# DBSTalk's exclusive interview with Charlie Ergen



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

In an exclusive interview with DBSTalk reporters Monday, Charlie Ergen spoke on a range of topics, including the convergence of the internet and the hidden advantages of losing the ability to sell distant networks to a third party using an Echostar satellite transponder.

"Now on Dish Network platform, anybody in the United States can buy distant signals, east and west (feeds), where we couldn't because we're doing local-in-local," Ergen said. "The customers got the best of both worlds, to get local-in-local from us in 96% of the homes in the United States (and) distant signals in the United States in 100% of the United States, where you qualify.

"(NPS is) on our platform just as Dominion is on our platform, so if you want religious programs, we've got a platform that's nice for religion, nice for international, and now it's nice for distant networks. And I think the broadcasters made a big mistake."

According to Ergen, NPS made the proposal to Dish to take over the sale of distant networks early last summer, but he "blew him off" so he could offer the $100 million settlement option to the broadcast stations.

"We were going to be able to sell local signals in 4% of the DMAs in the United States. And you get $100 million. That's Door Number One. I'm a broadcaster, and I can get $100 million, and you can sell in 4% of the United States. Or Door Number Two is, I don't get $100 million, and an entrepreneur who's a good entrepreneur can sell in all 210 DMAs in the United States, and I don't get $100 million. Now you tell me which door you would pick. I can lead a horse to water, but that's as much as I can do."

In the press conference, Ergen said he didn't expect to use live internet-based broadcasting, but in the private interview, he said he thought the internet made a good complement to broadcast TV. "I think it will be YouTube, and I think it will be the press conference after the football game. That it'll be Saddam Hussein actually getting hung as opposed to NBC just having the guy walking out there, because your curiosity is your curiosity.

"And I watch The Daily Show, because they show me stuff that they won't show me, you know, you want George Bush fumbling around at the press conference instead of the canned stuff that you see on TV, or you want something in-depth. ... Remember in the old days on C-band, you'd go through and say oh, there's Mack Robinson drinking his tomato juice before he goes on TV. So yeah, that's how you're going to do the internet, and everything else is canned."

And to no surprise, Ergen remains bullish on satellite TV broadcasting. "Broadcast TV isn't going to go away for a long time. Any time 10,000 people are watching a show, it's going to be cheaper to do it from satellite than any other way you can. ... So from a broadcast TV perspective, I have always said most homes, if they were omniscient, would own a satellite dish. It might be our competitor's, but they'd own a satellite dish."


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

I can predict that if Charlie keeps removing channels as his way to negotiate lower fees, continues to raise rates well above the annual inflation rate and doesn't come up with some way to bundle his sat. service with a phone and internet providers at a discount for the consumer, satellite service may still be around in 10 years, but it's going to be a much smaller service than it is now. With cable and now FIOS emerging, Mr. Ergen has got his homework cut out for him. In 10 years, Charlie may look back at 2006 as the beginning of the end of the golden era of satellite television.


----------



## HarryD (Mar 24, 2002)

Still the gambler.. this time with customers.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

HarryD said:


> Still the gambler.. this time with customers.


 Let 12 million people receive distant networks, and will see steaming mad locals. The locals are steaming upset with nationwide satrad 13 million. Will see a distruct David K. Rehr of National Association of Broadcasters. Everybody Dish would love distant networks and only Dish might mean a 5 or 6 million dump DirecTV, and Get Dish Network, for NPS DISTANT NETWORKS. That is a Charlie Ergen's dream... Phones will be ringing at the Rayburn building in Washington D.C. Hope There's another INUNCTION..


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

100 million dollars would be enough to keep the "Big 3" affiliates of ONE CITY alive for one year. 

It certainly does not even start to compensate the hundreds of stations that are harmed by the loss of viewers who get distant nets illegally.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Ah, but now MANY more viewers will be able to receive distants LEGALLY.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Richard King said:


> Ah, but now MANY more viewers will be able to receive distants LEGALLY.


 I already qualified for distant networks with NPS. But Some type of change be a huge benafit to Dish Network customers. Charlie Ergen feels that way. People are turned about, WHY CAN'T I GET DISTANT NETWORKS? And it because of the DAMN A.C.L.U. lawyers And National Association of Broadcasters, being defiant, and holding Dish and NPS accountable.  Many are happy with satellite radio. XM SATELLITE RADIO ACTIVATED 650'000 subs. The difference is there no accountable to satellite radio. There should be no accountability the satellite tv, but there is. Tax dollars are being wasted, only because broadcasters our being dumb founded.. The old saying, take it or leave it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> ... A.C.L.U. lawyers And National Association of Broadcasters, being defiant, and holding Dish and NPS accountable.


