# FCC PowerGrab



## Gloria_Chavez

As a Dem, I'm disappointed in the regulatory overreach that the FCC is attempting.

-------

FCC vs. Innovation

It's crazy to exclude TV broadcasters from the world of mobile broadband.

By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138062848857474.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

Are TV broadcasters the enemy of digital progress? Is the solution to put over-the-air broadcasting out of its misery? Demand for the mobile Web is growing like crazy, but much of America's wireless spectrum is tied up to deliver TV to a shrinking audience of rabbit-ear viewers.

That gives the Federal Communications Commission an idea: Hold an auction and let broadcasters share in the proceeds of any spectrum they're willing to give up so the agency can resell it to wireless providers. Yes, Congress would have to authorize it. Yes, it would provoke a battle royale, as happens when billions of dollars are politically up for grabs. Yes, it might take a decade to pull off. But it would ensure that the nation eventually has all the mobile bandwidth it needs.

.....

Not helping the climate of trust were comments last year by Reed Hundt, who served as FCC chief in the Clinton administration and is a mentor of Mr. Genachowski's. Mr. Hundt told a Columbia University audience that the agency's long-term plan indeed is to kill broadcast in favor of broadband.

.....

Not so wise is the agency gazing into a technological crystal ball and trying to force innovation to conform to its procrustean vision. Mr. Genachowski never tires of saying his spectrum reshuffle will be "voluntary," but the word means little if broadcasters are bound by antique regulations that doom them to obsolescence and scare away capital to remake their business model for the digital era. As this column has noted ad nauseam, broadcast is actually the solution to a broadband problem-how to deliver live TV, the kind lots of people want to watch simultaneously, efficiently to Internet devices. Ironically, just as the FCC seeks to extinguish one broadcast industry, Verizon is talking about creating a new one to help carry the video load on its new 4G mobile network.
-----------------------

Aren't Dems supposed to champion the working and middle-class.

This will do everything but.

I'm not an engineer, but I know much about business. And based on everything I know, the broadcast radiospectrum is, by far the most efficient way to broadcast content to a broad audience. It makes no sense to phase out OTA broadcasters and cede the spectrum to mobile carriers.

Let's allow OTA broadcasters to get into the mobile game instead.


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> As a Dem, I'm disappointed in the regulatory overreach that the FCC is attempting.


We're not a political forum, but don't forget who put Genachowski in office. The whole voluntary surrendering of OTA spectrum mess comes from a push to free up spectrum for broadband. Genachowski simply sees OTA spectrum as underused and easily surrendered.


----------



## scooper

$5 gets you $10 that Genachowski's next job is either with one of the large wireless phone companies or some think tank that is funded by them...


----------



## kenglish

scooper said:


> $5 gets you $10 that Genachowski's next job is either with one of the large wireless phone companies or some think tank that is funded by them...


Isn't that where he came FROM?


----------



## scooper

kenglish said:


> Isn't that where he came FROM?


Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case...

Definately NOT on the side of TV broadcasters.


----------



## phrelin

For eight years Genachowski was in senior executive positions at the internet company IAC/InterActiveCorp including being Chief of Business Operations, General Counsel, and a member of company founder Barry Diller's Office of the Chairman. Diller is 20 years older than Genachowski and presumably played the role of a mentor in Genachowski's career. Diller/Genachowski leads back to the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting.

Diller is one of the founders of Fox Broadcasting Company (the other founder being Rupert Murdoch). For eight years Diller was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fox, Inc.

Genachowski's direct exposure to the TV industry history is very narrow in the form of a working relationship with a Fox founder.

Now I don't believe in a conspiracy here, but opinions are frequently formed from business associations, the folks you do lunch with.

Fox apparently has no sympathy for its broadcast affiliates. Mike Hopkins, president of affiliate sales & marketing for Fox Networks in a recent interview with Broadcasting & Cable, offers this perspective:


> *On the topic of alternate distribution, which that essentially is, you said in your letter that you're willing to use alternate distribution. What are those alternate distribution means?*
> 
> It could be other stations in the market. It could be, we used to have a wide area feed. It was called FoxNet. In certain markets of the country if the economics of broadcasting aren't able to support the broadcast network we may have to make a determination that we might be better off not being broadcasters in that market and be a cable channel. Or something akin to a cable channel where it's more affiliating with MVPDs in that market.


