# LocalBTV gone silent?



## 1948GG

LocalBTV, after expanding to some 22 markets at the end of last year, has not made a move in some 3+ months, after announcing they would expand to 100+ markets in 2022.

The most popular 'subchannel' offerings continue to be awol; to wit, Metv, Decades, Heros and Icons, among others. Many if not all have recently made their appearance on F2Vtv (free2view TV), a free roku app. 

I continue to wonder about LocalBTV's expansion plans, starting out in southern california, stopping in the bay area and north Nevada, skipping the rest of the west coast (utah, oregon, washington, and Idaho) shifting focus radically to the east. Those states out west have by far the largest dma's in the country outside of alaska, where ota reception is impossible over a huge chunk of their territory.


----------



## NYDutch

1948GG said:


> ...
> I continue to wonder about LocalBTV's expansion plans, starting out in southern california, stopping in the bay area and north Nevada, skipping the rest of the west coast (utah, oregon, washington, and Idaho) shifting focus radically to the east. Those states out west have by far the largest dma's in the country outside of alaska, where ota reception is impossible over a huge chunk of their territory.


 Largest DMA's by area? Or population...


----------



## 1948GG

By sq. Miles, of course. Slc (salt lake city) used to be the largest dma in the lower 48, but that was 40 years ago, they've lost a bit around the edges as dma's in northern nevada and southern idaho got the fcc to encroach a bit into utah. But it's still huge. 

The dma I live in, Seattle, stretches from the Canadian border in the north to the Columbia river/oregon in the extreme southwest of the state, just shy of 300 miles from one side to the other. Back in the analog days there were close to 50+ retransmitters rebroadcasting the 8-9 stations out of seattle, today there are some 15 left and several of those are slated for removal even though almost all the seattle stations have transitioned to atsc3.0 which was supposed to make retransmission easier as the transmitters can operate on the same frequency as the main without interference, so allocation by the fcc is a slam dunk. But the stations are so addicted to the retrans money from the cablecos and satcos they no longer want to spend a dime on upkeep of those facilities, and the local groups that used to have retired engineers and hams plus funding have pretty much all died off.

Of course, none of the major networks will ever sign up with LocalBTV but these smaller operations, except for the popular channels, have. Maybe with the roku app carrying them now the dam may have been broken, don't know.


----------



## NYDutch

1948GG said:


> By sq. Miles, of course. Slc (salt lake city) used to be the largest dma in the lower 48, but that was 40 years ago, they've lost a bit around the edges as dma's in northern nevada and southern idaho got the fcc to encroach a bit into utah. But it's still huge.
> 
> The dma I live in, Seattle, stretches from the Canadian border in the north to the Columbia river/oregon in the extreme southwest of the state, just shy of 300 miles from one side to the other. Back in the analog days there were close to 50+ retransmitters rebroadcasting the 8-9 stations out of seattle, today there are some 15 left and several of those are slated for removal even though almost all the seattle stations have transitioned to atsc3.0 which was supposed to make retransmission easier as the transmitters can operate on the same frequency as the main without interference, so allocation by the fcc is a slam dunk. But the stations are so addicted to the retrans money from the cablecos and satcos they no longer want to spend a dime on upkeep of those facilities, and the local groups that used to have retired engineers and hams plus funding have pretty much all died off.
> 
> Of course, none of the major networks will ever sign up with LocalBTV but these smaller operations, except for the popular channels, have. Maybe with the roku app carrying them now the dam may have been broken, don't know.


LocalBTV opening up more DMA's in the heavily populated east makes sense then. It's eyeballs that sell advertising, not square miles...


----------



## 1948GG

The big cities back east, though, have multiple competing providers which has kept pricing in line and carriage cheap. The percentage of ota viewers is extremely small, even states with fairly large expanses of 'rural' blocks like New Jersey and Connecticut are heavily wired and fibered up. Yes. Lots of folks, but the number willing to jump through the hoops with iptv when multiple providers carry the same channels as part of a bundle, unless there is some niche network (foreign lang for instance) that is carried; but in the 'tri-state' area that's pretty few, unlike with the LA/SF model where the big cablecos wouldn't carry them. I had many friends that had wife's from south Asia countries and the only provider that would carry those channels was Dish, until BTV came along.

