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
- - - - -

Are broadcast networks needed? (spin off conversation)


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Bigg

Bigg

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 279 posts
Joined: Feb 26, 2010

Posted 14 July 2010 - 10:09 AM

You are forgetting who owns the rights. PBS cannot "provide DISH with the right to blast out WNET and a couple other big ones as CONUS". PBS doesn't own WNET. PBS doesn't own any stations.I believe that's basically what DirecTV did within their agreement with APTS.It could be a waste to some, but no more wasteful than broadcasting a set of locals in MPEG4 from one satellite cluster and broadcasting those same locals in MPEG2 from another.

Besides, the government already wasted their time passing the law. It isn't much of a waste defending it, as it won't be hard to say passage of the bill was constitutonal.


WNET would certainly allow their signal to go farther, so I guess it's just like the big commercial networks, with a bunch of whiny little local stations.

It would do us a huge service if the networks would just run one O&O station in each time zone in HD, and then cut the affiliates off, or at the minimum provide national feeds and then let the affiiliates do OTA. Our system of affiliates is completely insane.

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

#2 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,480 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 14 July 2010 - 10:33 AM

WNET would certainly allow their signal to go farther, so I guess it's just like the big commercial networks, with a bunch of whiny little local stations.

It would do us a huge service if the networks would just run one O&O station in each time zone in HD, and then cut the affiliates off, or at the minimum provide national feeds and then let the affiiliates do OTA. Our system of affiliates is completely insane.

Ah yes, the logical option for the 21st Century, both from a technological standpoint and from an economic standpoint. Rest assured, that won't happen.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#3 OFFLINE   HarveyLA

HarveyLA

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 137 posts
Joined: Jun 08, 2006

Posted 14 July 2010 - 11:46 AM

It would do us a huge service if the networks would just run one O&O station in each time zone in HD, and then cut the affiliates off, or at the minimum provide national feeds and then let the affiiliates do OTA. Our system of affiliates is completely insane.

This is off-topic for this thread. But let me respond anyway. The value of the networks ABC, CBS, NBC AND FOX is closely related to their local affiliates, especially the O&O'S. The networks themselves are money losers, supported by the profits generated by the O&O'S. They in turn, are supported in large part by their local revenues, particularly local news which is a big cash cow for many of them. Network prime time seems to be less relevant all the time. Ratings are low, and there is much more competition. Luckily, the companies owning the networks also have cable channels and other revenue sources. What would life be like without your local news? (Don't answer that!)
As far as the PBS stations are concerned, check out the web site of KOCE in Orange County, for example, KOCE.ORG to see all the local programs they produce. PBS stations tailor their programing to their communities, and they all use pledge drives for the funds to keep them going. If you allowed a New York PBS station to beam into San Diego,for example, that would take viewers and donors away from the San Diego station. Localism in TV broadcasting has been a cornerstone of government/FCC policy since the beginning. Technology and economic forces may eventually cause the collapse of networks and/or local stations, but the government and the stations are not going to do anything to hasten that day.

#4 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 14 July 2010 - 12:21 PM

WNET would certainly allow their signal to go farther, so I guess it's just like the big commercial networks, with a bunch of whiny little local stations.

And it took that long to figure it out?

WNET probably would not let their signal "go farther" by having national carriage on Dish Network. Most PBS stations operate on local government funds and public donations. Now imagine that WNET would have to pay PBS for programming to reach a national audience. Just because WNET could contract for a national broadcast footprint doesn't mean their expenses (programming costs) would remain the same.

It would do us a huge service if the networks would just run one O&O station in each time zone in HD, and then cut the affiliates off, or at the minimum provide national feeds and then let the affiiliates do OTA. Our system of affiliates is completely insane.

Ah yes, the logical option for the 21st Century, both from a technological standpoint and from an economic standpoint. Rest assured, that won't happen.

This is as far from logical as you can get. In addition to the points raised by HarveyLA, let's throw this list out there...

