If you are close enough to another market you can reach it with a good OTA rig.Fallguy said:I understand why we are locked into locals of our own market area but I would like to receive another markets locals as well in addition to my current locals.
Is this possible.
Would it cost more money?
In Denver, would like LA locals in addition to my Denver LocalsEXTACAMO said:If you are close enough to another market you can reach it with a good OTA rig.
No, it's against the law. It would cause local broadcasters, who count on your views to sell ads, to lose money, so laws were passed long ago to prevent you from getting out-of-market locals. The law does not apply to OTA antennas, but physics limits that already.Fallguy said:I understand why we are locked into locals of our own market area but I would like to receive another markets locals as well in addition to my current locals.
Is this possible.
Had I known you were in Denver trying to get LA locals I wouldn't have suggested OTA. It would make it much easier to help people if they would show an actual location.Fallguy said:In Denver, would like LA locals in addition to my Denver Locals
To play devils advocate...blooker68 said:The National Association of Broadcasters remains the enemy of the consumer.
You mean more specific than "Earth"?EXTACAMO said:Had I known you were in Denver trying to get LA locals I wouldn't have suggested OTA. It would make it much easier to help people if they would show an actual location.
Add KTLA (SD only) to your programming for $1.50 per month. At least it's "something" out of Los Angeles. I pay $1.50 per station per month to get WWOR and WPIX (both are New York channels). I live in the Atlanta DMA.Fallguy said:In Denver, would like LA locals in addition to my Denver Locals
OK. This is one of my pet peeves and I've blogged about it and ranted here. But it is simple.inkahauts said:To play devils advocate...
SO you don't think people should get local news? Because many stations would fold if they didn't protect markets... And everyone would end up with just a couple national channels...
OK, a total of 28 as opposed to over 1,000 channels seems fair.jclewter79 said:I agree but, I do think that there should be a feed for each time zone.
There's one major problem with that. I truly don't give a #$%# about East and West Coast news. I do want to be current on MY local news. Yes, I can get it thru a newspaper - but I'd much prefer to get it live over my TV - particularly when it's tornado/severe storm season in my part of the world. I won't get that from stations, or direct network feeds from the coast.There is no reason to have hundreds of local channels chewing up satellite bandwidth. If we had an East and West feed of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, The CW, and MyNetwork morning, daytime, prime time and late night programming we'd only need bandwidth for 14 HD channels, plus we'd all get all the network shows.
That is not a problem at all. The local channnels could do anything with the space besides show network feeds. They could become 24 hour local news channels.jbrooks987 said:There's one major problem with that. I truly don't give a #$%# about East and West Coast news. I do want to be current on MY local news. Yes, I can get it thru a newspaper - but I'd much prefer to get it live over my TV - particularly when it's tornado/severe storm season in my part of the world. I won't get that from stations, or direct network feeds from the coast.
Great, a comprimise has been reached.phrelin said:OK, a total of 28 as opposed to over 1,000 channels seems fair.![]()
It is a problem, because without those network shows, the local station would not make the advertising money needed to fund the local news operations.jclewter79 said:That is not a problem at all. The local channnels could do anything with the space besides show network feeds. They could become 24 hour local news channels.