Welcome to DBSTalk
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
FCC votes for retransmission rulemaking
Posted 06 April 2011 - 06:14 AM
"If you're really looking for the locally produced content from another market and not trying to watch network content that should be available on a local affiliate or regionally restricted content such as pro sports you are in a distinct minority.
The technical challenge of being able to deliver thousands of local affiliates to anywhere in the country via satellite is not met by the demand. Perhaps streamed on demand via the Internet (with territorial restrictions intact) would work. But there is simply no need for customers to have to have a dish that can receive ~4000 channels just to please a few who want a foreign market.[/QUOTE]
I know this is a highly-charged topic, and I don't want to offend anyone, especially James whom I'm quoting, and I mean the following with the upmost respect to all . . . but here's my opinion.
I don't think anyone is suggesting making 4000 channels available, but why would anyone be against choice for the consumers? Why not make it mandatory to receive local stations and give subscribers the choice to buy an additional market (even adjacent DMA) for extra cost? I think this is a good plan.
Those who want to have two markets may be a "minority," but minorities should still have a choice to view the way they wish; it's not hurting anyone if they choose to buy an extra DMA if the law is amended. Further, if it's only a "minority," then why are local stations so threatened by this "minority?" I have worked for several television stations during my professional career. DId I want people to watch my stations? ABSOLUTELY! ! ! But I wanted them to watch by choice, not because we were the only option forced upon them by law as their only choice. I've never agreed with that, even as a broadcaster, and I know, James, this makes me in the minority.
Posted 06 April 2011 - 06:36 AM
Channels from the next market over where the station doesn't provide coverage would have to be worked out in the affiliate contracts. Some overlap is expected but competing against a neighboring DMA on a full market basis isn't just translating the OTA marketplace to satellite.
There would still be some technical limits. Spotbeams that barely cover a market would not always cover an entire neighboring market.
Posted 06 April 2011 - 11:20 AM
This is my take from this. Am I understanding it right or am totally wrong?
I hope they would allow 2 again in the future but would be O.K If they allow a Choice besides what I will be set up with.
Posted 08 April 2011 - 07:31 PM
Posted 10 April 2011 - 09:15 PM
The only thing left in my personal preference is what to do with short markets ... and the current distants laws could be modified to cover that. I would restore the protection for out of market stations (since the station itself would be carried).
NO NO NO
NEVER give protection to short market stations, like KQTV in St Joseph which provides LOUSY product. If I was in St Joseph, I would be able to get currently all the majors except KMBC (ABC) and instead be forced to watch KQTV (again, a LOUSY excuse for a broadcaster) and they keep KMBC off a dish. KMBC gets higher ratings overall than KQTV does (and local cable is allowed to carry KMBC by virtue of its viewed status.
KQTV should have to compete for my viewership, and by virtue of the lcoal cable bandit carrying it, DBS should be allowed to as well.