ABC, CBS, Fox SD Distant Locals all coming in

tftc22 · 2008-07-20

As the title says, these 3 DNS channels in the 380s are showing up (all are East coast feeds). I don't have HD so I don't know if this applies to the HD feeds. I posted this thinking someone on the west coast might find this useful if they want to watch prime time shows early.

Doug Brott

· #2 · Jul 21, 2008

I can confirm this to be true, but I doubt it will last for long.

Reply

Save

Like

mhayes70

· #3 · Jul 21, 2008

Nope, HD is not coming in. It must be sum mess up. I also bet it won't last long.

Reply

Save

Like

mhayes70

· #4 · Jul 21, 2008

:lol: Well, that didn't last long. There are already gone.

Reply

Save

Like

T

tftc22

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jul 21, 2008

mhayes70 said:
:lol: Well, that didn't last long. There are already gone.

Hmm...I just checked and I'm still getting the East coast SD channels here. I'm expecting them to become unauthorized again as soon as national programming ends. At least that's what's happened in the past.

Edit: They all got turned off at 10 pm Eastern. I think that it's not a coincidence that they got shut off at the same time Fox programming ended. (although I didn't expect all 3 to get turned off at that point). I find the fact that Directv changes authorizations at the end of national programming to be fascinating. (I wouldn't think there should be any changes at all). If you're wondering, distant locals get turned on fairly often so keep an eye open for them if you're interested. I usually don't post every time if I see a channel turned on, but this is the first time I saw more than one DNS channel turned on at once.

Reply

Save

Like

N

N5XZS

· #6 · Jul 21, 2008

I was hoping to see New York local news on WYNW-TV but they cut it off at 8 PM mountain time!

Getting tired of double stander, where you can get out of town local news on Internet but on satellite you can't get out of town local news and I preferred the picture looks better due to a bandwidth which is higher than Internet broadband.

There is the website's link listed here......

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

7-21-08

Reply

Save

Like

T

tftc22

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jul 21, 2008

I'm beginning to think that Directv might get permission from the networks to turn on the channels temporarily when multiple areas of the country are having severe weather (tornadoes, severe storms) and are preempting prime time programming. However, I've never seen this happen when my local stations are preempting programming. Almost all the times I've seen the channels turned on recently, they will be turned off at the end of prime time programming. (Although in this last case they all got shut off at the end of Fox's prime time programming).

Reply

Save

Like

Msguy

· #8 · Jul 21, 2008

Here is my take. Not being able to receive Distant Networks on Satellite TV is a joke. We can receive channels from outside the country via satellite especially if you have the 5 LNB Dish with an HD receiver but we can't subscribe or request to get Distant Network Feeds from other Cities in this country. This just proves how fouled up this country really is. Our Senators and NAB put restrictions on getting TV stations from other cities. It's B.S. and it's B.S. that Local Stations lose revenue due from someone watching television from another city. It's just B.S.

Reply

Save

Like

Tom Servo

· #9 · Jul 22, 2008

Msguy said:
Here is my take. Not being able to receive Distant Networks on Satellite TV is a joke. We can receive channels from outside the country via satellite especially if you have the 5 LNB Dish with an HD receiver but we can't subscribe or request to get Distant Network Feeds from other Cities in this country. This just proves how fouled up this country really is. Our Senators and NAB put restrictions on getting TV stations from other cities. It's B.S. and it's B.S. that Local Stations lose revenue due from someone watching television from another city. It's just B.S.

What happens when you can't get your locals on satellite and you can't get them satisfactorily with an antenna (as is my case)? Ya don't watch ANY of the local channels.

I think the regulations have cut off their nose to spite the face, or whatever the saying is.

Can't get my local news and weather? Fine, I'll just watch Top Gear on BBC. Someone else can have my eyes for advertising $$$.

Reply

Save

Like

YKW06

· #10 · Jul 22, 2008

Msguy said:
Here is my take. Not being able to receive Distant Networks on Satellite TV is a joke. We can receive channels from outside the country via satellite especially if you have the 5 LNB Dish with an HD receiver but we can't subscribe or request to get Distant Network Feeds from other Cities in this country. This just proves how fouled up this country really is. Our Senators and NAB put restrictions on getting TV stations from other cities. It's B.S. and it's B.S. that Local Stations lose revenue due from someone watching television from another city. It's just B.S.

