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

What is news on Distant Networks?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 263 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 13 July 2014 - 12:33 AM

I know this is a stupid question that is getting old, but will we ever see hope for this?



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

#2 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 609 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:32 AM

Short answer: no.

 

Longer answer: The reality is that copyright law allows the networks to control distribution of their programming, and the money is so vastly in favor of the current model that it would take an unbelievable course of events for them to change their minds.  The cost for consumers to pay for the financial losses stations would suffer from losing revenue for local advertising would be prohibitive.



#3 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,231 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 13 July 2014 - 09:01 AM

Part of the answer is that in the act of offering locals in most all markets to be eligible to offer distants, qualification is nearly impossible.

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


#4 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 679 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 13 July 2014 - 10:32 AM

As long as NAB influences Congress, and broadcasters declaring exclusive markets, getting any non-market TV station is next to impossible.

 

This has little to do with copyright, as it has more to do with ratings and ad revenue. KUSA (Denver) wants you to watch NBC on their station, not on WNBC (New York). Each viewer that will watch WNBC, is one lost viewer to KUSA; if the viewer is in Denver. Back, when you could get wavers, DISH did not provide locals, and broadcasting was analog, this is what i was told. It did not matter that hills, mesas, etc. prevented several Denver stations to be received clearly.

 

To change this is to contact your so called "representative" in Congress and file complaints with the FCC.



#5 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,231 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 13 July 2014 - 12:56 PM

You can bet that the ACA and the NCTA are also doing their fair share of lobbying against competition.

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


#6 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,114 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:58 PM

I am surprised that DISH does not have a national offering for RV customers. But with the ability for abuse I can see why DISH wants to avoid that problem. DISH does not want to be accused of delivering distants to non-qualified customers - even if those customer are the ones committing the fraud.


DISH does deliver distant networks - but they deliver distant networks of their choice into short markets. It is done in a way that is easy to monitor compliance with the laws. There is no in market affiliate holding rights. DISH also provides "significantly viewed" stations on their own terms in compliance with the law.

DISH could probably be more aggressive in the local channels they offer and push the boundries but they have chosen a safer path. Every market is getting every network. And while customers may not like their local affiliate or the distant DISH has chosen for them the networks are being delivered.


I do not expect any changes in the law that would lead to DISH offering more network channels in each market than they already offer.
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.

#7 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 263 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:31 PM

So what is the point of subscribing to satellite now days, I am seriously thinking about switching over to cable. Satellite used to be about being able to see other local channels not located in your state. Now that ability is gone, and there is no point dealing with signal loss issues anymore. Also there is no benefit of subscribing to satellite anymore, at least your a RVer. For the price we are paying 164 dollars for the america's everything pack, then getting double dipped with the sports pack, as some of the sports channel are already included in the everything pack. I have just one hopper and thats all, nothing else. Its cheaper to go to cable now, our community is served by twc, but I am waiting tell the comcast merger is over. As there will be more channels to offer. 



#8 OFFLINE   SeaBeagle

SeaBeagle

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 666 posts
Joined: May 07, 2006

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:12 PM

So what is the point of subscribing to satellite now days, I am seriously thinking about switching over to cable. Satellite used to be about being able to see other local channels not located in your state. Now that ability is gone, and there is no point dealing with signal loss issues anymore. Also there is no benefit of subscribing to satellite anymore, at least your a RVer. For the price we are paying 164 dollars for the america's everything pack, then getting double dipped with the sports pack, as some of the sports channel are already included in the everything pack. I have just one hopper and thats all, nothing else. Its cheaper to go to cable now, our community is served by twc, but I am waiting tell the comcast merger is over. As there will be more channels to offer.


I agree. Like I wrote before we. An listen to radio stations from any out of market location in the country. Why can not TV be the same.

Needs to be a out of market plan where one can subscribe to as many out of market channels they want to.


Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app

#9 OFFLINE   mwdxer

mwdxer

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 333 posts
  • LocationSeaside Oregon
Joined: Oct 30, 2013

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:35 PM

I totally agree. We should beable to watch TV from anywhere. I do get to watch the news from many markets via the Roku,

 

Patrick



#10 OFFLINE   n0aaa

n0aaa

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 19 posts
Joined: Sep 25, 2006

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:57 PM

I had waivers for CBS & Fox for years. Got them from NY for a while, then SF the last few years. Now I can get none, even though I still have the waivers. Dish has none anymore? for anything? even RVers? (I'm not an RVer, just sayin'.)



#11 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,796 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:57 PM

So what is the point of subscribing to satellite now days, I am seriously thinking about switching over to cable. Satellite used to be about being able to see other local channels not located in your state. Now that ability is gone, and there is no point dealing with signal loss issues anymore. Also there is no benefit of subscribing to satellite anymore, at least your a RVer. For the price we are paying 164 dollars for the america's everything pack, then getting double dipped with the sports pack, as some of the sports channel are already included in the everything pack. I have just one hopper and thats all, nothing else. Its cheaper to go to cable now, our community is served by twc, but I am waiting tell the comcast merger is over. As there will be more channels to offer. 

