Why Does The Goverment Hate Satellite Service Providers?

from the Physics,-Economics,-and-Definition-of-'Fair' dept

Thu, Feb 12th 2009 10:59pm — Derek Kerton

Earlier this week, Rep. Bart Stupak, from rural Michigan, introduced a bill to require Dish Network and DirecTV (SatTV) to carry local TV channels in all US markets. Stupak said that the current practice of only carrying local channels for major population centers is unfair to rural citizens. But Stupak seems to miss two important economic and scientific factors against his wishes, as well as an understanding of competition and what is fair

Physics sets hard limits to how many channels of TV SatTV can broadcast from their existing satellites. And with the public now clamoring for more HDTV, SatTV is now desperately trying to shoe-horn more HD channels into the limited capacity they have, so they can compete effectively with cable (an important role). SatTV carriers must trade-off between content for the whole country, and content for local audiences. In the case of large metro cities, the audience size tips the trade-off towards local content. Yet Stupak seems to think that it's worth using up scarce nationwide capacity to carry local content for every town that has a TV station. Ridiculous. The needs of the many subjugated to the needs of the few?

Then Stupak also seems to ignore the economic argument that these SatTV enterprises are businesses trying to stay afloat. They are not public services. And the SatTV companies need to deliver a product that can attract a sizeable audience, or the service will be a sure money loser.

If Stupak thinks it's fair to force SatTV to provide product for small towns, they why not force the same of the NFL or airlines? Shouldn't we also require the NFL to put a team in any town that wants one, or is the NFL unfairly discriminating against rural America? And airlines should be required to have flights to every airport, too, right Rep. Stupak? Sir, these aren't public services, nor charities. Your Bill would increase costs to all of us, and reduce available services to the nation by redirecting resources to sparsely populate areas.

I've said it before, and I know I'll get hate responses when I say it again, but there are trade-offs people make when they choose to live in the city, OR in the countryside. Tough. We city folk trade off fresh air, open spaces, bucolic lifestyles, good schools, flora, ample space and land, open roads and more. Rural people sacrifice retail options, entertaiment services, Internet access, and more. Life is full of trade-off decisions. Not everyone makes the same choices, and that IS fair...in fact it should be celebrated and called freedom.

Does the government just dislike satellite services for some reason? Mike has steadily covered the impact of a slow government approval of a Sirius-XM merger. While the merger definitely reduced competitors in the sat radio space, that space is NOT the market in which those two companies operate. If they go broke in part because of gov't meddling, we will only then see a significant reduction in competition in the much wider portable audio entertainment industry, which is the actual market under consideration.

In toto, SatTV has been a fantastic boon for rural dwellers, offering them a range of entertainment options that were never before available outside of major cities. This is the upside of a distribution network that targets the whole country with one signal. The downside is a reduced capacity for local programming. As a bonus to rural dwellers, although satellite Internet isn't great, at least it gives you an option. In town, SatTV delivery market, especially back in the day when cable was unchallenged by the telcos. Aren't satellite services, recent arrivals on the scene, competition engines, and a market success story? Why would the congressman want to squeeze this winner until it can't breathe?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bart stupak, michigan, satellite tv

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anon, 12 Feb 2009 @ 11:59pm

Can these people not watch them with rabbit ears like the rest of us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tack, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:00am

meh
Really the only reason to have satellite is because you dont have access to cable which is usually the case in rural areas. But it shouldnt be government's job to tell them what they have to carry. Though government wouldnt feel it was their job is the satellite companies did the right thing to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 12:43am

It should be done...
Afterall, Cable was forced to have content that wasn't logical to have.

it just seams... i don't know, fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:28am

It would help to know just how many additional channels we're talking about here. If it's only a small fraction of the number of channels (local and national) that the satTV services already carry, then make them carry the extra channels. After all, cable companies have to carry all local channels, too. But if it would significantly increase the number of channels carried (e.g. double or more), then the finiteness of bandwidth argument wins out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Angela, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:19am