In other words, the facts as understood by a bunch of guys who know each other pretty well are

local broadcasting is not financially viable in most markets,
Fox can make a whole lot more money using regional or national cable/satellite feeds, so
really all that bandwidth is being wasted on basically economically failing local broadcast stations.
You can add to that my view that all the satellite bandwidth allocated to locals is being wasted on basically economically failing local broadcast stations and that at the most we ought to have four time zone regional feeds for ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The CW though I really think an East and West feed like HBO is enough.

Locals wasted the opportunity here because most locals are owned by folks who have the imagination of a rock. IMHO viewers ought to be seeing on a local affiliate subchannel, let's say NBC, a feed of prime time USA or Bravo or Syfy content with local commercials and alternate time news and local original and sports programming. That is the minimum that should have occurred within six months after the digital changeover IMHO. Like I say, the imagination of a rock.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> local broadcasting is not financially viable in most markets,


That is a leap from the quote you provided: "In certain markets of the country" Certain markets is not most.

I agree with the quote provided and have stated the same concept in threads discussing affiliate network TV. Such networks continue to exist because the network owners see them as a financially rewarding way of distributing their programming. In certain (some) markets Mike Hopkins says that isn't working and Fox would be better off using other means. If that were true for the majority (most) markets there are plenty of cable channels in the Fox stable where they could move their content. Fox and the other networks have not done that because the affiliate network distribution model still works for them.



> Fox can make a whole lot more money using regional or national cable/satellite feeds, so
> really all that bandwidth is being wasted on basically economically failing local broadcast stations.


More exaggeration - Fox isn't stupid ... if they could make a whole lot more money elsewhere they would. They generally do for sports. There is value in having local affiliates or they wouldn't be there.



> Locals wasted the opportunity here because most locals are owned by folks who have the imagination of a rock. IMHO viewers ought to be seeing on a local affiliate subchannel, let's say NBC, a feed of prime time USA or Bravo or Syfy content with local commercials and alternate time news and local original and sports programming. That is the minimum that should have occurred within six months after the digital changeover IMHO. Like I say, the imagination of a rock.


The digital changeover did not go well ... many stations, including the core stations in major markets, had problems with their "final" channel assignments. Many spent the first year after analog shut off fixing RF problems - changing channels, increasing power and trying to replicate a signal equal to the prior analog coverage.

Now that those problems are being handled many HAVE moved on to the next thing: Additional content feeds. I wouldn't expect successful cable content such as Bravo or SyFy on a sub channel ... the owners have found a better way. What we are seeing are 24/7 news and information channels and other specialty feeds. Some stations have aired secondary OTA sports programs (such as when two games of interest are broadcast on the same weekend). The biggest push seems to be for retro television with several networks springing up.

Setting an artificial guideline to "fill the boxcars" and declaring OTA prematurely dead is Genachowski's failure. Don't agree with his error. The boxcars are filling up nicely thankyouverymuch. Some with subchannels and others with higher quality HD feeds. While there will always be stations the world could do without the situation isn't as bad as Genachowski states.


----------



## phrelin

Let me be clearer. In many markets Fox affiliates are going to have a hard time justifying collecting 50 cents per subscriber from the cable and satellite systems on top of getting something to subsidize the local broadcast station.

What Fox understands is that with ratings in most primetime hours looking more and more like good cable channel ratings, they can't afford to share ad revenue with affiliates. O&O yes. Affiliates no.

NBC ratings are generally like that also. And ABC is developing problems.

Sure, I'm overstating as are Fox execs. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't serious.

We need a new broadcast TV model. And one of the critical issues is how much do the broadcast stations get to extract directly from our wallets for their owners and for their networks using "the public's airwaves."

Frankly I expect the FCC to try to get the most beneficial use from the bandwidth. Most homes have cable or satellite TV carrying hundreds of national and regional channels. Let's pretend we had no local broadcast TV and someone proposed tying up the airwaves for "local" TV channels which would carry 4 hours a day of local programming with the rest of the time filled with national syndicated, national network, and infomercial content. 

Would that make sense in most DMA's for more than two English language channels. Or would we say, sorry but put that stuff on cable if you can sell it.

That's why I think we're wasting the airwaves and satellite transponder space on locals. And what's happening is we're being taxed by private companies to keep them afloat with the tacit approval of Congress.


----------



## James Long

We have a free market system ... if the Fox OTA network dies it dies and that would probably make Genachowski happy. He would get to meet the goal of freeing up spectrum for the broadband initiative. (Although just because a station isn't Fox doesn't mean they will go off the air.)

A far as the FCC issue at hand ...

