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
- - - - -

Distant Networks and your opinions


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   cgmiller7171

cgmiller7171

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 1 posts
  • LocationDenver
Joined: Oct 08, 2013

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:04 AM

New member here and just wanted to throw an idea out to the masses. When it comes to getting a waiver to get distant locals, how many of you think if people started pushing the fact the station owners are now requiring payment to broadcast their signals would be a good start for pushing for the option to be able to view the east or west coast distant networks? If we as customers are essentially paying for that service now, shouldn't we have the option of where we get those channels from. Just a thought of mine and wanted to see how others feel about the topic. 


  • spence101@aol.com likes this

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

#2 OFFLINE   Richard

Richard

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 212 posts
  • LocationSouth Texas
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:20 AM

I personally think they should just have a national East/West feed.  Get rid of the Local Channel model.  I haven't watched any local content (what they call "News") in over 10 years.  I only watch prime time programming, and there is no need for the Local Channel Model anymore.

 

In regards to your argument, I doubt they would ever go for that.


Edited by Richard, 08 October 2013 - 08:23 AM.


#3 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,192 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:24 AM

I personally think they should just have a national East/West feed.  Get rid of the Local Channel model.  I haven't watched any local content (what they call "News") in over 10 years.  I only watch prime time programming, and there is no need for the Local Channel Model anymore.

 

In regards to your argument, I doubt they would ever go for that.

so no more local NFL games or other sports?


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#4 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 660 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 08 October 2013 - 09:20 AM

Congress doesn't care about what people want, only how much money the NAB gives them.


  • Chuck W and EricRobins like this

#5 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,523 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 08 October 2013 - 09:44 AM

The fewer viewers you can promise, the higher your cost per household. I submit that there would be little to no cost savings to DIRECTV and it would negatively impact any revenue opportunities from local advertising insertion.

Imagine if everyone in some two-horse town opted for a DNS feed. How would emergency services get the word out?

You can bet that cable would be all over this as well as it could put them at a competitive disadvantage and they really, REALLY hate that.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#6 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:49 AM

Trouble is, as a viewer, you aren't really "paying for it" when you pay the satellite company a few cents per channel.

The local affiliate stations are already paying a huge portion of the costs of the network (and, syndicated) programming. They do this, so they can fill certain slots in and between those programs, with their local commercials.

If the only way networks and programmers could produce programming, would be from the money made from their built-in spots and the fees they charge the cable and satellite viewers, those fees would be far higher.



#7 OFFLINE   Michael Hilley

Michael Hilley

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 186 posts
Joined: May 31, 2007

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:40 PM

Have grandfathered E & W HD DNS feeds for all of the networks. (Only SD available for CW E & W and PBS E) and additionally have diplexed OTA's.

All the rest of my neighbors, standard installation, LIL, no DNS or OTA. 

The satellite home viewers legislation is revisited/revised/renewed every five years.

I've had DNS continuously since its inception, and anticipate that eventually they will remove the option of keeping DNS.

So, I don't believe that there is even a remote chance that they're going to revert to allowing subs with either LIL or able to receive OTA to get DNS...the NAB have been battling this forever. 

What I would like to see is:

When an independently operated local affiliate decides to pull their station in a carriage fee renegotiation ploy, that DirecTV backfills the station with the network DNS equivalent for the affected local subscribers. 

In a (very) few instances, DirecTV has done this for subscribers who have called in to complain, but generally they say that they can't and will offer a credit for the outage instead.

The subscribers may not be receiving LIL, but can receive OTA, so technically they do not qualify for DNS.

For those that they have made an exception, the subs could receive only SD or only HD via OTA, and thus qualified to receive the other SD or HD via DNS.

Besides rain fade, this is another reason to setup OTA.



#8 OFFLINE   jerrylove56

jerrylove56

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 397 posts
  • LocationNorth Alabama
Joined: Jun 14, 2008

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

I personally think they should just have a national East/West feed.  Get rid of the Local Channel model.  I haven't watched any local content (what they call "News") in over 10 years.  I only watch prime time programming, and there is no need for the Local Channel Model anymore.

 

In regards to your argument, I doubt they would ever go for that.

 

I agree with you somewhat with the only caveat being the need for local weather.  I live in an area notorious for severe weather. There is no way I would depend on national weather feeds to protect myself or my family.  While I agree that local news blows on  most "normal" news days (cat stuck in tree, dog found in dumpster), when disaster strikes or emergency weather threatens, locals are the best option. 



#9 OFFLINE   milton

milton

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 172 posts
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:50 PM

I think what would happen if these rules were relaxed can be seen by looking to Canada, where people in Vancouver are allowed to watch locals from Newfoundland, Quebec, Toronto, etc...even Seattle, Buffalo, etc.



#10 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:24 PM

I think what would happen if these rules were relaxed can be seen by looking to Canada, where people in Vancouver are allowed to watch locals from Newfoundland, Quebec, Toronto, etc...even Seattle, Buffalo, etc.

The difference is in Canada the networks own most of the affiliates so they get the revenue no matter which feed you're watching. In the USA we have multiple competing companies owning stations, while the networks that own nearly all of their affiliates like Univision, Ion and Telemundo have national feeds available. (It's also why when the network HD feeds were first added before LIL HD became available, they were just limited to the markets that had an affiliate owned by the network) As for the Seattle and Buffalo stations, in Canada you rarely see the pogramming as is, if a local Canadian channel is airing the programming at the same time the US feed is replaced with the Canadian feed.

Edited by KyL416, 08 October 2013 - 05:25 PM.


