Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Suggest about local station


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 246 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 16 December 2007 - 07:51 AM

I say instead of complaining that we can't watch the news stations we want, why don't we write a letter congress to mandate a new law say if we are free buy another state newspaper, listen to an out of market radio station, and have a different area code on our cell phones, we should be free to watch watchever local station package we want as part of our programming.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Tower Guy

Tower Guy

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 450 posts
Joined: Jul 27, 2005

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:16 AM

I say instead of complaining that we can't watch the news stations we want, why don't we write a letter congress to mandate a new law say if we are free buy another state newspaper, listen to an out of market radio station, and have a different area code on our cell phones, we should be free to watch watchever local station package we want as part of our programming.


You can buy as many out of state newspapers that you want. The printing, distribution, and sales of that paper is controlled by the publisher. No one has the legal right to make a copy of a newspaper and sell it to you.

You may be missing the point that you must watch the original TV station that you receive YOURself. No one has the right to make an illegal copy of that programming and sell it to you.

Your suggestion is that TV stations should have fewer rights than newspapers and that wide distribution should be no longer controlled by the "publisher". This contradicts your own argument.

#3 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,787 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 December 2007 - 12:18 PM

See: H.R. 2821 Adjacent markets considered local

The bill is still stuck at the committee level but does allow satellite carriers to add channels from neighboring markets. I'd be happy if satellite companies were just allowed to carry all the stations cable is allowed to carry in each town.

Reception of any city from any market isn't going to happen. The capacity is not there on either satellite service and it is generally unneeded.

#4 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 246 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 16 December 2007 - 03:11 PM

See: H.R. 2821 Adjacent markets considered local

The bill is still stuck at the committee level but does allow satellite carriers to add channels from neighboring markets. I'd be happy if satellite companies were just allowed to carry all the stations cable is allowed to carry in each town.

Reception of any city from any market isn't going to happen. The capacity is not there on either satellite service and it is generally unneeded.


How about a place like hawaii, where there is only 1 tv market , i live 300 miles from that area where my local cbs, fox, nbc, and abc are located. If this local is passed I would like to be able to subscribe to the los angeles locals at least, the locals that I really want back on my satellite is columbia, missouri, because i used to live there and would like to keep update with both communities, but I can deal with los angeles locals because I used to live there also.

#5 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,787 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:10 PM

Thanks to the use of spot beams neither of those two markets are available in Hawaii. I don't believe HR 2821 would help you since no markets are adjacent.

#6 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 246 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:14 PM

Thats why they need to come out with a law that help out everyone, thats what i am trying to say.

#7 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,787 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 December 2007 - 08:30 PM

And that is where "your" law will hurt the satellite business.
In order to provide you with another market's locals the satellite company must:
1) violate the territorial agreements made by the affiliates, and
2) physically deliver the signal to your receiver

Congress has allowed satellite companies to violate the territorial agreements on a limited basis. For example, in areas where no affiliate of a specific network can be received OTA and that network is not available from an in market station (local into local) a satellite provider can provide their choice of out of market affiliate of that network. (Apply this to each of the big four networks.) Satellite carriers can also carry neighboring market stations under cumbersome "Significantly Viewed" rules from a list intended for cable. (E* lost their ability to do either of these practices because they violated the rules.)

The government interferes enough in private affairs. LEVELING the playing field between cable and satellite makes sense, but tossing out territorial agreements altogether is just too much meddling.

#8 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 246 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 16 December 2007 - 09:08 PM

And that is where "your" law will hurt the satellite business.
In order to provide you with another market's locals the satellite company must:
1) violate the territorial agreements made by the affiliates, and
2) physically deliver the signal to your receiver

Congress has allowed satellite companies to violate the territorial agreements on a limited basis. For example, in areas where no affiliate of a specific network can be received OTA and that network is not available from an in market station (local into local) a satellite provider can provide their choice of out of market affiliate of that network. (Apply this to each of the big four networks.) Satellite carriers can also carry neighboring market stations under cumbersome "Significantly Viewed" rules from a list intended for cable. (E* lost their ability to do either of these practices because they violated the rules.)

The government interferes enough in private affairs. LEVELING the playing field between cable and satellite makes sense, but tossing out territorial agreements altogether is just too much meddling.


i have a question have you gone to college and got your degree and ph.d??

#9 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,787 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 December 2007 - 09:32 PM

Don't get personal. This is a DBS discussion forum and the topic of this thread is local channels from other markets.

#10 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,473 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Posted 17 December 2007 - 08:44 AM

There have been a lot of discussions (although none very recently) on this forum about ways that the government could change the rules to allow reception of distant broadcasters. I for one don't feel like rehashing the argument. Please do some searching here on distant networks to see the different points of view.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?

