[harsh]

The NBC local affiliate that Peacock is going to be broadcasting will be the exact same broadcast the affiliate shows OTA and cable and sat including the exact same ads....just like the Paramount+ local affiliate is the same broadcast as that local on all services.

The ads are only the same if the viewer is watching the affiliate feed. If I watch the Peacock feed of the NBC show, the ads are different. In the case of NBC, the national programming is a pretty big piece of the programming day. With the exception of a couple of local shows at 20:30 and 21:00 today (in case SNF goes long), the next new truly local programming is going to be at 23:00 (local news).

The weekday programming is typically split between NBC and local news and news magazines and syndicated news magazines along with the Primetime programming. There's 90 minutes of NBC news starting at 03:00 followed by 2.5 hours of local news followed by four hours of Today. 11:00 sees a "local information" show. Daily Blast Live (syndicated) starts at 11:30 and is followed by the local noon news. At 13:00 is NBC News Daily followed by a repeat of Daily Blast Live and its subsequent episode. 15:00 brings Dateline and then the evening local news blitz starts at 16:00 until 17:30 when the NBC national news comes on. 18:00 brings another 60 minutes of local news followed by The Good Stuff and Inside Edition. 20:00 - 23:00 (and perhaps soon to be 20:00 - 22:00) is Primetime followed by more local news until Fallon. They replay the 23:00 news after Fallon and reruns of Dateline until the new day starts again at 03:00.

Remember what happened with the major news and weather channels?

 

[b4pjoe]

The ads are only the same if the viewer is watching the affiliate feed.

Which is exactly what this thread is about. Peacock will be showing your local affiliate feed and it will be the exact same, ads included, that you see your cable or sat package. And it will only be on the Peacock Premium Plus package (ad-free) so if you have a lesser plan this thread won't even apply to you. Forget everything else.

 

[harsh]

And it will only be on the Peacock Premium Plus package (ad-free) so if you have a lesser plan this thread won't even apply to you.

If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?

 

[b4pjoe]

If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?

Well if I were a cord cutter that would mean I would at least have an option to watch the local affiliate for NBC and CBS without having to subscribe to a full blown cable, sat, or streaming package.

And are you not aware that millions of people watch live TV with commercials and when a commercial comes on they may get up and go to the bathroom or make a sandwich or make a phone call or many other things. And, gasp, some may actually sit and watch the commercial.

 

[James Long]

If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?

The affiliate feed is for live linear viewing. The on demand feed is for delayed viewing (with local ads inserted). The local ads being different on the on demand feed is a good thing since it allows ads to be placed that have not expired when the viewer watches the show.

For example, this past week there was a lot of local advertising for Thursday only and Friday only sales where the ads were useless when viewed after the sale was over. With on demand those ads can be replaced by ads that are not expired.

 

[b4pjoe]

Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?

There will not be any loss of advertising revenue as you have been told multiple times. Ad revenue might actually go up since they may have more people watching since it will be available on another service where people that don’t have a full blown cable, sat, or streaming service will now be able to watch it.

 

[joshjr]

The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielsen DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.

It is in the station's best interest to cover the area they are licensed to carry and I doubt you will find stations that do not provided their licensed coverage. But it is important to understand that an OTA license has different geographic limits than retransmission on cable and satellite.

I can tell you for a fact there are some. Remember the last what 12 markets that DirecTV is not providing locals to? I watched all of those hearings and the stations were in triopolies and basically expected DirecTV to foot the bill to get their own stations signal to its own customers for them. How is that fair? They didnt seem to have any responsibility to get it done themselves or cut DirecTV a break in doing so. Just my opinion but if they claim exclusivity for a DMA they should be held to some kind of a standard of covering at least X percentage of the DMA.

Does that seem right to you? A channel can exist, not cover its own market and then make someone else build out for them while sharing none of those costs and then still charge them an arm and a leg? The buildout alone is not cost efficient in those markets as the return on investment would not be that great.

The missing 12 markets are Alpena, Mich.; Bowling Green, Ky.; Caspar-Riverton, Wyo.; Cheyenne, Wyoming/Scottsbluff, Neb.; Grand Junction, Colo.; Helena, Mont.; North Platte, Neb.; Ottumwa, Iowa; Preque Isle, Me.; San Angelo, Tex.;Victoria, Tex.; and Glendive, Mont.

 

[harsh]

Well if I were a cord cutter that would mean I would at least have an option to watch the local affiliate for NBC and CBS without having to subscribe to a full blown cable, sat, or streaming package.

If you have to pay $9.99 for each channel, that's going to add up quickly.

And are you not aware that millions of people watch live TV with commercials and when a commercial comes on they may get up and go to the bathroom or make a sandwich or make a phone call or many other things. And, gasp, some may actually sit and watch the commercial.

I am aware but that's not the issue. The issue is funding the local affiliates and what happens when the ad-supported model breaks down.

 

[harsh]

There will not be any loss of advertising revenue as you have been told multiple times. Ad revenue might actually go up since they may have more people watching since it will be available on another service where people that don’t have a full blown cable, sat, or streaming service will now be able to watch it.

Where is your evidence? Are you reasoning that the affiliates must obviously be happy with the situation?