Maybe getting a couple percent of a million viewers works out, but I would venture 90% of 200k is a lot more, if my math is correct. And what's with these small southern markets? Kinda throws a wrench in the 'east is larger markets' thinking. And the market for niche programming is pretty thin there, except maybe for all the shopping channels. 

Who knows, now that roku is carrying a huge number of these, albeit in the eastern time zone, it is helping. When/if BTV comes along, it may be a bit late.


----------



## NYDutch

1948GG said:


> The big cities back east, though, have multiple competing providers which has kept pricing in line and carriage cheap. The percentage of ota viewers is extremely small, even states with fairly large expanses of 'rural' blocks like New Jersey and Connecticut are heavily wired and fibered up. Yes. Lots of folks, but the number willing to jump through the hoops with iptv when multiple providers carry the same channels as part of a bundle, unless there is some niche network (foreign lang for instance) that is carried; but in the 'tri-state' area that's pretty few, unlike with the LA/SF model where the big cablecos wouldn't carry them. I had many friends that had wife's from south Asia countries and the only provider that would carry those channels was Dish, until BTV came along.
> 
> Maybe getting a couple percent of a million viewers works out, but I would venture 90% of 200k is a lot more, if my math is correct. And what's with these small southern markets? Kinda throws a wrench in the 'east is larger markets' thinking. And the market for niche programming is pretty thin there, except maybe for all the shopping channels.
> 
> Who knows, now that roku is carrying a huge number of these, albeit in the eastern time zone, it is helping. When/if BTV comes along, it may be a bit late.


How many free apps for portable devices are offering those same local sub-channels? I'd expect that might be a target market for BTV more than large screen viewers. And if you want areas in the east with large mostly rural blocks though, check out the northern areas of NY state. The 9,375 square mile Adirondack Park comes to mind for one. Since neither one of us has any knowledge of the inner workings at BTV though, anything we come up with is pure speculation. If you really want to know what BTV is doing, maybe try asking them?


----------



## 1948GG

As a broadcast engineer with over 50 years experience, both in government and with national and international equipment manufacturers, I've written several letters to both them and the ex locast folks, in locasts case asking if they would sell their systems to non- profit groups, but they wanted to simply destroy the systems in an attempt (I guess it worked) to get the huge amount they were on the hook for, to something small; $700k was the figure they eventually settled for, a rather lowball amount from the 10s of millions the court had originally assessed. 

Many years ago, western Massachusetts was a near desert when it came to multichannel and internet providers but it slowly improved; I dont know if upstate NY managed to do the same, I used to know folks from Oswego and Ithica a few decades back, and it was a real dead zone, but have no idea how things are today. Then again, the Washington and Oregon coastline, dotted with small towns, were wired up by independent telcos in the 50s and 60s, all it took was aggressive community action in many cases starting out with 1 or 2 channels at best microwaved in from Portland or Eugene.


----------



## harsh

1948GG said:


> By sq. Miles, of course. Slc (salt lake city) used to be the largest dma in the lower 48, but that was 40 years ago, they've lost a bit around the edges as dma's in northern nevada and southern idaho got the fcc to encroach a bit into utah. But it's still huge.


The SLC market is large, but a lot of that area isn't populated.

There are dozens of translators to be sure.


----------



## NYDutch

1948GG said:


> As a broadcast engineer with over 50 years experience, both in government and with national and international equipment manufacturers, I've written several letters to both them and the ex locast folks, in locasts case asking if they would sell their systems to non- profit groups, but they wanted to simply destroy the systems in an attempt (I guess it worked) to get the huge amount they were on the hook for, to something small; $700k was the figure they eventually settled for, a rather lowball amount from the 10s of millions the court had originally assessed.
> 
> Many years ago, western Massachusetts was a near desert when it came to multichannel and internet providers but it slowly improved; I dont know if upstate NY managed to do the same, I used to know folks from Oswego and Ithica a few decades back, and it was a real dead zone, but have no idea how things are today. Then again, the Washington and Oregon coastline, dotted with small towns, were wired up by independent telcos in the 50s and 60s, all it took was aggressive community action in many cases starting out with 1 or 2 channels at best microwaved in from Portland or Eugene.


NY State initiated a $500 million project in 2015 to expand broadband coverage throughout the state. It worked pretty well:

"In comparison with the other fifty states, New York is the second most well-connected State in the US."









