DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

· Cool Member
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

· Godfather
Joined
·
316 Posts
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?
If you are close enough to another market you can reach it with a good OTA rig.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
8,968 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
The only way to get LA locals out-of-market is to live in an area where no OTA signals can be received, and the local DMA is not carried. This is a very small part of the country at this point.

With E* you need to use another company's service to get the distants (All American Direct). These signals get integrated with your E* channels but are SD only. D* is still allowed to sell OOM station directly to their customers. I'm not sure if D*'s OOM's are available in HD.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,395 Posts
blooker68 said:
The National Association of Broadcasters remains the enemy of the consumer.
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...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
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.
You mean more specific than "Earth"? :rolleyes:
 

· Godfather
Joined
·
379 Posts
Fallguy said:
In Denver, would like LA locals in addition to my Denver Locals
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. :)
 

· AllStar
Joined
·
97 Posts
Most of the locals I've seen need to fold.

Having said that, it's a matter of having choices and the NAB exists to deny you having choices.

Take a look at radio. Most local radio is pure garbage. The NAB did all they could to stop millions of people having the option of listening to XM and Sirius.

The NAB is truly the enemy of the consumer and make a complete mockery of the airwaves belonging to the people.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
15,556 Posts
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. This is one of my pet peeves and I've blogged about it and ranted here. But it is simple.

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.

Every local station is now free to deliver up to 4 digital signals. Let them make it on their own with no protection. If enough folks want to see what they offer they'll be on satellite. But the broadcast channels are delivered to 80%+ of American TV by cable and satellite. They're all cutting back on their news budgets. And most offer reruns of Friends and Seinfeld or syndicated game shows in the local prime time hour of 7 to 8 pm.

Instead we have a 1950's system of broadcast networks competing with cable channels through hundreds of local channels whose owners are now trying to blackmail cable and satellite services to pay large sums. Cable and satellite services negotiate national contracts for the likes of ESPN and Fx. They should be able to do the same for ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, The CW, and MyNetwork programming. The value isn't in the local stations in 98% of the DMA's.

Oh, and then there's the whole issue of NBC now charging affiliates for programming.

That's my rant.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
I agree but, I do think that there should be a feed for each time zone.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
15,556 Posts
jclewter79 said:
I agree but, I do think that there should be a feed for each time zone.
OK, a total of 28 as opposed to over 1,000 channels seems fair.:D
 

· AllStar
Joined
·
52 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
phrelin said:
OK, a total of 28 as opposed to over 1,000 channels seems fair.:D
Great, a comprimise has been reached. :) All we have to do now is get elected to congress and get this taken care of in 5 minutes.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
538 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Godfather
Joined
·
432 Posts
Since this is already WAYYY off-topic, I'd like to drag it down into the abyss even further.

In my local market, two stations have begun offering 24-hour local news/weather. It's fantastic! They run news updates frequently, simulcast on the web, and show weather/radar information the rest of the time. Is that becoming a nationwide phenomenon?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top