Re:
LOL! I'm sure you're not watching with rabbit ears anymore. :-D Angela from Aberdeen Backlinks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dmhoo29, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:42am

Sat. TV and Local channels
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dmhoo29, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:54am

Sat. TV and Local channels
Derek Kerton, You say use no to his suggestion and also say they don't have enough space for local channels. BULL .
Why are we forced to pay $xxx.xx amount of $'s for some of the crap we're forced to pay for. I really have no use for all these infomercial channels,cooking,15 plus News channels and half all talk about money.A gazillion sports channels.So I can not watch my game because I did not upgrade to get the other channel,NFL network.
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dmhoo29, 13 Feb 2009 @ 2:55am

Sat. TV and Local channels
Derek Kerton, You say no to his suggestion and also say they don't have enough space for local channels. BULL .
Why are we forced to pay $xxx.xx amount of $'s for some of the crap we're forced to pay for. I really have no use for all these infomercial channels,cooking,15 plus News channels and half all talk about money.A gazillion sports channels.So I can not watch my game because I did not upgrade to get the other channel,NFL network.
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chunky Vomit, 13 Feb 2009 @ 3:47am

Are you suggesting that the most powerful government in the world must bow to the laws of physics?

Traitor!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chunky Vomit, 13 Feb 2009 @ 3:47am

Are you suggesting that the most powerful government in the world must bow to the laws of physics?

Traitor!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DTV employee, 13 Feb 2009 @ 4:07am

Re:
yea, but theres a difference. The cable company uses local broadcast centers to deliver the local tv to that region, Satties use a different method. We broadcast everything up to the satellite, then back down to earth. So, the problem becomes how do you fit everything into a sattelite feed. Even if they decide to divide the satellite footprint into smaller individual sections, they will still be required to upload all the local channels from all over the US. This severely restricts the pipeline going up to the satellite, limiting the number of channels available to the public.
Commonly what Dtv does right now is build dishes that are capable of picking up the HD local channels being broadcast over the air by the stations themselves, and mixes them into the Dtv channels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 4:19am

I'm for it.
Without local channels, people won't be able to get their local news.

Local TV can prevent a dilution of local culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grem135, 13 Feb 2009 @ 4:41am

Local channels
Creful what you wish for... Remember when the Sat companys didnt even have local channels? I do, and i dont want them to go back to that because some clown in congress cant get it through his thick scull that it JUST IS NOT POSSIBLE to make every local channel available on satelite. I do live in the city, but have family in rural areas that cant get locals via SatTV and they rarely (if ever)watch local TV on rabbit ears becuase the channels suck. DVT offers the network feed to those that cant get locals, so is not like they have to miss thier favorite shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 13 Feb 2009 @ 5:32am

I see how the government could compel or force cable companies to carry local programing. Because cable companies use easements over private and public lands, to run their lines, they're bound by our rules.

I'm not saying that governments should dictate programing, I'm just saying I can see a legal basis for the authority. "If you want to use my land, I'm want something in return."

But I don't see how the government could have any authority over satellite programing. As far as I know they're not using any government owned spectrum, but I could be wrong about that. Any ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neal Becker, 13 Feb 2009 @ 5:48am

What about promoting broadband?
Lot's of talk about spending my tax money bringing broadband to rural areas that have NO ACCESS to broadband.

Hello? What about satellite broadband? Talk about government screwing satellite providers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 5:53am

Re:
In some cases you're so far away from a city that the only way to receive any signal at all is through satellite. That said, I live in the country & don't feel a need to get local stations. As long as I can get the networks, I'm good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erik M Jacobs, 13 Feb 2009 @ 6:23am

Lobbyists, anyone?
I believe the word is "lobbyist," and the cable industry has many of them. Cable knows that Satellite can't compete because of the limited bandwidth on existing birds. That is why the whole locals provision exists - cable lobbied for it in order to squash the satellite providers.

