Something that would be nice

[Msguy]

What would be nice is if the NAB would stop playing such hardball with Satellite Customers and allow us to subscribe to our Local Channels and have 1 or 2 Major Cities from each Time Zone that people who have Dish Network or DirecTv could Subscribe to. For Example People on the East coast in the Eastern Time Zone could Subscribe to New York Local Channels or say Atlanta channels in the Southern Eastern Time Zone. People Living in The Central Time Zone be able to Subscribe to Chicago or St. Louis Locals, People Living in the Mountain Time Zone be able to Subscribe to Denver or Phoenix Locals, and People Living in the Pacific Time Zone who have DirecTv or Dish Network be able to Subscribe to Los Angeles or Seattle Local Channels. I have a friend who Lives in Winnipeg Canada and on his cable up there they get U.S. Local Networks 2 cities for each network. He's told me he can get Seattle FOX and Minneapolis FOX, NBC out of Seattle and Minneapolis, and CBS from Seattle and Minneapolis. But here we only get our one Local Network. Why can't they just allow us with Satellite Dish's here subscribe to the city we want to? It just doesn't make sense to me. I know about Local broadcasters rights and them not wanting us to see other cities car commercials. But that is just ridiculous in my opinion.

[N5XZS]

I hope days comes that we have the right to get out of town TV markets, regardless of OTA TV's signal quality levels where we live.

IMHO, NAB has abused by forcing copyright censorships, based in outdated 1950 era model!!:mad:

Look at Canada, they can get any out of town TV markets, and we in good old USA are NOT allowed get any out of town TV markets regardless of reception on analog or digital signal quality levels!!:nono2:

Go get your congress critters, changes this stupid DMA laws so everyone can enjoy watching out of town local news or local sport programings!!

9-1-08

[Lord Vader]

I wouldn't expect the NAB to change its stance anytime during our lifetime, guys. That organization is purely asinine and anti-consumer. Period.

[ziggy29]

I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

[jclewter79]

I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

[curt8403]

when the ability to replace commercials on feeds from other markets with commercials from the local market becomes available. you can bet that we will be able to get feeds from any place we want. That is the whole Crux of the issue. Local commercials.

[RAD]

While the consumer might want to see this IMHO the satellite companies don't. The ONLY way they can do the local into local coverage now is by the use of spot beam satellites, which allows them to reuse transponder frequencies to provide all the locals they have now.

[curt8403]

can you imagine the effect of locals from everywhere?
5 - 10 locals per market, and over 100 markets.
1000 new channels, and where would they fit? in the 2 to 60 range IE 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, etc? Uhggg

[LarryFlowers]

As satellite customers we are in a minority and as such, Congress is unlikely to modify the existing rules to suit us. It would be nice to be able to subscribe to a National Network feed in addition to the local networks feeds if for no other reason than to provide an additional "time" opportunity to record a show and to offset the vagaries of local networks pre-empting of network broadcasts.

I don't think that under the current technology though that you could pick and choose what locals you would like to receive.

I don't like the practice as it currently exists, it smacks of "protecting the whale oil industry from the upstart electric companies"... technology marches on.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough of us to change this anytime soon. Another poster was correct in that significant changes would quite probably put many local broadcasters out of business, you cant run a local network affiliate on just the revenues from local news and with affiliates more and more being forced to pay the networks, their revenue stream becomes more important.

Our entire broadcasting system in this country is based on old technology, the limitation of range of analog style television channels. If we were building the infrastructure to day it would be totally different. With corporations so embedded in the system and so in complete control of Congress... we are stuck with it.

[N5XZS]

Now when you look at local and out of town RSN sport packages stations showing local ads, is also a same thing on local OTA stations and out of town OTA stations.

RSN on Directv, Dish, 2 Canadian DBS services and Canadian OTA stations on Canadian DBS are doing just fine without need for a DMA areas.:)

NAB and other are bunch of greed and abuse of power, and one way or the other they will shoot their foot for being just stupid, when the U.S. TV viewers will have a nasty backlash against this stupid DMA rule!:eek2:

Don't just sit there and go contact your congress critters, that you want to overhaul the outdated DMA and let the American people choose out of town stations regardless of reception issue or not.

This way we are keeping this country united, and stay in touch by watching out of town local news and if we don't change the outdated copyright DMA censorship then this country of our will fall apart, because of not getting out of town local news and other programmings choices.

The local U.S. TV broadcasters will have to live in a brave new world and just get on with it!!:eek2:

To me DMA's rule is breaking up this great country of ours is not good IMHO......

