If you do not subscribe to cable, there is no cable wire, and thus signal, coming to your house. If you do not subscribe to DIRECTV, the signal STILL comes to your house. It is not a point and shoot radio transmission.*** "

If you move into a house where the last guy had cable. There is a wire inside your house, its simply disconnected outside. The signal in most cases makes it to your property, but the cable compnay stops the PBS station there. Who is to say that when the last guy had his cable disconnected, that they should of allowed the PBS station still to pass thru.
For DTV, yes they do shoot the signal to your house, but like cable, they have it stopped when you don't sub. There is no di real difference between a wireless hookup or a wired one.

I can't imagine anyone would in there right mind purchase DTV equipment and expect to receive PBS. Its already in the oopen on C band so people should worry about DTV.

You never know, the laws that were quoted may predate the small pizza size dishes like DTV. Maybe PBS and DTV had discussions on the subject and came to an agreement. Maybe there is a law that updates the one someone quoted that allows DTV and other satellite companies to do what they do. Rather then spend this time discussing it, why don't you call PBS and find out their view on the matter.

jameson71

September 16th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Pizza size dishes are a lot more convenient for the user than a BUD (Big Ugle Dish)...try setting up one of those in a condo heh. next, PBS only provides the content, they are not the distributor, nor the retailer. That would be like asking SONY why tweeter etc charges more for a sony stereo than walmart does. Makes no sense.
And dont even think about asking DAVE for the dirt if that is going to be your next answer heh. Sorry but the only way to know if someone is complying with the law is to look up the law for yourself. It took centuries and a lot of lives to fight for that privilege in the past, lets not call it a waste of time. Corporations dont quite make the law as they see fit just yet. Furthermore, whether or not dtv is a BROADCASTER, since they BROADCAST their signal is a lot more complex than saying CABLE (who does no broadcast their sigal by any means...it is more of a point to point setup) does it so DTV can too. Sorry, the people of the United States did not make these complex laws, but they should not be the only ones to live by them.
The donators who fund PBS content (this includes every taxpayer, as PBS is governemt funded) however, I think, should be able to view that content by the most convenient(using EXISTING, AVAILABLE infrastructure) means available (short of forcing someone to string a wire to their house so that they can see it.)

also, if perhaps Maybe PBS and DTV had discussions on the subject and came to an agreement. Maybe they should be forced to state such agreement when they are begging for money to continue providing content. And perhaps those who fund PBS through government taxes, should get a rebate check from DTV. At the VERY least, it should be a part of the basic package, not an addon.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 05:51 PM

"The donators who fund PBS content (this includes every taxpayer, as PBS is governemt funded) however, I think, should be able to view that content by the most convenient(using EXISTING, AVAILABLE infrastructure) means available (short of forcing someone to string a wire to their house so that they can see it.)"

The government represents the people and yes the governement funds PBS. We the people elect the governement to run the country. And yes, PBS should be in the clear but... because it is a free country DTV should not be forced to broadcast PBS. DTV owns the broadcast and the right to use the freqs assigned to them. perhaps what happened is DTV wasn't planning to carry PBS because it was required to send it clear. Because of this, PBS and/or Governement said it was okay to scramble the signal as everyone benfits if a satellite company picks up PBS.

It is good for you to look up laws but keep in mind a Judge rules on them. I can't exactly see any earth shaking decsions coming down on this one.

My advice, call PBS yourself and raise your concerns with them. If its okay with PBS I can't see anything changing.

Decibel

September 16th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Hrmm...seems like I better get the band-aids ready...:)

I can't imagine anyone would in there right mind purchase DTV equipment and expect to receive PBS. Its already in the oopen on C band so people should worry about DTV.

Consumers purchase satellite receivers for many reasons. The most obvious one is convience. To be able to see lot's of movies, sports and even the adult channels. This is no secret.

You have to go back into history and see how and why the DBS industry has arrived to where it is today.
Way back when there was C-band. It was free and wide open to all.
Then scrambling of signals was born, HBO opened the market for subscription programming and the rest is pretty much history.

Here (http://members.tripod.com/jonchew_producer/History_of_Television.htm) you will find some info on the history of television.
Start at 1967, PBS was created.
1971 sync suppression (scrambling) is born.
1986 Scrambling of satellite signals begin.

While C-band still exists, It's not what it used to be and it's certainaly not a major player in the consumer market today.
Directv and dishnetwork are the major players now.
Also, C-band and ku-band....2 different frequency ranges.....two different playing fields.

Let's not forget, 47:605(c) main purpose is to protect and ensure the survival of the PBS national feed for everyone regardless of the technology used to deliver it to the people.

If you've been following this issue from the begining you see that this argument was raised because Directv was accusing end users of violating portions of 47:605.
Would you not agree that they would also be required to comply with this same law if it was provent that they were in fact in violation of it?

Well the beauty of these discussions is that by everyone respecting each others thoughts and opinions we can work together in trying to determine if in fact their is a violation of this law.