I don't see any ACLU involvement ... and I've been following this.

Hmm, the NAB asking E* to follow the law. What a crime.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> ...People are turned about, WHY CAN'T I GET DISTANT NETWORKS? And it because of the DAMN A.C.L.U. lawyers And National Association of Broadcasters, being defiant, and holding Dish and NPS accountable.  ...


 :thats: I would have thought the ACLU would be on the side of the people being denied distants. Aren't they an opressed minority?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

kenglish said:


> 100 million dollars would be enough to keep the "Big 3" affiliates of ONE CITY alive for one year.
> 
> It certainly does not even start to compensate the hundreds of stations that are harmed by the loss
> of viewers who get distant nets illegally.


Pity. :shrug:

_Who_ will compensate my local newspapers that are harmed by the loss of readers because I choose to
watch broadcast and cable tv news and read on line papers from other parts of the country beyond the
boundries of my news DMA?

_Who_ will compensate my local retailers who may be harmed by a loss of sales because I can buy more
for less if I shop on the Internet outside my shopping DMA?

_Who_ will compensate my local movie theaters because I buy/rent movies on DVD and subscribe to more
than 65 premium movie channels on cable tv from outside my entertainment DMA?

_Who_ will compensate me for having to waste my time reading through all the NAB controlled DMA crap
in order to glean a few nuggets of useful information?

_Who_ says that a government-supported oligopoly should be able to prevent, with force of law, otherwise
free Americans from viewing what they want from where they want when they want?

_Who?_


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Nick said:


> Pity. :shrug:
> 
> _Who_ will compensate my local newspapers that are harmed by the loss of readers because I choose to
> watch broadcast and cable tv news and read on line papers from other parts of the country beyond the
> ...


Beautifully stated! Exactly. It just shows the hypocrisy and stupidity of those arguments from the local stations. They should all just GO AWAY anyway.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Fine.

Destroy an industry. Put hundreds of thousands of local people out of work. 

Eliminate more sources of local news.

Add Pay TV to your monthly household budget.

Let local advertisers cram your mailbox with even more ads every week.

Have someone e-mail you when there's a tornado coming toward your trailer park.

That's all better than broadcasters defending their contracts with programming providers and honoring their obligations to the viewing public.

And, certainly better than making a bunch of grumpy old men get their TV programming from the rightful owner/supplier, instead of the exact same programming for a fee that you pay some billionaire.  

No wonder those D* and E* guys are rich. They can manipulate anybody!


----------



## kappy44 (Apr 16, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Fine.
> 
> Destroy an industry. Put hundreds of thousands of local people out of work.
> 
> ...


Watch locals with low signal output, inferior HD transmission, poor delivery of signal via Cable....did I see you cry when local newspapers began to lose circulation because of the internet? I'm lining up to see the Farm News report superceding a network broadcast. As for the tornado reference ("the sky is falling...right wing hysterics")...as it is between the weather channel, CNN, Fox, interactive satellite services, etc....I ain't hurting.....Bah, Humbug to you, too!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:backtotop


----------



## Dubber2 (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't see how Chrlie Ergen can say that anybody in the U.S. can buy distant signals. The customer DID NOT get the best of both worlds - distant and local-in-local. Many of us live in areas where we get locals, but w/o ABC. All American Direct does not offer all networks in all areas. In our case all they offer is Fox. Big deal. (All we need is ABC). You have to go thru the waiver process, but foget that. ABC affiliates are not budging. So here we are w/o the programming we had enjoyed with no way around anything. Some of us are between a rock-and-a-hardspot. Antenna's aren't always effective. In our area DirecTV is worse and cable isn't an option. So, Charlie, quit patting yourself on the back over the All American deal. And while you're at it, stop those rediculous commercials about your excellent customer service. Those are a waste of your (our) money. We deal with what we can, but we sure aren't enjoying it. Why should television be so complicated?


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

kenglish said:


> Fine.
> 
> Destroy an industry. Put hundreds of thousands of local people out of work.
> 
> ...


All the providers lives would be better without locals, including Dish. They should look to squash them all like the inconsequential outdated bugs they are. As to the above:

1. An industry of some yes, but they will find other jobs like everything else, time moves on. Should we still have jobs for people to pick cotton?

2. Local "news"? Its mostly pointless, and all available on the internet when it happens not only at 6 and 10. I never watch it anyway.

3. I already spend $100 a month for TV via Dish.

4. Local advertisers can advertise on the web, Duh. I throw away any and all junk mail without reading.

5. Exactly...someone like the NWS, you can set up your browser or e-mail notification of severe weather a lot faster than the local yocals can get a guy in a studio to read it over a TV which you would have to have on and paying attention to get. Where do you think the locals get the warnings and watches from? From a National Weather Service, who has that info online instantly already. I get ALL my weather from weather sites not local TV stations.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Dubber2 said:


> I don't see how Chrlie Ergen can say that anybody in the U.S. can buy distant signals.