#11 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 08 January 2008 - 03:42 PM

You can buy as many out of state newspapers that you want. The printing, distribution, and sales of that paper is controlled by the publisher. No one has the legal right to make a copy of a newspaper and sell it to you.

You may be missing the point that you must watch the original TV station that you receive YOURself. No one has the right to make an illegal copy of that programming and sell it to you.

Your suggestion is that TV stations should have fewer rights than newspapers and that wide distribution should be no longer controlled by the "publisher". This contradicts your own argument.


Dead horse beating but as I understand it this is an interesting application of the copyright laws because the way its being applied in this case is not out of town newspapers to distant market readers where the newspaper (publisher) reserves the right to control who can read their paper based on where they live. Instead a 3rd party, your friendly neighborhood local TV station, is acting as the controler/publisher of the product of they don't produce. National network TV programming is really what local into local is all about and its the local TV stations that have dug in their heels and got an act to congress to reienforce their control. Its like telling the reader from which newspaper stand he may buy his paper. Actually more like telling the newspaper stand owner that by an act of crongress he may only use local printing services that restrict which papers are offered to the newspaper stand's customers and then the printing service and their advocates insult readers and answer complaints by saying to readers, well you always have the option of moving to New York if you really want to read the NY Times that badly.

I know an argument can be made that the networks choose the assign control of the publishing to the local stations by their own volition but IMHO its out of pressure placed on them by the local stations and they would prefer not to have to need them, let alone meet demands like this. I predict the day is coming when the networks will start telling the locals that the exclusive death grip on their programing is coming to an end. When that really takes root let's see if the local stations care as much about local into local only of their own programming.

I also understand that from a business persective local TV is between a rock and a hard place because network programming is so important to their being able to attract viewers. At the same time I would have never complained if:

1. If and when a local affiliate pre-empts a network program at its scheduled time out of market options should be offered.
2. If local programming from network affiliates were not inadertantly restricted along with the network programs.
3. Pictiure and audio quality from locals were not inferior to distants (trust me, they are).
4. If a royalty based option were available to viewers that allowed them to pay to have access to distants for the predictedly small number of people who for whatever reason want to watch local TV from out of town and if those markerts are already available such as national satellite feeds from NYC and LA and those within a viewers spotbeam.

#12 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 10 January 2008 - 07:53 AM

Instead a 3rd party, your friendly neighborhood local TV station, is acting as the controler/publisher of the product of they don't produce. National network TV programming is really what local into local is all about and its the local TV stations that have dug in their heels and got an act to congress to reienforce their control.

Actually, you have that a little bit backwards.

Realized that just over a year ago, Dish Network had to turn off distant network feeds because of a lawsuit brought to the courts by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and the affiliate boards of all four of those networks. So it isn't that the local channels are the ones that have an issue, it is the networks.

And the reinforcement of control is simple copyright law. The broadcasters did not receive any special laws from the government in order to stop distribution of network programming; those laws have been in place for decades.

Add to the fact that a network is not allowed to own all of their affiliates, and you get to the point that the affiliate model will always be needed until that law is repealed.

#13 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 11 January 2008 - 09:16 PM

Actually, you have that a little bit backwards.

Realized that just over a year ago, Dish Network had to turn off distant network feeds because of a lawsuit brought to the courts by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and the affiliate boards of all four of those networks. So it isn't that the local channels are the ones that have an issue, it is the networks.

And the reinforcement of control is simple copyright law. The broadcasters did not receive any special laws from the government in order to stop distribution of network programming; those laws have been in place for decades.

Add to the fact that a network is not allowed to own all of their affiliates, and you get to the point that the affiliate model will always be needed until that law is repealed.



Thanks. I do wonder however if the networks were only acting out of preassure placed upon them by the locals considering the steps they seem to be taking wrt on demand on cable and internet. Why do they even offer their programming except via the locals at all if they cherish that 1940s technology exclusive distrubtion partnership so much?

As you know, my biggest issue was with not having access to the local content of out of town stations but the local stations seem to be happy with offering that over the Internet and most content is on demand so I'm satisfied. I do think they missed the boat on satellite delivered possibilities but that's not a concern anymore.

#14 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 11 January 2008 - 11:54 PM

Why do they even offer their programming except via the locals at all if they cherish that 1940s technology exclusive distrubtion partnership so much?

Very simple.

Take a look at the top five markets (or what I recall the top five markets to be):

New York - the big four networks own their affiliate
Los Angeles - the big four networks own their affiliate
Chicago - the big four networks own their affiliate
Philadelphia - the big four networks own their affiliate
San Francisco - the big four networks own their affiliate, except for FOX

There's a lot of money to be made by the local affiliates in a large market. And, of course, the networks don't want another source impeding that right, to a point.

