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

- - - - -

FCC votes for retransmission rulemaking

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   dishdude19


    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 11 posts
Joined: Dec 08, 2003

Posted 06 April 2011 - 06:14 AM

Originally posted by James Long:

"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]

From Dishdude19:
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.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 44,704 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 April 2011 - 06:36 AM

The post I replied to was in respect to seeing Buffalo locals in Tulsa ... those are not adjacent markets. I believe the posts after it cover my opinion that a station should be available via satellite anywhere that their OTA signal is expected to reach (protected FCC service contour). That would include any overlap with another station of the same network ... they compete over the air, they shouldn't mind competing via satellite (and cable).

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.

#28 OFFLINE   spikor



  • Registered
  • 66 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 06 April 2011 - 11:20 AM

I have not read everything listed above on page 1 and 2 but will this allow a choice in locals? O.K here is what I am getting at my Locals are Huntington-Charleston W.Va. I never had and never will like/liked those channels ( and I have my reasons why but I will not get into that ) BUT IF I do not want these as my Locals can I choose Neighboring Cincinnati Ohio ( We were at one time but this was changed Years ago ) as my Locals or Lexington Ky. as my Locals. At one time I was allowed 2 Locals and I had Cincinnati and Lexington as my Locals maybe this was a Glitch in their system....BUT I never Questioned it. I would LOVE 2 Locals again IF allowed. BUT would settle for one IF I had a Choice in Choosing one besides Huntington-Charleston W.Va
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.

#29 OFFLINE   sniller


    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 17 posts
Joined: Apr 08, 2011

Posted 08 April 2011 - 07:31 PM

I think it would be great to watch any Over the Air signal I want to watch in the country. I want to live in San Fransisco and get New York Locals and Portland locals. I hope they change the exclusivity law its a violation of freedom of the press.

#30 OFFLINE   Terry K

Terry K


  • Registered
  • 231 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2006

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).


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.

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