He always added at the end "if you qualify". His point was that under his settlement, he would have been restricted to selling distant networks only in those DMAs where Dish is _not_ selling that market's locals. If I understand it correctly, NPS can sell to anyone who lives in a white area, even if they can buy that market's locals on Dish. These are the people who are getting "the best of both worlds" as a result of NPS taking over the distant network business on the Dish platform.


----------



## cable_killer (Feb 5, 2006)

what i am still trying to figure out, is how DIrect Tv can break the same laws and not get punished for it. Their own employees tell costomers to change the physical address to get different locals. Could it be that Direct Tv was and is trying to make it a monopoly for Distant Networks? Makes you think. I too use to subcribe to locals and had for some time. I did not ***** and complain because after 6 months, we started getting locals in our area. I enjoyed the distance especially during football season because i was able to get upto 4 other games that I would not have been able to see. 

What people don't realize is that cable and satellite have guidelines that need to be followed. I get sick and tired of idiots that call in and ask, why can't I get the game? Because it is not broadcast you idiot. Well you should have it. you're satellite. Yeah well you should have a brain because you're human.!!!Why don't I have locals in my area? Cable does...... Because contrats need to be granted to provide that service to you. Why do you charge for locals if cable doesn't? Idiots, if you have a service to receive cable or satellite, you are paying for locals!!!!!! Ask your cable provider to give you the price for just locals............Guess what, they're not free!!!!! What's that? they are more expensive then the $5.00 E* charges? OMG!!! The only way to get free locals is the old fashion way. Remember the thing that has 2 antennas? what was that called? A TV antenna? Rabbit ears? 

But the picture is not that clear.......... That's why you pay to get a better signal!!!!! Get your heads out of your AS**S!!! Stop being lazy and stop *****ing because you have not paid yopur bill and now the BABYSITTER is turned OFF!!!! Spend quality time with your children!!! That is why society is so F**KED up!!!

I have spoken for the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of satisfied satellite subscribers in the world DEATH TO CABLE AND IT'S HIGH RATES FOR LESS SUPERIOR SERVICE!!!


DISHNETWORK SUBSCRIBER SINCE 2001 4 ROOM SERVICE W/DVR
$50.00


CABLE INTERNET SUBCRIBER FOR ROADRUNNER LITE NEVER WILL GET TIME WARNER EVEN IF THEY PAID ME!!!! $19.95

SBC/AT&T PHONE SERVICE. $24.00

IF IPAID CABLE FOR THEIR 3 PLAY SERVICE, I WOULD BE PAYING MORE FOR LESS SERVICE!!!!


----------



## An-Echo-Star (Jan 8, 2007)

kenglish said:


> 100 million dollars would be enough to keep the "Big 3" affiliates of ONE CITY alive for one year.
> 
> It certainly does not even start to compensate the hundreds of stations that are harmed by the loss of viewers who get distant nets illegally.


Waaaaaahh customer aren't watching my crappy local programming and it's hurting my Ad revenue waaaaaaahhh! Get over it! People should be able to choose what they watch and when they want to watch it. :goodjob: Cheers to Charlie Ergen for standing up for customers!


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Nick said:


> _Who_ says that a government-supported oligopoly should be able to prevent, with force of law, otherwise
> free Americans from viewing what they want from where they want when they want?
> 
> _Who?_


You, that's who.

"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke)

We all have property rights in the US. Property rights are what prevents someone else from living on your land or taking your car.

TV signals are also property. If you believe that TV signals should be copied without limits, be prepared to have squatters on your land and robbers driving your car.

We all need property rights, it's just that it seems different with TV. It's not really any different, it's the same. Just like a squatter on your land deprives a nearby rental unit of the income it might receive, the deprivation of income to a local station is only a side effect of the illegal viewing. The true theft is easier to comprehend when you realize that the value of the original property is diminished because the sale price of the program to the local station has been eroded by illegal retransmission.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

Tower Guy said:


> You, that's who.
> 
> "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke)
> 
> ...


