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
- - - - -

Expansion of some DMA's


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Tristateviewer

Tristateviewer

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 8 posts
Joined: May 10, 2008

Posted 15 May 2008 - 05:21 PM

There are some specific direct marketing areas in the country that are provided local into local neighboring market channels by satellite company providers such as DirecTV, etc. These specific rural areas in the country are situated close to a major metropolitan city and consist of viewers that significantly tune into their nearby major metropolitan city news coverage along with their local market area news coverage. These areas have the advantage of receiving local channels from more than one market. One being their own local market and the other being their neighboring market. These viewing statistics have been determined by the Neilsen Ratings Companies.

Two counties in the state of Connecticut, (Litchfield and New Haven) are an example of such areas that fall under the Hartford-New Haven DMA. These areas are provided with Connecticut local channels and some New York City local channels from their neighboring New York DMA. These neighboring market channels from NYC are provided to residents of Connecticut that reside in these CT counties but these New York City channels are only provided in standard definition while their local CT channels are provided in high definition. On the same token, Fairfield County in Connecticut falls under the NY DMA and residents of this county are provided with many of the New York City channels in standard definition and high definition. These Fairfield County residents do not receive any of the channels that fall under the Hartford-New Haven DMA via satellite services and unfortunately they have to rely on over-the-air antenna signals to receive their local news coverage from their own state of Connecticut.

I feel there is something very wrong with this scenario and the politicians definitely got this one wrong. In an area such as western and south western Connecticut, this area should be covered by two DMA's. The NY DMA should be expanded to include Litchfield and New Haven Counties in Connecticut and the New York City local channels along with the Connecticut local channels should be provided to Connecticut residents that reside in these two counties. These local NY and CT channels should also be provided in both standard and high definition to residents that reside in Fairfield, Litchfield and New Haven Counties. The residents of Litchfield County and New Haven County are exposed to advertising in both markets by receiving these channels already so what's the point of allowing local broadcasters in Connecticut the right to restrict the residents who reside in these counties access to high definition signals of these New York City local channels? This whole scenario is very unjust and this issue really needs to be addressed. I would like to voice my opinion but I just don't know who to complain to.

There are some DMA's across the country that fall into this kind of situation and this is an issue that should be given attention by lawmakers to provide multiple DMA coverage within the country to these specific areas that require it.

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

#2 OFFLINE   EXTACAMO

EXTACAMO

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 316 posts
Joined: Apr 06, 2007

Posted 16 May 2008 - 07:02 AM

This is another example of why this whole DMA thing needs to be scrapped. We're playing by rules that were crafted in the 50's and trying to apply them in today's world of 24hr. a day total instant access to information. But the NAB is powerful and with deep pockets so don't look for any changes anytime soon.

#3 OFFLINE   Tristateviewer

Tristateviewer

    New Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 8 posts
Joined: May 10, 2008

Posted 16 May 2008 - 12:08 PM

This is another example of why this whole DMA thing needs to be scrapped. We're playing by rules that were crafted in the 50's and trying to apply them in today's world of 24hr. a day total instant access to information. But the NAB is powerful and with deep pockets so don't look for any changes anytime soon.


That's the sad scenario about all this. The National Associaton of Broadcasters has tremendous lobbying power given by the idiot politician lawmakers that back them up. What about the consumer viewers' rights within reason?

#4 OFFLINE   EXTACAMO

EXTACAMO

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 316 posts
Joined: Apr 06, 2007

Posted 16 May 2008 - 12:32 PM

Yea, Its funny I can get TV channels from just about any country in the world through my satellite service if I choose to pay for it. But, in the USA if I live in a certain DMA not serviced by a network affiliate and the nearest one is too far to get through an OTA I'm screwed. I may not be able to get it even if I wanted to pay extra for it. Oh, and forget that waiver process. The local stations will usually not grant your wish because they want you to watch the stupid car commercials they run on their channel and not someone else's. :mad:

#5 OFFLINE   tsmacro

tsmacro

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,151 posts
  • LocationEast Central Indiana
Joined: Apr 28, 2005

Posted 16 May 2008 - 02:13 PM

The Neilsen Company determines DMA's and they're a private company so the government doesn't have any say over how they're determined. The only place the government is involved is when they decided they'd use Neilsen's DMA maps as a way to determine who got what locals from satellite tv. That was the mistake right there, as has been said many times before, DMA maps leave a lot to be desired in some areas, they were never meant as a way to determine what locals someone should be able to watch, merely as a way to measure who was watching what in which markets. But of course instead of coming up with their own maps based on something that made sense like maybe oh I don't know, like distance from broadcast towers the governement took the lazy way out and just decided to use Neilsen's DMA maps. Since it would actually take legislation to change that and it's not exactly high on the priority map of problems that the government has to deal with I wouldn't look for it to change anytime soon. Unless someone can get one of their congress people to add it as one of those "earmarks" we hear so much about to another bill. Of course if it isn't bringing $$$ back home to some personal pet project in their district there's probably not much hope of it happening that way either.


