Something that would be nice

2669 Views 43 Replies 18 Participants Last post by paulman182, Sep 5, 2008

Msguy

Discussion Starter · Sep 1, 2008

What would be nice is if the NAB would stop playing such hardball with Satellite Customers and allow us to subscribe to our Local Channels and have 1 or 2 Major Cities from each Time Zone that people who have Dish Network or DirecTv could Subscribe to. For Example People on the East coast in the Eastern Time Zone could Subscribe to New York Local Channels or say Atlanta channels in the Southern Eastern Time Zone. People Living in The Central Time Zone be able to Subscribe to Chicago or St. Louis Locals, People Living in the Mountain Time Zone be able to Subscribe to Denver or Phoenix Locals, and People Living in the Pacific Time Zone who have DirecTv or Dish Network be able to Subscribe to Los Angeles or Seattle Local Channels. I have a friend who Lives in Winnipeg Canada and on his cable up there they get U.S. Local Networks 2 cities for each network. He's told me he can get Seattle FOX and Minneapolis FOX, NBC out of Seattle and Minneapolis, and CBS from Seattle and Minneapolis. But here we only get our one Local Network. Why can't they just allow us with Satellite Dish's here subscribe to the city we want to? It just doesn't make sense to me. I know about Local broadcasters rights and them not wanting us to see other cities car commercials. But that is just ridiculous in my opinion.

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

N5XZS

· #2 · Sep 1, 2008

I hope days comes that we have the right to get out of town TV markets, regardless of OTA TV's signal quality levels where we live.

IMHO, NAB has abused by forcing copyright censorships, based in outdated 1950 era model!!

Look at Canada, they can get any out of town TV markets, and we in good old USA are NOT allowed get any out of town TV markets regardless of reception on analog or digital signal quality levels!!:nono2:

Go get your congress critters, changes this stupid DMA laws so everyone can enjoy watching out of town local news or local sport programings!!

9-1-08

Lord Vader

· #3 · Sep 1, 2008

I wouldn't expect the NAB to change its stance anytime during our lifetime, guys. That organization is purely asinine and anti-consumer. Period.

ziggy29

· #4 · Sep 1, 2008

I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

jclewter79

· #5 · Sep 1, 2008

ziggy29 said:
I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

curt8403

· #6 · Sep 1, 2008

when the ability to replace commercials on feeds from other markets with commercials from the local market becomes available. you can bet that we will be able to get feeds from any place we want. That is the whole Crux of the issue. Local commercials.

RAD

· #7 · Sep 1, 2008

While the consumer might want to see this IMHO the satellite companies don't. The ONLY way they can do the local into local coverage now is by the use of spot beam satellites, which allows them to reuse transponder frequencies to provide all the locals they have now.

curt8403

· #8 · Sep 1, 2008

can you imagine the effect of locals from everywhere?
5 - 10 locals per market, and over 100 markets.
1000 new channels, and where would they fit? in the 2 to 60 range IE 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, etc? Uhggg

LarryFlowers

· #9 · Sep 1, 2008

As satellite customers we are in a minority and as such, Congress is unlikely to modify the existing rules to suit us. It would be nice to be able to subscribe to a National Network feed in addition to the local networks feeds if for no other reason than to provide an additional "time" opportunity to record a show and to offset the vagaries of local networks pre-empting of network broadcasts.

I don't think that under the current technology though that you could pick and choose what locals you would like to receive.

I don't like the practice as it currently exists, it smacks of "protecting the whale oil industry from the upstart electric companies"... technology marches on.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough of us to change this anytime soon. Another poster was correct in that significant changes would quite probably put many local broadcasters out of business, you cant run a local network affiliate on just the revenues from local news and with affiliates more and more being forced to pay the networks, their revenue stream becomes more important.

Our entire broadcasting system in this country is based on old technology, the limitation of range of analog style television channels. If we were building the infrastructure to day it would be totally different. With corporations so embedded in the system and so in complete control of Congress... we are stuck with it.

See less See more

N5XZS

· #10 · Sep 1, 2008

Now when you look at local and out of town RSN sport packages stations showing local ads, is also a same thing on local OTA stations and out of town OTA stations.

RSN on Directv, Dish, 2 Canadian DBS services and Canadian OTA stations on Canadian DBS are doing just fine without need for a DMA areas.

NAB and other are bunch of greed and abuse of power, and one way or the other they will shoot their foot for being just stupid, when the U.S. TV viewers will have a nasty backlash against this stupid DMA rule!:eek2:

Don't just sit there and go contact your congress critters, that you want to overhaul the outdated DMA and let the American people choose out of town stations regardless of reception issue or not.

This way we are keeping this country united, and stay in touch by watching out of town local news and if we don't change the outdated copyright DMA censorship then this country of our will fall apart, because of not getting out of town local news and other programmings choices.

The local U.S. TV broadcasters will have to live in a brave new world and just get on with it!!:eek2:

To me DMA's rule is breaking up this great country of ours is not good IMHO......