The first step is putting wireless companies on an "equal" footing with broadcast TV. They will be able to take unused broadcast channels and use that spectrum to expand their services. The second step is encouraging broadcasters to combine their signals, returning channels for use by wireless companies. Two or more stations in a market would agree to share a channel and get some of the proceeds from the auctioning off of their former channels.

The plus side for the station is shared maintenance. The "low hanging fruit" stations that are struggling now could combine, with a cash reward from the government, and perhaps stay in business. Good combination may improve the facilities for some stations - improving coverage.

The down side for the station is losing capacity. Two stations sharing a channel with one HD each (in reduced quality) instead of higher quality HD signals. Or having a HD signal and no room for secondary SD signals. Many stations are making extra money off of their subchannel content. Giving up the capacity to have four or five program feeds all to themselves reduces their ability to grow in the future.

At this point the proposals are "voluntary" ... stations don't have to give up anything. But "voluntary" can change to "encouraged" and "strongly encouraged" and "mandated" as needed in future rule making procedures. Which is why some broadcasters would like to draw the line before "voluntary".

Making wireless services CO-PRIMARY in the TV band will also require TV to protect wireless as much as wireless is expected to protect TV. If wireless were added as a secondary service in the TV band wireless services would use the band at their own risk. With co-primary I suspect that once wireless services start having interference problems or want better frequencies the next rule making process will start to push TV out of their own band. So much for "co" primary.

At least consumers will be able to pay $80+ per month for usage capped wireless broadband so you'll be able to stream a couple hours a day of the HD content that they are currently getting free OTA. Progress!


----------



## kenglish

phrelin said:


> Let me be clearer. In many markets Fox affiliates are going to have a hard time justifying collecting 50 cents per subscriber from the cable and satellite systems on top of getting something to subsidize the local broadcast station.
> 
> What Fox understands is that with ratings in most primetime hours looking more and more like good cable channel ratings, they can't afford to share ad revenue with affiliates. O&O yes. Affiliates no.
> 
> NBC ratings are generally like that also. And ABC is developing problems.
> 
> Sure, I'm overstating as are Fox execs. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't serious.
> 
> We need a new broadcast TV model. And one of the critical issues is how much do the broadcast stations get to extract directly from our wallets for their owners and for their networks using "the public's airwaves."
> 
> Frankly I expect the FCC to try to get the most beneficial use from the bandwidth. Most homes have cable or satellite TV carrying hundreds of national and regional channels. Let's pretend we had no local broadcast TV and someone proposed tying up the airwaves for "local" TV channels which would carry 4 hours a day of local programming with the rest of the time filled with national syndicated, national network, and infomercial content.
> 
> Would that make sense in most DMA's for more than two English language channels. Or would we say, sorry but put that stuff on cable if you can sell it.
> 
> That's why I think we're wasting the airwaves and satellite transponder space on locals. And what's happening is we're being taxed by private companies to keep them afloat with the tacit approval of Congress.


Where did you get the idea that networks "share ad revenue with affiliates"? 
Affiliates have been PAYING the Networks for the last few years.


----------



## Terry K

Then there are the greedy groups like Nexstar who make their stations impossible to get OTA and expect us to pay to watch their CRAP. 

The FCC put a few broadcasters on sub-par channels (for example one of the two idiots who got a Channel 4 allotment ended up turning it back into the FCC because they had no where else to go, and let's not get started on WPVI). 

VHF can't easily work for DTV and the FCC knows it, and Nexstar takes advantage of that. Try watching CBS in Springfield, MO. KOLR is on a USELESS VHF frequency that no one can get, yet Nexstar's answer is get cable and pay to watch us. No thanks.


----------



## kenglish

Terry K said:


> Then there are the greedy groups like Nexstar who make their stations impossible to get OTA and expect us to pay to watch their CRAP.
> 
> The FCC put a few broadcasters on sub-par channels (for example one of the two idiots who got a Channel 4 allotment ended up turning it back into the FCC because they had no where else to go, and let's not get started on WPVI).
> 
> VHF can't easily work for DTV and the FCC knows it, and Nexstar takes advantage of that. Try watching CBS in Springfield, MO. KOLR is on a USELESS VHF frequency that no one can get, yet Nexstar's answer is get cable and pay to watch us. No thanks.


You have GOT to be kidding! Where did you ever get an idea like that?

If they DID request a VHF channel, it was most likely because they thought that it would more closely replicate their analog coverage, or would save money on electrical power costs.
Retrans money doesn't come close to covering the costs of doing business.