New York (East)
Chicago (Central)
Denver (Mountain)
Los Angeles (West)

So Fox will no longer have affiliates other than the four listed? So Fox Television Stations will cease to be a Fox affiliate group? Can you imagine the value of these stations once they no longer carry Fox programming:

Philadelphia
Dallas
Washington
Boston
Atlanta
Houston
Detroit
Phoenix
Tampa
Minneapolis
Orlando

Young Broadcasting paid almost $1 billion for San Francisco's NBC affiliate KRON about six years ago. That station then lost its NBC affiliation, and is now barely worth $50 million. Imagine the value of Fox Television Stations now being worth a nickel instead of a dollar. That is a good five to six billion (that's BILLION) in writeoff of assets just because those stations no longer have Fox programming.

Some of you expect because of technological advances that the economic conditions must change. Let me give the best example of all:

The entire NFC except for the Bears and the Giants cannot be broadcast locally anymore as the NFL on Fox because Fox was dismantled to be four affiliates nationwide. Where is Fox going to show the rest of their "local coverage" games?

The economic conditions DICTATE the broadcast networks' coverage for the NFL. That is why the affiliate model is so important.

Now if the question were reversed, i.e., how could DirecTV and Dish Network be setup to be de facto "network affiliates", only delivering network programming, then you may be onto something...

#5 OFFLINE   Bigg

Bigg

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 279 posts
Joined: Feb 26, 2010

Posted 15 July 2010 - 10:21 AM

What would life be like without your local news? (Don't answer that!)


Better. Of course, they could go independent and still do god-awful local news.

As for localized content, if independent stations can't do it, then the free market would have spoken, and they should die off. If the free market supports that endeavor, than go for it.

And it took that long to figure it out?

WNET probably would not let their signal "go farther" by having national carriage on Dish Network. Most PBS stations operate on local government funds and public donations. Now imagine that WNET would have to pay PBS for programming to reach a national audience. Just because WNET could contract for a national broadcast footprint doesn't mean their expenses (programming costs) would remain the same.This is as far from logical as you can get. In addition to the points raised by HarveyLA, let's throw this list out there...

New York (East)
Chicago (Central)
Denver (Mountain)
Los Angeles (West)

So Fox will no longer have affiliates other than the four listed? So Fox Television Stations will cease to be a Fox affiliate group? Can you imagine the value of these stations once they no longer carry Fox programming:

Philadelphia
Dallas
Washington
Boston
Atlanta
Houston
Detroit
Phoenix
Tampa
Minneapolis
Orlando

Young Broadcasting paid almost $1 billion for San Francisco's NBC affiliate KRON about six years ago. That station then lost its NBC affiliation, and is now barely worth $50 million. Imagine the value of Fox Television Stations now being worth a nickel instead of a dollar. That is a good five to six billion (that's BILLION) in writeoff of assets just because those stations no longer have Fox programming.

Some of you expect because of technological advances that the economic conditions must change. Let me give the best example of all:

The entire NFC except for the Bears and the Giants cannot be broadcast locally anymore as the NFL on Fox because Fox was dismantled to be four affiliates nationwide. Where is Fox going to show the rest of their "local coverage" games?

The economic conditions DICTATE the broadcast networks' coverage for the NFL. That is why the affiliate model is so important.

Now if the question were reversed, i.e., how could DirecTV and Dish Network be setup to be de facto "network affiliates", only delivering network programming, then you may be onto something...


The affiliate model is completely outdated, and it should die. It is ultimately more economical to run 6 feeds (including Alaska and Hawaii) instead of 210.

Football would have to go to an RSN-like model, where you get your local teams by default, and you pay more to get them all (current NFL ST).

I like that idea. They could deliver high-quality HD network programming, while continuing to carry SD LIL's.

#6 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 39,902 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 July 2010 - 11:59 AM

The affiliate model is completely outdated, and it should die. It is ultimately more economical to run 6 feeds (including Alaska and Hawaii) instead of 210.

More economical for who? At the moment the networks run their few national feeds (with ET and CT sharing a feed) leaving it up to the affiliates to pay for and maintain transmitters - with the funding of those local transmitters done locally.

Without the affiliates the networks would have to own and finance stations across the country ... and some markets would simply go without. As finances get tight and the network decides that a second feed to a major city is more important than a first feed to podunk.

What you're lobbying for isn't the end of affiliate TV ... it is the end of broadcast TV - and unfortunately there are those pushing the same goal. Seeking "consolidation" where multiple content channels in a market are forced to use the same broadcast channel. Say goodbye to HD over the air.