9-1-08

[Msguy]

I just don't understand why we cannot subscribe to local channels from other cities. I would be willing to pay $4.99 for each cities local channels. I want to subscribe to Chicago Channels so bad because I never get to see a Cubs game if they are on FOX Saturday baseball. If MLB Extra Innings would carry All FOX Saturday games i wouldn't need to have Chicago Locals. I'm doomed either way i go :mad:

[curt8403]

I just don't understand why we cannot subscribe to local channels from other cities. I would be willing to pay $4.99 for each cities local channels. I want to subscribe to Chicago Channels so bad because I never get to see a Cubs game if they are on FOX Saturday baseball. If MLB Extra Innings would carry All FOX Saturday games i wouldn't need to have Chicago Locals. I'm doomed either way i go :mad:

it all has to do with advertizing revenue.

[bgilga]

The last time I saw numbers, there were 29 million satellite tv subs in the U.S. I think it is time that the NAB get with the program. I used to subscribe to BellTV. I received "locals" from Boston and Seattle. I also received CBC, CTV, CITY, and other network affiliates from across Canada. We are the ones paying for it, we should decide what we get. If Directv offered a package of Boston and Seattle network channrls fro $10, I would subscribe. My locals suck as far as picture quality.

[paulman182]

To open up all locals nationwide would require a fundamental change in the way network TV is supported.

The networks want you to watch your locals. Your locals want you watching your locals. Distant stations don't care if you watch their stations, because it does nothing for their ratings.

Instantly opening it all up as-is would mean the demise of local stations as well as network TV. A new business model must be developed if we want to keep the locals and networks operating, while eliminating the DMA restrictions.

[Stuart Sweet]

I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

I wouldn't expect the NAB to change its stance anytime during our lifetime, guys. That organization is purely asinine and anti-consumer. Period.

To open up all locals nationwide would require a fundamental change in the way network TV is supported.

The networks want you to watch your locals. Your locals want you watching your locals. Distant stations don't care if you watch their stations, because it does nothing for their ratings.

Instantly opening it all up as-is would mean the demise of local stations as well as network TV. A new business model must be developed if we want to keep the locals and networks operating, while eliminating the DMA restrictions.

First of all, the NAB's job is not to be pro-consumer or anti-consumer. It's to be pro-broadcaster.

Now, I really do understand the argument. You all would like to watch distant sporting events, have better quality and more choice. What you must understand is that local broadcasting is a very expensive business made even more expensive by the fact that local broadcasters are mandated to serve their localities. They rely on the advertising revenue they get to fund local news, and local news is incredibly incredibly important. As someone who has great network affiliates (in Los Angeles) but no local news to speak of, I can tell you how important it is.

To ask your local broadcaster (in a small market) to compete on the basis of quality or selection with a top ten market would simply be unfair.

You may love your out-of-town locals when you can watch "the game" but how will you feel when there is a 250,000 acre wildfire ten miles from your house and your network affiliate ignores it? How will you feel when a dead body is thrown out a speeding car in front of your spouse's workplace and no one from the media cares? These are real-life examples from my real life.

Someone has to pay for this news coverage and your out-of-town local isn't going to do that.

Sorry gentlemen, my mind is made up here.

[N5XZS]

Stuart Sweet,

Then explain this.........

http://www.livenewscameras.com/ that broadcasters are providing the news feeds and some other programmings on the Internet instead on DBS services full time?

Also, you can get any TV stations anywhere in the world by just clicking on the website.......:)

http://wwitv.com/portal.htm

9-2-08

[Athlon646464]

I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

To ask your local broadcaster (in a small market) to compete on the basis of quality or selection with a top ten market would simply be unfair.

I agree that people will want local news, but the real issue is where they will get it from. Most would agree today that soon it will not be from their local newspaper or their local TV station. The numbers today from both industries bear this out.

Here in Boston, for example, WBZ TV Channel 4 (local CBS affiliate) has fired most of their high priced on air talent in the past year to cut costs. Some of the people let go were local icons. Viewership, therefore ad revenues, are way down. Local news (and the national 'nightly' news for that matter) on TV is dying already (and may be dead already). The Boston Globe has done the same thing, and they are owned by the New York Times - also cost cutting because revenues and readership are way down.

There is already too much competition from the internet and cable, like it or not.

So, where will folks get their local news? When it all shakes out, in some form on the internet would be my guess. The paradigm is shifting, and the old models are dying.