As for "a USELESS VHF frequency that no one can get", plenty of people can get VHF channels, but you need a proper outdoor antenna to do it reliably. The interference noise level inside most homes and businesses will drown out nearly any signal on VHF. If the FCC had imposed some European-style RFI requirements on the electronics junk that we are being inundated with, people could still use their radios and TVs. Instead, they went with "self-certification".


----------



## James Long

kenglish said:


> Where did you get the idea that networks "share ad revenue with affiliates"?
> Affiliates have been PAYING the Networks for the last few years.


Agreed ... and as long as the network, Fox in the previous example, receives their affiliation fees their job is done. They may seek a better affiliate when the contract expires or in extreme cases seek a better distribution route in the future (an in market cable channel or regional feed).



Terry K said:


> Nexstar's answer is get cable and pay to watch us. No thanks.


VHF low has it's problems ... expecting your viewers to try extra hard and pay extra for antennas and installation (if even possible at their location) just to get a VHF low station is a challenge. The content on that station needs to be compelling or people will just go without. VHF high is better but with most signals on the UHF band it is easier for "the common man" to have passable UHF reception than fight for a VHF.

The concept of "get cable and pay to watch" is one of Genachowski's themes. Squeeze several OTAs on one channel and sell the HD versions via satellite and cable. But getting a satellite/cable company to provide a feed that the broadcaster isn't transmitting is a mixed bag. There are some examples of where a station went HD on cable while maintaining SD OTA but not having HD OTA is a perfect excuse for cable/satellite not to carry the feed.


----------



## Terry K

kenglish said:


> You have GOT to be kidding! Where did you ever get an idea like that?
> 
> If they DID request a VHF channel, it was most likely because they thought that it would more closely replicate their analog coverage, or would save money on electrical power costs.
> Retrans money doesn't come close to covering the costs of doing business.
> 
> As for "a USELESS VHF frequency that no one can get", plenty of people can get VHF channels, but you need a proper outdoor antenna to do it reliably. The interference noise level inside most homes and businesses will drown out nearly any signal on VHF. If the FCC had imposed some European-style RFI requirements on the electronics junk that we are being inundated with, people could still use their radios and TVs. Instead, they went with "self-certification".


To save a few bucks on the electric bill and provide the MINIMUM service the FCC requires. In the case of KOLR, they're being hit on both sides with harmonics from FM broadcasters in the market. Not to mention there's another 10 in Tulsa which limits the power KOLR can have.

As for retrans dollars: If you've got for example, 50,000 subs paying 50 cents each for your station, that's 25,000 a month you can get. That's $300,000 a year a station gets and gives them every incentive to make sure that OTA viewers are a non-issue. And that is a HUGE part of a station's budget. If you can get away with non-existent OTA service and make $300k a year doing so, why give viewers an incentive to get you for free?

In the case of a lot of markets, there a lot of apartment dwellers who can't easily put up antennas, and in the case of the majority of VHF broadcasters, they were underpowered to begin with (look how many applied to the FCC for more power, or in the case of WLS and WHDH, moved to UHF) Putting up an antenna for a lot of viewers just isn't worth it for one station. At least one KC station, for example, decided to move to a UHF because they found out that the VHF they had couldn't work, and not just that...the rest of the market was UHF.

The fact is I can't get CBS OTA. Technology would allow me to get CBS from a source of my choosing, however, Congress props up KOLR by making it illegal for me to get CBS programming via satellite from *any* other source.

My whole point is that if I'm going to have to PAY for a CBS affiliate (or any other network), I should be allowed to choose. And, I do NOT pay for what I can get for free. I can't get KOLR for free, even though Congress and the FCC say I should, so screw KOLR. D* and E* do not easily allow people to opt out of locals, again, I do NOT want to support any broadcaster who can't provide me with their product free of charge. Its bad enough I have to pay for crap channels that I don't watch, but to have to pay for something that is a protected monopoly? No thanks.

VHF doesn't work for the average TV Viewer. TV stations don't care for the most part. As for the SD vs. HD thing, if its not in HD, its NOT for me. I invested in HD gear, and I expect broadcasters to provide me with said programming. As the late Sam Walton said, "If you don't take care of the customer, someone else WILL". Sadly, broadcasters are still in a protected bubble that won't be removed anytime soon.


----------



## kenglish

If FM Broadcasters are hitting KOLR with harmonics, THEY need to fix their equipment. But, more likely, the tuners in the sets are getting overloaded by strong signals....an FM Trap in the receiver's antenna line would solve that problem.