The affiliate model is keeping that alive and at least giving the chance that a program will air in HD. Kill the affiliates and you have killed broadcast TV.

Football would have to go to an RSN-like model, where you get your local teams by default, and you pay more to get them all (current NFL ST).

I like that idea. They could deliver high-quality HD network programming, while continuing to carry SD LIL's.

You must be looking through a narrow non-broadcast window. Are you looking for a system that somehows allows local affiliates to continue to exist on cable and OTA as they do today but waters down their content via satellite (favoring a separate non-local HD feed)?

If the networks want to do this they can. There is no law preventing a network from setting up a national satellite channel (or channels) to distribute the same program they are sending their affiliates. What is stopping them is the network's agreement with their affiliates that the affiliate will get first run carriage within each local market.

If you want what you want to actually come true you need to take over a network.

#7 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:35 PM

The affiliate model is completely outdated, and it should die. It is ultimately more economical to run 6 feeds (including Alaska and Hawaii) instead of 210.

The networks aren't running 210 feeds. The networks might be running 3 to 5 (one for East/Central, one for Mountain, one for West, and possibly one each for Alaska and Hawaii). It is the affiliates that pick up from network control their network programming.

Obviously, to a network like Fox, it is much more economical to run affiliates in major markets. Just because Fox may have 200+ affiliates that DirecTV and Dish Network may have to rebroadcast doesn't mean that anything is more economical or outdated.

One cannot hasten the demise of a system so despised when the networks themselves have skin in the game. The networks' livelyhood is dependent on owning some of their affiliates (most owning their large market affiliates) because the revenues are beneficial to the networks.

Simply put, I find it quite interesting some want networks which built this economic model over decades to become quite successful, to simply scuttle that model.

It would really interest me to see a non-fictional scenario from anyone how to get Fox or CBS to abandon their affiliate model so that it doesn't destroy their network.

#8 OFFLINE   bnborg

bnborg

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 616 posts
Joined: Jun 03, 2005

Posted 15 July 2010 - 02:47 PM

I was always under the impression that it was local advertising that controlled all this.

Local stations earn their revenue from the local advertising. If the programs they show are available from other sources, they lose watchers and the advertisers pay less. The stations get a guarantee of exclusivity from the networks to prevent this.

This is why they want you to only get your broadcast network programming from the designated local station.
Dish Network VIP722k - Gold 250 + HD/Platinum
110,119, and 129 on Dish 1000.2
Dynex (BestBuy) 42" HDTV, Onkyo TX-SR303 Receiver

#9 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,480 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 15 July 2010 - 03:10 PM

More economical for who? At the moment the networks run their few national feeds (with ET and CT sharing a feed) leaving it up to the affiliates to pay for and maintain transmitters - with the funding of those local transmitters done locally.

Without the affiliates the networks would have to own and finance stations across the country ... and some markets would simply go without. As finances get tight and the network decides that a second feed to a major city is more important than a first feed to podunk.

What you're lobbying for isn't the end of affiliate TV ... it is the end of broadcast TV - and unfortunately there are those pushing the same goal. Seeking "consolidation" where multiple content channels in a market are forced to use the same broadcast channel. Say goodbye to HD over the air.

The affiliate model is keeping that alive and at least giving the chance that a program will air in HD. Kill the affiliates and you have killed broadcast TV.

You must be looking through a narrow non-broadcast window. Are you looking for a system that somehows allows local affiliates to continue to exist on cable and OTA as they do today but waters down their content via satellite (favoring a separate non-local HD feed)?

If the networks want to do this they can. There is no law preventing a network from setting up a national satellite channel (or channels) to distribute the same program they are sending their affiliates. What is stopping them is the network's agreement with their affiliates that the affiliate will get first run carriage within each local market.

If you want what you want to actually come true you need to take over a network.

According to industry data about 99.9 million or 87% of U.S. homes receive service from a pay-TV provider, cable, telco or satellite. OTA is exclusive in only 13% or 14.9 million homes.

At some point, the economics of national distribution to and management of agreements with affiliates will become undesirable compared to selling national or time zone signals to pay-TV providers who won't need as much time for their own local and national advertising and who pay money to affiliates that could go to the networks.

