1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Distant Networks and your opinions

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by cgmiller7171, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. Oct 8, 2013 #1 of 73
    cgmiller7171

    cgmiller7171 New Member

    1
    1
    Oct 8, 2013
    Denver
    New member here and just wanted to throw an idea out to the masses. When it comes to getting a waiver to get distant locals, how many of you think if people started pushing the fact the station owners are now requiring payment to broadcast their signals would be a good start for pushing for the option to be able to view the east or west coast distant networks? If we as customers are essentially paying for that service now, shouldn't we have the option of where we get those channels from. Just a thought of mine and wanted to see how others feel about the topic.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Oct 8, 2013 #2 of 73
    Richard

    Richard Legend

    235
    6
    Apr 23, 2002
    South Texas
    I personally think they should just have a national East/West feed. Get rid of the Local Channel model. I haven't watched any local content (what they call "News") in over 10 years. I only watch prime time programming, and there is no need for the Local Channel Model anymore.

    In regards to your argument, I doubt they would ever go for that.
     
  3. Oct 8, 2013 #3 of 73
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    so no more local NFL games or other sports?
     
  4. Oct 8, 2013 #4 of 73
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    739
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    Congress doesn't care about what people want, only how much money the NAB gives them.
     
    2 people like this.
  5. Oct 8, 2013 #5 of 73
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    The fewer viewers you can promise, the higher your cost per household. I submit that there would be little to no cost savings to DIRECTV and it would negatively impact any revenue opportunities from local advertising insertion.

    Imagine if everyone in some two-horse town opted for a DNS feed. How would emergency services get the word out?

    You can bet that cable would be all over this as well as it could put them at a competitive disadvantage and they really, REALLY hate that.
     
  6. Oct 8, 2013 #6 of 73
    kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    973
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Trouble is, as a viewer, you aren't really "paying for it" when you pay the satellite company a few cents per channel.
    The local affiliate stations are already paying a huge portion of the costs of the network (and, syndicated) programming. They do this, so they can fill certain slots in and between those programs, with their local commercials.
    If the only way networks and programmers could produce programming, would be from the money made from their built-in spots and the fees they charge the cable and satellite viewers, those fees would be far higher.
     
  7. Oct 8, 2013 #7 of 73
    Michael H..

    Michael H.. Unregistered / Not Logged In

    191
    5
    May 31, 2007
    Have grandfathered E & W HD DNS feeds for all of the networks. (Only SD available for CW E & W and PBS E) and additionally have diplexed OTA's.
    All the rest of my neighbors, standard installation, LIL, no DNS or OTA.
    The satellite home viewers legislation is revisited/revised/renewed every five years.
    I've had DNS continuously since its inception, and anticipate that eventually they will remove the option of keeping DNS.
    So, I don't believe that there is even a remote chance that they're going to revert to allowing subs with either LIL or able to receive OTA to get DNS...the NAB have been battling this forever.
    What I would like to see is:
    When an independently operated local affiliate decides to pull their station in a carriage fee renegotiation ploy, that DirecTV backfills the station with the network DNS equivalent for the affected local subscribers.
    In a (very) few instances, DirecTV has done this for subscribers who have called in to complain, but generally they say that they can't and will offer a credit for the outage instead.
    The subscribers may not be receiving LIL, but can receive OTA, so technically they do not qualify for DNS.
    For those that they have made an exception, the subs could receive only SD or only HD via OTA, and thus qualified to receive the other SD or HD via DNS.
    Besides rain fade, this is another reason to setup OTA.
     
  8. Oct 8, 2013 #8 of 73
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    466
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    I agree with you somewhat with the only caveat being the need for local weather. I live in an area notorious for severe weather. There is no way I would depend on national weather feeds to protect myself or my family. While I agree that local news blows on most "normal" news days (cat stuck in tree, dog found in dumpster), when disaster strikes or emergency weather threatens, locals are the best option.
     
  9. Oct 8, 2013 #9 of 73
    milton

    milton Cool Member

    265
    14
    Mar 12, 2011
    I think what would happen if these rules were relaxed can be seen by looking to Canada, where people in Vancouver are allowed to watch locals from Newfoundland, Quebec, Toronto, etc...even Seattle, Buffalo, etc.
     
  10. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,002
    511
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    The difference is in Canada the networks own most of the affiliates so they get the revenue no matter which feed you're watching. In the USA we have multiple competing companies owning stations, while the networks that own nearly all of their affiliates like Univision, Ion and Telemundo have national feeds available. (It's also why when the network HD feeds were first added before LIL HD became available, they were just limited to the markets that had an affiliate owned by the network) As for the Seattle and Buffalo stations, in Canada you rarely see the pogramming as is, if a local Canadian channel is airing the programming at the same time the US feed is replaced with the Canadian feed.
     