What's even more galling is that people living in other countries can get any US station they want piped in if their programming providers are willing to carry it. People in Detroit are limited to Detroit stations, regardless of how many dollars they wave at a provider; people a few miles away in Windsor can buy just about any darned US feed they care to for mere pence. This how our government protects us from any nasty old freedoms we might want to exercise.

(Yes, I realize this is supposed to protect "exclusive" contractual relationships between networks and local affiliates -- but network/affiliate relationships are just about the only such general programming contracts that are afforded territorial exclusivity. [Yes, there's SYNDEX, but nearly all syndicators now require waivers of SYNDEX rights from local broadcasters, as so much programming is offered simultaneously to basic cable and the superstations.])

Can you imagine a situation where folks in Des Moines were blocked from subscribing to the NEW YORK TIMES, or where Oregonians were barred on pain of fine from logging on to the WASHINGTON POST website -- but Toronto residents could do either with impunity? That's the sitch we have with broadcast television signals.

The technical limitations on national distribution of local signals have been overcome; it's long past time to break the shackles of government-backed local programming monopolies. Do it for the children. (No, I dunno what that means either. But it sounds good.)

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

paulman182

· #11 · Jul 22, 2008

YKW06 said:
Can you imagine a situation where folks in Des Moines were blocked from subscribing to the NEW YORK TIMES, or where Oregonians were barred on pain of fine from logging on to the WASHINGTON POST website -- but Toronto residents could do either with impunity? That's the sitch we have with broadcast television signals.

The technical limitations on national distribution of local signals have been overcome; it's long past time to break the shackles of government-backed local programming monopolies. Do it for the children. (No, I dunno what that means either. But it sounds good.)

The problem is your local station does not want the NY stations on your TV, and it does the NY stations no good ratings-wise to be on your TV, so they don't particularly want to be there, either.

The NY Times very well might not be sold in Des Moines if they could not count those customers in their subscriber count and therefore made no money from Des Moines.

With the local station wanting you to watch your local station, and the network wanting you to watch your local station (because the networks could not exist without local stations paying them,) you're out of luck. Granting your request would require a "sea change" in the whole local-network relationship, possibly resulting in the elimination of local stations and a subscription-based system for network TV.

Reply

Save

Like

N

N5XZS

· #12 · Jul 22, 2008

Well look at local Canadian TV stations have no problems letting in out of town Canadian TV stations, coming in thanks to no DMA crap like we have here in USA.:eek2:

They been doing this for many years on Canadian satellite, so TV viewers are a happy camper they can get USA TV stations and Canadian TV stations unrestrictive viewing.

All we have to changes this stupid DMA system and the dumber getting more dumber FCC rules, and it's time to get rid of copyright censorshp crap once and for all IMHO!!

7-22-08

Reply

Save

Like

T

tftc22

Discussion Starter · #13 · Jul 22, 2008

The real problem here is the same as it is with sports blackouts: they always put broadcasters before customers. It makes no sense to have exclusivity for a hypothetical area when customers can't actually receive the broadcasts. I mean they also have the technical capability to block out prime-time programming if a customer can receive the same programming locally. I would think that most programming that isn't network coverage should at least be available for a "part-time superstation" without interfering with local exclusivity.

AFAIK, it is still legal for cable/satellite companies to pick up truly independent channels that are outside of the local DMA (although these are almost all territorial because they carry a "local" sports team). Also, ION and religious programming seem to be carried over the air and on cable without any exclusivity clauses. It seems to be the large networks that are pushing to make these exclusivity laws.

Reply

Save

Like

N

N5XZS

· #14 · Jul 23, 2008

This is weird, I am getting WYNW-TV tonight on channel 380, and the rest of other NYC TV stations are still blacked out.

This time I was able to watch the local news for 25 minutes, then they cut the feed off at 8:25 Mountain time, but at least I got the taste of out of town NYC local news that I have not seen in a few years.....

Still at the same time, I feel we need to overhaul this copyright censorship crap once and for all!!

Just keep contacting your congress critters to changes this dumb DMA law!

7-22-08

Reply

Save

Like

Top Contributors this Month