Boy! Did somebody screw up, or whut????

[kenglish]

According to DecisionMark, which handles waiver requests for people seeking to dis-enfranchise themselves from their local affiliates,
on June 12, EVERYBODY qualifies for a Distant-Networks waiver.

See, with all the hoopla about Digital TV, no one thought to revisit the Satellite Home Viewer Act.
As it is written, when the analog signal goes away, there "is no local coverage at (any) location". Digital coverage does not count....just the (now non-existent) analog.

So, let's dig up Rowan and Martin, and polish-up the old "Fickle Finger of Fate" award.

YGAW (Your Government At Work).

 

[arnoldevns]

This will have no impact on whether you can or cannot get a waiver.
While DecisionMark may handle the waiver requests from the satellite companies, it is ultimately up to the local stations to determine if someone can get the waiver. (good explaination of the process can be found on this station's website: http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=2985489&nav=menu191_11_12 )
I can tell you from personal experience that there are some stations that go out of their way to concoct a reason to deny almost all waiver requests. The satellite companies sure don't mind because it then makes it easier for them to sell the local affiliate package to the viewer for 6-7 bucks a month.
The switch to digital will probably make them deny more requests because in many cases the stations have larger theoretical viewing areas even though the reality is that getting a DTV signal can be much more difficult. That will be true even if DecisionMark sends every waiver request to the local station with an approved stamp on it.

 

[kenglish]

"The switch to digital will probably make them deny more requests because in many cases the stations have larger theoretical viewing areas even though the reality is that getting a DTV signal can be much more difficult."

What DecisionMark was saying, though, is that a DTV station, without analog, has NO coverage area under SHVA, since the law is based entirely on analog coverage. :

We're seeing what you're talking about, though, here in Utah. Although the low-band VHFs are showing a bunch of small "lost signal" areas, overall everybody is gaining coverage. The UHFs and most HB-VHFs are showing no loss of coverage at all.

 

[tripinva]

I don't see what Howard University's WHUT has to do with anything.

- Trip

 

[jegrant]

I thought with Digital TV, there was some provision in the law that allowed the consumer to have a test at his or her receiving location, but that this provision had been suspended, pending ??? - not sure.

 

[KML0224]

I thought WHUT stood for wonderful households using television?

 

[kenglish]

I thought with Digital TV, there was some provision in the law that allowed the consumer to have a test at his or her receiving location, but that this provision had been suspended, pending ??? - not sure.

Don't even think about THAT mess : .
We went through that stuff with the earlier SHVA. We'd get letters saying that they "lived in a cave, on the back side of a mountain, next to the Bermuda Triangle". So, we load up the truck and go there, find out that they live exactly 14 miles line-of-sight from the transmitter, one hundred feet above the rest of the valley, and they have a perfect signal....or, would have one, except they haven't even tried an antenna.

One proposed version of the law, pushed hard by DISH Network (no surprise there), would have required us to go to every house, climb all over their roofs (taking measurements at five different spots) and write an essay about the geography, the topography, the foliage, the weather conditions (past and present), etc.

Sort of like, forcing scientists to "prove the ocean is wet"....just analyze every drop of water, number it and tag it, then put it back exactly where you found it .

 

[vchimpanzee]

I remember when dishes didn't even offer local channels. They'd get you an antenna.

I wonder if that would work now?