IMHO (here I go again :sure:), that point was passed a few years ago and the only thing keeping national programming on broadcast channels is inertia.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#10 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 39,902 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 July 2010 - 06:28 PM

According to industry data about 99.9 million or 87% of U.S. homes receive service from a pay-TV provider, cable, telco or satellite. OTA is exclusive in only 13% or 14.9 million homes.

DirecTV 18 million, DISH 14 million, less than a third of the pay-TV subscribers get their service via satellite. The 14.9 million OTA only homes NEED local broadcasts ... the 68 million+ cable homes can get a localized feed of each network (cable doesn't have to serve 211 markets). What is that? 75% of US homes served via the existing affiliate carried network structure? Not counting those who have their appropriate local network stations via satellite.

DISH has reached 100% LIL carriage (all stations who demanded carriage or agreed to terms to be carried). Doing that again to carry HD versions will take more work. But it will be possible. There will likely be complete markets left in SD because of the requirement to "carry all" HDs in each HD market.

At some point, the economics of national distribution to and management of agreements with affiliates will become undesirable compared to selling national or time zone signals to pay-TV providers who won't need as much time for their own local and national advertising and who pay money to affiliates that could go to the networks.

Perhaps ... but that time has not come.

IMHO (here I go again :sure:), that point was passed a few years ago and the only thing keeping national programming on broadcast channels is inertia.

All four major networks already have cable/satellite networks to put their content on. If OTA affiliation wasn't working the networks would be being dismantled. They are not.

#11 OFFLINE   l8er

l8er

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 624 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2004

Posted 15 July 2010 - 06:46 PM

.... the only thing keeping national programming on broadcast channels is inertia.

And money. :D
-GA

#12 OFFLINE   rasheed

rasheed

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 296 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2005

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:39 AM

There are regions in California geographically larger than the State of Connecticut that don't get OTA or have access to basic cable. And basic cable doesn't get me HD from Comcast.


Just want to point out the basic cable from Comcast should get you basic HD channels via QAM (TV must support QAM singal). In one example, I saw a cable provider in California even doing a bunch of subchannels as well not just the one main HD channel.

It is not advertised for many reasons, but should techically be there.

Rasheed

#13 OFFLINE   Bigg

Bigg

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 279 posts
Joined: Feb 26, 2010

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:39 AM

More economical for who? At the moment the networks run their few national feeds (with ET and CT sharing a feed) leaving it up to the affiliates to pay for and maintain transmitters - with the funding of those local transmitters done locally.

Without the affiliates the networks would have to own and finance stations across the country ... and some markets would simply go without. As finances get tight and the network decides that a second feed to a major city is more important than a first feed to podunk.

What you're lobbying for isn't the end of affiliate TV ... it is the end of broadcast TV - and unfortunately there are those pushing the same goal. Seeking "consolidation" where multiple content channels in a market are forced to use the same broadcast channel. Say goodbye to HD over the air.

The affiliate model is keeping that alive and at least giving the chance that a program will air in HD. Kill the affiliates and you have killed broadcast TV.

You must be looking through a narrow non-broadcast window. Are you looking for a system that somehows allows local affiliates to continue to exist on cable and OTA as they do today but waters down their content via satellite (favoring a separate non-local HD feed)?

If the networks want to do this they can. There is no law preventing a network from setting up a national satellite channel (or channels) to distribute the same program they are sending their affiliates. What is stopping them is the network's agreement with their affiliates that the affiliate will get first run carriage within each local market.

If you want what you want to actually come true you need to take over a network.


There are exclusivity contracts right now. What I'd like to see are steps towards eliminating braodcast TV, and the affiliate model. Even if you just O&O'ed all the stations, in the short term, the networks would kill off the smaller ones, and then microwave in signals from a nearby city to broadcast. Ultiamtely, replicating the feed 210 times for each network is totally inefficient, and right now, and if the networks themselves were in control of everything, they would get 100% of the revenue, instead of a good chunk of it getting eaten up by small, inefficient stations.

I don't really care about the spectrum, as aside from the "sky is falling" BS we keep hearing about spectrum, the 50mhz CLR band is plenty for mobile devices, not mention PCS and AWS now, in addition to SMH.