I don't know the impact on out of area locals for satellite and cable, but it sure won't be what it is now, and we may indeed see huge changes over the next decade.

[Stuart Sweet]

There is, at least for the moment, a difference between web-provided video and broadcast. People still turn to the TV by and large for video entertainment. Perhaps the landscape will change when people turn more to the internet.

I agree that the old paradigms are dying, but until broadcasters are released from their obligation to use the public airwaves to benefit the public (meaning inform, not just entertain), market exclusivity will remain.

I look forward to the day that a respected news organization begins webcasting a 1/2 hour program with my local news. However, there is no legal requirement for them to do that and it may be some time before a profit model evolves.

[Athlon646464]

Stu - all good points.

There is no mistaking that we are in a transition era, and much needs to shake out. It's a little like the late 40's and early 50's when TV first appeared.

I'm just glad we're here to witness it as it happens. I'm sure that DBSTalk will soon have posts about 3-D signals not working, while 1080p/24 posts will be a thing of the past. :lol:

With the global economy BTW, who's to say what local really is? Soon we may be clamoring not for Seattle because we live in LA, but China because we live in the USA!

:flag:

[curt8403]

as a former newsperson, I can tell you that the news does not change that much in a day. a newscast done live at noon, 5:00 and 10:00 would be sufficient and just rebroadcast

[Lord Vader]

There is, at least for the moment, a difference between web-provided video and broadcast. People still turn to the TV by and large for video entertainment. Perhaps the landscape will change when people turn more to the internet.

I agree that the old paradigms are dying, but until broadcasters are released from their obligation to use the public airwaves to benefit the public (meaning inform, not just entertain), market exclusivity will remain.

I look forward to the day that a respected news organization begins webcasting a 1/2 hour program with my local news. However, there is no legal requirement for them to do that and it may be some time before a profit model evolves.

Stu, et. al.:

With all this web-casting and Internet news, we're forgetting one big reason why people will still turn to television-based news quite often: convenience. While ratings might be lower--mainly due to those tech savvy folks migrating to the Internet for their news--TV news is still widely preferred for its convenience.

Which is easier, guys: turning on the TV and being able to watch your local news or instant news (FOX, CNN, etc.) within seconds of turning on the TV, or firing up the ole 'puter, waiting for it to boot, then going to a web site that you hope is running well? And what if you have a so-so or crappy ISP? God forbid you're still on dial-up! :p

TV-based news is still quite preferable to Internet-based news by a lot of people. Unless I'm in front of my PC that is turned on--for me it usually is and my Comcast ISP is blazing fast--I turn to television for news, even if it's been recorded on my DVR.

[Athlon646464]

Stu, et. al.:

With all this web-casting and Internet news, we're forgetting one big reason why people will still turn to television-based news quite often: convenience. While ratings might be lower--mainly due to those tech savvy folks migrating to the Internet for their news--TV news is still widely preferred for its convenience.

Which is easier, guys: turning on the TV and being able to watch your local news or instant news (FOX, CNN, etc.) within seconds of turning on the TV, or firing up the ole 'puter, waiting for it to boot, then going to a web site that you hope is running well? And what if you have a so-so or crappy ISP? God forbid you're still on dial-up! :p

TV-based news is still quite preferable to Internet-based news by a lot of people. Unless I'm in front of my PC that is turned on--for me it usually is and my Comcast ISP is blazing fast--I turn to television for news, even if it's been recorded on my DVR.

Good argument for local TV News, but the reality (when you study the demographics of what is happening today) may put you in the minority soon, especially if you are of a certain age.

Many get their news from their phone for example, and more and more do each day. My point wasn't about what is more convenient, but the reality is that what we have considered to be mainstream is dying. Local newscasts and 'nightly' newscasts on 'regular' TV are going the way of the dinosaur and newspapers.

My daughter (21), sadly, gets most of her news from the Colbert Report, and her iGoogle home page. She never watches any 30 or 60 minute news cast. They are going away - convenient or not.

Instant news in some form is taking over. By the time 6pm rolls around it's 'old news'. Viewership is fragmented by all of the choice we have. Choice is good, and all the OP wants is more choice. Unfortunately sometimes it takes regulators years to catch up with reality........

:nono:

[evan_s]

My daughter (21), sadly, gets most of her news from the Colbert Report,

Ugg, that is a comedy show not a news show but sadly it does seem to be the source of news for all to many people these days.

