# Why DirecTV Stream lacks locals Sat Service has had for decades



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

I've asked this question in other forums and indeed directly to the operators of 'Stream', to no avail or response. But the question is stated in the title; several major network in addition to several 'minor' independent broadcast channels that have been, in my market, on the DirecTV satellite service all the way back to before HD (and were added when they first started carridge of local channels in late 2001) but are conspicuously missing in their streaming platform all the way back from when it was first introduced. 

My dma is not alone; I reviewed several others around the country where I lived in years past, and they are missing locals as well. Certainly it's not a result of a lack of time getting deals done, as now the sreaming service has gone through several name changes and ownership. Looks to me like simply a lack of attention to any details. 

Perhaps the same group of management types that currently run YouTubeTV that is totally silent on the same lack of locals, but it's the lack on the streaming platform while carridge of those same for decades on their sat service that has no explaination. Certainly cant be lack of bandwidth, as again those channels have existed for over 20 years on satellite, even before HD and the transition to Ka band. 

Makes no sense. If they (DirecTV Stream) were really interested in competing in the streaming marketplace, this area would be one in which they could stand apart from that competition. Carry ALL the locals, including subchannels. Forget about trying to squeeze in all the myriad expensive sports channels, with their rediculous prices and carridge demands.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

DIRECTV Stream is what it is and I wouldn't expect that to change just because you think it obvious that they should.

DIRECTV DBS has all manner of fees and charges to hide things in. DIRECTV Stream does not. Surely both are among the most expensive options but that doesn't mean that they're going to deliver everything -- it just means they have higher revenues (ARPU).


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

I'm sure it's all about money. Local broadcast stations demand fees from cable, satellite and streaming TV providers. So the more stations they carry, the more it costs them. And the more it costs them, the more they charge us. So how much are you willing to pay?


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Basically untrue on several points; several full power stations in my market dont charge carrige fees for the individual stations as they are covered by national agreements, and they do carry others (in the same market) so they are already covered by those agreements. The only cost is that of grabbing the ota signal, already done by the recieve facility for DirecTV sat. 

The independent channels stream their programming FREE (but only eastern time zone and w/o dvr) over the internet, and provide their local ota signals to both cable and DirecTV sat for extremely small or free fees. They realize that due to the extreme dma size and mountainous region is the only way to insure viewership of their channel. 

So the cost is minimal, the engineering the same. I think the management of these streaming companies simply dont see locals beyond the top networks as important (although some dont), and the demographics of their viewership skews outside the teenage/young adult demo. The fact that none seem to realize that these independent broadcasters are cheap and easy, and a fair number are available for free if one likes jumping through the hoops. 

Someday one of these guys will realize that there's something to be gained; otherwise, why would their sat service long ago started carrying those channels? Yes, the satcos are seeing dropping viewership caused by expanding broadband into 'rural' areas, and the cablecos have long carried all the local ota channels. My rural wide spot had cable expand here circa 2014, and recently announced fiber expansion over the next 3 years throughout the entire county.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

1948GG said:


> Basically untrue on several points; several full power stations in my market dont charge carrige fees for the individual stations as they are covered by national agreements, and they do carry others (in the same market) so they are already covered by those agreements.


The "national agreement" would be with the station owner - generally make an agreement with Gray and you get all the Gray stations, make an agreement with Sinclair and you get all the Sinclair stations. One could have agreements with the Sinclair and Gray stations including affiliates in a specific market and still not have agreements with every station ownership group represented in the market.

While DIRECTV has had streaming for a few years there is no guarantee that their carriage contract for satellite includes carriage via streaming.



1948GG said:


> The only cost is that of grabbing the ota signal, already done by the recieve facility for DirecTV sat.


They would need to deliver the signal to a different uplink site (a network one instead of a satellite one) but yep ... the signal is receivable.



1948GG said:


> The fact that none seem to realize that these independent broadcasters are cheap and easy, and a fair number are available for free if one likes jumping through the hoops.