9-1-08

See less See more

Msguy

Discussion Starter · #11 · Sep 1, 2008

I just don't understand why we cannot subscribe to local channels from other cities. I would be willing to pay $4.99 for each cities local channels. I want to subscribe to Chicago Channels so bad because I never get to see a Cubs game if they are on FOX Saturday baseball. If MLB Extra Innings would carry All FOX Saturday games i wouldn't need to have Chicago Locals. I'm doomed either way i go

curt8403

· #12 · Sep 1, 2008

Msguy said:
I just don't understand why we cannot subscribe to local channels from other cities. I would be willing to pay $4.99 for each cities local channels. I want to subscribe to Chicago Channels so bad because I never get to see a Cubs game if they are on FOX Saturday baseball. If MLB Extra Innings would carry All FOX Saturday games i wouldn't need to have Chicago Locals. I'm doomed either way i go

it all has to do with advertizing revenue.

bgilga

· #13 · Sep 1, 2008

The last time I saw numbers, there were 29 million satellite tv subs in the U.S. I think it is time that the NAB get with the program. I used to subscribe to BellTV. I received "locals" from Boston and Seattle. I also received CBC, CTV, CITY, and other network affiliates from across Canada. We are the ones paying for it, we should decide what we get. If Directv offered a package of Boston and Seattle network channrls fro $10, I would subscribe. My locals suck as far as picture quality.

paulman182

· #14 · Sep 2, 2008

To open up all locals nationwide would require a fundamental change in the way network TV is supported.

The networks want you to watch your locals. Your locals want you watching your locals. Distant stations don't care if you watch their stations, because it does nothing for their ratings.

Instantly opening it all up as-is would mean the demise of local stations as well as network TV. A new business model must be developed if we want to keep the locals and networks operating, while eliminating the DMA restrictions.

Stuart Sweet

· #15 · Sep 2, 2008

jclewter79 said:
I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

ziggy29 said:
I believe this would largely put local OTA reception (aka "free TV") out of business and you'd likely be left with only a few major affiliates of each network sent by cable or satellite.

Lord Vader said:
I wouldn't expect the NAB to change its stance anytime during our lifetime, guys. That organization is purely asinine and anti-consumer. Period.

paulman182 said:
To open up all locals nationwide would require a fundamental change in the way network TV is supported.

The networks want you to watch your locals. Your locals want you watching your locals. Distant stations don't care if you watch their stations, because it does nothing for their ratings.

Instantly opening it all up as-is would mean the demise of local stations as well as network TV. A new business model must be developed if we want to keep the locals and networks operating, while eliminating the DMA restrictions.

First of all, the NAB's job is not to be pro-consumer or anti-consumer. It's to be pro-broadcaster.

Now, I really do understand the argument. You all would like to watch distant sporting events, have better quality and more choice. What you must understand is that local broadcasting is a very expensive business made even more expensive by the fact that local broadcasters are mandated to serve their localities. They rely on the advertising revenue they get to fund local news, and local news is incredibly incredibly important. As someone who has great network affiliates (in Los Angeles) but no local news to speak of, I can tell you how important it is.

To ask your local broadcaster (in a small market) to compete on the basis of quality or selection with a top ten market would simply be unfair.

You may love your out-of-town locals when you can watch "the game" but how will you feel when there is a 250,000 acre wildfire ten miles from your house and your network affiliate ignores it? How will you feel when a dead body is thrown out a speeding car in front of your spouse's workplace and no one from the media cares? These are real-life examples from my real life.

Someone has to pay for this news coverage and your out-of-town local isn't going to do that.

Sorry gentlemen, my mind is made up here.

See less See more

N5XZS

· #16 · Sep 2, 2008

Stuart Sweet,

Then explain this.........

http://www.livenewscameras.com/ that broadcasters are providing the news feeds and some other programmings on the Internet instead on DBS services full time?

Also, you can get any TV stations anywhere in the world by just clicking on the website.......

http://wwitv.com/portal.htm

9-2-08

Athlon646464

· #17 · Sep 2, 2008

jclewter79 said:
I don't beleive that, people will still want local news.

Stuart Sweet said:
To ask your local broadcaster (in a small market) to compete on the basis of quality or selection with a top ten market would simply be unfair.

I agree that people will want local news, but the real issue is where they will get it from. Most would agree today that soon it will not be from their local newspaper or their local TV station. The numbers today from both industries bear this out.

Here in Boston, for example, WBZ TV Channel 4 (local CBS affiliate) has fired most of their high priced on air talent in the past year to cut costs. Some of the people let go were local icons. Viewership, therefore ad revenues, are way down. Local news (and the national 'nightly' news for that matter) on TV is dying already (and may be dead already). The Boston Globe has done the same thing, and they are owned by the New York Times - also cost cutting because revenues and readership are way down.

There is already too much competition from the internet and cable, like it or not.

So, where will folks get their local news? When it all shakes out, in some form on the internet would be my guess. The paradigm is shifting, and the old models are dying.

I don't know the impact on out of area locals for satellite and cable, but it sure won't be what it is now, and we may indeed see huge changes over the next decade.

See less See more

Stuart Sweet

· #18 · Sep 2, 2008

There is, at least for the moment, a difference between web-provided video and broadcast. People still turn to the TV by and large for video entertainment. Perhaps the landscape will change when people turn more to the internet.

I agree that the old paradigms are dying, but until broadcasters are released from their obligation to use the public airwaves to benefit the public (meaning inform, not just entertain), market exclusivity will remain.

I look forward to the day that a respected news organization begins webcasting a 1/2 hour program with my local news. However, there is no legal requirement for them to do that and it may be some time before a profit model evolves.

Athlon646464

· #19 · Sep 2, 2008

Stu - all good points.

There is no mistaking that we are in a transition era, and much needs to shake out. It's a little like the late 40's and early 50's when TV first appeared.

I'm just glad we're here to witness it as it happens. I'm sure that DBSTalk will soon have posts about 3-D signals not working, while 1080p/24 posts will be a thing of the past. :lol:

With the global economy BTW, who's to say what local really is? Soon we may be clamoring not for Seattle because we live in LA, but China because we live in the USA!

:flag:

curt8403

· #20 · Sep 2, 2008

as a former newsperson, I can tell you that the news does not change that much in a day. a newscast done live at noon, 5:00 and 10:00 would be sufficient and just rebroadcast

1 - 20 of 44 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.