Internet Access in New York: Stats & Figures


New York is the 2nd most connected state in the USA with 99% of New Yorkers having access to 10 MBPS internet service from 230 broadband providers.




broadbandnow.com


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> NY State initiated a $500 million project in 2015 to expand broadband coverage throughout the state. It worked pretty well:
> 
> "In comparison with the other fifty states, New York is the second most well-connected State in the US."


What matters is the quality, availability and coverage. Being the best bowler in a group with a score of 100 isn't really good. Being the best golfer in a group by finishing 72 over par isn't really good. The existence of bowlers who average in the high 200s and golfers who average below par put those numbers in perspective. The lack of more than one state that is "better" than NY places NY state at #2, but is quality, availability and coverage excellent or adequate?

The survey linked was based on population. NY has a high concentration of population with access to cable internet and wireless internet which helps push them ahead of other states. Whether that service is affordable and more than just a baseline service is not part of the statistic.

The availability of higher speeds is lower in upstate NY - just like most states. Rural areas rely on lower speed coverage and are often considered covered due to higher priced options.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> What matters is the quality, availability and coverage. Being the best bowler in a group with a score of 100 isn't really good. Being the best golfer in a group by finishing 72 over par isn't really good. The existence of bowlers who average in the high 200s and golfers who average below par put those numbers in perspective. The lack of more than one state that is "better" than NY places NY state at #2, but is quality, availability and coverage excellent or adequate?
> 
> The survey linked was based on population. NY has a high concentration of population with access to cable internet and wireless internet which helps push them ahead of other states. Whether that service is affordable and more than just a baseline service is not part of the statistic.
> 
> The availability of higher speeds is lower in upstate NY - just like most states. Rural areas rely on lower speed coverage and are often considered covered due to higher priced options.


If you check the map or the county listings at the link, every county in the state including upstate comes in at 80+% coverage for 100 Mbps service except 3. Only Hamilton County, a large rural, mountainous county almost the size of Delaware and a population of just 5107 is well down with just 24% coverage. I expect the problem there is the difficult terrain and wide spread population that makes even cell coverage difficult, much less hard wiring the county. I don't know about other ISP's pricing, but Spectrum offers the same 200 Mbps service at $50 in their territories statewide. Bundles can bring that down a bit though.


----------



## 1948GG

Here we are well into march and no additional markets added to btv; if they are to try and expand to anywhere near 100 or 200 they were saying was their goal late last year, they'll have to do so at a rate of over 2 per week for the rest of the year. Just from the installation side, they would need 2-300 workers nationwide to accomplish that, and and equal number of lawyers getting all the station agreements in order. 

Not going to happen. With no movement the past 3+ months, I think they've run out of steam or money. If we're sitting here at the same point in another 3 months, we can rationally discuss where they went off the rails, concentrating on areas with a high percentage of multiple providers (and low prices) or those with sparse internet coverage, and/or lack of carriage of popular non-large network channels, many of which are now going around local ota coverage with national streaming, so the gap for something like btv to succeed is rapidly closing.


----------



## OneMarcilV

Working great here. I just took a photograph.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

None of the 100+ markets for 2022 previewed almost a half year ago have been added. Although you make no mention of which market, the older ones do continue to operate but with no additional channels that I've been able to find out. No major networks on any of their systems (don't expect any) but none of the most popular off majors as well, i.e. metv, decades, etc. 

If they are to believe to hit the 100 additional markets this year, they will have to launch 3+ markets per week for the rest of the year at this point, and every week that goes by it gets worse.


----------



## OneMarcilV

Dont have to because you are right. Just a handful of markets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rnbmusicfan

I'm in the Philly region and it appears that the PBS stations that were added last, all now have the guide info but say in Channel Negotiations... It looks like they lost PBS.

Also Buzzr, which I thought was a free channel and even available on the Roku Channel free channels sections, has a message In Channel Negotiations.

They did get Cozi and recording is permitted, even though it is owned by Comcast, and Local BTV doesn't have NBC.

I really like their app. I suggested on another thread, it'd be great if FrndlyTV used their app and the two merged. Frndly has a billing system in place already and is in process of adding the MeTV suite of channels. It could use their app and Cozi, Antenna and renegotiate with PBS. That'd be an excellent combination.

Oddly, Local BTV also carries the primary signal of WPHL, owned by Nexstar, while YouTubeTV and Hulu Live do not have this channel.

While I like the app and concept, I don't really understand Local BTV's business model and how they have been in trial for so long. They made it sound like they would get all the broadcast networks like ABC NBC and CBS, and then have a subscription for it, but every month goes by, and I don't see how it is viable.