 

That's not what satellite was about for most people.

 

It was about getting TV, especially in rural areas where cable didn't exist and often didn't want to run service.

 

In most of my price comparisons I find Dish to be cheaper than Time Warner cable.  I also had service issues with Time Warner at least as much (if not more) than I do with Dish.  In fact I have had Dish service during a storm when cable was out in my area.

 

If Dish or satellite isn't right for you, then it isn't right... and you should get whatever service suits your needs...  but distant networks wasn't the reason for the growth of satellite services over the years... it was just a small part of the offering.


-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#12 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 609 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 16 July 2014 - 04:52 AM

So what is the point of subscribing to satellite now days...

Well, there are some very good reasons to subscribe to satellite television.  First, at least in my area, there are more HD channels on satellite than any other pay TV options I have.  Second, I'd pay about the same amount of money for cable as I would for AT250, but I'd get a lot smaller selection of channels.  Third, while satellite does suffer from rain fade on a relatively infrequent basis, when it does go out you can both see and understand the reason and know approximately how long it will last.  When cable goes out, not only could it be for days, but you might need to stick around for a 6-hour window so they can resolve the issue.  And finally, while both cable and satellite overcompress their signals to fit more channels into the available space, cable seems to deliver a poorer picture overall.

 

But it's not for everyone and your needs may suggest an alternative is better.  In which case, go for it.  But that's your needs in your area, and not everybody will come to the same conclusion.  That's the beauty of a free market - we all get to choose what we want, and it doesn't have to be the same.



#13 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 609 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 16 July 2014 - 04:59 AM

I agree. Like I wrote before we. An listen to radio stations from any out of market location in the country. Why can not TV be the same.

Needs to be a out of market plan where one can subscribe to as many out of market channels they want to.

 

TV can be the same.  But there are some practical reasons why it can't be.  First, local stations are delivered in spot beams to small parts of the country.  It would take a lot more satellite space to carry those stations nationwide.  My locals delivered via satellite already look like crap because of compression, and that's with spot beams.  Imagine how bad things would look if all those stations were national.

 

But if you're like me and about 15 miles from another media market with more and better stations, maybe the spot beam isn't the issue, but just the local market you've been assigned to isn't the one you want.  So let's say that I wanted to subscribe to the Minneapolis/St Paul stations.  Right now, the stations in my market are getting about $1/subscriber, and they're not going to willingly give up that revenue.  So on top of my regular subscriber fees, I now have to pay the subscriber fees for the market I want to receive, which would add another $7-8 to my bill.  And then I have to compensate the local stations for their lost advertising revenue.  Which probably works out to another $2-4/month per station.

 

So... Would you pay $30/month more to receive out-of-market television stations?  My guess is that most people would not.  So the option has never been seriously pursued.



#14 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,231 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 16 July 2014 - 08:25 AM

Also there is no benefit of subscribing to satellite anymore, at least your a RVer.

Unless your RV stays in one place for months at a time, you never know what's going to be available from cable and whether it will work with your system.

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


#15 OFFLINE   SeaBeagle

SeaBeagle

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 666 posts
Joined: May 07, 2006

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:04 PM

TV can be the same. But there are some practical reasons why it can't be. First, local stations are delivered in spot beams to small parts of the country. It would take a lot more satellite space to carry those stations nationwide. My locals delivered via satellite already look like crap because of compression, and that's with spot beams. Imagine how bad things would look if all those stations were national.

But if you're like me and about 15 miles from another media market with more and better stations, maybe the spot beam isn't the issue, but just the local market you've been assigned to isn't the one you want. So let's say that I wanted to subscribe to the Minneapolis/St Paul stations. Right now, the stations in my market are getting about $1/subscriber, and they're not going to willingly give up that revenue. So on top of my regular subscriber fees, I now have to pay the subscriber fees for the market I want to receive, which would add another $7-8 to my bill. And then I have to compensate the local stations for their lost advertising revenue. Which probably works out to another $2-4/month per station.

So... Would you pay $30/month more to receive out-of-market television stations? My guess is that most people would not. So the option has never been seriously pursued.


I would rather pay my total bill of 90.00 a month for as many out of town markets than regular programming.

Deactivate those spot beams. Look at KTLA WPIX KWGN WSBK WWOR if those can be received so can the other stations be offered nationally.




Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app

#16 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,071 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:17 PM

Seriously? Deactivate the spot beams? Right now the FCC's site returns 1773 licensed full power TV stations, even more when you get to cases where a major network affiliate is on a subchannel, low powered station or the border cities where a network affiliate can be on a Mexican station, as well Alaska and Hawaii where due to them being neglected satellite providers have to carry the subchannels in those states. Good luck finding the bandwidth to do all that on a conus beam. Satellite slots and bandwidth don't come out of nowhere, it's a crowded neighborhood up there, heck for the eastern arc Dish is leasing one of the slots from Bell Canada.

