Yes, and allowing the cable and satellite companies to determine where the market lines are would eliminate this problem, as they would cobble together at least one full set of locals for that market.
No, you're wrong. Right now, the government, by using the DMA system, is propping up a series of partial monopolies that circumvent free market capitalism. Letting local channels compete with each other for viewers is true capitalism, and is a rather pure form of competition, since you just click a button, and you are watching the other channel.
That would be a baby step in the right direction, but it still wouldn't create competition and consolidation among TV stations.
Thank god someone has a brain.
Yeah, it makes no sense that their signal is available freely over the air, yet cable and satellite has to pay in order to give that station more viewers, which the station uses to generate advertising revenue.
Surely locals had something to do with the uptake in satellite, since that was before the days of OTA HD, and even today people are lazy. However, there are three other big drivers. The first was digital, while the cable companies had fuzzy analog, the second was the price, as the cable companies drove the price up and up, and the third was HD, where satellite is still way ahead of many cable systems in HD channel selection.
Yeah, it costs DISH money, but the affiliate shouldn't be getting money for a signal that you could get for free OTA.
The newspaper analogy is a good one. There is nothing stopping anyone from selling their paper anywhere, and there used to be multiple papers in each city.
Also, you can pay extra and get the RSN's, although then you'd have to pay again to get the actual games.
If the markets were opened up, let the free market decide. In some cases, they would have to get a dish or cable. In other cases, a distant affiliate would keep the transmitters running with a distant feed via microwave. In some cases, the local affiliate will stay around. Let the market decide.
Economically, it is totally outdated, since relatively few people receive their TV OTA anymore, and those who do aren't attractive to advertisers, because they are either cheap or poor. Neither audience is a very good consumer. It would be far more efficient and much cheaper to distribute programming nationwide to pay-tv operators via satellite.
That's a cartel. Cartels are illegal under U.S. Federal Law, by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Then why can U-Verse carry channels from two states away, while DISH can only carry channels from in-DMA?
But then, how does SV work? Even on DirecTV, my area can get duplicates of three of the big four. They are both showing prime-time programming.
Then why are there markets without a full set of locals, and why isn't DISH doing SV's like cable and DirecTV?
What about SV? Also, I am arguing that the carriers should be able to carry any channel from CONUS, HI, or AK anywhere in CONUS, HI, or AK, by law. This would break the cartel-like structure of the current network system, and allow providers to respond to their customers.
Also, does the current law require gaps to be filled in with DNS, or can they be filled with the next market over?
I bet if they were allowed to, in an actual free market, both of them would light up NYC, Chicago, and LA locals to the whole country, and then skip town on some small market locals to free up TP space. That would get everyone in the US access to HD locals.
Let them go at it. It's an interesting topic. Thanks for splitting this off, so it didn't go out of control on the PBS thread.
Thank you, Bigg. I agree with everything you have said. Very intelligent and well stated. I am especially interested in cartels and the Sherman Antitrust Act. That may really get to the heart of the matter here.
Edited by runner861, 20 July 2010 - 06:45 PM.