----------



## 1948GG

It's getting close to 6 months since the last dma added. The early western markets looked like a fair amount of success with carriage of many south asian language stations in SF and LA that established cable and satellite failed to carry. Then their focus turned eastward to markets rich in both diversity and competition, in my opinion a shift doomed to failure. Add to that a total lack of focus on carrying the most popular independent channels out there, and the idea was doomed to fail. It's very possible that they have failed to secure additional funding to continue any expansion; time will tell. 

But if any markets are closed down in the near future, that will signal a death knell. The only way it survives is a completely new management team.


----------



## OneMarcilV

Same as for Locast.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

Locast thought that 1950s fcc laws and regs were still in force, and that subsequent changes enacted in the 1990s failed to pass constitutional muster. And by the legal precedents of the 1950s, they were correct. But the repub federal judges in place after 12 years of court packing by Reagan and bush believed corporate interests trumped the public interest. The large numbers of community community repeaters and cable systems that had been established throughout the 50s to the early 90s slowly were either forced off the air or bought out by the big cablecos. The writing was in the wall, unseen by the eastern New York folks running locast. 

LocalBTV has legal permission from every station on their systems across the country to feed the signals over the internet. But as I've pointed out in previous postings, the markets they decided to expand to after the first few out west were bad business decisions. And it appears they simply ran out of money to expand more as the numbers of subscribers simply didn't materialize. Unless they can entice some big investment money in the near future, they'll be dead.


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> The writing was in the wall, unseen by the eastern New York folks running locast.


Intentionally IGNORANT of the law. A lot like Aereo who came up with some personal interpretation of the law and thought they found some convoluted loophole that would make their service legal.

I will give credit to Locast, Aereo and LocalBTV for restricting their rebroadcasts to the local DMA of each station (apparently they discovered that modern law). And I'll give credit to LocalBTV to seeking permission to rebroadcast. The #1 way to avoid copyright problems is to get permission to use the content!



1948GG said:


> And it appears they simply ran out of money to expand more as the numbers of subscribers simply didn't materialize. Unless they can entice some big investment money in the near future, they'll be dead.


How are the monetizing the service? As far as I can tell the subscribers are not paying. Are they selling ads? Their website mentions "ChannelBTV" where any channel any market can join for a low fee of $350 per year per 1000 streams. Is that how they are making money to cover expenses?

I will give credit to Locast and Aereo for having some plan to collect money to support their service (whether or not their service offering was legal). "And how do we monetize that?" should be the first question answered when starting a service. Who is going to invest if there is no plan to turn a profit?


----------



## 1948GG

The dvr system is a paid service, simply streaming the live channels by the public is free (to the public). That plus the 'reverse' retransmission fees is what powers LocalBTV. Stations get their signal out to to a much broader market, IF without that system a wide enough audience is unable to recieve those channels, either through ota, or reasonable cost cable/satellite or other means. This was the flaw in LocalBTVs expansion throughout 2020-21. It seemed none (or few) of those markets had extensive numbers of viewers that met enough of those demographics. 

For years the way the broadcast licence laws were written from the 1920s through the 1950s, retransmission of signals on the public airways through any medium was allowed within certain restrictions, which aereo and later locast believe they were within. The fact that some shaving of those laws were done in the 90s, which were never tested in the supreme court (and which lower courts have made decisions on without any guidance on whether the original laws from earlier decades could be thrown out or mangled) simply shows that neither aereo or locast had the money to take the case(s) forward, which shows the biggest flaw in the american legal system: those with the gold get the real final decision, or no real decision. And the broadcasters who now make more from their retransmission consent instead of adverts, have the illgotten gold (thanks to congress passing potentially unconstitutional laws, never tested by the Supremes, which remain in force).

So the entire American broadcasting regime, supposedly built on 'public' airways, is down a rabbit hole which will take some billionaire or two to dig it out of. If ever. An entire couple of generations of community resources which were dedicated to bringing distant signals to far flung communities have now been lost. New technologies could help bring it back into balance, but not if it keeps getting strangled in the crib.


----------



## James Long

The public airwaves are still public, open and free. The broadcast license does not cover alternative means of delivery. SCOTUS did rule on that. The supreme court ruling is the reason why we have the permissive laws we have today that allow rebroadcast of local TV within certain restrictions. Without those permissive laws there would be no rebroadcast. Retransmission would simply be banned. The permissive laws were the remedy (the alternate remedy would be getting the agreement of every content owner before retransmitting their content).