Hell, DirecTV used lobbying to force certain required content regulation on the sat industry to beat up Dish because they knew that Dish had less birds and therefore less bandwidth. (At least that's my understanding of one situation).

There is likely a cable lobbyist in this Rep's pocket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jilocasin (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 6:31am

I would opt ofr networks over local channels
The physics arguments are compelling. Yes Sat. can't carry every local channel across the country, given.

Having said that, they need to allow everyone to watch network television, even if they don't live in a major metro area. While living in middle America with sat. t.v. I was told that I couldn't get ABC/NBC/etc. because I wasn't in a major metro area and I didn't fall into the exception of 'back woods' rural that didn't have a local affiliate.

If you want to serve rural (and middle ) America while keeping within the bounds of physics, mandating that they carry at least 1 channel of each of the networks that's available to all subscribers would be a start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 13 Feb 2009 @ 6:51am

I agree with the article, even if I'm a "beneficiary"
I admit it. I live in western Wyoming, surrounded by mountains. Entertainment content is hard to come by here. I have satellite TV, but I really could care less about local content. That's because my local area has been determined to be Salt Lake City, Utah. I can't choose any of the TV stations airing from Casper, WY or Denver- which are much more relevent.

Also on topic, XM/Sirius is VERY popular around here, where it can be a challenge to pull in ANY fm station while driving.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the typical entertainment alternative, broadband, isn't really practical around here, when "broadband" is 256K dsl.

Unfortunately, I completely understand that these businesses can't cater to the few of us rural folk. You're right, it's my choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Galt, 13 Feb 2009 @ 7:00am

Can't survive on Rural Alone
I had been a SatTV subscriber in an area that has three different options for television (cable, U-Verse and OTA).

I left the cable company to go with Dish because I liked the all digital idea and they had a nice array of HD choices. I left them in January for U-Verse because I could get better service for $50 less (when bundled with broadband).

SatTV providers are not going to survive if their only market is rural folks who don't have any other choice. They need to attract folks like me -- in a major market -- and I don't care about all of the new HD channels they add to rural markets, I care about how many HD channels I can receive in comparison to their competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 7:18am

While I was in the Satellite TV business (and its been a few years ago) the only people who could reliably get access to network programming (ie.. ABC, NBC, CBS) were those folks who did not have local networks. Some big issue with re-broadcast rights and whether or not the sat companies were willing to pay enough. At that time (mid to late 90's) DirecTV only offered networks as East or West. Then, suddenly, local channels became available. My big point is that the people he seems most concerned with are the ones who don't actually have "local" channels anyway. Maybe nearby, but not really local, and those folks already have access to network programming, so what's his REAL issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gunnar, 13 Feb 2009 @ 7:19am

Re: What about promoting broadband?
"Lot's of talk about spending my tax money bringing broadband to rural areas that have NO ACCESS to broadband.

Hello? What about satellite broadband? Talk about government screwing satellite providers."

Satellite broadband is a pretty weak choice with it's high latency, speeds that rival the slowest DSL connections, high expense, and the fact that it's affected by weather conditions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Merrill, 13 Feb 2009 @ 8:59am

satellite and local
Actually, satellites have separate beams to different geographies so they could carry local access to, say, eastern MA and to Western MA. YMMV.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PittCaleb, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:21pm

Cable?
I would be in favor of this bill only if they also REQUIRED cable companies to wire every single house throughout the nation!

I lived in Rural Michigan for 10 years. I had a comcast line on a right-of-way on my property. But they refused to give me access to cable television, or internet, until the final 2 years I lived there (this is '98 - '08, just a few miles outside of Ann Arbor).

Until Cable is REQUIRED to give local stations to RURAL citizens, they can not require Satellite to provide a service to these very same people? Think about it, they're requiring universal access to DBS. Why can't DBS simply state, "we don't service 'your town'" just like some cable companies do. They don't have a coverage mandate, why then should DBS?

