# Distant market supersations might be next



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

If Distant Market Superstaions are something you want to have at some point you might want to switch to Dish and subscribe within a few years. From what I've seen opportunities to see the superstations might expire in 4 1/12 years. If history repeats those who had them before they are outlawed to out of town viewers can keep them as grandfathered subscribers. Once you lose them you lose them forever. DirecTV doesn't offer superstations unless you live in the market of origin. Dish does offer them to everybody regardless of where you live. If you want them, get them soon and you can only get them from Dish.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

with 4 1/2 years to go, seems a tad bit early to sound the alarm bells


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

News Junky,

Actually, not everyone can get superstations. If I remember right, LA residents cannot receive the out of market UPN stations because the LA UPN affiliate demanded exclusivity. There is also another market, in Michigan I think, that also prohibits UPN supers. However, 95% + of the US can receive them. Most stations don't bother exercising syndication exclusivity.

Also, anything could happen in the next four years. DirecTV now provides WB to those missing it in markets with available locals in the locals package. I am suprised that Dish has not done something similar (meaning a market missing WB being given one INCLUDED in the locals package at no extra cost), given that they have more smaller markets than DirecTV.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> seems a tad bit early to sound the alarm bells


I'm not sounding alarms, just giving advanced notice. Besides some of these censorship laws say things that still take away channels if you didn't have them years ago, not just recently and directed at only those who care. Didn't mean to bother anyone who's happy with being told what chanels they cannot see.


----------



## compubit (Jun 8, 2004)

Houston can't receive them either - I think it's essentially in markets where Fox owns the UPN station (vs. Viacom) - although both Fox and Viacom have one of the UPN supers. Tribune owns all of the WB superstations (WPIX/KWGN/KTLA).


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

How is it that KWGN 2 Denver serves both the Denver market as well as Colorado Springs? It is included in both DMA local packages.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky doesn't believe the government should tell you what you can and cannot watch. What News Junky does not realize is that without the law, local and distant stations would not be available by satellite.

As for sounding the alarm, these "grandfathered" subscribers that just had to pick between either their distant or local channels will in fact be subject to another date. It is sometime in 2008 (June or July, I believe). All grandfathering will end at that time, and distant network service will almost be a thing from the past. All of this is being done in order to level the playing field. Why should satellite be able to offer more than your local cable company?


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg,

The only DNS sunset date I recall seeing in SHVERA is at the end of 2009, when the whole thing expires. I think you may be thinking of the SV waiver sunset date, which is sometime in 2008, as I recall.

As for the law, Congress could have made the same provisions for distant signals as for local. Creating a government-sanctioned monopoly on local distribution of programming produced in NY and Hollywood for a national audience is anti-consumer and anti-competitive, imo.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> News Junky doesn't believe the government should tell you what you can and cannot watch.


True. I also think the stations have a right to charge a subscription to cover whatever costs there are and also make a profit.



> What News Junky does not realize is that without the law, local and distant stations would not be available by satellite.


Not true. I'm fully aware that before SHVIA there were only 2, maybe more but certianly not 100+ markets available via satellite. It was SHVIA that forced the hand of the satellite services to put almost ever market on birds in order to offer major network programming to their subscibers. Before this it would have been completely unfair to network stations outside of NY and LA but thanks to SHIVA the technical infustructure is now in place to ALSO allow these smaller market stations to be broadcast nationally just like NY and LA or at least regionally. Its no longer an unfair advantage held by the 2 largest markets.



> All of this is being done in order to level the playing field. Why should satellite be able to offer more than your local cable company?


Greg. I'm so thankfull for the information you have offered. I got more direct answers from you on this forum than I got as a paying customer of DirecTV and Dish Network. That said, please tell me you were either kidding around or not thinking this through. You think its somehow a good thing that satellite subscribers be limited to whatever cable subscribers can get by the force of law to "level the playing field"?

I like comparisons. Lets say AM radio has been around giving the American public news, music and public service announcements for years. Then some smarty pants inventor comes up with FM. Problem! FM has a higher frequency response audio characteristic than AM and therefore FM has an unfair advantage. I know what. Lets force FM stations to run their audio through the telephone so that is sounds just like AM and the "playing field will be level." No. Thats rediculous. With more advanced technology the public sould be allowed to benift from that advancement. AM radio will simply need to adjust. Federal Express shouldn't be forced to hold people's packages for 3 days when they have the ability to offer next day delivery just because its not fair the the post office. Sadly, this has been part of the mentality that has governed satellite television.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I have seen posts about losing the superstations since at least 1999. Really, just go back on some of the forums that were around then and do a search. http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=28838&highlight=superstations is but one example. Imagine if you had been worrying about losing them for the last six years!


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Imagine if you had been worrying about losing them for the last six years!


My posts aren't about wanting people to worry about losing superstations for years on end. They're about encouraging people to get them now if they want them so that they'll be grandfathered if it ever came to that.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

yes, but if they don't want them now, they'll likely not want them then.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> but if they don't want them now, they'll likely not want them then.


Maybe, maybe not. It could be they alternate between D* and E*. This could warn folks to settle down with what you really want or you could lose channels you for now only get with E*. That's exactly how I lost DNS forever. I thought wrongly I could take my waivers from D* to E* to add Chicago and Atlanta in addition to NY and LA . I then switched back to D* and D* could not reienstate them despite being told by them that they would.

Others might want to get Superstations just during certain sports seasons and turn them off during the off season and giving some heads up to keep them during the off season. Its only friends helping friends with info they might not be aware of. We cannot assume people have the channels they want. We live in a world where in most other things free people can simply order want they want when they want it. If satellite comminications is important to you you need to be aware that whats being offered today might not be there tomorrow just because its there today so get what you want now and if you don't want to risk losing it don't cancel.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Just as long as they leave WGN Alone. That's where The Cubs play some of there games. WGN has been around since the beginning of Time and They Better Not Screw with "GN" WGN is Americas #1 Superstation. It's there Motto and They Can't take it off DBS programming. I think back in the 90's WGN was grandfathered in as a station that everyone could get because they've served people living all over the United States with Chicago area news on the Award Winning WGN News at 9 p.m. and The Award Winning Lead Off Man Show just before every Chicago Cubs Home Telecast At Wrigley Field. They'll have a fight on there hands if they try and take away My WGN TV.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> They Better Not Screw with "GN"


I grew up on WGN. The Ray Reyner Show. Bozo Circus is on the air! Frazier Thomas. With all due respect to the great one, Harry Carey, there has never been a better play by play announcer is major league baseball than Hey!, Hey! the one and only Jack Brickhouse. As far as I'm concern WGN IS television.

But... they're not what they use to be back in the day. I liked it better when their programming was more localized and they presented Chicago to both Chicagoland and the nation.

I just found this cool link on the legend himself including an audio clip.
http://www.radiohof.org/sportscasters/jackbrickhouse.html


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

News Junky is absolutely right across the board here (except he forgot about the Denver 5 which were the first "distant local"s - long before PrimeTime 24 brought NY& LA online).

Regarding AM radio - 850 KOA is available OTA in 38 states and 3 countries - PLUS the entire planet (and low orbit) via the internet. Why should TV be any different (except for the transport medium).

Local broadcast monopolies have NEVER been needed - they only exist because someone bought some congressmen many years ago.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Thank you!!!!!!!! This is the first public post I can recall in support modifying in a fair way the dumb as heck local into local only laws. 

On a forum dedicated to the benifit od satellite subscibers I was shocked to see so little support and even more shocked to see people actually like not wanting people to have the opportunity to view distant market stations.

SS, You da man!


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

joblo said:


> As for the law, Congress could have made the same provisions for distant signals as for local. Creating a government-sanctioned monopoly on local distribution of programming produced in NY and Hollywood for a national audience is anti-consumer and anti-competitive, imo.


NJ,

You didn't interpret this comment above as opposition to the current law?


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

You are so right and I'm very sorry. I got you confussed with a private message someone else sent me thus my comment "the only *public* post". Thanks for being on board about this and thanks to anyone else I might has accidentally overlooked.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Wait a minute.


News Junky said:


> On a forum dedicated to the benifit od satellite subscibers I was shocked to see so little support and even more shocked to see people actually like not wanting people to have the opportunity to view distant market stations.


Don't confuse my discussion of the law as my stance on the law. Sure, I would love to have numerous feeds of local channels. However, I know that trying to get the law to our benefit is akin to lighting a candle in the middle of a hurricane. Now, onto other issues...


News Junky said:


> I'm fully aware that before SHVIA there were only 2, maybe more but certianly not 100+ markets available via satellite. It was SHVIA that forced the hand of the satellite services to put almost ever market on birds in order to offer major network programming to their subscibers. Before this it would have been completely unfair to network stations outside of NY and LA but thanks to SHIVA the technical infustructure is now in place to ALSO allow these smaller market stations to be broadcast nationally just like NY and LA or at least regionally. Its no longer an unfair advantage held by the 2 largest markets.


Before the SHVIA was passed in Decmeber, 1999, the law regarding the distant delivery of network stations and superstations was called the SHVA.

Under the SHVA, Dish Network actually offered 13 different markets as the distant network package. DirecTV actually offered something called PrimeTime 24 as their distant network package, until February, 1999. The network channels offered were:

KOMO ABC Seattle
KPIX CBS San Francisco
KNBC NBC Los Angeles
WKRN ABC Nashville
WSEE CBS Erie
WNBC NBC New York
FoxNet

Now, the law does not stop DirecTV or Dish Network from offering other markets than New York and Los Angeles. DirecTV and Dish Network could offer any market they wanted, nationally. They have both chosen not to, other than Dish Network allowing both Chicago and Atlanta as distant network choices.


Simple Simon said:


> Regarding AM radio - 850 KOA is available OTA in 38 states and 3 countries - PLUS the entire planet (and low orbit) via the internet. Why should TV be any different (except for the transport medium).
> 
> Local broadcast monopolies have NEVER been needed - they only exist because someone bought some congressmen many years ago.


Does this mean you actually only have one station in your area? That is the only way to be a monopoly.

And radio is different. The radio station has agreements in place with the copyright holders for all of the material that is broadcast. This material is allowed to be rebroadcast. This is quite unlike television, where the stations have no contractual right to rebroadcast copyright material they don't own. It is the cable carriage and satellite carriage laws that allow the multichannel distributor to *copy and rebroadcast* the content.


News Junky said:


> With more advanced technology the public sould be allowed to benift from that advancement.


And they have. Five and a half years ago, most people did not have the benefit to even get local channels from satellite. Now that both satellite companies have each launched two spot-beam satellites, over 90 percent of the households can now receive local channels.

