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

NAB prez speaks on SHVERA, adjacent markets

Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by FTA Michael, Apr 14, 2009.

  1. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    Jul 21, 2002
    The SHVERA discussion begins at the bottom of the second page. David Rehr says he's open to working out a way of redefining markets, and that he expects the every-market-on-satellite bill to pass.

    Much, much more: http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2009/04/14/daily.4/
     
  2. tagryn

    tagryn New Member

    3
    0
    Jun 10, 2009
    I'd actually be happy with this compromise re: distant signals:
    As a DIRECTV customer, I want the option to order the NY and LA local news broadcasts if I want. They're already on the channel lineup and being transmitted, they're just blacked out. I think the sports broadcasts might be a trickier issue, since it may fall under the different leagues' agreements with networks re: what can and can't be rebroadcast - for example, MLB might see allowing local broadcasts to be shown as undermining their market for the Extra Innings product.

    It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I'm not optimistic that we'll get the option to see the NY and LA superstations, but we'll see.
     
  3. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    That would also require a re-write of their recently renewed NFL Sunday ticket contract with the NFL - not a quick or easy task.
     
  4. Msguy

    Msguy Hall Of Fame

    1,572
    0
    May 22, 2003
    As a DirecTv Customer Not Only do I want the Option to view New York Or Los Angeles. I Live in the Middle of the country and I don't want nor do I need to see News from New York or L.A. I would Like to maybe subscribe to a major city in my time zone like Chicago, St. Louis or Milwaukee. Why does it HAVE to be New York or L.A.? That is what I want to see a "Choice" of which city we would like to subscribe to. I'd be willing to pay $5 or maybe even $6 more a month on my satellite bill to subscribe to watch that cities locals.
     
  5. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    In its early days, that was one of the biggest attractions of satellite TV--the ability to pull in feeds from across the country. When the NAB got involved, they ruined it for the viewer.
     
  6. tagryn

    tagryn New Member

    3
    0
    Jun 10, 2009
    At least on my DTV Channel Guide, starting on channel 380 are the local feeds that are carried by the system, but are blacked out under the "distant signals" regulations currently in place. It includes NY, LA, and San Diego locals. Exactly how they selected these and not others (for example, KTLA in Los Angeles is a superstation, but DTV doesn't carry it) is unclear. What's interesting is WGN (Ch. 307) is a superstation out of Chicago, and its carried as part of the regular programming package. I'm thinking it was grandfathered in, since you'd think it would be affected by the same regs that are causing the above to be blacked out.

    AFAIK DISH network had a "superstations" package for $5/mo that carried channels from a lot of different cities, but as satellite systems were allowed to carry local broadcasts, that was gradually phased out, since under the current law the only folks allowed to receive "distant signals" stations from other cities are those who can't pick up locals with an acceptable signal level.
     
  7. jclewter79

    jclewter79 Hall Of Fame

    1,833
    0
    Jan 8, 2008

    The WGN that you see is no longer a superstation because it is a different feed than the WGN 9 that is availble in Chicago. Dish Network still offers a superstation package with real superstations.
     
  8. hancox

    hancox Godfather

    504
    17
    Jun 23, 2004
    This isn't a compromise at all. I'd be happy with the "compromise" of allowing dbs providers to carry whatever the local cable competition does, including adjacent networks. I would think this would squelch concern of the NFL-type problems with "out of market" access, as someone could simply switch to cable, and get this anyway.

    Markets like mine, which are underserved by their DMA's networks, should be at the forefront of anything like this.
     
  9. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I could live with this. Not exactly what I want but I would get locals so it would be okay I guess. Not sure if it would be better then having the West coast DNS feeds though. Those are real handy with only having 2 tuners.
     
  10. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
  11. Guesst925XTU

    Guesst925XTU Legend

    227
    3
    Jan 28, 2004
    Ocean...
    I don't think I'm being unfair in wanting the same locals that are offered to me by Comcast, are geographically closer, cover my area in their news/weather and are Grade B over the air. (This would be Philadelphia)

    However, at the current time I'm stuck with New York City "locals" that do not cover the news or weather in my area (we don't even appear on their weather radar maps), and even with an outdoor antenna we cannot get a trace of them. Plus they're significantly farther than Philadelphia.
     
  12. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Its not an unfair request but at the same time the laws are not the same for Sat and Cable co's. Cable can inport a station from somewhere else to get an affiliate and Sat seems to not be able to do that. Its really stupid. They need to do something to fix it. I dont think going around the local affiliates is the right answer either but something needs to be done to get people the locals from some place or another. Everyone should be entitled to the big 4 from at least one market even if its not their DMA.
     
  13. hancox

    hancox Godfather

    504
    17
    Jun 23, 2004
    No, no, no, no, no.

    This is why this legislation gets shot down.

    Adjacent markets YES, where cable competes.
    Markets from anywhere NO - it will just cause too much trouble
     
  14. hancox

    hancox Godfather

    504
    17
    Jun 23, 2004
    AMEN - Same situation in the same DMA in my area. NYC couldn't give a you-know-what about CT. All of the Hartford/New Haven channels tout themselves as "Connecticut's ________"

    it's a farce
     
  15. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    You dont think everyone should be able to get all the big 4 from somewhere even if its not their DMA? I mean would it be that hard for the DNS affiliates to give kickbacks to the affiliates we should be getting the signal from? If we are willing to pay for it then why not get what we want. The affiliates should be able to work out the rest themselves.

    This advertising crap is getting old when most programming is free on the internet these days even from the big 4 most shows are on their site the next day. I mean think about it the more they dont make the deals with certain DMA's the more people go to OTA. With OTA they dont get any money from the provider the people carry and there is no gurantee that the people with OTA are pointing it at their DMA either.

    I REPEAT EVERYONE SHOULD GET THE BIG 4 EVEN IF ITS NOT FROM THEIR DMA!!!!!!
     
  16. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,316
    36
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    If you can get it on an OTA antenna - it's "Local" to you... regardless of what Nielsen says...
     
  17. joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Part of my point right there. If you can get a different DMA with an antenna or really even come close to it especially if a cable operator here is getting the other market then we should be able to chose. OTA is not the right choice for everyone. I personally would rather get my locals from D* then OTA.
     

Share This Page