PittCaleb
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RC Winter, 13 Feb 2009 @ 1:32pm

What does happen....
I live out in the country, between 2 metropolitan areas, each about 90+ from each area. I am 1 US mile away from the cut off point that forces getting "local" news from the city the farthest away. I would prefer to get the local information from the other city. But the only way to get that is to rent a PO Box another city that falls within the imaginary line that says I can get the local channels from the other city.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel L, 13 Feb 2009 @ 4:58pm

Let me get this straight
The Satellite companies broadcast signals from satellites they own, to people that want that pay for that content. The rep is arguing that because they don't carry other content, it's somehow unfair to people that have already chosen to pay for something that they KNOW doesn't contain said content?

Can I go to McDonald's, purchase a Big Mac Meal, then demand they carry tacos?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 11:52pm

How many more is it, really?
The article doesn't provide any links to the actual legislation, but does say

Of the 210 geographic markets delineated by regulators, satellite companies do not provide local programing in 31, according to Stupak.

So they are already carrying the local stations in 210 markets but an additional 31 to cover them all would be unreasonable? And then there's this,

Stupak, who serves on a U.S. House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee, said he has been asking the satellite companies for years to expand local service to all markets, but to no avail.

He cited a 2003 congressional hearing where DirecTV pledged to carry local broadcasting service nationwide.

"Unfortunately, without a hard date established in satellite law, this pledge has gone unfulfilled," he said.

So, they already agreed to do this anyway, but now they're just wanting to welsh.

Don't forget, they're using the public airwaves under certain terms and conditions. If they don't like them, they don't have to use the airwaves.

Disclosure: I have no stake in the satellite TV industry and no incentive to sugarcoat it. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sputnik, 14 Feb 2009 @ 7:11am

Who watches the knitting channel ?
Although I agree with your argument, I wonder why they do not provide a few local channels in place things like the knitting channel. Does anyone actually watch this ?

And on a tangent, do the countless channels whose sole purpose is to sell you junk jewlery really have that many viewers ? If so, does it need to be in HD ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch, 14 Feb 2009 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re:
Why are you sure? I watch local TV with rabbit ears sometimes, because Dish doesn't send them in HD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RDHalstead, 15 Feb 2009 @ 8:51pm

Re: meh
I have Satellite (DISH Network), cable, and OTA TV. I can receive at least 15 to 20 digital stations (not with rabbit ears ) and have found satellite to be far superior to cable. The only reason we have cable is for the high speed Internet. The quality of even the Weather Channel outshines the best cable HD I can get. Many cable companies compress the digital stations as much as possible, losing quality in the process. Even back in the days of the BUG (Big Ugly Dish) analog C-Band satellite had better quality than cable. It's easy to compare when I can pick the same channel on each and instantly switch between them. Until the satellites went HD the OTA signals had the best picture. OTOH with 1080i being the standard on HD OTA and my satellite provider without a lot of compression they are both good. The only down side of the satellite is loss of signal during really bad weather.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cap'n Jack, 17 Feb 2009 @ 7:52pm

As my elementary school teacher used to say:

"Fairness doesn't mean equality."

This is a case where the government really needs to bud out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Talpas (profile), 12 Mar 2009 @ 9:43am

"Life is full of trade-off decisions. Not everyone makes the same choices, and that IS fair...in fact it should be celebrated and called freedom."

Amen, brother! Preach on!

I'm a city boy myself, but I can see the draw of living in the country. One thing I like about the country: Being able to look up and see stars. Why would I want to watch them on TV, after that?