The TV model, however, is absurd. The ultimate would be to get rid of the networks, and have one or two independent channels to do local programming and news in a few dozen of the larger markets, and then carry those on satellite and cable, as well as maybe OTA. As it is, local news is horrendous.

Even if the affiliate model is too ingrained to go away, they could set up an east coast and west coast national feed (or just use the W- and K- channels) for higher quality HD, and specify in the contract that the cable and satellite carriers have to carry it 19mbit MPEG-2 CBR (not sure what U-Verse would do...), and then offer all the local affiliates in overcompressed SD for local news and the like.

The networks aren't running 210 feeds. The networks might be running 3 to 5 (one for East/Central, one for Mountain, one for West, and possibly one each for Alaska and Hawaii). It is the affiliates that pick up from network control their network programming.

Obviously, to a network like Fox, it is much more economical to run affiliates in major markets. Just because Fox may have 200+ affiliates that DirecTV and Dish Network may have to rebroadcast doesn't mean that anything is more economical or outdated.

One cannot hasten the demise of a system so despised when the networks themselves have skin in the game. The networks' livelyhood is dependent on owning some of their affiliates (most owning their large market affiliates) because the revenues are beneficial to the networks.

Simply put, I find it quite interesting some want networks which built this economic model over decades to become quite successful, to simply scuttle that model.

It would really interest me to see a non-fictional scenario from anyone how to get Fox or CBS to abandon their affiliate model so that it doesn't destroy their network.


OK, so have a few channels O&O, get rid of the rest, and make the DMA's a lot bigger. Rebroadcast via microwave if you need to.

IMHO (here I go again :sure:), that point was passed a few years ago and the only thing keeping national programming on broadcast channels is inertia.


Yup.

The 14.9 million OTA only homes NEED local broadcasts ...


NEED??? No one NEEDs TV. The only people who have OTA only now are cheap or poor. What bothers me is how in the DTV 2009 switchover, people acted like TV is a god given right. Guess what? It's a luxury. Broadbad should be a god given right though...

Just want to point out the basic cable from Comcast should get you basic HD channels via QAM (TV must support QAM singal). In one example, I saw a cable provider in California even doing a bunch of subchannels as well not just the one main HD channel.

It is not advertised for many reasons, but should techically be there.

Rasheed


Yes, as per FCC law.

#14 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,480 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:07 AM

Just want to point out the basic cable from Comcast should get you basic HD channels via QAM (TV must support QAM singal). In one example, I saw a cable provider in California even doing a bunch of subchannels as well not just the one main HD channel.

It is not advertised for many reasons, but should techically be there.

Rasheed

Yes, it should be there and it may by now actually be. Comcast acquired our system in the Adelphia bankruptcy settlement. In much of our area, they're lucky to average two customers a mile. But nevertheless they have slowly and consistently been upgrading. Providing cable internet was their first achievement for which I am eternally grateful even though they can't offer the higher speeds that are available closer to San Francisco. Then they added a couple of premiums in HD and some HD VOD. It now appears that most of the infrastructure upgrade is in place, so they may very well have the locals in HD.

But Comcast TV is expensive and we still can't get the "Triple Play" package. According to the web signup, it's either TV and internet or TV and phone in a "Double Play" package. Now if they offered phone and internet, I would have signed up as I still resent AT&T not upgrading our system enough to offer DSL.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#15 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Topic Starter
  • Super Moderators
  • 39,902 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:42 AM

The TV model, however, is absurd. The ultimate would be to get rid of the networks, and have one or two independent channels to do local programming and news in a few dozen of the larger markets, and then carry those on satellite and cable, as well as maybe OTA.

Who would fund those stations? You've taken away their network programming - so they don't have that to draw viewers. Most local stations that are anything more than just broadcast cable channels (airing movies or other canned material) are network stations. They get their money by attracting viewers with that network programming and making a name for themselves connected to the network.

Killing off broadcast TV is so far off the reservation that there really isn't a response that I can give you. Are you suggesting that the government step in and kill off the networks to force national feeds?

#16 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,134 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:47 AM

Better. Of course, they could go independent and still do god-awful local news.

As for localized content, if independent stations can't do it, then the free market would have spoken, and they should die off. If the free market supports that endeavor, than go for it.