[Lord Vader]

Ugg, that is a comedy show not a news show but sadly it does seem to be the source of news for all to many people these days.

Without getting political, that is also the reason, sadly, that a lot of those ignorant sheep are going to vote for a certain candidate. Anyone who gets their "news" from Colbert, Stewart, or the others is hopeless.

As to the convenience sake, I never said it would be that way forever. As the old saying goes, "S--- or get off the pot." People will eventually be forced to become more technologically-oriented, like it or not. As this happens, fewer people will be relying on the traditional boob tube for news.

[levibluewa]

Ugg, that is a comedy show not a news show but sadly it does seem to be the source of news for all to many people these days.

You could say the same thing about FOX NEWS, but look how many watch it and call it "news"!

[Stuart Sweet]

Please, let's not go down that road, ok?

[Lord Vader]

You could say the same thing about FOX NEWS, but look how many watch it and call it "news"!

No, one could NOT say the same thing about FOX News because that channel is a bonafide news outlet whose primary purpose is to report the news. They do not host prime time comedians whose purpose is to make people laugh by skewering Republicans. FNC has hosts who are both Democrats and Republicans, left and right, to provide for opposing viewpoints. That's something lacking on the other shows to which you have alluded.

[Stuart Sweet]

OK, I think we've cleared that up. As intentions go, Comedy Central = funny, Fox News = not funny. OK, :backtotop please.

[Lord Vader]

You mean it isn't funny seeing Bill O'Reilly drooling over some of his FOX babe correspondents when he has them in studio interviewing them? :D

[cartrivision]

I understand why local affiliates would not want to let you get distant networks as this might cut them out of the loop for the delivery of network programming (and the revenue that they get from selling adds that are seen during that programming), but it makes no sense for the network O&O stations to not grant blanket waviers for any viewer in their DMAs to get any distant station for that network that DirecTV would be willing to provide. Why should the network care which of their O&O station feeds is watched by someone in one of their O&O markets? If someone watches a distant station instead of the local one, they lose the viewer of the commercials on one station that they own, but they gain that viewer on another station that they own, so it's no net loss or gain to the network, plus they would probably actually increase viewership if they provide their programming 3 hours earlier for west coast viewers in addition to at it’s regular time.

If the networks were smart, every viewer in their O&O DMAs would automatically get a wavier to receive distant network stations.

[Stuart Sweet]

I believe that at this point in time, Nielsen only rates in-market viewers of locals, so if I watch WABC instead of KABC, KABC loses but WABC does not win.

[MikeW]

As interesting as it is to watch TV from a different DMA, I tend to agree we won't see anything happen on this front....ever. The push over the last 15 years in Congress has been to move everybody off of distant programming. By the end of 2009, there will be very few who will qualify vs. the handouts we were getting back in '96.

Realistically, most markets have the same basic programming as any other. Yes, there can be PQ/Audio issues and the occasional pre-empting, but none of this is going to sway the lawmakers into allowing more than we have now.

You can catch OOM news on the 'net. As a matter of fact, it may be even more conenient than watching your local news. Without a DVR, you have to watch it when they broadcast it and with commercials.

OOM sports must be viewed with one of the packages (EI, ST, LP, CI). Anyone who thinks the sports leagues would be happy to give you what you want for free must be nuts.

And...local affiliates are very important to their locales. Like them or not, they will be the first place you tune to when you have some sort of natural disaster or other local emergency. The revenue generated by locals watching locals ensures their ability to continue broadcasting.

[JLucPicard]

I've just skimmed through the thread and didn't see this addressed, but wouldn't it almost be prohibitive from a bandwidth standpoint for DirecTV to broadcast all of the locals at a CONUS level? They've launched several new sats in the last couple of years to provide a couple of hundred national channels. It seems to me it would be just way too costly from a satellite standpoint to try to broadcast EVERYTHING nationally.

Oh ya, and then there's the regulations that everyone is already talking about. ;)

[curt8403]

I've just skimmed through the thread and didn't see this addressed, but wouldn't it almost be prohibitive from a bandwidth standpoint for DirecTV to broadcast all of the locals at a CONUS level? They've launched several new sats in the last couple of years to provide a couple of hundred national channels. It seems to me it would be just way too costly from a satellite standpoint to try to broadcast EVERYTHING nationally.

Oh ya, and then there's the regulations that everyone is already talking about. ;)

if all locals were going to be available nationally, Conus would be the route to go

[cartrivision]

No, one could NOT say the same thing about FOX News because that channel is a bonafide news outlet whose primary purpose is to report the news.