There will never be a law that will allow a subscriber to pick up any local channel. It is counter intuitive to a network's ability to control the distribution of their programming, as well as the government's stance that communications are inherently local.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> There will never be a law that will allow a subscriber to pick up any local channel. It is counter intuitive to a network's ability to control the distribution of their programming, as well as the government's stance that communications are inherently local.


Network control is not the problem. It's the affiliate system that's the problem. The situation with local channels on Canadian DBS makes this very clear.

And contrary to NAB hype, the affiliate system doesn't promote local programming; it retards it. What it does provide is plenty of local ad avails. And as long as the local broadcasters can soak up all the local advertising dollars by providing time in nationally distributed programming, there is no economic incentive to produce real local programming. Thus we see numerous WB and UPN affiliates coming on line with no local news at all, and indeed no local programming at all except perhaps some talking head public affairs program at 6 am on Sunday morning to satisfy FCC requirements.

On the other hand, if Congress were to preclude, as a condition of license, local broadcast outlets from entering into exclusive distribution agreements for national programming, about half the local TV stations in the country would go dark. But the ones that remained would produce a lot more local programming, the national programming would still be available by cable and satellite, and we wouldn't have to force an analog TV shutdown before the public is ready in order to recover spectrum space.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Don't confuse my discussion of the law as my stance on the law. Sure, I would love to have numerous feeds of local channels. However, I know that trying to get the law to our benefit is akin to lighting a candle in the middle of a hurricane. Now, onto other issues...


All I'm asking for is some compromise and compromise that is fair to all parties. The days when only 6 markets were available nationally is over. There is now an even playing field nearly every station to potentially have national audience. I have lived is 3 cities and consider it rediculous that I cannot wacth local television news from those cities despite that fact that the signal is being broadcast onto my roof every day of the week. I can read to newspaper from other cities and by the way my local paper also features associated press articles. No major prblem there.

BTW: Don't fall for the spotbeam hype. An intaller once told me he had to do a relocation job for someone who moved to the eastcaost from the southwest and their southwest stations came in perfectly until he placed a call to have them disconected.

Bottom line is our elected officials listen more attentively to powerful lobbying groups than they do the very people who vote for them. I intend to let them know I realize this fact and tell as many people as I can all over the internet until something changes.

Greg, even you mentioned your discussing these laws does not mean you agree with them. The big difference between you and me is it seems you have thrown in the towel. Maybe you've been discouraged after seeing censorship win oer and over again for almost a decade and I'm a satellite newcomer. The fact is there's a big difference between now and the days when only 6 markets could be seen nationally. The playing fielid was not leveled but the industry inadvertatly created a new playing field that gives Macon, Geogria the same access to a national audience as Miami, Florida. Face it, America is a transient culture. We move from city to city, work multiple city regions, go away to college, get transfered my the military and so on. It serves the public interest to allow the American people to have access to multiple market telelvison. It serves the station a satellite company interest because they can charge additional subsciption premiums. You and I need to get a blog going on this. Besides, my my typing it awful.


----------



## zmark (Apr 18, 2005)

> The playing fielid was not leveled but the industry inadvertatly created a new playing field that gives Macon, Geogria the same access to a national audience as Miami, Florida.


No it didn't. The only thing local stations care about are *ADVERTISEMENTS*. And by definition, those ads are local in nature. The vast majority of local advertisers have no interest in paying to reach a nationl audience. So where's the market?

Remember, the only thing that matters in television are ads.



> It serves the public interest to allow the American people to have access to multiple market telelvison


No it doesn't. The public interest , as defined by our government, is best served by keeping people coralled into easily defined markets, and targetting ads to those markets. Remember, the only thing that matters in television are ads.



> Bottom line is our elected officials listen more attentively to powerful lobbying groups than they do the very people who vote for them. I intend to let them know I realize this fact and tell as many people as I can all over the internet until something changes.


The current political system is far to corrupt to repair. Your energies would be better spent on something else.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> Network control is not the problem. It's the affiliate system that's the problem. The situation with local channels on Canadian DBS makes this very clear.


Then let me make this perfectly clear: Canadians do not have the same liberties as their American counterparts. The ol' US of A is the best at giving their citizenry freedom, spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Even with some of the laws here, Canadians aren't allowed to watch anything that their government doesn't permit. The CRTC is more restrictive than the FCC.

Yes, it is the affiliate system that is partially to blame. One could even blame the FCC, as there is a hard cap in the amount of stations one can own. If the networks owned their entire chain of affiliates, would this satisfy many people?

And with that, making these laws fairer to the consumer would be great. But we'd then have to depend on a group of people that generally favor business over the individual. When the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency are no longer all controlled by Republicans, you may have a shot at getting some changes. [Before anyone flames me, I am a card-carrying Republican.]


News Junky said:


> There is now an even playing field nearly every station to potentially have national audience. I have lived is 3 cities and consider it rediculous that I cannot wacth local television news from those cities despite that fact that the signal is being broadcast onto my roof every day of the week.


But most of these stations carry programming that precludes them from offering it nationally. The laws governing satellite redistribution of local channels do not forbid anyone from offering a network or local station nationally. The laws permit narrow exceptions to copyright law to allow local stations to resell programming only into a limited area. Although the difference is subtle, it is important.

DirecTV or Dish Network can march into the corporate headquarters of NBC, and ask for permission to sell WNBC and KNBC to a nationwide audience. And to that, NBC would laugh in their face, not because it is against the law, but because their affiliate agreements do not allow national resale of the programming.


joblo said:


> On the other hand, if Congress were to preclude, as a condition of license, local broadcast outlets from entering into exclusive distribution agreements for national programming, about half the local TV stations in the country would go dark. But the ones that remained would produce a lot more local programming, the national programming would still be available by cable and satellite, and we wouldn't have to force an analog TV shutdown before the public is ready in order to recover spectrum space.





News Junky said:


> All I'm asking for is some compromise and compromise that is fair to all parties.
> [...]
> It serves the public interest to allow the American people to have access to multiple market telelvison. It serves the station a satellite company interest because they can charge additional subsciption premiums.


But what does either of these ideas genuinely do? joblo's idea would hasten the digital transition, because no one would watch local channels since many places in the country would no longer be able to see the most popular programming on those stations. Take my market, for example. I have one owned-and-operated network in Baltimore: CBS. You'd create a law to remove my ABC? And NBC? And FOX? And UPN? And WB? And PBS? For what purpose?

And News Junky's idea only works if the industry is involved in setting the rates. Of course, there would also be quite a few parties that would object if the law set terms and rates for delivery of local channels on a nationwide basis. I'd bet my house that if a law like this was passed, that the NFL would be in court the next day, claiming it unconstitutional on the grounds that the government has violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

And in both cases, you honestly want the government to intervene on television? You want the government to destroy the business practices the broadcasters have lived by for the past 50 years? I'd prefer the government to actually do some real work, such as worrying about terrorists and our bloated deficit. And even if there was some semblance of getting a law that resembles either News Junky's or joblo's, I still believe there would be more of an uproar from the people that would lose programming than those that would benefit. Just wait until the analog cut-off; you'll see what I mean about an uproar.

Like I said, don't get me wrong. I don't like certain aspects of the laws that control the delivery of local channels over satellite. But one point I do understand is that satellite television was never expected to deliver local channels. It was the reason President Reagan signed the SHVA into law in 1988; the SHVA was designed to make sure everyone had access to network programming. And as the DBS companies became a more formidable alternative to cable television, proving they had the ability to retransmit local channels to over 90 percent of the households in the US, the entire reasoning for distant network access became moot: by having access to local channels and the associated network programming, distant networks aren't needed. The loopholes are being closed. And in 20 years, I would suspect that no one will have the ability to receive distant network programming as we know it today.


----------



## zmark (Apr 18, 2005)

> And as the DBS companies became a more formidable alternative to cable television, proving they had the ability to retransmit local channels to over 90 percent of the households in the US, the entire reasoning for distant network access became moot: by having access to local channels and the associated network programming, distant networks aren't needed.


Distant networks are still needed. Many of us choose distants because our locals are crap. Calling them 'locals' is a joke, since for some of us, they do not cover our areas. In my case, my locals don't broadcast in HD, cover weather that's 40miles away from, focus their news on towns in another state, have lousy quality, etc. etc.

Of course, none of that matters. As I said in another thread, the only purpose of television is to deliver ads. And now that satellite can effectively deliver local ads, it is no longer desirable to deliver distant ads. So I guess you're right, distants aren't needed anymore.



> And in 20 years, I would suspect that no one will have the ability to receive distant network programming as we know it today.


That's because in 20 years, broadcast as we know it will be dead. DVDs and downloading are superior means of getting network content. As broadcasters become ever more viewer hostile, people will turn to these alternate distribution methods, leaving only the indigent and the stupid to watch broadcast television. Not much of a market for advertisers.

(maybe I'm being too cynical, but after losing my distants, I'm in a real "**** 'em all" mood)


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

WGN is not distributed as a superstation. Therefore none of this discussion affects it.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> SimpleSimon said:
> 
> 
> > ... Local broadcast monopolies have NEVER been needed - they only exist because someone bought some congressmen many years ago.
> ...


Yes, only one station of EACH NETWORK. This is true in most areas of the country excluding the NE, although even there, any given person is in one DMA which usually has one affiliate for any given network.

So, YES, that IS a monopoly.



Greg Bimson said:


> And radio is different. The radio station has agreements in place with the copyright holders for all of the material that is broadcast. This material is allowed to be rebroadcast. This is quite unlike television, where the stations have no contractual right to rebroadcast copyright material they don't own. It is the cable carriage and satellite carriage laws that allow the multichannel distributor to copy and rebroadcast the content.


I think you very much misunderstand the law. EVERYONE that uses copyrighted material (radio, TV, print, etc.) must obtain permission to redistribute it. The laws you quote simply FORCE the copyright holders to grant the redistribution rights to cable & DBS that they already grant to their local minions.

And zmark - I'm with ya 100% - F the local broadcast nazis.

*P.S. KRDO SUCKS*


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> The only thing local stations care about are ADVERTISEMENTS. And by definition, those ads are local in nature.


Not exactly. What they care about is the MONEY advertisement generates not merely advertisement for advertisement sake. If a formula can be devised that would generate money for local stations in this case royalties paid to the local station in exchange for permission to watch an affiliate from another market its still money.



> The vast majority of local advertisers have no interest in paying to reach a nationl audience. So where's the market?


That's a perfectly understandable consequence of stations that can only be viewed locally. This is putting the cart before the horse but my guess is in time advertisers would see the potential of advertising to a national or regional audience IF the station could be seen nationally or regionally. But even if national and regional advertising could not be generated so what? Subscribers would but subsidizing the station with subscription premiums. Compare it to justifying NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, etc. distributed out of their local markets.



