us. court and locals on satellite

I read on tvinsite that us court ruling about the satellite companies to have them allow locals channels for customers. Saying that(directv/dish) it would be too much capacity to caary them all. Therefore the largerst markets would do alright and the smaller markets would loose. Do you think this will happen? And if so would people who live outside a certain dma be able to receive the nearest city to them? For instance,i live in northern minnesota. And my locals come from Duluth,Mn. And they said they couldn't be on. So the next city would be Minneapolis,Mn. Do you think this would be feasable and fair? I'm sure D*,E* wouldn't be too happy with the courts ruling. But what about the people who pay for satellite tv. Any thoughs or comments Bob?

The stations in any local DMAs don't care if you can't recieve their DMA via Satellite, they would never allow you to see an outside DMA. Their answer will always be "With an outdoor antenna you can get their channels".

The Networks might benefit by you being able to see their Primetime shows and those commercials. But a local affiliate only sees you as being a benefit to them if you watch their owned commerical time. If you aren't watching their commerical time, and it is up to them to grant you a waiver, they have no vested interest letting you see the other DMA (since you weren't watching their channel before and won't be watching it after). THem discouraging you may make you get that Antenna and then they win another viewer. They have nothing to lose.

What do you believe will happen when must-carry goes into effect on Jan. 1? I currently subscribe to Kansas City locals (my DMA), St. Louis and Denver from Dish. Will I be getting the UPN, WB, Pax, PBS and all the channels from each of those markets or just from my own DMA?