$25,000 a month in retrans money is not a whole lot of money when running a full-service TV station. Actually, it's about what the VHF transmitter power bill might run. Nothing toward profits, salaries, programming costs, etc. It certainly won't offset the loss of all the OTA viewers.

As for apartment dwellers and antennas, many engineers encouraged their stations to promote common-antenna (MATV) systems in MDUs, but nobody listened. It seems like MDU owners would rather have dozens of dishes all over their balconies, than spend a few bucks on a single antenna. THAT one, I'll blame the broadcasters for.


----------



## Terry K

kenglish said:


> If FM Broadcasters are hitting KOLR with harmonics, THEY need to fix their equipment. But, more likely, the tuners in the sets are getting overloaded by strong signals....an FM Trap in the receiver's antenna line would solve that problem.
> 
> $25,000 a month in retrans money is not a whole lot of money when running a full-service TV station. Actually, it's about what the VHF transmitter power bill might run. Nothing toward profits, salaries, programming costs, etc. It certainly won't offset the loss of all the OTA viewers.
> 
> As for apartment dwellers and antennas, many engineers encouraged their stations to promote common-antenna (MATV) systems in MDUs, but nobody listened. It seems like MDU owners would rather have dozens of dishes all over their balconies, than spend a few bucks on a single antenna. THAT one, I'll blame the broadcasters for.


Nice try. Call KOLR and see what they tell you about their lousy signal. They DO NOT WANT YOU WATCHING FOR FREE. You will be told to get cable or satellite, their staff isn't interested in helping ANYONE get them OTA.

That 25,000 a month is NOT chump change. You seem to miss my point. EVERY dollar you bring in helps your bottom line. Especially when you're providing NOTHING for it. There is another 'broadcaster' in the market who doesn't even run an OTA transmitter anyone can get (KRBK) and is forcing their crap programming onto cable and satellite, but OTA is out of luck because they as much as admitted they have NO transmitter. (They do, but its 10kw and out in the middle of nowhere so NO ONE can get it)

VHF is worthless, plain and simple.

Plain and simple: If you're have an FCC license to provide OTA service, you better darn well do so and not tell your viewer to go pay to watch you. Again, I refuse to pay for anything the government shoves down my throat. I don't want KOLR in my home, but the FCC and Congress feel it best that I get them vs. being able to pay for any other CBS affiliate. I have a major issue with this, because KOLR has such a we-dont-care attitude about it since we are protected.


----------



## kenglish

Sounds like KOLR is one of those stations I complained about when some were saying, "The Digital Transition is coming soon, so you better get Pay TV". But, I still don't think it's ALL just to prevent you from getting it via OTA, it's more for their convenience because they don't have a "better answer".


----------



## JoeTheDragon

phrelin said:


> For eight years Genachowski was in senior executive positions at the internet company IAC/InterActiveCorp including being Chief of Business Operations, General Counsel, and a member of company founder Barry Diller's Office of the Chairman. Diller is 20 years older than Genachowski and presumably played the role of a mentor in Genachowski's career. Diller/Genachowski leads back to the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting.
> 
> Diller is one of the founders of Fox Broadcasting Company (the other founder being Rupert Murdoch). For eight years Diller was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fox, Inc.
> 
> Genachowski's direct exposure to the TV industry history is very narrow in the form of a working relationship with a Fox founder.
> 
> Now I don't believe in a conspiracy here, but opinions are frequently formed from business associations, the folks you do lunch with.
> 
> Fox apparently has no sympathy for its broadcast affiliates. Mike Hopkins, president of affiliate sales & marketing for Fox Networks in a recent interview with Broadcasting & Cable, offers this perspective: In other words, the facts as understood by a bunch of guys who know each other pretty well are
> 
> local broadcasting is not financially viable in most markets,
> Fox can make a whole lot more money using regional or national cable/satellite feeds, so
> really all that bandwidth is being wasted on basically economically failing local broadcast stations.
> You can add to that my view that all the satellite bandwidth allocated to locals is being wasted on basically economically failing local broadcast stations and that at the most we ought to have four time zone regional feeds for ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The CW though I really think an East and West feed like HBO is enough.
> 
> Locals wasted the opportunity here because most locals are owned by folks who have the imagination of a rock. IMHO viewers ought to be seeing on a local affiliate subchannel, let's say NBC, a feed of prime time USA or Bravo or Syfy content with local commercials and alternate time news and local original and sports programming. That is the minimum that should have occurred within six months after the digital changeover IMHO. Like I say, the imagination of a rock.