> The public interest , as defined by our government, is best served by keeping people coralled into easily defined markets, and targetting ads to those markets..


The public interest should be defined by the public. You're correct in your definition but it should be changed. That's why we're talking about it.



> Then let me make this perfectly clear: Canadians do not have the same liberties as their American counterparts. The ol' US of A is the best at giving their citizenry freedom, spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Even with some of the laws here, Canadians aren't allowed to watch anything that their government doesn't permit. The CRTC is more restrictive than the FCC.


You're right. Being in Canada would really suck.



> ...the NFL would be in court the next day, claiming it unconstitutional on the grounds that the government has violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.


You seem to forget there is on/off technology now in place that can black out NFL games. Thankfully DirecTV subscribers can see distant market football games for a fair subscription fee for the NFL Season Ticket. Locall games that were not sold out are blacked out. I love D* and the NLF for offering this. We need more of this type of media distribution such as a Local Newscasts Press Pass. If D* or E* offer just that you would have never heard of me.



> And in both cases, you honestly want the government to intervene on television?


They've already intervened by making it illegal for my local network affiliates to offer me waivers to view the network affiliate of my choice (which they did before the new and improved censorship act took effect).



> (maybe I'm being too cynical, but after losing my distants, I'm in a real "**** 'em all" mood)


Don't give up, Zmar. That's exactly what they want you to do. Don't break the law but let everyone know you're ticked off. I'd especially let your congressman know you're watching his voting record on this and if he continues to say "screw you I'm getting too paid by the censorship lobby to care what you think" you'll consider that an election issue and you'll spread the word as far and as wide as you can.



> WGN is not distributed as a superstation. Therefore none of this discussion affects it.


That's why I started this thread. The law that permits superstations from distant markets will expire in 5 years.

Someone said something about fighting terrorism would be a better use of governments time. I agree and didn't bother my congressman about because we were at war and figured they were busy with more important matters. Then lo and freaking behold when I thought they were focusing on keeping America safe I find out , they had plenty of time on their hands to modify the censorship laws that just took away many of your DNS. They had plenty of free time to make it a crime for even congressmen and their staffs to watch the local news from back in their home states (why would they care about news back home, silly me). _Thank you Sir for that generous contribution to my re-election campaign and yes, I'd love speak at that even you're putting togeher. Call my office to get my fee information._ Bottom line is they work for us and if we don't make our views clear they'll think we don't give a rip.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

SimpleSimon said:


> Yes, only one station of EACH NETWORK. This is true in most areas of the country excluding the NE, although even there, any given person is in one DMA which usually has one affiliate for any given network.
> 
> So, YES, that IS a monopoly.


No, that isn't a monopoly. A monopoly is when a company or individual has almost the entire market for a specific segment of business. If I say drama, you can list each network. If I say programming, you could list each network. If I said professional football, you can only say the NFL and that is a monopoly.

So, if the merger between Dish Network and DirecTV actually went through, if I then said satellite TV, you'd could only say "New Echostar", and that would also be a monopoly.

The networks grant exclusive distributorships to their affiliates.


SimpleSimon said:


> EVERYONE that uses copyrighted material (radio, TV, print, etc.) must obtain permission to redistribute it.


But, remember that in radio, TV, and print, by transmitting programming, they are effectively redistributing it. However, the copyright holders still can maintain the stranglehold on how their customers redistribute their material. So, you have Dr. Laura, Associated Press, and Desparate Housewives. The producers of Dr. Laura sell their program to radio stations, and don't necessarily block a second copy redistributed on the internet. Associated Press doesn't care if their articles are published in a newspaper on the East Coast, and the paper is distributed to the West Coast. ABC has contracted with the producers of Desparate Housewives to distribute the show at ABC's discretion, and ABC has the sole option to determine how they want to distribute the show. They do not allow their own affiliates to rebroadcast the show on the internet. Copyright law has been amended to allow these stations to resell the programming to cable and satellite companies within a very specific region. To think that unprotecting Desparate Housewives and every other broadcast television program from copyright law to allow you to see 210 ABC stations is a bit myopic.


News Junky said:


> You seem to forget there is on/off technology now in place that can black out NFL games. Thankfully DirecTV subscribers can see distant market football games for a fair subscription fee for the NFL Season Ticket. Locall games that were not sold out are blacked out. I love D* and the NLF for offering this. We need more of this type of media distribution such as a Local Newscasts Press Pass. If D* or E* offer just that you would have never heard of me.


But DirecTV and Dish Network just can't offer a Local Newscasts Press Pass. The compaines would need to negotiate a nationwide carriage agreement with each of the stations in order to rebroadcast their news shows nationwide.

As a matter of fact, we can now go back to the WGN argument. WGN Superstation has less Chicagoland news than the local WGN9 feed. This is because the people that provide some of the syndicated news footage to WGN tried to jack up their rates when WGN was providing all of their newscasts to the entire nation. WGN relented by cutting back some of the news in the morning, and did not have to pay the higher rates.


News Junky said:


> They've already intervened by making it illegal for my local network affiliates to offer me waivers to view the network affiliate of my choice (which they did before the new and improved censorship act took effect).


You do realize if Congress and the President did nothing, all distant network and superstations would have been cut-off on 31 December, 2004? The law that allows distant network and superstations to exist (SHVIA) would have expired, and no one would have distant networks. Congress and the President had to step in.

Keep in mind the law is designed to expire every few years. It is revisited every so often in order to level out the playing field.

Also, the constructs of "distant network station" and "superstation" are all created by the government in the first place. The SHVA, signed in 1988, which created "distant network stations" only became available because of government intervention. This law allowed (theoretcally) every single person in the US to be served by a network station. If you couldn't get a local signal for a given network, you could buy one off of satellite, thanks to the government. Now that over 90 percent of the households have access to their local network programming, distant networks are no longer required.

People forget about the cause and effect as to why distant networks were created. People are downright upset that the government is taking this away, when in fact the government created this in the first place.

Which is why I say you cannot count on the government to do this right. If you want to get something done, talk to the people that run and own these stations. They may have a better ear. One of the larger stations groups, which owns many NBC stations as well as USA Today had planned a channel to distribute their affiliates' local news. I haven't heard anything lately.

We are asking for trouble if the government gets more involved. The last time the government got involved (the SHVERA), half the representatives in Congress thought they were helping the expansion and transition of digital television, when in fact the law may have set back the transition a couple of years. And when Charlie Ergen, CEO of Dish Network, wanted the ability to retransmit local channels back in 1998, Mr. Ergen asked for Congress help. What Mr. Ergen received was something akin to a kidney punch, as he did not support the final draft of the SHVIA, which passed in 1999.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Everything on D*'s and E*'s websites says basically, don't blame us. We're only following the instructions of congress. Our hands are tied. Yada, Yada. If congress has it wrong then congress needs to know their voters really want them to get it right. In an era where a few votes can determine the outcome of an election I think the next recourse is to start posting the voting history of these representatives of the people on-line.



> But DirecTV and Dish Network just can't offer a Local Newscasts Press Pass. The compaines would need to negotiate a nationwide carriage agreement with each of the stations in order to rebroadcast their news shows nationwide.


A reasonable part of what would need to be done. So what? They had to negotiate an agreement with The NFL too for Season Ticket/Sunday ticket. They'd need to also market these channels to the public as well just like they do NFL games from distant markets. Don't see a problem.



> WGN Superstation has less Chicagoland news than the local WGN9 feed. This is because the people that provide some of the syndicated news footage to WGN tried to jack up their rates when WGN was providing all of their newscasts to the entire nation. WGN relented by cutting back some of the news in the morning, and did not have to pay the higher rates.


Interesting. That might be why I think they did a better job back when I lived in Chicago. Well, something is better than nothing at all.

As far as government in concerned, this is how I see it. All the big players (the satellite companies, the local TV affiliate and network owned stations) have their lobbying machines in place steering congress they way they want the law to go. Absolutely nobody is listening to consumers. Show me an effective lobbying group representing the interests of satellite subscribers when censorship laws are negotiated and enacted? I'd love to join them. They only people we thought were on our side were the satellite companies but then I learned one of them actually asked congress to further restrict access to local programming from local stations by the very people sending them money every month. I don't know why I'm so shocked, I've never got a straight answer from either of them on this topic and was even deliberately lied to by one of them (not actually them but their New Delhi, India call center I unfortunately got routed to one morning), just because they were too lazy and wanted me off the phone. I'm not claiming to know all the intricate details of the law but I do know what I want:

a.	Access to the local programming of distant market network affiliates.

b.	If my local affiliate chooses to pre-empt network programming at its regularly scheduled, access to network programming until such time as network programming is restored. Frequently my local station will dump network programming for paid block programming.

c. This doesn't apply to me but I also think it would fair to extend RV type waivers to boat owners and people with business interests in multiple markets.

I don't care how they do this.

a.	They can install network programming signal sensors that will black out unauthorized distant network programming but permit local programming.

b.	They can let me watch channels from a distant market but in same time zone but feed the commercial breaks from my local affiliate while I watch the NY channel for example.

c.	They can charge me a fair royalty fee paid to my local affiliate for permission to see DNS.

d.	They can put access to DNS on a schedule that turns on and off when local programs are scheduled and off when network programs are scheduled.

Unless I see some progress in that direction I intend to exercise my constitution rights of regress of grievance and freedom of speech to communicate with my elected representatives in both houses of congress, remind them that the laws they passed even make it illegal for THEM to see television news from their home states and publish their voting records on this to as many people who will listen. Unless the power players want this I suggest they negotiate nationwide or region-wide carriage agreements with local stations. I would even be happy if they simply restored my DNS waivers D* told me would be restored after migrating back to D* from E* within 180 days. Understand Greg, I feel so strongly about I see this as a positive way to vent frustration. I need to do this. By contributing to the national debate I feel I could be making a difference. I feel so American and everything LOL.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> Everything on D*'s and E*'s websites says basically, don't blame us. We're only following the instructions of congress. Our hands are tied. Yada, Yada. If congress has it wrong then congress needs to know their voters really want them to get it right.


But DirecTV and Dish Network are commenting on the fact that you cannot get distant networks due to the strict guidelines in the SHVIA. DirecTV and Dish Network, however, could simply choose to enter into a separate agreement for a local channel's news, to distribute nationwide. And this has nothing to do with Congress.


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > But DirecTV and Dish Network just can't offer a Local Newscasts Press Pass. The compaines would need to negotiate a nationwide carriage agreement with each of the stations in order to rebroadcast their news shows nationwide.
> ...