The affiliate model is completely outdated, and it should die. It is ultimately more economical to run 6 feeds (including Alaska and Hawaii) instead of 210.

Football would have to go to an RSN-like model, where you get your local teams by default, and you pay more to get them all (current NFL ST).

I like that idea. They could deliver high-quality HD network programming, while continuing to carry SD LIL's.


AMEN to everything you said!

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#17 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,902 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 12 July 2010 - 02:49 AM

Conversation spun off of Dish sues FCC over PBS-HD requirement in the DISH HD forum ...

Posts moved here as they took that thread too far off topic.

Edited by James Long, 16 July 2010 - 11:53 AM.


#18 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:12 PM

The best and most fair option would be to uplink all stations on CONUS, but there is no space for it. However, if there were space, then allow any person to purchase any station from anywhere on an a la carte basis. Then we would see how the market would truly shake out.

That would truly force the local stations to address their local markets. That would be the way for them to retain viewers. Local news, local programming would keep the locals alive. They wouldn't get the protection of the government that allows them to just purchase syndicated programming and network programming and ignore local coverage. They would have to sink or swim in a free market, just like a car company or a gasoline company or a grocery store.

If the locals didn't do their job, they would go off the air, as should be the case. Under this scenario, probably network stations in LA and NY would prosper. As for other markets around the country, it would depend, as it should, on how well they served their local markets.

Another advantage of my proposal would be that people who moved from one market to another could still receive local news from the location of their former residence.

Three hitches that will never be overcome: satellite space, Congress, and the NAB.

#19 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 16 July 2010 - 03:59 PM

There are exclusivity contracts right now. What I'd like to see are steps towards eliminating braodcast TV, and the affiliate model.

Eliminate broadcast TV. I can't wait for the pay-per-view of the Super Bowl. LOL.

#20 OFFLINE   Bigg

Bigg

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 279 posts
Joined: Feb 26, 2010

Posted 16 July 2010 - 05:20 PM

Who would fund those stations? You've taken away their network programming - so they don't have that to draw viewers. Most local stations that are anything more than just broadcast cable channels (airing movies or other canned material) are network stations. They get their money by attracting viewers with that network programming and making a name for themselves connected to the network.

Killing off broadcast TV is so far off the reservation that there really isn't a response that I can give you. Are you suggesting that the government step in and kill off the networks to force national feeds?


What you people don't seem to understand is that the affiliates eat up a lot of the advertising revenue that could go directly to the networks.

Good local stations would draw people with localized news and programming. Most DMA's wouldn't have local stations, but the bigger ones would, and those bigger ones would become semi-regional stations. There would probably be 100 of them, not close to 1000, so they could be broadcast CONUS.

AMEN to everything you said!


Thanks!

The best and most fair option would be to uplink all stations on CONUS, but there is no space for it. However, if there were space, then allow any person to purchase any station from anywhere on an a la carte basis. Then we would see how the market would truly shake out.

That would truly force the local stations to address their local markets. That would be the way for them to retain viewers. Local news, local programming would keep the locals alive. They wouldn't get the protection of the government that allows them to just purchase syndicated programming and network programming and ignore local coverage. They would have to sink or swim in a free market, just like a car company or a gasoline company or a grocery store.

If the locals didn't do their job, they would go off the air, as should be the case. Under this scenario, probably network stations in LA and NY would prosper. As for other markets around the country, it would depend, as it should, on how well they served their local markets.

Another advantage of my proposal would be that people who moved from one market to another could still receive local news from the location of their former residence.

Three hitches that will never be overcome: satellite space, Congress, and the NAB.


In principal, I agree with you, but that's just not possible because of satellite space. What would be a compromise would be to "open up" the system, so everyone would get the channels being used for DNS, as well as neighboring channels that they happened to be in the spotbeam of. They would have to lock out people right on the fringe of the spot beams, so that people didn't call and complain that their signal goes out every time a cloud comes through the sky... It would be a HUGE step in the right direction, even if not the ultimate solution.

Eliminate broadcast TV. I can't wait for the pay-per-view of the Super Bowl. LOL.


It would still be on some network, somewhere, probably one of the big ones. Heck, you'd still even have basic cable with the networks being cheaper. And, even with time zone feeds, some major markets might still do OTA.




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