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.
Thanks. I am aware that it works that way but that is what I am advocating should be changed. Lets change the model so that anyone who cannot get locals in HD would be allowed to get the national feeds in HD. It seems like an easy concept to me.
Thanks. I am aware that it works that way but that is what I am advocating should be changed. Lets change the model so that anyone who cannot get locals in HD would be allowed to get the national feeds in HD. It seems like an easy concept to me.
Its just not the same as someone not getting an affiliate signal at all. The local affiliate would never agree to let a provider import a distant signal to their customers just because they are not broadcasting in HD. I don't think this would have a chance in hell of passing. Here is a good example for you, there is no CW affilaite in the Joplin/Pittsburg DMA and I get the DNS feeds for CW. Neither are in HD. Now what? In some ways this reminds me of people who live in the middle of nowhere and want cable internet. I hate to say it but its not available for everyone. Good luck getting anyone to want to move on this for you. I am not even sure I would be on board with it and I would want them in HD as well.
Thanks. I am aware that it works that way but that is what I am advocating should be changed. Lets change the model so that anyone who cannot get locals in HD would be allowed to get the national feeds in HD. It seems like an easy concept to me.
It is may be an "easy concept" to change an FCC rule. It is even an easy concept to change the US Constitution. But that does mean that either are easy to do in practice.
If you want to try and change it, feel free to write the FCC, write your congressmen, heck write the President while you're at it. But even if a lot of people agreed with you, and were willing to do the same, you're going to be up against millions from lobbyists spent by those who want things to stay as they are now for various reasons. Guess who wins that battle, the letter writers or the people writing checks?
Thanks. I am aware that it works that way but that is what I am advocating should be changed. Lets change the model so that anyone who cannot get locals in HD would be allowed to get the national feeds in HD. It seems like an easy concept to me.
When you develop a working model that describes how your national carrier fairly compensates your local franchise for lost viewership (or provides local ad insertion), you can freely call it "easy". Until that time, it is damn hard.
Someone bought the right for your viewership and they must be compensated by anyone who creates a path around them.
sorry it wasnt what you wanted to hear. I am guessing in the future there will be even more options. Things like Aereo could become available to you or maybe they figure out how to increase the spot beams, there are several things that could go you way.
Most people don't realize that the out of market stations don't particularly want you to watch their channel, either.
The networks want you to watch the local station so that it remains profitable.
Your local stations want you to watch them locally. NYC advertisers see no benefit from me watching their ads in KY.
So since the NY and LA stations, the local affiliates and the networks themselves all want you to watch your local station, I don't see the situation changing much.
I wish they would allow us to choose 1 Distant Network City based on our Time Zone. Like if you lived in the Eastern Time Zone You Could Choose 1 City to Subscribe to like New York, Boston, or if you lived in the South, Atlanta. If you lived in the Central Time Zone you could subscribe to get the Chicago Locals or St. Louis. Mountain Time Zone You could subscribe to Denver or some othe city. If you live in the Western Time Zone You could subscribe to Los Angeles locals or San Francisco or if you live farther north in the West Time Zone you could subscribe to Seattle Locals.
Some people can get local Salt Lake City channels OTA via translators located in my area, but my house is located in a neighborhood that cannot get those signals due to the area's topography so they are not available to me OTA. We have one full power local NBC affiliate, KENV, transmitting from another location which I can get in HD OTA. Directv doesn't carry KENV for some reason but carries the local Salt lake City NBC affiliate instead in SD. The local Salt lake City channels that I only get in SD are available in HD to Directv subscribers who are located closer to Salt lake City. I believe that the same situation applies to Dish subscribers. I can't get cable in this location either. However even though my area is considered a part of the Salt Lake City coverage area Directv's HD spot beam doesn't reach far enough so we are stuck with SD only. I am advocating that people in our situation be allowed to get the national network feeds in HD. It seems like a reasonable enough request to me.
As far as "DirecTV is refusing to carry them" goes, actually they refuse to set up their spot beam so it reaches far enough so that people in my area can get locals in HD. Perhaps it is not technologically feasible to do that. I don't know. But again that's why I am advocating being allowed to get the national feeds in HD.