And you'd be correct. Except that no act from Congress is needed.


News Junky said:


> As far as government in concerned, this is how I see it. All the big players (the satellite companies, the local TV affiliate and network owned stations) have their lobbying machines in place steering congress they way they want the law to go. Absolutely nobody is listening to consumers. Show me an effective lobbying group representing the interests of satellite subscribers when censorship laws are negotiated and enacted? I'd love to join them.


And this is where you need to be careful, when discussing this with representatives. This is not censorship, simply because, as I have pointed out time and time again, the satellite companies can come to terms with local stations to deliver the local news nationally.

Also, keep in mind that we are consumers. Yes, there are consumer groups everywhere, and they are never funded enough to get past the lobbying efforts of big business. However, it is quite understood that those that sell product are able to dictate the terms and conditions how they want the product sold. Consumers by definition simply consume. And in most cases, Congress and the President leave business alone, when it comes to how a product should be sold.

As I have mentioned before, this did happen in 1988, when Congress passed and President Reagan enacted the SHVA. One of the networks was going to start scrambling their programming on satellite, thus leaving those subscribers without access to a local network no other recourse for network programming. Congress (and the broadcasting industry) came up with the plan for Distant Network Service.


News Junky said:


> I'm not claiming to know all the intricate details of the law but I do know what I want:
> 
> a. Access to the local programming of distant market network affiliates.
> 
> ...


Point a would be up to both the local broadcasters and the satellite companies. They simply need a contract, not a government regulation or law.

Point b would need to be addressed by the networks. They allow the affiliates to pre-empt programming.

Point c I think is available to boat owners, but for business owners, I don't know if it makes a difference.


News Junky said:


> I don't care how they do this.
> 
> a. They can install network programming signal sensors that will black out unauthorized distant network programming but permit local programming.
> 
> ...


Point a and d are the same, and as I have stated, all that is needed is a contract between the satellite companies and the local broadcasters.

Point b is very strange. Why would you want to watch the NY station with your local avails substituted if you already get an east coast feed?

Point c is much different. Who would be in charge of setting rates? Because I have a feeling that based on some free market rates you may be paying upwards of $30 a month for a single affiliate.


> Understand Greg, I feel so strongly about I see this as a positive way to vent frustration. I need to do this. By contributing to the national debate I feel I could be making a difference. I feel so American and everything LOL.


Point taken. Just remember, it is the same reason I make the debate. And if one of the most powerful people in the broadcasting industry (Mr. Charles Ergen) could not get his version of distant network service through Congress, I just think you shouldn't spin your wheels trying to get Congress to listen.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Response by News Junky:A reasonable part of what would need to be done. So what? They had to negotiate an agreement with The NFL too for Season Ticket/Sunday ticket. They'd need to also market these channels to the public as well just like they do NFL games from distant markets. Don't see a problem. _
> 
> And you'd be correct. Except that no act from Congress is needed.


However it seems every 5 years congress does get involved by amending the abridgement of the media laws. The facts are Washington sets the rules. I didn't ask them to do this. The censorship lobby did. Each time those rules are revisited the wishes viewing public aren't even considered important. Access to distant locally produced content needs to be on the table when the deals are made. If congress is going to get involved (and it most certainly does), the people's representatives need to be aware of what the people want. If the corporate interests want us to shut up and just keep paying our bills on time then they're free to give us what we want without having to go to congress. I am eagerly awaiting.

You and I know congress gets involved in all kinds of things conventional wisdom would say "why". Why does congress feel the need to consider federal laws for drug testing of athletes for example? The facts are this: Congress IS involved already. They are the final word on the matter. Why don't you be consistent and tell the NAB, the local affiliates, E*, D* and cable companies not to voice their concerns. Since congress makes the rules EVERY satellite subscriber unhappy with the rules (dictated by the censorship lobby) are not only entitled to express that discontentment but as citizens have a duty to express that discontentment.



> Why would you want to watch the NY station with your local avails substituted if you already get an east coast feed?


The same reason multitudes of people want DNS when they are already served by a local affiliate.

·	Video and/or audio quality might be better on the NY feed. That was the case when I had NY waivers.

·	People with access to NY like I would have had if not for jumping from D* to E* and then back to D* would have by default also had access to the NY local programming with no heart bypass surgery needed, no brain surgery, no kidney transplant and no negotiated contracts and associated complications (that you and I both know is not likely to happen).

·	One's local affiliate might choose to pre-empt a network programming for a fundraising telethon. Having access to NY TV stations allows viewers to watch the programs that want to watch. Since the commercial avails seem to the local stations' sacred cow. If federal legislation is needed to protect their ability to make money, let them ensure that Columbia, SC local station's ads are run even if the guy in SC is watching a New York or Washington DC station.

·	The DNS might break away from the network and do something locally the viewer might want to watch such as special coverage of the Yankee's celebration parade.

·	There are numerous other reasons. With all due respect this question only demonstrates how out of touch you are with the people who really want the restrictions lifted on out of market local television. If I didn't know better I'd think you were an attorney for the NAB who probably doesn't even subscribe to satellite.



> Mr. Charles Ergen could not get his version of distant network service through Congress, I just think you shouldn't spin your wheels trying to get Congress to listen.


Thanks for your concern. You might be right. Congress need to know that the local newscasts from their own districts are now being broadcast in many cases right into the Cannon Building and their homes in Washinton, the censorship lobby doesn't want then to know that and its illegal for them to watch those signals. I at least think I owe it to my congressmen that I am unhappy and I vote every election.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> · There are numerous other reasons. With all due respect this question only demonstrates how out of touch you are with the people who really want the restrictions lifted on out of market local television. If I didn't know better I'd think you were an attorney for the NAB who probably doesn't even subscribe to satellite.


I am far from out of touch. No offense, but most people that want restrictions lifted on out-of-market delivery tend to act like six year olds being told they can't get candy at the supermarket checkout line. You are doing a good job avoiding that path.

If the video quality of your local channel is not up to your standard, call both DirecTV and the station engineer to have it fixed. It could be that the antenna is not set to receive the channel correctly. It could be that DirecTV is devoting more bandwidth to the distant station, since is it broadcast to the entire US. I didn't understand this point was only really directed at picture quality, since the other points were more obvious in their intent. Now I know.

DirecTV since 1998. Now have two DirecTV DVRs and an original standard, third-generation RCA receiver. Not an attorney (although my sister is), and not in the broadcasting business. I simply remember the sh!t hole that multichannel providers fell down when Congress started with cable legislation in 1991, and everything that has since been added. Yes, the satellite companies have since gained the right to resell local channels (and I was originally against this when it passed), but there are a ton of restrictions.

The goal in Congress has always been to level the multichannel playing field. However, satellite companies have the the technical ability to do a few more things differently than their cable counterparts. One of which would be to distribute local news nationally. If that is in fact wanted, you'll need to inundate the satellite companies and the local channel groups with the fact that there is a market, so they can come to terms and offer a local news service to satellite subscribers.

If you really want to support a cause that needs government intervention, wait until the Time-Warner/Comcast/Adelphia consolidation. It seems that the Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia channel is not available to satellite subscribers, because of another loophole in the laws. If we can get conditions on Comcast's purchase, we may be able to force Comcast to start delivering Sportsnet in the Philadelphia region to satellite subscribers for the first time in over 10 years.

But if you ever think you'll get Congress to change force local broadcasters to deliver their signal nationwide, you'd be acting like Don Quixote chasing windmills. The last two laws (and a couple of lawsuits) have been closing so many loopholes that it is getting downright impossible to subscribe to distant networks.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> if you ever think you'll get Congress to change force local broadcasters to deliver their signal nationwide, you'd be acting like Don Quixote chasing windmills.


I don't see it as "forcing" local broadcasters to deliver signals nationwide. The way I see the signals are already being broadcast nationally or at least regionally by E* and D*. Since the signal is being sent as we speak all I'm asking is that it be made veiwable where the signal already is available. If Hawaii locals aren't within range of the east coast for example, I would never suggest anybody be required to take meeasures in order let people watch Hawaii stations (although I'd love to watch Hawaii stations on the eastcoast and I'm sure would greatly benifit the Hawaii tourist economy). All I'm asking for is to let us see the stations that already have signal being transmitted who are within range of those signals.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> The way I see the signals are already being broadcast nationally or at least regionally by E* and D*. Since the signal is being sent as we speak all I'm asking is that it be made veiwable where the signal already is available.


Why? Because it is there?

You said you like analogies. Here is one for you...

There are nine Domino's Pizza stores within a 20 mile radius from my residence. If I call Domino's (we'll call this corporate), the only one that can deliver to me is the one Domino's has allowed (we'll call this the local affiliate). The local affiliate has been given an exclusive delivery area. Otherwise, if I want Domino's from one of the other stores, I must drive to the store and pick up my pizza.

The only difference between the pizza business and television is that we are dealing with copyrighted material when it comes to television stations. The local stations (affiliates) have contracted with corporate (the network) that gives them an exclusive area for delivery. If you really want service from elsewhere, you would need to go there (by either packing up and moving, or by "moving").

And to give you an idea, I live not far from Annapolis. On DirecTV, these are the local channels that are retransmitted to my area:

New York (it is on CONUS and spot-beam transponder 20)
Los Angeles (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, and KCOP on CONUS)
Baltimore (my locals, on spot-beam transponder 26)
Harrisburg (also on spot-beam transponder 26)
Boston (just ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS on spot-beam transponder 4)
Philadelphia (on spot-beam transponders 12 and 4)
Washington, DC (on spot-beam transponder 18)
Any of the 26 markets currently being retransmitted from the 72.5 degree slot.

With significantly-viewed, I should be receiving a large chunk of the Washington, DC, local channels by the end of the year. And it would pretty much match what I could receive over-the-air or via local Comcast cable.

Asking for anything more from the government would be sheer folly, when they've restricted retransmissions of local channels more and more since the DBS companies started service. And part of my position is the government rightfully should be able to do this, since they are the ones that created "distant networks" in the first place, only as a stop-gap to make sure everyone had access to networks.

You are asking for something entirely different. Like I said, you may get more headway by talking to the networks and the local channels themselves, if you really only want access for locally-produced content.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

First of all I want to say thanks for taking the time to address the issue of distant market stations not only for me but also the many others following this thread. You bring a perspective that most closely reflects that of the power brokers that are getting the laws enacted. My experience has been these power brokers aren't willing to communicate with us peasants. :lol:



> You said you like analogies. Here is one for you...
> 
> There are nine Domino's Pizza stores within a 20 mile radius from my residence. If I call Domino's (we'll call this corporate), the only one that can deliver to me is the one Domino's has allowed (we'll call this the local affiliate). The local affiliate has been given an exclusive delivery area. Otherwise, if I want Domino's from one of the other stores, I must drive to the store and pick up my pizza.