Granting a broadcast license does not obligate a TV station to allow their signal to be retransmitted. If you want to change that, Congress is that a way. Ignoring all laws since the 1950's is not the solution since that would lead to no rebroadcasts.


----------



## 1948GG

Sorry but you're dead wrong. It's of no use trying to argue on the internet, but I've been a broadcast engineer for over 40 years and one of my aunts is a retired federal judge, and my father helped establish many community cable systems in the pacific northwest from 1950 onwards. 

You cant refuse (okay, on the internet you can) the facts. Others can do the public research and come to the same conclusions as I; the system as we have it now is rigged, and will take a huge effort to return the system to benefit the real owners, the american public.


----------



## James Long

I believe you may have forgotten some of the history over the years. Feel free to check the case laws, supreme court decisions and history of the laws that now allow retransmission.

Early "CATV" was community antenna TV systems (some may call them common antenna TV). The earliest systems were very basic ... OTA signals were received on a tall tower or hill (or a combination of the two) and amplified and distributed via coax to homes. The most basic level of CATV was just a shared antenna that allowed people to receive the signals without putting up their own antennas on towers or moving to a hill. The more advanced systems would shift channels from their original channel frequency to another frequency (6 MHz block down conversion). I visited one community cable head end in the 1990s that still had block down conversion equipment (not a receiver connected to a modulator passing composite signals but an all RF signal path).

Regulation was minimal ... whatever the CATV company could receive they would transmit. There was no requirement to carry a minimal number of local channels. The system could pick and choose what was carried. The first CATV system I watched was the amplified antenna variety (no channel conversion). Nothing on that system originated from outside what today would be called a "DMA".

After spending time out of the country I returned to a different city. This second CATV system served three communities 25 miles apart. The head end in the eastern city could pick up stations 100 miles away and the three systems were linked via microwave. We had the major network stations from three DMAs on our local cable plus the channels from 100-125 miles away that carried their local major sports teams.

None of the stations were protected ... it was up to the cable system to decide whether or not to carry each channel. And while one can spout altruistic messages about "helping" local stations reach viewers in their market, these systems were also "helping" competing stations.

Imagine if you had the best engineered station in town with the clearest signal and furthest reach. The next station in town got a full power but lower coverage license. With no "help" from CATV your signal would reach "East Rural Podunk" and the other station would not. So while you are thanking CATV for reaching people who would rather pay to be on a shared antenna than put up their own system, save a sarcastic "thank you" for delivering your competitors signal.

Consider the second CATV system that had competing network signals. If you work at a network affiliate ask how much your station pays for the "exclusive" rights to that programming and then tell me you are happy that some CATV system is providing channels from three areas ... providing competition to your station. How about the syndicated programming your station pays for? Do you want that to be delivered to your viewers via some other station's feed (with the other station's advertising being seen instead of yours)?

While stations complained about the other stations CATV delivered the problem became greater when "CATV" became "Cable TV" in the 1980s. National cable channels were created and delivered to CATV systems via satellite providing additional competition to the local stations.

The biggest insult that stations suffered was watching cable become profitable. Instead of being city operated CATV systems run on a "not for profit" basis, stations were seeing commercial companies turn a profit on rebroadcasting content without sharing that profit with the stations.

"1950's regulation" was not working for the stations ... They sued. They won. Copyright law was applied to the station's feeds. Congress reacted by creating a series of regulations that would ALLOW the rebroadcast of stations within certain limits. Cable companies were required to set aside a percentage of their channels for local stations and offer carriage to all stations within their market until that threshold was met. Stations could claim out of market communities as local and force cable companies to carry their signals (if space was available on the system). And stations could choose whether their station must be carried (without compensation) or whether the cable system must compensate the station for the signal.