East and West feed will not work for FOX, CBS, NBC. do to sports

Fox shows up 3 MLB games a day.

NBC show 2-3 NHL games at the same time no that long ago.

FOX and CBS show like 12-16 NFL games a day with some over lap.

WGN / WCIU shows sports some times at the same time and Some sports can not air on wgn america.

WGN has long term Bulls, cubs, sox and Blackhawks deals.

CSN CHI does not have alot room to take all the WCIU games / WGN games.

May need a CSN CHI +2 HD maybe even CSN CHI +3 HD to fit the FSN stuff + Bulls, cubs, sox and Blackhawks in with CSN CHI + be coming a much more used channel. maybe forcing a CLTV / CSN + split.

WGN can start there own RSN maybe taking the CUBS, Blackhawks with the bulls , sox going to CSN. But even a set up like will need both to have over flows.

Last year in the play offs CSN +2 was needed and it's was SD only.


----------



## phrelin

Way I figure it, if the satellite providers didn't have to use all that transponder space for locals, there'd be a lot of space there for RSN's in HD.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Way I figure it, if the satellite providers didn't have to use all that transponder space for locals, there'd be a lot of space there for RSN's in HD.


38% of Western Arc and 34% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for spotbeams or locals.

23% of Western Arc and 24% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for national HD feeds (132 24/7 feeds including 23 PPVs and 12 slots for RSNs).

37% of Western Arc and 20% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for SD feeds. An additional 7% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for international channels and PIs.

(At the moment there are additional Eastern Arc transponders in use for HD and SD due to the channel shuffling in progress. The percentages will drop when the shuffling completes.)

There are entire satellite locations that would not exist if it were not for carrying locals. All the HD on 129 could fit on 110 and 119 ... 77 is all locals (the Latino channels there could move to 72.7 or 61.5).

DISH could also close 10 uplink centers and the points of presence for nearly all of the 210 markets.


----------



## phrelin

JoeTheDragon said:


> East and West feed will not work for FOX, CBS, NBC. do to sports
> 
> Fox shows up 3 MLB games a day.
> 
> NBC show 2-3 NHL games at the same time no that long ago.
> 
> FOX and CBS show like 12-16 NFL games a day with some over lap.
> 
> WGN / WCIU shows sports some times at the same time and Some sports can not air on wgn america.
> 
> WGN has long term Bulls, cubs, sox and Blackhawks deals.
> 
> CSN CHI does not have alot room to take all the WCIU games / WGN games.
> 
> May need a CSN CHI +2 HD maybe even CSN CHI +3 HD to fit the FSN stuff + Bulls, cubs, sox and Blackhawks in with CSN CHI + be coming a much more used channel. maybe forcing a CLTV / CSN + split.
> 
> WGN can start there own RSN maybe taking the CUBS, Blackhawks with the bulls , sox going to CSN. But even a set up like will need both to have over flows.
> 
> Last year in the play offs CSN +2 was needed and it's was SD only.





James Long said:


> 38% of Western Arc and 34% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for spotbeams or locals.
> 
> 23% of Western Arc and 24% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for national HD feeds (132 24/7 feeds including 23 PPVs and 12 slots for RSNs).
> 
> 37% of Western Arc and 20% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for SD feeds. An additional 7% of Eastern Arc transponders are used for international channels and PIs.
> 
> (At the moment there are additional Eastern Arc transponders in use for HD and SD due to the channel shuffling in progress. The percentages will drop when the shuffling completes.)
> 
> There are entire satellite locations that would not exist if it were not for carrying locals. All the HD on 129 could fit on 110 and 119 ... 77 is all locals (the Latino channels there could move to 72.7 or 61.5).
> 
> DISH could also close 10 uplink centers and the points of presence for nearly all of the 210 markets.


Between your two posts, I figure that if we got rid of locals, there'd be some way to give sports enthusiasts their regional/local sports teams. I'm sure it would have to be a mix of sponsorship and subscription, but I bet it could be done.


----------



## kenglish

phrelin said:


> Way I figure it, if the satellite providers didn't have to use all that transponder space for locals, there'd be a lot of space there for RSN's in HD.


But, without TV advertising, all your local merchants would have to put up double-deck'er billboards, and block your view of the satellite arc.
Or, send out so many advertising circulars that clutter up your living room, you could never find your remote. :lol:


----------