If the problem was the fault of the local station, then I would agree with you, but in this case, it is clearly DirecTV's fault. If the rules were changed to allow national feeds because DirecTV does not want to spend the money (or whatever it is that prevents the spot beam from reaching you) to provide your locals to you in HD, the local channel should not be punished. To allow DirecTV (or Dish) to give you national feeds in HD because DirecTV (or dish) does not have the local stations in SD would ensure that DirecTV would never provide any locals in HD.
On the other hand, if the locals do not agree to provide the HD signal to DirecTV or for some other reason do not allow DirecTV to carry the locals in HD, then I would agree that the law should be changed to allow DirecTV to give you the national HD feed.
I wish they would allow us to choose 1 Distant Network City based on our Time Zone. Like if you lived in the Eastern Time Zone You Could Choose 1 City to Subscribe to like New York, Boston, or if you lived in the South, Atlanta. If you lived in the Central Time Zone you could subscribe to get the Chicago Locals or St. Louis. Mountain Time Zone You could subscribe to Denver or some othe city. If you live in the Western Time Zone You could subscribe to Los Angeles locals or San Francisco or if you live farther north in the West Time Zone you could subscribe to Seattle Locals.
If the problem was the fault of the local station, then I would agree with you, but in this case, it is clearly DirecTV's fault. If the rules were changed to allow national feeds because DirecTV does not want to spend the money (or whatever it is that prevents the spot beam from reaching you) to provide your locals to you in HD, the local channel should not be punished. To allow DirecTV (or Dish) to give you national feeds in HD because DirecTV (or dish) does not have the local stations in SD would ensure that DirecTV would never provide any locals in HD.
On the other hand, if the locals do not agree to provide the HD signal to DirecTV or for some other reason do not allow DirecTV to carry the locals in HD, then I would agree that the law should be changed to allow DirecTV to give you the national HD feed.
The salt lake market is just a different market in terms of coverage area. I don think any other market poses quite the same issues as it does from a spot beam configuration situation.
I think it should be all about choice. If the consumer wanted to be able to purchase a distant network package for an extra fee on their bill of about $5 or $6 a month, then we should have that choice. I still like my idea of being able to subscribe to a Distant Network Service based upon the Time Zone in which you live in. It would be nice to be able to have another set of Locals for backup. Because Sometimes Local Channels Do Go Down. A Local Station in My Market went down for a little while last week.
I think it should be all about choice. If the consumer wanted to be able to purchase a distant network package for an extra fee on their bill of about $5 or $6 a month, then we should have that choice. I still like my idea of being able to subscribe to a Distant Network Service based upon the Time Zone in which you live in. It would be nice to be able to have another set of Locals for backup. Because Sometimes Local Channels Do Go Down. A Local Station in My Market went down for a little while last week.
I think it should be all about choice. If the consumer wanted to be able to purchase a distant network package for an extra fee on their bill of about $5 or $6 a month, then we should have that choice. I still like my idea of being able to subscribe to a Distant Network Service based upon the Time Zone in which you live in. It would be nice to be able to have another set of Locals for backup. Because Sometimes Local Channels Do Go Down. A Local Station in My Market went down for a little while last week.
I would love having Distant Networks available via a la carte and would gladly pay the monthly fee. Our local CBS affiliate has more problems than a dead monkey on a rock. Their equipment fails on a monthly basis causing either pixelation, black outs, or window boxing the signal, effecting cable, satellite, and OTR signals. The public's complaints falls on deaf ears and they refuse to grant a waiver.
It will never happen. At least not until the landscape changes from DMA's. Currently its all about Localism. That is what the NAB preaches at each hearing. While I don't agree with it, it wont go away or change easily.
Customers may welcome it, but the lobbyists at NAB would fight tooth and nail to prevent it. Who is going to win, those with the deep pockets who may promise lobbying jobs to the FCC people once they leave, or consumers who at best send an email or two to the FCC?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
DBSTalk Forum
3.6M posts
112K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!