Nearly all of the laws I can find have been PERMISSIVE ... allowing cable and satellite to deliver signals that they would not be able to carry without such laws. Yes, there are severe restrictions on what the law permits ... but no new laws would mean no carriage for most stations.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

1948GG said:


> *The dvr system is a paid service*, simply streaming the live channels by the public is free (to the public). That plus the 'reverse' retransmission fees is what powers LocalBTV. Stations get their signal out to to a much broader market, IF without that system a wide enough audience is unable to recieve those channels, either through ota, or reasonable cost cable/satellite or other means. This was the flaw in LocalBTVs expansion throughout 2020-21. It seemed none (or few) of those markets had extensive numbers of viewers that met enough of those demographics.
> 
> For years the way the broadcast licence laws were written from the 1920s through the 1950s, retransmission of signals on the public airways through any medium was allowed within certain restrictions, which aereo and later locast believe they were within. The fact that some shaving of those laws were done in the 90s, which were never tested in the supreme court (and which lower courts have made decisions on without any guidance on whether the original laws from earlier decades could be thrown out or mangled) simply shows that neither aereo or locast had the money to take the case(s) forward, which shows the biggest flaw in the american legal system: those with the gold get the real final decision, or no real decision. And the broadcasters who now make more from their retransmission consent instead of adverts, have the illgotten gold (thanks to congress passing potentially unconstitutional laws, never tested by the Supremes, which remain in force).
> 
> So the entire American broadcasting regime, supposedly built on 'public' airways, is down a rabbit hole which will take some billionaire or two to dig it out of. If ever. An entire couple of generations of community resources which were dedicated to bringing distant signals to far flung communities have now been lost. New technologies could help bring it back into balance, but not if it keeps getting strangled in the crib.


I have the app on my roku and the DVR is free. Local BTV is technically all free in Philly. The intent was for them to get agreements with all major networks and then start charging. The problem is they haven't made agreements with the networks and just have some independent stations.

In Philly, the valuable channels are WPHL (primary signal), Antenna TV off its subchannel, and Cozi TV off of WCAU, get TV, and one non PBS non commercial educational station off WLVT that isn't blocked by PBS negotiations. They also have NewsNet but that's available free elsewhere.

They have some other channels that are mostly infomercial. I'd delete the app but like the few channels listed above.


----------



## harsh

kristiano.sayer said:


> The SLC market is large, but a lot of that area isn't populated.


Population is the only consideration. Land area doesn't much figure in but it helps gather population when the area covered is greater than that of New England.

Population-wise, SLC-Ogden-Provo is ranked #27 of the 210 markets at a little under 2.1 million.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

It appears that Local BTV lost the Nexstar channels after losing PBS. In Philly, this includes WPHL 17 primary and Antenna TV. In NYC, it means Antenna and Rewind TV are gone. One nicety is being able to record classic tv using its dvr.

Local BTV still has Cozi and getTV though, but it's usefulness is getting diminished. It still has NHK World from my local PBS, NewsNet and a few other smaller networks that are nice but it lacks too many of the other digitnets that are available over the air.

Also from touting they will be getting all locals to losing locals isn't a good sign. I'm surprised it managed to get a deal for Cozi via NBC but it might NBC is allowing just the local feeds not the national feed being distributed free.

I like Local BTV's guide and picture in picture availability, and wish frndlyTV or Philo would adopt Local BTV's EPG.


----------



## Dawgsfan

rnbmusicfan said:


> It appears that Local BTV lost the Nexstar channels after losing PBS. In Philly, this includes WPHL 17 primary and Antenna TV. In NYC, it means Antenna and Rewind TV are gone. One nicety is being able to record classic tv using its dvr.
> 
> Local BTV still has Cozi and getTV though, but it's usefulness is getting diminished. It still has NHK World from my local PBS, NewsNet and a few other smaller networks that are nice but it lacks too many of the other digitnets that are available over the air.
> 
> Also from touting they will be getting all locals to losing locals isn't a good sign. I'm surprised it managed to get a deal for Cozi via NBC but it might NBC is allowing just the local feeds not the national feed being distributed free.
> 
> I like Local BTV's guide and picture in picture availability, and wish frndlyTV or Philo would adopt Local BTV's EPG.


Any danger of Local BTV losing Decades or MeTV?


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Dawgsfan said:


> Any danger of Local BTV losing Decades or MeTV?


No danger as local btv doesn't carry those channels.


----------



## sd72667

rnbmusicfan said:


> No danger as local btv doesn't carry those channels.


I saw that Decades & ME-TV were offered on Fresno Local BTV. But I'm not sure if it actually works.








FresnoBTV | Watch local Fresno TV on LocalBTV!


Watch local Fresno TV stations on your smartphone or laptop, or by streaming to your TV — simply launch and you’re live!




www.localbtv.com


----------