It is good for you to look up laws but keep in mind a Judge rules on them. I can't exactly see any earth shaking decsions coming down on this one.

Absolutely correct!!!:) Judges do make rulings....based on the validity of the arguments raised and interpretations of the laws written. Here exists an oppurtunity to possibly close a loophole and maybe even deliver a financial blow to the DBS providers if and when a judge rules that they were negligent in their encrypted transmissions of the PBS programming of the National Feed.
I don,t know about you but I would consider that type of victory "earth shaking".:cool:

megados

September 16th, 2003, 06:42 PM

giveupdave, if you can find something spelled out in LAW that gives DBS broadcasters the right to encrypt the PBS feeds, then present it. If you have no facts to back up your claims besides "there must be a law somewhere" then please by all means go out and read. The issue isn't going to be decided on a load of weightless rhetoric.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Courts decide these things not you or I.

To go back a few steps, why doesn't someone call PBS and complain? If PBS doesn't have a problem with it, the governemt doesn't have a problem, then there is no problem. Yes I have seen the law posted here but that doesn't something was changed or agreements reached. PBS may for whatever reason find no problem with what is happening with DTV.

megados

September 16th, 2003, 07:00 PM

The point there is, that it's not up to PBS, it's up to the public; it has nothing to do with sweetheart agreements, it's a point of law. That's as simple as it gets

jameson71

September 16th, 2003, 07:04 PM

My response is, what happened to "Governemt of the people, by the people, for the people?" When did it turn into "IF DTV and the government say its ok, then we will spend tax dollars on it." This is NOT to say that the governent, aka the LAW, says its OK.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 07:05 PM

From the PBS web site

"Q. How can I receive PBS on my home satellite dish?
A. C-Band dish owners can access a clear analog feed of the PBS Satellite Service on Telstar 4, Channel 18 (T4, C-18). Viewers unable to receive their local PBS station can receive the PBS National Satellite Service through DBS providers DirecTV, Primestar and the Dish Network (EchoStar). "

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_faqanswers.html#satellite

and
"Satellite Changes

Change is in the air

Thank you for watching PBS. As a result of a law enacted by Congress (the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999), PBS service on DIRECTV and DISH Network will change for many viewers. As the satellite providers continue to roll out markets where they offer local channels, there will be a shift from the PBS National Satellite Service to the local public television stations.

If you are a DBS customer and live in one of the country's largest cities, you now may be able to watch your local PBS station(s) on DIRECTV and DISH Network as a part of their local channels package. If you are a DBS customer living outside the country's largest cities, please call DirecTV at 1-800-DirecTV or DISH Network at 1-800-333-DISH to sign up for the PBS National Satellite Service.

To find out more information about PBS service through your satellite provider, please click one of the choices below:

DirecTV or Pegasus"

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_prog_satellite.html

So it certainly looks like PBS, the governement is well aware of DTV providing PBS scrambled.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by megados
giveupdave, if you can find something spelled out in LAW that gives DBS broadcasters the right to encrypt the PBS feeds, then present it. If you have no facts to back up your claims besides "there must be a law somewhere" then please by all means go out and read. The issue isn't going to be decided on a load of weightless rhetoric.

(c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming
No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite
delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the
Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by
retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as
long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any
program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection
shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of
the same program.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/5/subchapters/vi/sections/section_605.html

megados

September 16th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Yup, and now they have to become aware of the law! :)

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by megados
Yup, and now they have to become aware of the law! :)
We both posted at the same time. My answer would be my post above yours.

megados

September 16th, 2003, 07:38 PM

That doesn't do it . . .

It provides for penalties for unlawful decryption, and proposes setting sn encryption standard if one is needed, but nowhere explicitly authorizes encryption of non-commercial content.

giveupdave

September 16th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by megados
That doesn't do it . . .

It provides for penalties for unlawful decryption, and proposes setting sn encryption standard if one is needed, but nowhere explicitly authorizes encryption of non-commercial content.
It appears to me that it deals with PBS and encryption. Perhaps you could point out which sentence your refering to?

megados

September 16th, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by giveupdave
It appears to me that it deals with PBS and encryption. Perhaps you could point out which sentence your refering to?

well I was hoping you'd point out what you're interpreting as authorization. I'm referring to the whole thing in general. I see only things put forth that assume it has been authorized, but nothing whatsoever stating the actual authorization.

Decibel

September 16th, 2003, 08:40 PM

It's a loophole!!!

They are operating in an under-defined grey area !!!

When this was written, there was only C-band available to consumers.
IT's been preety much left untouched because there was no challenge to it.

DBS operates in the ku-band, correct?

The letter of the law is not in question as far as c-band is concerned....I challenge the compliance of this law with respect to ku-band transmissions......Directv and Dishnetwork are taking an un-encrypted transmissoin from one band that is just about not used anymore by the general population and re-offering it to the new technologically advanced spectrum of the ku band.

They are severly limiting the universal access to this un-encrypted transmission!

The intent of this piece of law (47:605(c))was to preserve the universal access of this programming.