"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." - Douglas Adams

"Who would rule a nation when he could have easier work, such as carrying water uphill in a sieve?" - Robert Jordan


#6 OFFLINE   hancox

hancox

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 453 posts
Joined: Jun 23, 2004

Posted 23 June 2008 - 08:57 AM

1/2 agree with the OP. Since I'm a resident of CT, think I can comment... :)

Agree that the current setup stinks, especially for Fairfield County. The NYC affiliates never devote any time to the area, and it cuts us off from the rest of the State.

The OP's remedy, though, would never work. Take Litchfield and New Haven County away from the H/NH DMA, and that DMA ceases to exist, really.

If anything, prefection for Fairfield County is a move to the CT DMA, but keep rights to NY sports teams. The only really impacted fanbase would be the Jets, as it would bump up against the Pats. Everyone else wins.

#7 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,516 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:11 AM

Here's another point of view:

The who SV thing stinks. It defeats the purpose of having DMAs in the first place.

How many CT customers actively shop in the NYC market?

#8 OFFLINE   hancox

hancox

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 453 posts
Joined: Jun 23, 2004

Posted 23 June 2008 - 12:26 PM

There's tons of overlap. Litchfield County, even at distance, is a retreat for many NYers. The local cableco (Cablevision, another NY tie-in) made sure to get NY locals up there.

Many people in New Haven County (CT DMA) work in Fairfield County (NY DMA). Many more (there is a commuter train line) from Fairfield County work in New York City.

It's all bunk.

#9 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 25 June 2008 - 08:24 AM

There was a bill in the House to do the in-state thing.

If the bill became law, it would have allowed viewers in Fairfield County to receive the Hartford - New Haven channels. It also would have allowed most of my state of Maryland, the portion in the DC market, to receive the Baltimore channels. The bill was started by Rep. Dan Boren, since his district in Oklahoma was being served by stations out of Fort Smith, Arkansas. The only way his re-election campaign ads would reach the northeastern corner of Oklahoma is if he purchased commercial time from a station not in his state. Or, since he has that power, he could attempt to change the law.

It once was the topic of a thread in this very forum. It is still only proposed, but it does make sense.

#10 OFFLINE   Tristateviewer

Tristateviewer

    New Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 8 posts
Joined: May 10, 2008

Posted 02 July 2008 - 10:10 PM

The OP's remedy, though, would never work. Take Litchfield and New Haven County away from the H/NH DMA, and that DMA ceases to exist, really.


I really believe that it would work. That's why I suggested that Fairfield, New Haven, and Litchfield counties in Connecticut should be covered by both the NYC DMA and the Hartford-New Haven DMA. These above mentioned counties are already receiving advertising coverage of the New York City and Connecticut areas already anyway in standard definition and it would give high definition coverage and fair local coverage to all residents of these counties including those in Fairfield county which would also receive the Connecticut stations along with the New York stations. It is true that the residents of New Haven and Litchfield counties tune in strongly to the New York City stations as viewers along with their Connecticut stations and I believe that they will continue to tune into NYC stations even more as time goes on. The counties of Middlesex, Hartford, Tolland, and New London counties in Connecticut will provide the Hartford-New Haven DMA with more than enough viewership than it needs along with the viewers of New Haven and Litchfield counties. If both the Hartford-New Haven and NYC DMA's in New Haven and Litchfield counties were combined it would cover a large metropolitan area of NYC and Connecticut for those Connecticut viewers who reside in the southern and western part of Connecticut.

#11 OFFLINE   hancox

hancox

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 453 posts
Joined: Jun 23, 2004

Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:26 PM

But, do the NY locals really "serve" their CT viewers? I'd argue not, both in terms of advertising and news coverage.

Another reason this wouldn't work - DMA's longtime ties to OTA reception would make this insane :) You would have nearly all of your transmitters on an extreme corner of the DMA (and I'm not 100% sure, but WTXX may be OUT of the DMA!) :)

.

#12 OFFLINE   N5XZS

N5XZS

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 182 posts
Joined: Apr 25, 2002

Posted 05 July 2008 - 01:25 PM

There's a new website that do carry out of town local news streamings that's kind bending the dumb DMA rules.

Some of the feeds are raw and sometime you get full time superstation like programmings at times!:) :eek2:

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

I just wish Directv would carry full time out of town local news channel.

7-5-08
"73's N5XZS"
From Timothy C. Johnson
Live Long and Prosper....

#13 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 06 July 2008 - 01:49 PM

There are no "DMA rules" for locally-originated programming, such as local news. If you own the content, you can stream it or broadcast it anywhere you want.

You'd run into problems only when you start using someone else's programming for which you only have local rights and trying to send it outside your DMA. That violates the rules of your contract with the content owner, leaving you subject to civil damages.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?




spam firewall