Actually, the most watched programs on Fox News are not for the purpose of reporting news (i.e. not their actual newscasts). The most watched programs are the shows that are hosted by people who are in no way bonafide news reporters, but who are news "personalities" who present their spin on the days news events (sometimes while falsely claiming to be spin free :lol: ). Those shows are equivalent to the op-ed pages in newspapers... they are not "news".

Most people don't watch Fox news for news, they watch because they like the opinions that one or more of the network’s personalities presents on his news related program.

[inkahauts]

I understand why local affiliates would not want to let you get distant networks as this might cut them out of the loop for the delivery of network programming (and the revenue that they get from selling adds that are seen during that programming), but it makes no sense for the network O&O stations to not grant blanket waviers for any viewer in their DMAs to get any distant station for that network that DirecTV would be willing to provide. Why should the network care which of their O&O station feeds is watched by someone in one of their O&O markets? If someone watches a distant station instead of the local one, they lose the viewer of the commercials on one station that they own, but they gain that viewer on another station that they own, so it's no net loss or gain to the network, plus they would probably actually increase viewership if they provide their programming 3 hours earlier for west coast viewers in addition to at it’s regular time.

If the networks were smart, every viewer in their O&O DMAs would automatically get a wavier to receive distant network stations.

Precedence.... And besides... The amount of money can technically still be hurt over time if they allow this, because the locals will pay less for ad spots during shows if they know viewers are watching a distant channel... and those distant channels are not going to be able to increase there ad revenue in order to offset that loss. Local ad people don't wouldn't pay more money if their ads are playing 1000 miles from where their product are sold, etc... And national accounts play everywhere anyway, dns or locals don't matter.... The only way for this to truly work is if ALL stations where offered to everyone.... And I just don't see that happening for at least a few days or so, ya know? :D

[JLucPicard]

if all locals were going to be available nationally, Conus would be the route to go
Exactly. And they can't just convert the spot beam transponders they're using for locals now into 1500 "national" channels, can they? It's not simply a matter of widening the beam, correct?

[curt8403]

Exactly. And they can't just convert the spot beam transponders they're using for locals now into 1500 "national" channels, can they? It's not simply a matter of widening the beam, correct?


you cannot convert a spot to a conus even if you widen it all the way/

[RAD]

Exactly. And they can't just convert the spot beam transponders they're using for locals now into 1500 "national" channels, can they? It's not simply a matter of widening the beam, correct?

Remember the reason they use spot beams is so they can reuse the downlink frequencies in different parts of the country.

[curt8403]

Remember the reason they use spot beams is so they can reuse the downlink frequencies in different parts of the country.


they now use Travelling Wave Tube Amplifiers, but we cannot expect them to travel all over the country, they are not like a band on tour.

[RAD]

they now use Travelling Wave Tube Amplifiers, but we cannot expect them to travel all over the country, they are not like a band on tour.

What does that have to do with it? If for example they reuse frequency "A" five times for different spot beams if they went to CONUS they could use frequency "A" only one time.

[curt8403]

What does that have to do with it? If for example they reuse frequency "A" five times for different spot beams if they went to CONUS they could use frequency "A" only one time.

pun on travelling. Doh

[JLucPicard]

you cannot convert a spot to a conus even if you widen it all the way/
Remember the reason they use spot beams is so they can reuse the downlink frequencies in different parts of the country.
And my point, which seems to be valid, in responding to the question "Why can't we just choose which local station we want to watch, regardless of where we are?" is that there is no physical way for DirecTV to provide every (in the neighborhood of 1500) "local" feed on a national basis without filling the sky with satellites - it's just not going to happen.

Maybe I'm off base, and maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but it seems pretty simple to me why someone sitting in California can't choose to be watching any local station from there to Maine. :nono2:

[paulman182]

And my point, which seems to be valid, in responding to the question "Why can't we just choose which local station we want to watch, regardless of where we are?" is that there is no physical way for DirecTV to provide every (in the neighborhood of 1500) "local" feed on a national basis without filling the sky with satellites - it's just not going to happen.

Maybe I'm off base, and maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but it seems pretty simple to me why someone sitting in California can't choose to be watching any local station from there to Maine. :nono2:

Right, but a lot of them are CONUS and could be viewed out-of-market.

Also, spotbeams from adjacent areas often put in a good signal.

A lot of folks nationwide would subscribe to NY or LA locals if allowed, and they are CONUS.