#17 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,796 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:18 PM

I would rather pay my total bill of 90.00 a month for as many out of town markets than regular programming.

Deactivate those spot beams. Look at KTLA WPIX KWGN WSBK WWOR if those can be received so can the other stations be offered nationally.

 

I don't think you understand how and why spotbeams work.

 

Spotbeams serve two purposes...

 

1. Allows channels/frequencies to be used in multiple areas.

2. Restricts access.

 

#2 is really less of a "feature" than it is the reason for why #1 happens, and why Dish is using the spotbeams.

 

Whether or not they blocked access, IF all the LiLs were on conus transponders, that would be a LOT of bandwidth used up for the LiLs... if you add up all the DMAs and all the LiLs in those DMAs... you have a bunch of channels... and especially if they aren't available to anyone outside of the DMA it magnifies how useless it is to have them on conus transponders.

 

Using spotbeams means Dish can re-use the channels/frequencies in each spotbeam footprint.  It basically allows them to do more with less.

 

I'm skipping the technical details in the interest of brevity.

 

They do have some LiLs on conus, for various reasons.. including sometimes the need to supplement where a DMA doesn't have a channel.

 

I frankly don't even understand why this is a big deal. Why do you want to view locals in an area from which you don't live?  The network content will be the same... the only unique content would be the local content, which is less beneficial to you than local info in the area in which you live!  Outside of sports... and there are usually other channels or subscriptions that give you access to out-of-market games... there's no real reason to "need" distant locals.

 

The RV user gets an exemption of sorts... because he can drive to another DMA, and call up and have his DMA switched... and in that case he needs that ability because he isn't getting distant locals, he is just relocating his home regularly!


-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#18 OFFLINE   mwdxer

mwdxer

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 333 posts
  • LocationSeaside Oregon
Joined: Oct 30, 2013

Posted 16 July 2014 - 04:25 PM

Why would anyone want to view different DMA's? For me there are several reasons. One is the local news. I am a news fan and I like watching local news out of many DMAs. I am able to do that with streaming as most markets uplink their news and many are on the Roku. If there is a big news story out of any area, often a person can get more on the story by tuning in to the local station in that DMA.  I have done that of late watching Isreali TV. They have a English language 24/7 news service much like CNN.  It has been amazing watching the fight between Isreal and Hamas. I have never seen this kind of coverage on US TV, even CNN.  A second reason would be to get those markets where Dish does uplink METV, THIS, or Antenna TV, like Anchorage AK. True, the network programmibng would be the same in most cases, but  time shifting is nice. For years the local cable system carried both NBC & ABC stations from Portland and Seattle and like KING 5 out of Seattle runs their NBC news at 6 PM and KGW 8 Portland runs theirs at 5:30 PM. With hard drives and the like, and more than one tuner, the time shifting issue is not as important. I love the Roku as more and more TV stations nationwide is offering their apt to view the news and many stations you can watch of demand.

 

Patrick



#19 OFFLINE   comizzou573

comizzou573

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 263 posts
Joined: Aug 06, 2007

Posted 16 July 2014 - 04:59 PM

I frankly don't even understand why this is a big deal. Why do you want to view locals in an area from which you don't live?  The network content will be the same... the only unique content would be the local content, which is less beneficial to you than local info in the area in which you live!  Outside of sports... and there are usually other channels or subscriptions that give you access to out-of-market games... there's no real reason to "need" distant locals.

 

 

The reason is when having distant networks the New York local benefit me in Hawaii, and time slots for my favorite shows were perfect. I could watch wheel of fortune at 2 instead of 7pm, I could watch my sitcoms at 12pm instead 8pm, and I could watch saturday night live at 6pm instead of 11pm. I didn't need to stay up late to watch tv shows/news. The new york local yes its from other state, but there was important news stories that I enjoyed watching on the ny local channel. If I lived in the East Coast, then I wouldnt bother subbing to distant networks, but it benefits people who live further west.


Edited by comizzou573, 16 July 2014 - 05:00 PM.


#20 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,071 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 16 July 2014 - 05:04 PM

For years the local cable system carried both NBC & ABC stations from Portland and Seattle and like KING 5 out of Seattle runs their NBC news at 6 PM and KGW 8 Portland runs theirs at 5:30 PM.

Depending on your county both Dish and DirecTV might already have permission to do the same if those stations are listed as significantly viewed for your county or town. Why they don't is a mystery though, the recent hearings to renew the SHVERA was supposed to bring that up the lack of availability of significantly viewed stations. That is very different though than having every single local station available across the country.

As for subchannels, while the programming is mainly the same, most of them have deals with the individual stations that in addition to exclusive rights for the market, they also get to sell most of the advertising.

Having out of market local news is completely different from having a full complement of network and syndicated programming from out of market stations with different ownership and rights though. Take one of the highest rated events that's guaranteed to win the ratings, the Super Bowl, go look at what a 30 second or even 15 second local spot goes for. Sure you can compensate stations for lost viewership, but what local business would still pay millions for a local spot when there's no longer a guarantee that the entire market will be watching it on your station?




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