#11 OFFLINE   adamson

adamson

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 510 posts
  • LocationN Central Florida
Joined: Nov 09, 2007

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:08 PM

Nobody will ever get a waiver from affiliates in a viewing dma anymore. Furthermore Directv wants out of the business providing locals to everyone via a provided antenna. It will be some time before that happens anyway. Furthermore to obtain DNS without an RV situation is near the 100% impossible.


HR44-700 C41W-100 C41W-100, Choice Package, NFL ST, Distant Networks ABC CBS NBC FOX East/West


#12 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,224 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:10 AM

Why do you say that Directv wants out of the business of providing locals via antenna? From what they said back in May it sounded like they were going to push towards better support of customers using OTA to avoid the constant rate increases the stations keep trying to extort from them and other providers. The more customers who are able to receive locals for free via OTA, the fewer that depend on Directv to provide them by satellite. The fewer who depend on Directv to provide them, the less Directv is hurt by those disputes, thus reducing the leverage stations have over Directv to demand more and more money for retransmission rights.

 

Or, if Aereo ends up winning in the Supreme Court (it isn't there yet, but it will be) Directv might be interested in buying them and expanding them across the country, and deliver locals to their customers via the internet.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#13 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 10,152 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:58 AM

The difference is in Canada the networks own most of the affiliates so they get the revenue no matter which feed you're watching. In the USA we have multiple competing companies owning stations, while the networks that own nearly all of their affiliates like Univision, Ion and Telemundo have national feeds available. (It's also why when the network HD feeds were first added before LIL HD became available, they were just limited to the markets that had an affiliate owned by the network) As for the Seattle and Buffalo stations, in Canada you rarely see the pogramming as is, if a local Canadian channel is airing the programming at the same time the US feed is replaced with the Canadian feed.

this makes perfect sense as Univision is the only local available on the iPad app for live IH streaming


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#14 OFFLINE   TANK

TANK

    Icon

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 880 posts
  • LocationFLORIDA
Joined: Feb 16, 2003

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:31 PM

Because of sports ( NFL games and college FB and BB ) I don't see the local network system changing.

 

Hopefully one day HD DNS will become a option that can be added as long you continue to receive your locals also.



#15 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,349 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:08 PM

Nobody will ever get a waiver from affiliates in a viewing dma anymore. Furthermore Directv wants out of the business providing locals to everyone via a provided antenna. It will be some time before that happens anyway. Furthermore to obtain DNS without an RV situation is near the 100% impossible.

 

I guess I disagree.  The laws made it easier to get them in recent years.  One headache that went away was that only the affiliate in your DMA can claim you and is the only one who has to approve your waiver.  The idea of DNS feeds was more for the people who did not have an affiliate in their market to begin with.  What was happening in recent years was that even if you didnt have an affiliate in your market, a neighboring market was still denying your waiver and that was just rediculous.  What had changed since then is that now DirecTV offers more DMA local stations then ever and there are not near as many people who would need DNS feeds.  If you truly qualify for them, I dont see why anyone would not get them.


Directv & Sunday Ticket Sub Since 8/19/2008
HR24-200 Leased, HR24-200 Owned, R22-200 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR34-700 Leased. 5 LNB Setup W/SWM 16 Switch
Sony KDL-46HX800

#16 OFFLINE   khark

khark

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 51 posts
  • LocationWyoming
Joined: Jan 23, 2005

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:25 AM

Some of us in less populated areas do not have any option for OTA. We are too far from any transmitters. In my case the nearest "local stations" are in Idaho Falls, Idaho, about 90 miles away, but Directv only provides Salt Lake City, Utah from over 200 miles away. In the early days, most people here had waivers for the east and west feeds but when they went to hi def they were taken away.



#17 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,128 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:51 AM

New member here and just wanted to throw an idea out to the masses. When it comes to getting a waiver to get distant locals, how many of you think if people started pushing the fact the station owners are now requiring payment to broadcast their signals would be a good start for pushing for the option to be able to view the east or west coast distant networks? If we as customers are essentially paying for that service now, shouldn't we have the option of where we get those channels from. Just a thought of mine and wanted to see how others feel about the topic. 

 

There is no legal way for this to happen as the law currently stands. DirecTV has to provide you with your locals if they provide them, and if they don't and you can get them OTA, they cannot provide you DNS. It's a law, not a DirecTV policy.



#18 OFFLINE   SeaBeagle

SeaBeagle

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 471 posts
Joined: May 07, 2006

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:58 PM

We should be able to watch anything we want on satellite TV. To me these out of town local option. no being available is so backwards and a hit on out constitutional rights of freedom to watch what we want to.

#19 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,970 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:30 PM

Never going to happen and DIRECTV would never do it anyway. Do you realize how muh more bandwidth it take to deliver something like that to everyone? There's more locals than national channels. It's not even reasonable to think they could do it. And why do you need 250 channels showing the same thing? Other than news everything is everywhere anyway. Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk

#20 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,510 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:50 PM

We should be able to watch anything we want on satellite TV. To me these out of town local option. no being available is so backwards and a hit on out constitutional rights of freedom to watch what we want to.


The US Constitution? I'm aware of a Freedom of Speech which relates to the government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But I see nothing in the constitution guaranteeing a "freedom to watch".

Our "freedom" to watch any channel we want is something that is being blocked by the content owners. It is their content and they control who gets to see it and how. Broadcasters license their channels to local OTA affiliates with exclusive rights within their market areas.

Where the government has stepped in is not preventing the delivery of channels outside of their market areas but in forcing content owners and channels to deliver their channels under certain rules. A station is free to make arrangements to be delivered anywhere they want ... but they are limited by their agreements with the content owners.
  • TJNash likes this
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.




spam firewall