Nice effort but not a good comparison. Here's a better analogy using the pizza delivery service you use.

There are 9 Dominoes Pizza stores that operate in my neighborhood. In fact regardless of territory each Dominoes is assigned every single delivery car must back up into my driveway at some point during the delivery. However only one of the stores is permitted to serve my home even though all delivery cars drive right up to my front door 24/7. Why? Well there was some squabbling going on between the stores and suppliers and city council got involved and set legal rules on which store I would be allowed to order from. No problem, right? Pizza is pizza so what's the difference? No quite. Dominoes corporate offices have guaranteed that the dough recipe is identical and regardless of which Dominoes area I'm served by the crust will be exactly the same. But&#8230;

·	Stores 1, 5, and 8 use fresh mushrooms.

·	Stores 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 use canned mushrooms.

·	Store 5 uses imitation cheese.

·	Store 9 uses green olives.

·	Store 2 offers this really great seafood pizza with white sauce with shrimp and scallops. It's my favorite!

·	Several times a year store 8 cancels pizza for wings only. They call it Hotwings Thursday. No pizza available that day.

·	Stores 4, 5, and 6 arbitrarily place a flyer right on top of your pizza to promote other products.

I am willing to pay for that delicious seafood pizza or fresh mushrooms only offered by other stores and I'll continue to order from my territorial store if I want their pizza but since I live in store 3's territory I am told no knowing others are ordering the pizza I want but I cannot have as store 2's delivery car pulls right into my driveway everyday. I'm not out of the way. I'm willing to pay. My store doesn't offer it and I'm told the crust is exactly the same so stop acting like a 6 year old who can't get candy by people who rarely if ever eat pizza and dine of a diet of prime rib and lobster. Furthermore, the corporate lobbies have been so effective Pizza Hut is under the exact same restrictions as Dominoes.

You say whatever you do "DON'T CONTACT CITY HALL". That needs to be the exclusive privilege of the pizza industry lobby. What we should do instead is ask nicely for Dominoes corporate offices to enter into negotiated contracts with their franchises to separately deliver, real mozzarella cheese, black olives, fresh mushrooms, shrimp and scallops in individual containers. Another option you recomend that I should consider is moving to the territory that offers the toppings I like. But plaese DO NOT WRITE YOUR CITY COUNCILMAN because that will only complicate things and be a waste of time. Moving to different house or trying to convince Dominoes to start delivering specific topping is not complicated or a waste of time however.



> And to give you an idea, I live not far from Annapolis. On DirecTV, these are the local channels that are retransmitted to my area:
> 
> New York (it is on CONUS and spot-beam transponder 20).........


I wouldn't be at all surprized if you could actually potentially recieve more channels than you think.

I understand the issues a lot better thanks to you but I still think congress needs to know the will of their constituents and those unhappy with the status quo need to let their voices be heard loud, clear and repeatedly. I cannot and I hope others cannot sit back and shut up while a nation that prides itself on unrestricted access to news media restricts access to news media. We're at a place in this nation where we're definded by red and blue. There are of course complicated legal issues involved but I'm sure something can be worked out that's fair to everyone. I'm not asking for redundancy and duplication. I'm asking for freedom of choice over a medium with only 2 outlets.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And so that I know you understand my position, I will now acquiesce on trying to convince you that asking for the government's help to be able to get what you want is not the right tact. You can try, but you'll more than likely be acting like Don Quixote, as it has already happened to the CEO of one of the satellite companies.

For some of the history of the 1999 fight, I have provided these two links:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Nov_22/ai_57743452
http://www.satellite-daily.com/articles/satellite-tv/satellite-tv-article-652.htm


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > And to give you an idea, I live not far from Annapolis. On DirecTV, these are the local channels that are retransmitted to my area:
> ...


Nope. For DirecTV, I've listed them all, outside a couple of WB, a couple of PAX, and a Telemundo station. Most channels are on a spot-beam, and therefore, most are not deliverable to my area unless the spot-beam can reach me. And only those spot beams in the northeast that are being broadcast from DirecTV's 101 degree slot are the only spot-beams I can receive.

Everyone can receive the channels being retransmitted to the entire, *CON*tiguous *U*nited *S*tates (CONUS). And for DirecTV, there aren't many local channels being rebroadcast by DirecTV on CONUS transmitters. Those are saved for the nationally delivered channels, such as the HBO's, ESPN's, and the like.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Is it feasible for Kansas City's channels to be seen on the East Coast? I have it on good authority that they can. Either they're on a CONUS satellite, I was lied to or the foot print range of spot beamed channels are capable of going way beyond their designated spot.

What impact do you think Internet video streaming of network affiliates of their local content will have as bandwidth, compression technology improves and maybe even development of technology that will integrate computer video onto your television? Most people in the know say this is probably our best hope of getting distant market local television. Some stations already do this but the quality is lousy compared to real television. Lets all hope and pray congress doesn't outlaw it.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> Is it feasible for Kansas City's channels to be seen on the East Coast?


Not by using DirecTV. Not by using Dish Network, either. All of the Kansas City local channels are on a spot-beam. For DirecTV, they aren't on CONUS, and the footprint range isn't very large. It is more possible you were lied to.

Depending where you are in Florida (if your profile is correct), most of the Florida DMA's, the NY and LA locals on CONUS, and a couple of extra stations would be all that you could see from the 101 satellite. In Florida, I am not certain the 72.5 satellite gets footprint to you. And the 119 satellite could provide Ft. Myers, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville. But it does depend upon where you live.


> What impact do you think Internet video streaming of network affiliates of their local content will have as bandwidth, compression technology improves and maybe even development of technology that will integrate computer video onto your television? Most people in the know say this is probably our best hope of getting distant market local television. Some stations already do this but the quality is lousy compared to real television. Lets all hope and pray congress doesn't outlaw it.


I doubt Congress would restrict that. Since each of the stations owns their copyrighted material, they are free to distribute it as they see fit, providing they have come to terms for third party copyright material (such as a news story done by a independent contractor).


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> As I have mentioned before, this did happen in 1988, when Congress passed and President Reagan enacted the SHVA. *One of the networks was going to start scrambling their programming on satellite, thus leaving those subscribers without access to a local network no other recourse for network programming.* Congress (and the broadcasting industry) came up with the plan for Distant Network Service.


Out of curiosity, which network was that? I actually spoke with a TV executive a while back who said the general position was TV stations didn't want competition but would take as many viewers as were willing to watch.

It seems the issue I have is the industry acts like all network affiliates are identical and can't understand why a viewer would want to see FOX Atlanta when there's already FOX Miami in the city where he lives. FOX is FOX regardless of the local affiliate. I and I'm sure numerous others condend each local affiliate is a different sation despite the fact that when they broadcast their national network programming (only part of the time) the national programs are the same.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky, I think the network was NBC. I do remember that one of the networks was going to start scrambling everything so no one could access network feeds from the C-band dishes.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

correct, it was NBC


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

NBC, huh? This copyrighted telecast is the property of .... without written permission of ....

I know I'm on a tangent but another question: with technology getting more and more advanced and at the same time inexpensive I wonder what the response would be if a friend or relative in another city made DVDS of telecasts in their city and shipped them to me to watch in my city. Then take that a step further and suppose this same friend or relative allowed my to set up a digital recorder in their home. This DVR recorded the local news (or anything for that matter at no charge to me and it was an actual friend or relative who I personally know) and saved it as a braodcast quality mp2 file. Then it uploaded it to a* private* FTP server and downloaded it to my city to watch locally. Everything would be automated so it would be like TIVO with maybe a minimum hour delay on everything.

If I wanted to badly enough I could do this right now provided I have friends and family in the cities I'm interested in seeing. In time somebody might create a box that does something like this automatically and inexpensively. Would this be illegal? I would think not but I'm learning things from you guys.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

This would be the same type of copyright violation that got Napster into trouble. The only issue is getting caught! 

I suspect you may be able to get a few newscasts off of the stations' websites. I realize you'd be looking through a computer screen, but it just may do the trick.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

The difference with Napster as I understand it is one copy was being sent out to thousands of people who did not know each other over a publically accessible Internet distribution network. In my example it would not be public,only one copy would be made specifically for me and no one else and I had a real relationship with the sender. My point is if situation 1 is legal --that is recording programs off the air and sending a DVD to a relative is probably legal. If so, then making a recording for a relative or friend but using something a little more high tech than the post office to ship the recording should be legal too. I recall last week that the supreme court just rulled TV cannot stop the DVR recording of HiDef television. 

I'm curious to see where broadband and digital media recoding technology take us. If I can get a local phone number for Los Angeles but live in Ohio using broadband Internet, I think its just a matter of time before I can get a DVR recorder in Los Angeles but deliver the content to my Ohio ranch too. Like I said, I can do it today if I wanted too badly enough and I'm pretty sure it would be as legal as bringing a video tape of CSI with me on a trip to visit Aunt Bertha.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> The difference with Napster as I understand it is one copy was being sent out to thousands of people who did not know each other over a publically accessable Internet distribution network. In my example it would not be public,only one copy would be made specifically for me and no one else and I had a real relationship with the sender.


You are somewhat correct.

Here is the short synopsis of the fallout of iCraveTV.com. This company tried to do the Napster thing with TV over the internet, and were slaughtered.

Now, keep in mind, that if it is only you and another party exchanging files, that you are still breaking copyright law. Remember:


News Junky said:


> This copyrighted telecast is the property of .... without written permission of ....


Or more like the NFL version...


> This telecast cannot be rebroadcast or otherwise distributed without the express written consent of the National Football League.


For copyright material, you are "otherwise" distributing, and should get consent.

Now with that said, unless you are a ring of quite a few thousand people, the copyright holders really don't care if you do this. It is if piracy gets out of hand that the copyright holders would enjoy to have your lunch.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> For copyright material, you are "otherwise" distributing, and should get consent.


You're very helpful. Thanks again.

If I owned the harddrive in the distant city and controlled it remotely, would transfering data from one of my computers to another of my computers for my private, non-commercial use be considered "distribution"? Shazam! I think we hit something here.

Lets hope the bigshots aren't watching this or they might try to make it illegal. I fouund out yesterday CompUSA has been selling the software and harware to do exactly this since 1992. A little pricy but I bet legal. Live TV would not be the best quality at current consumer lever broadband internet levels. DVR content would take long to retrieve (agian, from your computer to your other computer for you to watch) but the quality would be as good as anything on the DVR in your primary residence with a little cabling to connect the computer to your TV.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> If I owned the harddrive in the distant city and controlled it remotely, would transfering data from one of my computers to another of my computers for my private, non-commercial use be considered "distribution"? Shazam! I think we hit something here.