  11. adamson

    adamson Godfather

    591
    17
    Nov 9, 2007
    Florida
    Nobody will ever get a waiver from affiliates in a viewing dma anymore. Furthermore Directv wants out of the business providing locals to everyone via a provided antenna. It will be some time before that happens anyway. Furthermore to obtain DNS without an RV situation is near the 100% impossible.
     
  12. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    6,540
    604
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Why do you say that Directv wants out of the business of providing locals via antenna? From what they said back in May it sounded like they were going to push towards better support of customers using OTA to avoid the constant rate increases the stations keep trying to extort from them and other providers. The more customers who are able to receive locals for free via OTA, the fewer that depend on Directv to provide them by satellite. The fewer who depend on Directv to provide them, the less Directv is hurt by those disputes, thus reducing the leverage stations have over Directv to demand more and more money for retransmission rights.

    Or, if Aereo ends up winning in the Supreme Court (it isn't there yet, but it will be) Directv might be interested in buying them and expanding them across the country, and deliver locals to their customers via the internet.
     
  13. peds48

    peds48 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    18,353
    904
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    The difference is in Canada the networks own most of the affiliates so they get the revenue no matter which feed you're watching. In the USA we have multiple competing companies owning stations, while the networks that own nearly all of their affiliates like Univision, Ion and Telemundo have national feeds available. (It's also why when the network HD feeds were first added before LIL HD became available, they were just limited to the markets that had an affiliate owned by the network) As for the Seattle and Buffalo stations, in Canada you rarely see the pogramming as is, if a local Canadian channel is airing the programming at the same time the US feed is replaced with the Canadian feed.
    this makes perfect sense as Univision is the only local available on the iPad app for live IH streaming


    Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
     
  14. TANK

    TANK Icon

    901
    2
    Feb 16, 2003
    FLORIDA
    Because of sports ( NFL games and college FB and BB ) I don't see the local network system changing.

    Hopefully one day HD DNS will become a option that can be added as long you continue to receive your locals also.
     
  15. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I guess I disagree. The laws made it easier to get them in recent years. One headache that went away was that only the affiliate in your DMA can claim you and is the only one who has to approve your waiver. The idea of DNS feeds was more for the people who did not have an affiliate in their market to begin with. What was happening in recent years was that even if you didnt have an affiliate in your market, a neighboring market was still denying your waiver and that was just rediculous. What had changed since then is that now DirecTV offers more DMA local stations then ever and there are not near as many people who would need DNS feeds. If you truly qualify for them, I dont see why anyone would not get them.
     
  16. khark

    khark Mentor

    70
    1
    Jan 23, 2005
    Wyoming
    Some of us in less populated areas do not have any option for OTA. We are too far from any transmitters. In my case the nearest "local stations" are in Idaho Falls, Idaho, about 90 miles away, but Directv only provides Salt Lake City, Utah from over 200 miles away. In the early days, most people here had waivers for the east and west feeds but when they went to hi def they were taken away.
     
  17. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    There is no legal way for this to happen as the law currently stands. DirecTV has to provide you with your locals if they provide them, and if they don't and you can get them OTA, they cannot provide you DNS. It's a law, not a DirecTV policy.
     
  18. SeaBeagle

    SeaBeagle Legend

    1,222
    22
    May 7, 2006
    We should be able to watch anything we want on satellite TV. To me these out of town local option. no being available is so backwards and a hit on out constitutional rights of freedom to watch what we want to.
     
  19. inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,500
    954
    Nov 13, 2006
    Never going to happen and DIRECTV would never do it anyway. Do you realize how muh more bandwidth it take to deliver something like that to everyone? There's more locals than national channels. It's not even reasonable to think they could do it.

    And why do you need 250 channels showing the same thing? Other than news everything is everywhere anyway.


    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
     
  20. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,869
    860
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The US Constitution? I'm aware of a Freedom of Speech which relates to the government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But I see nothing in the constitution guaranteeing a "freedom to watch".

    Our "freedom" to watch any channel we want is something that is being blocked by the content owners. It is their content and they control who gets to see it and how. Broadcasters license their channels to local OTA affiliates with exclusive rights within their market areas.

    Where the government has stepped in is not preventing the delivery of channels outside of their market areas but in forcing content owners and channels to deliver their channels under certain rules. A station is free to make arrangements to be delivered anywhere they want ... but they are limited by their agreements with the content owners.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page