As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, when the NAB and DirecTV made their deal about retransmission of local channels back in the summer of 1999, the networks were a bit peeved that DirecTV never discussed their plans. The networks may have decided to make a network feed all their own for DirecTV, as a fee-based network.

#15 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,812 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 12 January 2008 - 12:06 AM

Actually, you have that a little bit backwards.

Realized that just over a year ago, Dish Network had to turn off distant network feeds because of a lawsuit brought to the courts by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and the affiliate boards of all four of those networks. So it isn't that the local channels are the ones that have an issue, it is the networks.


That is a wrong assumption. It is the local affiliates that have everything to lose (In their opinion) by the loss of advertising revenue that is based on how many people are watching the channel. The networks are the ones who brought suit, yes, protecting the affiliates. It would actually be in the networks best interest to allow you to get as many stations as possible to assure you watch their programming, but that undermines the local affiliates.
News Junky is correct.

NBC doesn't care where you get your ER feed from when national commercials are shown - they are shown on every affiliate. But when the local channel runs a local commercial during ER, and or promos for their newscast, it is important to them that everyone in their DMA is watching the local affiliate.

#16 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 12 January 2008 - 07:20 AM

Take a look at the top five markets (or what I recall the top five markets to be):

New York - the big four networks own their affiliate
Los Angeles - the big four networks own their affiliate
Chicago - the big four networks own their affiliate
Philadelphia - the big four networks own their affiliate
San Francisco - the big four networks own their affiliate, except for FOX


I think the fear is its probably more likely people in LA, NY, and Chicago will continue to watch the stations in their own DMA plus get new viewers while Reno, Peoria and Bangor affiliates feel their viewers will pack up and leave for the glamour of the big city.

#17 OFFLINE   SamC

SamC

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,960 posts
Joined: Jan 20, 2003

Posted 12 January 2008 - 08:02 AM

IMHO, you are missing an important distinction.

Local stations get programming from three basic sources. One is the network they are affiliated with. This only (for the Originial 3) is the news, soaps, primetime, and sports. For Fox and the netlets, its less than that. Two is syndication. Such as Dr. Phil, Jeopardy, syndicated sports from places like Lincoln, ESPN+, and Raycom, and Inside Edition, etc. Three is the station's own programming, which is the local news.

The local news copyright belongs to the local station. The networks, and most importantly SHVIA or even the Fortnightly case (which was correctly decided and screwed up by Congress at the behest of the monopolists) have nothing to do with it.

There is nothing, today, that prohibits a DBS provider from making an agreement to carry local news to anyone anywhere. They could add in any home in any spot, and simply blackout everything but the news. They could do the same with the CONUS carried NY and LA locals. They could even put up one, or twenty channels which carried the 6:00 news from a variety of stations around the country, live or taped. Its simply a matter of a deal between the distant local stations and the provider for how much the market would bear for that. Your local NBC can prohibit you from watching Deal Or No Deal on some other NBC station. It cannot prohibit you from watching an NBC station's local news. It has no say in the matter.

Not that I would be interested in such a service, but if somebody is, great. Its another thing DBS can do that cable cannot.

#18 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 12 January 2008 - 10:53 AM

It would actually be in the networks best interest to allow you to get as many stations as possible to assure you watch their programming, but that undermines the local affiliates.
News Junky is correct.

If this were true, why aren't there two CBS stations each in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco? Because the network owns the local station and doesn't want any competition for their exclusive programming.

So the networks are just as much to blame. But News Junky did point out correctly that more people in smaller markets would more than likely watch a network from a larger market, which does not erode the value of the network, but does erode the value of the affiliate.

#19 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,787 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 12 January 2008 - 12:22 PM

But News Junky did point out correctly that more people in smaller markets would more than likely watch a network from a larger market, which does not erode the value of the network, but does erode the value of the affiliate.

The value to the affiliate is why THEY pay to be part of the network. The affiliate has a contract for exclusive first run carriage of the network programs. If they lose the exclusivity, they lose the value.

The payments that the network receives from affiliates is important to them. Even though networks could reach viewers through alternate channels (their cable networks) they cannot reach everyone. They need the affiliation contracts to get their programming to more people.

It is a symbiotic relationship ... and IMHO the government should stay out of it as much as possible. I'll accept government intervention to the level of requiring that local stations be made available to satellite and cable providers for carriage and that those carriers cannot refuse to carry a local station when it is possible. I'd love to get rid of the consent to carry rules and make all local stations must carry within their Grade B contour (or market area) - an area that matches the affiliation agreement stations have with their networks. But totally overriding the affiliation agreements by allowing any local to be delivered to any market? No thanks.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...