But, I'm addicted to the internet. *Sigh* I know. It's a terrible habit, but I just can't stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indian Girls, 22 Jul 2010 @ 6:41am

read this
Why are we forced to pay $xxx.xx amount of $'s for some of the crap we're forced to pay for. I really have no use for all these infomercial channels,cooking,15 plus News channels and half all talk about money.A gazillion sports channels.So I can not watch my game because I did not upgrade to get the other channel,NFL network.
LAST but not least CSPAN 1,2.? maybe more. What about the all new BABY channel. Last time I asked my 6 mo. old grandson,(No Reply) he burps the not interested burp.LOL
The congress can give up their stupid channels for locals?maybe? hmmm bet not.
Problem is, No one person wants to give.
So,we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dog training books, 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:17pm

Suddenly, local channels became available. My big point is that the people he seems most concerned with are the ones who don't actually have "local" channels anyway. Maybe nearby, but not really local, and those folks already have access to network programming, so what's his REAL issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bien and Robinson, 13 Sep 2010 @ 12:51pm

Totally True...
The truth is most people don't care about all their channels, but I think giving people too much choice or customization will hurt the bottom line for these cable service providers.

I think you need to give the internet more credit, eventually it will be replacing all our entertainment mediums as it will be the preferred distribution system for everything: TV, news, games, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
buy logitech revue, 26 Sep 2010 @ 8:05pm

LOL!
@Angela, lmfao!

BTW, great article!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Qavi, 5 Oct 2010 @ 3:01am

Indian Girls
Why are you sure? I watch local TV with rabbit ears sometimes, because Dish doesn't send them in HD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indian Girls, 6 Oct 2010 @ 3:54am

Indian Girls
Are you suggesting that the most powerful government in the world must bow to the laws of physics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
smivers backlinks, 7 Oct 2010 @ 3:30pm

smivers backlinks
Get cheap backlinks from Smivers.com/backlinks Great offer 10 links only $1.99/month backlinks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Compaq 610, 15 Oct 2010 @ 3:40pm

Re:
What's so bad about bunny ears? Perfectly fine to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iron Man 2, 16 Nov 2010 @ 1:06pm

Fairness doesn't mean we are all equal. I too have heard this but from a law teacher. What an example this makes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sports betting handicap, 9 Jan 2011 @ 7:53am

new
wow all those garments are so amazing and fabulous I don't come to your blog as often as I would like, but whenever I do I see some really amazing things keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Caleb, 14 Feb 2011 @ 6:47pm

Government
Unfortunately everyone who ever gets elected needs to feel "useful". The problem is that it is then at our expense. We now have huge populations of civil servants plying their trade to manage all of the laws and edicts created to protect us from ourselves.

The most useful thing most of our lawmakers could do is not show up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
car hire seychelles, 15 Feb 2011 @ 11:11pm

That's just what the Government want us to think. The truth is nothing close.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Home Energy Monitor, 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:30pm

Great!
Local news is very important, give the people to choose more channels they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Six Flags Great America Girl, 5 May 2011 @ 10:54pm

We live in the country and satellite is the only way we can watch tv out here. We love our service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Samina, 23 May 2011 @ 2:04am

Square coffee table
agreed with six flags, there is great importance of satellites in our life
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Credilife, 7 Jul 2011 @ 5:19am

Traitor
Of course they are a traitor, the government either won't vow them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sania, 1 Dec 2011 @ 6:18am

give more importance to your local things..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nazish, 2 Dec 2011 @ 5:11am

Very nice article,thanks for sharing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mark, 25 Mar 2012 @ 9:45pm

thanks
thanks for that good info
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gracie, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:57am

very funny....
"Can these people not watch them with rabbit ears like the rest of us?"
Pretty sure we don't do that anymore.
best blender best tent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Search Engine Optimisation Perth, 21 Aug 2012 @ 6:56am

adenjeff121
I would like to take the ability of saying thanks to you for the professional suggestions I have continually enjoyed visiting your site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Janson, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:19pm

Fingerprint solution provider
Local TV channels give people more choice they want.
Fingerprint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyle leon, 22 Jul 2013 @ 7:33pm

Health Care
Our sports center offers several types of fitness exercises from Zumba lovers to strengthening the body
[ link to this | view in thread ]