 

[James Long]

Just my opinion but if they claim exclusivity for a DMA they should be held to some kind of a standard of covering at least X percentage of the DMA.

Does that seem right to you? A channel can exist, not cover its own market and then make someone else build out for them while sharing none of those costs and then still charge them an arm and a leg? The buildout alone is not cost efficient in those markets as the return on investment would not be that great.

The stations are meeting the obligation they made when they received their license. They put up the specified transmit antenna and are transmitting a signal at the specified power level. They do not have a legal requirement to cover their entire DMA.

As for forcing DIRECTV to provide coverage, such coverage is the price of being able to deliver distant stations. DIRECTV made the business decision not to pay that price. DIRECTV remains in business and operating regardless of their refusal to provide locals in every market.

You can try to change the laws but I would not expect such an attempt to he successful.

 

[b4pjoe]

If you have to pay $9.99 for each channel, that's going to add up quickly.

No one is going to pay $9.99 just to get the local channel. They are paying $9.99 for all of Peacock which now will include the NBC local feed if your local feed is one of those listed in the article posted about this.

I am aware but that's not the issue. The issue is funding the local affiliates and what happens when the ad-supported model breaks down.

Where are you getting there is some loss of funding and some nonsense about the ad-supported model breaks down? You aren't making a bit of sense. The feed of the local affiliate will still have ads. The same ones you see on sat, cable, and streaming that carries that same local affiliate. CBS All Access/Paramount+ has been doing it for years and the sun still comes up every day.

Where is your evidence? Are you reasoning that the affiliates must obviously be happy with the situation?

You can't have evidence for something that hasn't happened yet. It is a reasonable expectation that people aren't going to stop watching their shows on NBC just because the local is also shown on Peacock. Plus there is a chance they will get more views since more people will have the option to watch it on Peacock. Obviously you have no idea what this thread is even about.

 

[JiminToga]

Just curious if a VPN will work if one wants to watch a different affiliate (outside of your market). I live in the Albany NY market and would rather watch WNBC out of NYC. I have a VPN that can route to a New York City server...but I have heard that Hulu and Youtube TV have technology that can detect VPN's and wont allow me to watch markets outside of the one I am in. The VPN works great w PBS and ESPN on the Firestick btw... I can watch NYC PBS and hockey in the New York area (normally it's blacked out..).

 

[b4pjoe]

Mine disappeared too, so I suspect they were doing some testing in preparation for the official start on the 30th.

My NBC local is back in Peacock as of yesterday.

 

[NYDutch]

My NBC local is back in Peacock as of yesterday.

Strange, I'm getting a local now, but it's channel 12, the NBC outlet in Richmond, VA instead of the correct local, channel 13 in the Albany, NY DMA. Paramount gets it right for the CBS local here.

 

[b4pjoe]

Any chance your ISP shows an IP address in VA instead of where you are actually at? Also what device are you watching Peacock from?

 

[joshjr]

The stations are meeting the obligation they made when they received their license. They put up the specified transmit antenna and are transmitting a signal at the specified power level. They do not have a legal requirement to cover their entire DMA.

As for forcing DIRECTV to provide coverage, such coverage is the price of being able to deliver distant stations. DIRECTV made the business decision not to pay that price. DIRECTV remains in business and operating regardless of their refusal to provide locals in every market.

You can try to change the laws but I would not expect such an attempt to he successful.

I am not advocating to change the laws. Law does not have to be changed to do what is right. I can tell you what is not right is a station not providing their signal very well in their own market and trying to strong arm a company like DirecTV to do it for them.

Are you or I able to open a business and expect someone else to spend their money to make our business prosper because we refuse to spend that money ourselves to make it happen? The answer is now and neither should they. Shame on them for trying. If they were going to try that, it should of come with a reason for DirecTV to do it like getting their signal free for X amount of time or splitting that cost or something. Not just we are going to public shame you and be at congressional hearings to try and force you to do what we are not willing to do. That is not fair at all.

 

[NYDutch]

Any chance your ISP shows an IP address in VA instead of where you are actually at? Also what device are you watching Peacock from?

I checked that right after seeing the local was incorrect, and the Verizon cell service I was using at the time came back with a Hutchinson, KS IP address. I'll play around with my different service choices later today when I have time.

 

[SamC]

If you want to watch other people’s local news, which is almost the only actually local programming there is, there are several apps that will let you do that for 90% of the markets in the country.

My ISP gets confused on the streaming of local stations all the time on all of the apps that do that. Often has me in the Virginia suburbs of DC of all places. That is about 200 miles off. It doesn’t really matter, other than football, its the same programming.

 

[harsh]

You can't have evidence for something that hasn't happened yet.

Your statement appears to imply that this has long been a foregone conclusion.

 

[b4pjoe]

Your statement appears to imply that this has long been a foregone conclusion.

No what I said is that it is a possibility since more people will now have the ability to watch the local network feed than before when it wasn't on Peackock. The same way more people will have the ability to watch NFL Sunday Ticket in the future when a new provider has it that opens it up to the entire population of the country rather than a small subset of just DirecTV subscribers. It may or may not happen but the possibility exists.