Here another interesting article I found over at the U.S. House of Representatives.

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COPYRIGHT LICENSING REGIMES COVERING RETRANSMISSION OF BROADCAST SIGNALS (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4033.htm)

Here's an excerpt:

B. Universal Access. Universal access to public television, regardless of distribution technology, remains central to PBS's mission. A PBS/DBS service would ensure that every U.S. television household retains easy access to public television programs. (Once a viewer subscribes to a DBS service, they may be effectively lost to their local pubic television station because viewers often drop their cable service and then must go back to their conventional antennas to receive them.)

:D

giveupdave

September 17th, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by megados
well I was hoping you'd point out what you're interpreting as authorization. I'm referring to the whole thing in general. I see only things put forth that assume it has been authorized, but nothing whatsoever stating the actual authorization.

" except that as
long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any
program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection
shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of
the same program. "

Thats the sentence I was dealing with. I beleive it clearly allows Sattelite compines to encrypt the PBS signal as long as atleast one satellite has it in the clear

Decibel

September 17th, 2003, 04:33 PM

giveupdave,

" except that as
long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any
program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection
shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of
the same program. "

Thats the sentence I was dealing with. I beleive it clearly allows Sattelite compines to encrypt the PBS signal as long as atleast one satellite has it in the clear

Your interpretation does have some validity to it...Now tlet's take it one step further, ok?

This piece of law was written when only one satellite spectrum was available to the public.
Then,
Born from new technologies were the DBS providers.
They have their own private playground....but that playground came with conditions/rules.....Are you with me so far? :)

The law says no one shall encrypt...corect?
PBS provides it un-ecrypted to all on c-band, correct?
The law did not make PBS the keeper or guardian of the PBS national feed now, did it? :) PBS didn't place the national feed on ka or ku band did it?

Someone (Directv and Dish) took that feed into their new playground.
Someone (DTV & Dish) didn't want to accept the responsibilty to ensure that the intent of congress concerning the PBS national feed, which IS to preserve the universal access to all regardless of the technology used, was upheld.

Wouldn't you agreee that 47:605 (c) was clearly an act of congress to do just that...preserve the UNIVERSAL ACCESS?
How can you have universal access if you do not apply the rules universally, in all spectrums....C-band-ku-band....???

This is what this issue is all about!
PBS is not required to maintain it un-encrypted....they are the originators of the feed and by default it begins as un-encrypted!!!

The task of maintaing the un-encrypted transmission is upon the "Someone" who decides to encrypt it.... :)

Directv and Dish can rebroadcast it as many times as they want encrypted so long as they provide one transmission un-encrypted...That's what that law says.

Ok, let's argue another point....If they were to do that, encrypting it would serve no purpose. They would spend time and money encrypting it for nothing....

Yes, that is correct. The PBS national feed is protected....To encrypt it you must abide by a certain condition....That condition is to also provide an un-encrypted transmission...It was never created so someone (DTV & Dish) should have the oppurtunity to make money off of it.
Don't get confused now with non commercial educational programming and the PBS national feed.
They are two different matters and treated differently.
Non commercial educational programming is one of the rules imposed on the DBS provider when they were granted the right to transmitt...
Non commercial programming is supplied by many sources, not just PBS.

The PBS national feed though is protected and only supplied by one source, with one purpose and was given special protection by congress.

Now whose job is it really to make sure it remains universally accessible.....PBS?....Congress?.....Directv?.....Dishnetwork?.....or WE THE PEOPLE? :)

:cool:

megados

September 17th, 2003, 05:50 PM

" except that as
long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any
program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection
shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of
the same program. "

Thats the sentence I was dealing with. I beleive it clearly allows Sattelite compines to encrypt the PBS signal as long as atleast one satellite has it in the clear

It does not prohibit transmissions in encrypted form of the same program. The thing is, though, that there's much more content on the PBS locals than is offered on the National Feed. They encrypt those, with no duplicate signal offered in unencrypted form. Therefore they're in violation in each of these cases, even if the fact that C-band provides unencrypted content.

giveupdave

September 18th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Interesting point. I guess what I missed when reading it was the reference to program and not channel. Anyways, I think they more or less appear to be in the clear

megados

September 18th, 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by giveupdave
Interesting point. I guess what I missed when reading it was the reference to program and not channel. Anyways, I think they more or less appear to be in the clear

Yes it seems you're right, either through an agreement or law we haven't seen yet, or by simply using a perceived loophole To avoid doing the moral and right thing. The whole purpose of this thread, is to find out why, and to clarify, and possibly change how it's handled. That's why I welcome any relevant input, and we'll try to get some interpretation discussions going here. Mr Zakarian has kindly given us some insight as to how these things are worked out. It's up to us to help him help us, and the more information he can get in this thread, the better equipped he'll be to give things some direction.

This isn't going to be a cookie-cutter case, and there has to be something clearly spelling out the conditions under which they're allowed to encrypt to that extent, but if there isn't, they're in violation of the law.

That's what we're here to find out. :)