I think that works. You'd need to create the original copy and only watch from the original copy. It still may be termed "unauthorized distribution", but I believe that in this case, since you control all the copies, and aren't distributing to anyone else, it fits the bill.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

An old girlfriend once told me, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught." I think that sentiment applies to much of the discussion here.

In particular, if two friends somehow exchange a zillion DVDs worth of music, movies, TV shows, and government secrets *without anyone else ever hearing about it*, then it would illegal, yet nothing would happen. Until one of the two decided to turn state's evidence. 

In short, keep it legal or keep it very private. Since I have no friends, I prefer to keep it legal.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> An old girlfriend once told me, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."


I like the idea of obeying the law. Plus if it is legal maybe in time someone will create a much more simple and inexpensive device than having to buy 2 computers outfited with expensive upgrades.

On the down side, once the industry lobby gets wind of this they'll probably get congress to outlaw it. To use Greg's pizza district comparison, okay you can't order the pizza you want because the crust and sauce are the same and they consider toppings a non-issue but you don't so you go to unusual efforts by renting a room at a neighbors house and then hire your own private delivery service. Dominoes gets wind of it and outlaws secondary delivery services from transporting pizza. Would't surprize me in the least.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

"private non-commercial use" is allowed underneath "fair use exemption to copywrite laws" irregardless of any "FBI Warning" or tagline given by NFL.
So making a copy that you can access to watch later, or have a few friends over and watch is allowed (no money can be exchanged). But making a copy and having it available to the masses (ala Napster) is not allowed.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> joblo's idea would hasten the digital transition, because no one would watch local channels since many places in the country would no longer be able to see the most popular programming on those stations. Take my market, for example. I have one owned-and-operated network in Baltimore: CBS. You'd create a law to remove my ABC? And NBC? And FOX? And UPN? And WB? And PBS? For what purpose?


Um, my idea was simply to disallow exclusivity for non-local product. There's no reason to think that would put all non-O&Os out of business.

Marginal stations with no significant local presence would probably go under and network preemptions might increase on the others, but so what? As long as you could buy a network feed from somewhere if you really wanted it, what difference would it make?

Furthermore, I think the network ownership cap would make a lot more sense if exclusivity were precluded. I mean, what good does it do me that stations in some other market are owned by different companies if I'm effectively denied access to them? I think the current situation is bas-ackwards. If we're going to have exclusivity, then we should increase or remove the ownership cap, but outlaw duopolies and intramarket newspaper cross-ownership.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

> Marginal stations with no significant local presence would probably go under and network preemptions might increase on the others, but so what? As long as you could buy a network feed from somewhere if you really wanted it, what difference would it make?


 And those that can't get Satellite due to trees, and don't have cable in thier area? What of them?


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

derwin0 said:


> And those that can't get Satellite due to trees, and don't have cable in thier area? What of them?


Same thing for people who can't order pizza because they cannot be served due to unsafe neighborhoods,no cell signal,no land line phone access, no dsl or cable internet, etc. I guess they'd be part of the few who couldn't access them.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> And those that can't get Satellite due to trees, and don't have cable in thier area? What of them?


Well, some of them will be SOL either way, because it turns out that the same tress that block DBS can also play havoc with the new digital OTA signals, depending on how close they are to the antenna...


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

DerwinO,

Just curious, are you suggesting that no one should be able to recieve the channels unless everyone can?


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

News Junky said:


> DerwinO,
> 
> Just curious, are you suggesting that no one should be able to recieve the channels unless everyone can?


 Probably - at least if he's the typical left-wing socialist.   

Discaimer: I've got no idea what persuasion Derwin is - but I just couldn't let that line go by.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

News Junky said:


> DerwinO,
> 
> Just curious, are you suggesting that no one should be able to recieve the channels unless everyone can?


No, I'm just saying we shouldn't take away thier ability to have them, which letting non O&O afilitates die would do. I grew up in a rural non-cable area, so I understand the need to keep the OTA non O&O affiliates running, and not squeeze them out of the market.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> No, I'm just saying we shouldn't take away thier ability to have them, which letting non O&O afilitates die would do. I grew up in a rural non-cable area, so I understand the need to keep the OTA non O&O affiliates running, and not squeeze them out of the market.


Do you really think non-network owned stations would die if people had an option of watching a network station from another market? I cannot agree.

1. Most people will continue to watch their local stations. People in your city WILL watch WGAL and not WNBC for local news, weather and sports. The only way WGAL can be hurt by this if some censorship lobbyist gets congress to to outlaw getting WGAL if you also want WNBC, WMAQ, WXIA and KNBC. One of the tactics the censorship lobby likes to use is forcing satellite subcribers to give up access to their own hometown stations if they want distants.

2. On the countrary WGAL will benifit. With WGAL featured on the New York - Pennsylvania package people living in New York city, Philladelphia, etc. will then have access to WGAL and all the good things going on in your area. Tourists will visit, the convention industry will benifit and urban sprawl, real estate inflation, over population and the like are expected to drive urbanites the WGAL market. The same is true of other smaller communities from coast to coast. This is nothing but a PR bonanza for these smaller communities, the businesses serving these communities and ultimately media outlets adevertising these businesses. Get out of your mind the old concept that local into local only means huge market stations will come in and marginalize small market stations. WGAL would also have viewers in big cities and there's not a business in their area that wouldn't like access to big audiences in New York and Philadelphia to visit on the weekend and shop at their stores.

3. Not everybody subscribes to satellite and among those who do, not all will want the New York - Pennsylvania local channels package.

4. To subsidize WGAL for potential loss of audience a formula can be devised to charge those subscribing to NBC stations in other marketsa fair royalty.

5. Back in the day people had access to between 6 and 12 TV stations, the network affiliates being the main TV stations in each market. Then cable TV came along and then satellite TV. Now there are around 200 channels available. The network affiliates back then probably wanted to stop technology and criminalize watching any channel but theirs fearing they'd be squeezed out of the market. The last time I checked even with 200 other choices, local TV is doing just fine and since the advent of cable and satllite their revenue has grown exponentially. Ford Motor company has survived GM, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo and every other competitor. Ford was 1st and like a 6 year old having a temper tantrum because "their" customers now have other options they could have dug in their heels and got congress to create special laws criminalizing the purchase of cars other than Fords. Intead Ford is better off and the driving public is better off because of the innovations made possible by technological advancements and competition.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

News Junky said:


> People in your city WILL watch WGAL and not WNBC for local news, weather and sports. The only way WGAL can be hurt by this if some censorship lobbyist gets congress to to outlaw getting WGAL if you also want WNBC, WMAQ, WXIA and KNBC.


I am a *huge* fan of letting anyone subscribe to any OTA station -- I mean, they're getting a huge break in using the public airwaves. But I must disagree, in part, with this point.

Suppose your local XYZ affiliate is really, really bad. Suppose it offers no local content, and even pre-empts network programming on occasion to show a movie and earn a few extra dollars. *That station* is the station that will really be hurt by distant signals. Some local viewers will be happy to switch to a full-service XYZ affiliate from another state, but nobody out of town will want to pay extra to watch the bad station.

Mind you, I think this is an appropriate penalty for a station that cares so little about serving the public, but it would decrease the station's value, and the NAB does not want to see that.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Okay. You're right about that one. But think about it. Don't the people of your hypothetical market deserve better? Are you saying that mediocrity should be a federaaly protected privledge that supercedes the station's obligation to effectively serve the public interest? 

I don't know if you've ever been to a communist country. I have a friend who visited the former Soviet Union years ago. It was one of the most horrible experiences of her life. The hotel demanded a bribe before she would be given the keys to her room even though everything was paid for in advance. The bed was a poor quality smelly bed. This low quality of service was everywhere she went in the USSR. Why the poor demonstration of quality and service? The Soviet hospitality industry was granted a no competion industry. If the people running a business have no competition it leads to a who gives a rip approach to how the business is operated. This would essentially force your station to truly serve the communinty and in the end make bigger profits. The community deserves it. The stock holders deserve it. In the long term they'll see the benefits.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

I'm with News Junky - again.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

> On the countrary WGAL will benifit. With WGAL featured on the New York - Pennsylvania package people living in New York city, Philladelphia, etc. will then have access to WGAL


 Trust me, WGAL wouldn't be the channel in that package. The Harrisburg market pales to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh markets. So they would only feature those cities. The smaller markets always get left behind.

case in point. I grew up in the very south end of the Atlanta market, about 45 miles south of the city. The Atlanta stations never showed anything outside of the the metro area, so the local news from them was seldom relevent. The Macon stations would show our stuff from time to time, but I doubt market #145 station news would be on any kind of news package.

If the Sat. companies could carry anything, we'd get a situation like Canada. All the Toronto-Ottawa-Vancouver stuff carried, but smaller areas like Timmins-Kirkland Lake wouldn't.

plus there is the case of spotbeams, only a few cities are on CONUS


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

if Directv & Dish Network could offer New York and/or Los Angeles, or any other city for that matter to anyone who asks, does anyone really think we'd have anywhere near the number of LiL's we have now?


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> I'm with News Junky - again.


Thanks Simion. I'm with you too!! I appreciate the support but unless you and others like you take it further nothing will change. Talk to friends who have moved to your city from neighboring towns and mention the possibility of being able to watch TV from their former town but its currently against the law. Make sure your officials in Washington know how you feel regularly and repeatedly. Offer suggestions like mine that would make it fair to everybody. Remind them that under current law its a criminal act for they or they staffs to watch the local news from back home while at the same time there's a good possibility that the signal from TV stations back home cover the Washington DC area.



> Trust me, WGAL wouldn't be the channel in that package. The Harrisburg market pales to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh markets. So they would only feature those cities. The smaller markets always get left behind.


You're misunderstanding my mission. If a subscriber orders the New York-Pennsylvania local stations package they would get all the local stations in those 2 states, not just the big markets. You say you grew up in middle Georgia. Guess how many people from Macon, Warner Robbins, Milledgeville, etc. move to the big city for college or career and live in Atlanta? A LOT. Under my proposal those people would be able to subscribe to the Macon TV stations in Atlanta. Middle GA advertisers would also be able to attract visitors who might want to do something a little less hectic over the weekend just a 2 hour road trip south by advertising on Macon TV. Its not about leaving the small markets behind. On the contrary its about elevating the small markets. Local Macon TV would become South Eastern Region TV to those willing to pay.