Such channels may be required to be carried on cable and satellite. I'm not sure how the law applies to streaming. Cable companies are required to offer carriage to all local channels and provide them to customers in their lowest tier. Satellite companies can choose to offer carriage on a market by market basis and allow individual customers to opt out of the locals (on an opting out of all channels basis). Streaming companies are not required to offer locals but I do not know whether or not they are under the same "carry one carry all" (or offer carriage to all) that satellite companies must follow.


----------



## Stevies3 (Jul 22, 2004)

Keep in mind DTV Stream is still young, I'm sure many channels will be added as time goes on. I'm a DTV subscriber since 1996, I can tell you they too have grown through the years. Give it time many will come...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stevies3 said:


> Keep in mind DTV Stream is still young, I'm sure many channels will be added as time goes on.


The only thing young about DIRECTV Stream is the name of the service. Even the Stream Device is pushing five years since its FCC application. PS Vue came and went in less time.

The better "defense" would be to note that the direct competitors typically don't include such content either.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The structure of the streaming market created by Netflix is much different than cable/satellite. Hulu is probably the best example of a combined originals plus service as they offer the option "watch Live and On-Demand TV from 75+ top channels" which basically covers the 5 primary national OTA networks plus cable along with their own original along with ABC, Fox, FX, and NBC programming. Paramount+ is a different model that includes the local CBS station in their streaming service.

Most original or exclusive content streamers like Apple, Amazon, etc. don't offer OTA/cable services. In other words, streaming is a different market. The old FCC rules don't apply.

A lot of folks are like our household - we stream from Netflix, Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple+, Acorn TV, Britbox, PBS, etc., and don't pay into the bundled OTA/cable market any more. Having access to our local CBS station through Paramount+ solves my need to have some kind of local news access. My guess is that DirecTV Stream is trying to figure out how to be competitive and the old "packages" of cable and locals aren't as competitive.

IMHO there is so much original programming on Netflix, Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple+, Acorn TV, Britbox, PBS, etc., that "TV" has become something different from what I understood prior to the 21st Century. I have grandchildren that don't relate to the idea of OTA/cable apart from the Netflix model.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> The only thing young about DIRECTV Stream is the name of the service. Even the Stream Device is pushing five years since its FCC application. PS Vue came and went in less time.
> 
> The better "defense" would be to note that the direct competitors typically don't include such content either.


i remember when it was DTV now and they were giving away the apple tv boxes. it was a complete disaster. i don't know about now though it seems to be doing better!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

DTV stream has our locals in los angeles. you will get them to in time.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I just took out directv stream no CW not a deal breaker but annoying


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The "national agreement" would be with the station owner - generally make an agreement with Gray and you get all the Gray stations, make an agreement with Sinclair and you get all the Sinclair stations. One could have agreements with the Sinclair and Gray stations including affiliates in a specific market and still not have agreements with every station ownership group represented in the market.


Yes. Except with vMVPDs like DTV Stream, it's even a bit more complicated. They must have an agreement in place with the national network (e.g. CW) and then with the local station group owner (e.g. Nexstar) for their affiliates of said network. Nexstar-owned CW stations constitute, I think, the largest missing group of locals on DTV Stream. So no CW locals in NYC, LA, Dallas, Washington, Houston, etc, as they're owned by Nexstar. But given that Nexstar is right now in the process of purchasing majority ownership of the CW network from Paramount and Warner, it's virtually guaranteed that Nexstar-owned CWs will become available on DTV Stream and every other vMVPD that carries the network. (Well, either that or DTV Stream will end up dumping _all_ CW stations.) 

I give it until end of Sept. 2023 before Nexstar renames the network with a highly revamped programming line-up and a new content emphasis and target audience. Look for shows that skew a bit older and/or younger (i.e. not teen/YA), more family-friendly, and with more Nexstar-produced news/talk/lifestyle content. Perhaps it will feature a national news show from the NewsNation cable net (formerly WGN America) that Nexstar already owns.


----------

