1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Distant Networks should be allowed

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Msguy, Dec 29, 2010.

  1. Msguy

    Msguy Hall Of Fame

    1,572
    0
    May 22, 2003
    Many Raycom and Hearst owned stations could be lost on DirecTv December 31st if no deal is reached. This is why Distant Network Service should be allowed. If people are willing to pay for Distant Channels we should be able to get them. The Government should step in and allow it. It is ridiculous that we can't subscribe to other cities for Distant Network Service and it's an outdated law.
     
  2. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Given that the government just forced all those local stations to spend a ton of money to reconfigure to digital, I somehow doubt they are going to agree to put them out of business by allowing DNS for everyone.

    Maybe in hardship cases where the locals are in deadlock with the providers but one of the primary functions of local channels is local news and events. Hard to do with DNS.
     
  3. Msguy

    Msguy Hall Of Fame

    1,572
    0
    May 22, 2003
    You are missing my point. I would be willing to pay to get distant networks. If I had to pay an extra $10-$15 a month for Distant Networks, I would pay for them. For times like now when my area faces a possible shut down non carriage of a local channel, I would pay to receive New York, Or Los Angeles Locals. The key word here is "Pay" for them. They could allow us to subscribe to any local we wanted and then pass it along to the channels we subscribe to. It's not like i'm not willing to pay for them. But because of stupid outdated laws that say we can't receive networks outside our local area is medieval and just plain wrong to me.
     
  4. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Write to your local representatives.
     
  5. EricRobins

    EricRobins Godfather

    475
    0
    Feb 9, 2005
    Yeah, good luck with that. Remember, the NAB has a bit more money to bribe Congressmen than you and I do, so you can bet they don't give a %$%*)($% what you and I think. Sorry, thats just the way our government works.
     
  6. fluffybear

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    7,316
    38
    Jun 19, 2004
    Peachtree...
    There use to be a time when anyone could subscribe to DNS and pay for them. I myself have been paying for (SD) DNS service since 1994. In 1999, a federal court ruled in favor of the broadcasters and DNS as we knew (& enjoyed) it was gone.
    I have always been a firm believer that the law should be returned to the way it was pre-1999 and the consumer should have the right to choose where they want to get their network signals from.
     
  7. damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    I agree, If you pay for it ,it should be an option.
     
  8. Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    And people could use that to watch NFL Games that are Blacked out in their local area and how would they patrol people who wanted to circumvent League Blackout Rules?
     
  9. rbpeirce

    rbpeirce Godfather

    514
    4
    Feb 23, 2006
    I can't figure out why Hearst and other providers don't pay DTV. After all, it is increasing their viewership and that is what ad dollars are based on.
     
  10. Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    It is like a Poker Game, let's see who Blinks First. It is Posturing during The Negotiation Game and one side eventually will give in or their will be a Stalemate. It all Boils down to Money like when you go into a dealership to buy a car. Either you win or the salesman wins but normally you wind up somewhere in the middle where both sides have to compromise and give in to meet in the middle.
     
  11. wmb

    wmb Godfather

    469
    5
    Dec 17, 2008
    I would imagine this a small problem. They already do it with RSNs. Jut treat DNSs like RSNs. They could also black them out from 5PM to 7 PM, news time.
     
  12. Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    But some people would use it to view games in surrounding areas to get around Sunday Ticket and other NFL Rules.
     
  13. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    While I agree, it's not any good to rant here. No one here can change laws.
     
  14. n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,773
    13
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    I agree that if a local network station won't allow a cable/sat/phone carrier to provide their signal, whether it's due to a lack of carriage agreement or whatever, then the carrier should be allowed to provide DNS for the network affected to the cable/sat/phone carrier customers in that market. That may just encourage the station to come to a carriage agreement.
     

Share This Page