> plus there is the case of spotbeams, only a few cities are on CONUS


I'm not convinced of the spotbeam claim. I had one person tell me Kansas City stations could be seen on the East Coast who actuualy saw them when doing an installintion for someone relocating to Florida from Kansas. He of course disconneted them immediately and replaced them with Florida stations. Another said that's probably not true. Since I cannot test these beams I don't know for sure. In any event at the very least we all agree spot beams have regional reach. People in San Diego could probably get stations as far away as Vegas to the east and Central CA north. I heard someone LA say he could get Phoenix stations with occasional break up. I would never endorse his methods and was only reading another discussion board a few years back. Neither of them seemed to be on a mission to pursuade me in any direction so I cannot think they were simply lying.



> if Directv & Dish Network could offer New York and/or Los Angeles, or any other city for that matter to anyone who asks, does anyone really think we'd have anywhere near the number of LiL's we have now?


Of course not, but today we do. Lo and behold, in an effort to make the playing field even satellite TV created a new playing field they don't even see. Great expense was expended in order to put nearly every market in America on satellite to serve local communities with their own local tv stations or local into local. Without realizing it they created a new profit center and a new playing field of equally accessible subscription services of national and regional local TV stations. Due to the efforts of bringing us local into local to satellite TV, the days of only 5 cities having an unfair advantage are over. Today nearly every market in America has the potential of being at a minimal a regional station and in some cases national stations.

D* and E* can make money by charging out of market subscription premiums. Local TV stations can make money by selling ads to businesses seeking to reach a broader audience. Orlando local stations for example can make more money by selling tourist industry ads that will be seen from Miami to Atlanta. Car dealerships in Columbus Ohio can pitch deals statewide. People all over America can get up close coverage of Superbowl Week from local Detroit TV and local advertisers will benefit when the throngs arrive the weekend of the game. The local station's in the subscribers hometown can make money by not only reaching a new regional audience but also from royalty payments from local residents seeking permission to watch network stations from other markets of which they own the rights.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

> I'm not convinced of the spotbeam claim.


 Trust me, they exist. The edge of the spotbeam for Pittsburgh runs through the middle of York County. You can check a spotbeam by just going to the dish point screen, even if you don't get anything on that beam.
The spot for Harrisburg similarly doesn't reach most of Western PA.

You mentioned Miami and Atlanta in a regional package. Yet directv uses the same transponders for both by use of spotbeams. Jacksonville, FL people can see the spot from Atlanta, but not Miami.

You agreed that all the LiL's wouldn't have been added without protection of home market stations that can be recieved OTA. Well, if the protection is taken away, why wouldn't Directv and Dish drop all the markets except a couple, and offer those to everyone. And stop adding the ones that arn't added yet. 1 or 2 satellites is a whole lot cheaper to buy and maintain than 5 or more. Especially with HD rolling out.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Thanks for the good info.



> Trust me, they (spotbeams) exist.


I'm not saying they don't exist just that according to information I've heard they get out a little further than specs.



> You agreed that all the LiL's wouldn't have been added without protection of home market stations that can be recieved OTA. Well, if the protection is taken away, why wouldn't Directv and Dish drop all the markets except a couple, and offer those to everyone. And stop adding the ones that arn't added yet. 1 or 2 satellites is a whole lot cheaper to buy and maintain than 5 or more. Especially with HD rolling out.


That's easy. Simply continue to require local into local at a minimum if any at all. Then let the local into local feeds double as regional feeds. Chances are nobody will pay attention to anything I'm saying until long after HD locals up on satellite are commonplace even for small markets. I agree with you totally on making sure small market stations must be protected. I just think expanding access for all is the answer, not limiting access.

What I suspect will really push this is the Internet. One day the old guard will wake up and realize that they cannot stop technology. I mentioned before there are already ways to get distant market stations via the Internet if you want them badly enough and from what I can tell it's perfectly legal (just my assessment). Wait until Internet bandwidth takes off with fiber optics at your home. The censorship lobby will probably either want to change current federal law saying you can't own a DVR or even a receiver in one city if you live in another, get congress to prohibit you from sending data to yourself from your computer at your folks's home in Texas to your place in California or they'll wake up, smell the coffee, see things my way and make some money by letting people subscribe to distant market local TV. What's so wrong with giving people an unabridged media? Its not like I pushing for legalizing crack.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

News Junky said:


> Okay. You're right about that one. But think about it. Don't the people of your hypothetical market deserve better?


Please re-read my post. I said that I'd love to let any viewer subscribe to any distant signal they want. I only disagreed (correctly, you said) with your suggestion that no local station would be hurt by such rules.

Then I pointed out why the NAB hates the idea, and implied that's the end of it. Looking back over the last 10 years or so, what new federal laws have come out favoring consumer interests over business interests? There's the no-call list, which passed after a surprise avalanche of consumer support because almost everyone's been interrupted by a sales phone call and almost nobody likes it. The superstation and satellite bills are kind of even, balancing satellite companies' requests with the NAB's. And then there's ... what?

Sorry, but I can't see distant signals reaching critical mass of consumer attention any time soon. (What percentage of satellite viewers even know about waivers and distant signals? And what percentage of our citizenry are satellite viewers?) Without that critical mass, I can't imagine Congress or the FCC defying the nation's broadcasters just so you can watch your favorite network affiliate in another state.

Therefore, this is a fun little thread, but it's like talking about the best goals should be for the first lunar colony. It might happen one day in the not-near future, but for now, the discussion is just academic.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> If the Sat. companies could carry anything, we'd get a situation like Canada. All the Toronto-Ottawa-Vancouver stuff carried, but smaller areas like Timmins-Kirkland Lake wouldn't.


Actually, since the CRTC does not have a carry-one-carry-all rule, smaller/newer stations even in GTA/Montreal/Vancouver do not get automatic or immediate satellite carriage.

Otoh, CICI, the CTV/MCTV station in Sudbury, is on EVu, as is Radio Nord's TVA affiliate just across the border in Rouyn, pursuant to agreement with the CRTC.

I haven't looked at MCTV news lately, but I was under the impression that all MCTV stations (Sudbury, Timmins, North Bay, and Sault Ste. Marie) now have the same newscasts. (Certainly that's the way it looks from their website, which only shows one set of anchors; is that not correct?) So, other than local commercials, what is there from Timmins/Kirkland Lake that you can't get? (Do they do local ad inserts on the Kirkland Lake repeaters?)

Regionalization of local news, and in some rural areas, regionalization of smaller markets generally, has been the trend in both the U.S. and Canada, despite very different regulatory environments. And in both countries, transmitters are not going dark, they are simply becoming satellites or repeaters of larger stations.

The real question is should we maintain an antiquated regulatory framework whose real benefit is not so much local programming but merely subsidization of local advertising markets?

I say no. With the internet, newspapers, billboards, and so on, local advertisers have plenty of outlets and should not be subsidized at the expense of curtailing consumer choice in out-of-market program access.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

carload said:


> Sorry, but I can't see distant signals reaching critical mass of consumer attention any time soon. (What percentage of satellite viewers even know about waivers and distant signals? And what percentage of our citizenry are satellite viewers?) Without that critical mass, I can't imagine Congress or the FCC defying the nation's broadcasters just so you can watch your favorite network affiliate in another state.


I think RC disputes such as the current one with Sinclair, and the indecency flaps that crop up periodically provide the openings. Find a way to piggyback OOM access onto new laws designed to address those matters, and it could be done.


----------



## Redrhino (Jun 10, 2004)

News Junky said:


> You're misunderstanding my mission. If a subscriber orders the New York-Pennsylvania local stations package they would get all the local stations in those 2 states, not just the big markets. You say you grew up in middle Georgia. Guess how many people from Macon, Warner Robbins, Milledgeville, etc. move to the big city for college or career and live in Atlanta? A LOT. Under my proposal those people would be able to subscribe to the Macon TV stations in Atlanta. Middle GA advertisers would also be able to attract visitors who might want to do something a little less hectic over the weekend just a 2 hour road trip south by advertising on Macon TV. Its not about leaving the small markets behind. On the contrary its about elevating the small markets. Local Macon TV would become South Eastern Region TV to those willing to pay.


Sorry to jump in late on this topic (I've been busy).

An interesting article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7935915/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/) notes:


> In fact, even with today's relative abundance, most people stick to only a few channels. According to Nielsen Media Research, households that receive about 60 channels usually watch only 15. Households whose systems can receive 96 channels (around the national average) actually watch... 15.
> 
> What's more, a recent study conducted at the UPenn Annenberg School for Communications showed that when people were offered more programming choices, they stuck to fewer selections-and, alarmingly, watched fewer news shows.


This is what typical people do. Even with a DVR they don't tend to do much other than watch their favorite shows.

*I*, on the other hand, would truly value such an option, mostly for the opportunity to watch news from other localities that I care about. Spotbeams limit my ability somewhat, even with your proposed idea, but I would take what I could get. Another real benefit would be the ability to pick up PBS from other regions ... typically PBS has different programming on different affiliates so it would broaden my programming options a bit.

I think that because the "typical" person wouldn't change his viewing habits much, it would not be the case that ratings would change too much. To make that point clear, I (and pretty much everyone I know) would rather watch a local station than a distant station, even during "non news" hours because the advertisements and news teases are more likely to be relevant to my life.

Who would be hurt? Not the small local affiliates? Who would be helped? People looking for specific news programming from their "home".

Still, I suspect, this is entirely a pipe-dream due to the NAB. However, I suspect that if they don't watch out and allow for people to expand their programming options legally, they'll have to face the same music that the RIAA and MPAA seem to be facing now with P2P downloads. Yeah, that won't happen just yet with news shows from the Quad Cities, but there are enough who care that someone eventually will provide this service.

Just some random thoughts from...

Redrhino


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Hey Red,

Great post. You and I are on exactly the same page. What I don't get is since everyone realizes only a small number of us want distant stations why on earth does the NAB think letting us see these station will drive local stations into bankruptcy? Even local stations would benefit from being able to monitor distant market newscasts if something big is happening in another city.



> However, I suspect that if they don't watch out and allow for people to expand their programming options legally, they'll have to face the same music that the RIAA and MPAA seem to be facing now with P2P downloads.


Possibly, depending on how its done. I'm not an intellectual property lawyer but from what I can tell if I own the system on the remote end all I would be doing is accessing my own DVR and/or live streaming device I keep at my sister's house in Houston. She is not sharing her TV broadcasts with me. I would be simply accessing my monitor and data equipment she allows me to keep in her home. From what I understand, thats not file sharing but rather its access my own files. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm hoping someone will create an inexpensive unit (you'd need 2, one in Houston or where ever and one where you happen to be at the moment). In the meatime you could do it yourself today with 2 PCs, cabling and broadbad Internet access. 
Of course, the more markets you want, the more relatives you have to have who don't mind you using their Internet. I think I heard something about Bill Gates wanting to do something that would allow business travellers to take their local TV stations with them on the road and even overseas.

You do make an interesting point. P2P forced the music industry to modify its business model to allow law abiding citizens who enjoy living in the 21st century to offer a means to access music using today's technology. In the meantime their old folgy refusal to adapt with the times cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. An expensive lesson if you ask me.



> Please re-read my post. I said that I'd love to let any viewer subscribe to any distant signal they want.


I'm sorry. I'm still learning all the codes and misunderstood. OTA.



> I can't imagine Congress or the FCC defying the nation's broadcasters just so you can watch your favorite network affiliate in another state. Therefore, this is a fun little thread, but it's like talking about the best goals should be for the first lunar colony. It might happen one day in the not-near future, but for now, the discussion is just academic.


Maybe. Here's what I hope will happen:

1. People who care about distant market TV not to give up.
2. Congress agrees that its just a rediculous to outlaw distant market local TV as it would be to outlaw distant market local newspapers.
3. The NAB, staellite providers and local TV stations would realize they are missing out on money to be made. 
4. Even if they want to hold back advancement people will finds ways around their refusal to join the 21st century by using the Internet and if done properly its perfectly legal.
5. Maybe the moderators of this site will allow us to draft a few sample letters and post them here to copy, paste and modify for us to send to out local TV stations, congressmen and senators, satellite services, the NAB offering input to fairly allow the lil feeds to double as regional subscription feeds. Also sample email signatures and short slips to include in our snail mail (bills, etc.) to encourage support of distant market TV in a way that benifits all.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

News Junky said:


> What I don't get is since everyone realizes only a small number of us want distant stations why on earth does the NAB think letting us see these station will drive local stations into bankruptcy?


They might say it (do they?), but I don't think the NAB believes distant signals will drive locals out of business, even for the worst-case local-unfriendly affiliates I discussed earlier.

Suppose 1% of a station's audience abandons it for a better station, and that the station won't get any distant signal money because it's so bad. That won't bankrupt any but the most precarious business, but it will *lower* its annual revenue and ultimately its resale value, and that's what the NAB opposition's all about.

As long as there are stations that would be hurt by distant signals, and as long as there's no guarantee of increased profits for the majority of stations, the NAB will continue to lobby for the status quo. They've got a nice setup going, and they'd need a powerful enticement to make them switch to something else.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Suppose 1% of a station's audience abandons it for a better station, and that the station won't get any distant signal money because it's so bad. That won't bankrupt any but the most precarious business, but it will lower its annual revenue and ultimately its resale value, and that's what the NAB opposition's all about.
> 
> As long as there are stations that would be hurt by distant signals, and as long as there's no guarantee of increased profits for the majority of stations, the NAB will continue to lobby for the status quo. They've got a nice setup going, and they'd need a powerful enticement to make them switch to something else.


Solution to the problem: Require subrcibers to pay a royalty to their own local station if they want access to other markets. How much money does your model station make per household? Lets say its a hicktown market in the middle of nowhere. Population 200,000. The ABC station there that's doing a horrible job brings in $4 million a year in gross revenue. That's 20 bucks a year per household plus maybe a little more to be generous in free money for every home that wants out of market ABC network affiliates. If every single person in that market wanted out of market affiliates the station would essentially be given a grant in free money for the total amount that they bring in on their own plus they would still be able to sell ads locally because those households would still be members of the local audience. Just because you read the New York Times doen't mean you stop reading the Springfield Register.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

News Junky said:


> 2. Congress agrees that its just a rediculous to outlaw distant market local TV as it would be to outlaw distant market local newspapers.
> 5. Maybe the moderators of this site will allow us to draft a few sample letters and post them here to copy, paste and modify for us to send to out local TV stations, congressmen and senators, satellite services, the NAB offering input to fairly allow the lil feeds to double as regional subscription feeds. Also sample email signatures and short slips to include in our snail mail (bills, etc.) to encourage support of distant market TV in a way that benifits all.


 Argument #2 has been tried in court. It doesn't work because OOM TV is not, per se, outlawed.

As I indicated in my PM, nebulous letters of complaint such as this are unlikely to have much effect. You need a concrete proposal that actually creates some real benefits for local advertisers. So far I don't think you have one.

(The prospect of OOM advertising won't impress anybody because any advertiser can already buy ads in any market they want; if you're a resort in a small market and you want to target tourists, you buy ads on the stations in the nearest big cities. Royalties are a start, but I doubt they could be made sufficient to assuage fears about loss of ad revenue.)



carload said:


> I don't think the NAB believes distant signals will drive locals out of business


Oh, I think they do believe it, and with good reason. A number of small market outlets in small markets have gone under in recent decades. As I said above, in most cases the transmitters don't actually go dark, they are simply bought up and turned into satellites of larger market stations.

On the flip side, a number of new stations have also gone on the air, but many are part of larger chain operations that specialize in small market operations. There really aren't that many truly local broadcast operations out there.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> I'm not convinced of the spotbeam claim. I had one person tell me Kansas City stations could be seen on the East Coast who actuualy saw them when doing an installintion for someone relocating to Florida from Kansas.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I heard someone LA say he could get Phoenix stations with occasional break up. I would never endorse his methods and was only reading another discussion board a few years back. Neither of them seemed to be on a mission to pursuade me in any direction so I cannot think they were simply lying.


Ahh. A few years back.

It wasn't until 2002 that either DirecTV or Dish Network's spot-beam satellites were operational. Certainly, if you saw this a few years back, it is very possible that this was the pre-spot-beam period, where all locals were on CONUS beams.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

True. 

But it's also true that many spot beams cover fairly wide areas. E* has the aforementioned Harrisburg, PA stations sharing a beam with Hartford, CT, and DC stations share a beam with northern VT stations.

In northern VA, I have continuous access to beams serving DC to Boston, near continuous access to beams serving the Carolinas, and intermittent access to beams serving Ohio, Detroit, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

You guys have good points. My only argument was don't fall for the myth that the spot beams only place a precise footprint that follows the exact contuor of each market. Potentially (if we can ever talk the right people into giving into accepting the concept that an unbridged news media is good for America), the available signal reach of the lil spotbeams as well as CONUS signals can offer a decent lineup of distant market stations. I live in Florida and I don't expect to be able to see Portland, Oregon but I probably can see most stations in the South Eastern US if permitted plus CONUS feeds.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The current Dish/Sinclair tussle points up yet another reason the local monopoly is so important. If Sinclair pulls the plug on Dish, but Dish is able to offer other affiliates of the same networks to local viewers, Sinclair would lose a ton of leverage in extracting retransmission fees.

Of course, I think that the idea that OTA stations, which were given effectively free monopolies, should turn around and charge retransmission fees to the same local public they're supposed to serve, well that's suboptimal.



joblo said:


> A number of small market outlets in small markets have gone under in recent decades.


Please list a few TV broadcast stations that have gone dark so I shall know with great certainty that such things happen.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> If Sinclair pulls the plug on Dish, but Dish is able to offer other affiliates of the same networks to local viewers, Sinclair would lose a ton of leverage in extracting retransmission fees.


I don't see why others don't see how easy that would be to address. Simple--no network feed of a distant market unless the home market's affiliate is also up, running and subscribed to. In other words, if you live in San Antonio you won't be able to get any other FOX station unless you:

·	Also get KABB San Antonio as your primary FOX station.
·	If DISH fails to reach an agreement with KABB then subscribers in San Antonio loss ALL FOX feeds.
·	San Antonio residents wishing to subscribe to other FOX stations must pay an annual royalty fee for permission to watch other FOX stations the equivalent of which is the amount of revenue the station generates the hard way for each household severed in the San Antonio metro area. 
·	Market exclusive programming such as NFL games originating at distant FOX stations will be blacked out.
KABB would also be made available outside of San Antonio.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Question: does anybody have inside information that somebody at the NAB, E*, D* or local TV might occasionally monitor the discussions here?


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

News Junky said:


> If DISH fails to reach an agreement with KABB then subscribers in San Antonio loss ALL FOX feeds.


I DISagree. If the local Fox affiliate wants to play hardball and pull it's feed, FINE! The viewers will just watch the other feeds. This will stop things like the Sinclair debacle.

And yes, at the very least, we know that E* monitors this site, and it's likely that the rest do too.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> I DISagree. If the local Fox affiliate wants to play hardball and pull it's feed, FINE! The viewers will just watch the other feeds. This will stop things like the Sinclair debacle.


I agree with you but I'm trying to get the rules changed. The only way that's going to happen is by making it attractive to local TV stations. In other words they need to see this a total win for them. Taking away bargaining power is not a win for local TV stations. Replacing LIL can be a total win for local TV if all the current benefits are preserved, they get to reach other areas outside of their current markets and they get extra money that don't even have to earn or pay commission on up to a 100% doubling of the gross sales for simply agreeing to concessions.

Listen Simon, I hear you. I just hate however being treated like I'm in North Korea and restricted from having access to all available non-duplicated news media and programming. I don't want to go out and buy a new computer, place it at my buddy's house is Los Angeles to stream live TV back to my house in Florida via the Internet using inexpensive IPTV technology and also access high definition broadcasts by simply transferring my mp2 files from there to here (with a slight delay).

Currently there is not a single device that will both stream live TV from distant markets AND work as a DVR for programs to be wacthed at standard broadcast and/or hi-definition quality later but I'm told a regular computer can be outfitted to do with with PC Anywhere installed, a high performance video card and broadband Internet service. That not withstanding I'd much rather avoid all of that and get everything on my home satellite subscription while supporting my local TV stations. But, again, the local TV stations need to see the benefit to them.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Unfortunately, because of the current state of affairs (local monopoly), you're right.

We have similar final objectives, but I'm coming from the other direction - I don't care about my local stations - I want multiple network feeds to minimize the number of DVR tuners I need, and to avoid local censorship and preemptions.

That being said, I DO choose my local affiliates first - but that's mainly because they are on a more lightly loaded transponder than others. For many people, they would go the other way because of the horrible overcompression that is being done.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Link said:


> How is it that KWGN 2 Denver serves both the Denver market as well as Colorado Springs? It is included in both DMA local packages.


Is that because CS doesn't have a WB network? http://ekb.dbstalk.com/19#C


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

theratpatrol said:


> Is that because CS doesn't have a WB network? http://ekb.dbstalk.com/19#C


 Correct.

CS DOES have a UPN affiliate, but E* does NOT carry them - they probably wanted too much money - so you have to buy a UPN superstation instead. Local affiliate is shooting themselves in the foot if that's the case.


----------