I don't follow your logic. It seems that it is more of an issue of who I can *purchase *my programming from, not steal it from. The issue is that if: A) I cannot obtain a clear signal OTA, B) I have no cable service where I live, C) I should be able to *purchase* my programming from whoever offers me what I want at a price and quality that I am willing to pay for. To be called a thief because I want to *purchase* my programming from a quality source because my property does not sit where I can recieve quality programming otherwise is harsh. The government arbitrarily determines the grade of service we recieve by distance and does not take into consideration real world obstacles to reception like mountains. I don't think anyone here is advocating stealing programming, but rather purchasing the same programming from other sources. The local broadcasters act as though we belong to them.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

A press release was a shot in a arm. If broadcasters think for one second, I am not allowed to put a freeze on live T.V. for one hour and watch commercial free programing, It no wonder David K Rehr ask the federal government to investigate video on demand service and account for 15 to 20 million dvr owners to enjoy there Law and Order movie for 42 minutes and go on. I like my DVR. But for one second what I see from National Association of Broadcasters is doing, give David K. Rehr, and ther A.C.L.U. GOD FOR SAKEN LAWYERS SOMETHING ELSE TO SCREW WITH. They want to screw with satellite radio, which they might do.. xm and sirius have been fine. Friday interview was interresting. 

N.A.B. PRESIDENT and C.E.O. David K. Rehr talks to FMQB about the push to make 260 million U.S. radio listeners aware of the HD radio rollout and his goal of rebranding terrestrial radio as "Real Radio" or "Local Radio". Of the association future polictal activities, Rehr said, " over this next year, You'll see the brand and visibility of N.A.B. Hill presence significantly increase above the levels that it has been in prior years.. David K. Rehr a man with his head up his rear end, I geuss.
He believes in localism. Senater Diane Feinstein support's legislation on satellite radio and DVR-VIDEO ON DEMAND, Something I wished David K. Rehr didn't up, give Neilson rating numbers for N.A.B. to use..


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

david_jr said:


> I don't follow your logic. It seems that it is more of an issue of who I can *purchase *my programming from, not steal it from. The issue is that if: A) I cannot obtain a clear signal OTA, B) I have no cable service where I live, C) I should be able to *purchase* my programming from whoever offers me what I want at a price and quality that I am willing to pay for. To be called a thief because I want to *purchase* my programming from a quality source because my property does not sit where I can recieve quality programming otherwise is harsh. The government arbitrarily determines the grade of service we recieve by distance and does not take into consideration real world obstacles to reception like mountains. I don't think anyone here is advocating stealing programming, but rather purchasing the same programming from other sources. The local broadcasters act as though we belong to them.


You are following the logic perfectly, you just are not accepting the conclusion.

You are able to receive the programming from Dish network, but in SD only. Dish has the legal right to deliver that same programming in HD. Dish network has decided not to offer the HD signals from Albany to you. Perhaps it is an economic decision for Dish. I'm sure that the TV stations would like to have you watch them in HD. You certainly want it. It's just that Dish has decided not to deliver it to you.

Why should the government get in the middle of that discussion?


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

Tower Guy said:


> You are following the logic perfectly, you just are not accepting the conclusion.
> 
> Why should the government get in the middle of that discussion?


Isn't it the government that decides what stations I belong to and what grade of reception I get? After all the government decided that Berkshire County, MA belongs to Albany, NY DMA, yes? The same government decided that I belong to Boston for sports. So even though I live in an area with an equal amount of NY & Boston sports fans I get Boston sports and no NY sports channels. Conversley people who live in Connecticut are able to receive Boston and NY sports channels. Correct me if I am wrong but this is all decided by the government. The government has assigned me to Albany for network programming, but really I understand that they have only assigned me to the Albany for the local advertisements because the programming is exactly the same no matter where the feed comes from and it is only the ads that are local along with a few hours of news a day.

To your point that DISH network has the legal right to sell me HDTV from Albany, but does not: I assume that DISH had to make decisions as to transponder capacity and so forth and is unable to provide local HDTV into the 55th largest market in the country at a price that they feel enough customers would pay. They do offer HDTV in a few large markets and people lucky enough to live there can get them. Cable won't even come through here so I can't really blame DISH. So I guess that if DISH won't carry it and I can't get it OTA, too bad for me and others like me. I certainly don't mean this to be offensive, but I feel the rules don't benefit everyone.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

david_jr said:


> Isn't it the government that decides what stations I belong to and what grade of reception I get? After all the government decided that Berkshire County, MA belongs to Albany, NY DMA, yes? The same government decided that I belong to Boston for sports.


The government has decided to authorize channels based upon the Nielsen Media Designated Market Area maps. Therefore, the government allows Berkshire County, Massachusetts, to receive local channels from the Albany market.

The government did not decide you belong to Boston for sports. A team's coverage area would be an issued resolved by the leagues, not by the government.


david_jr said:


> The government has assigned me to Albany for network programming, but really I understand that they have only assigned me to the Albany for the local advertisements because the programming is exactly the same no matter where the feed comes from and it is only the ads that are local along with a few hours of news a day.


No, the government has made an exception to copyright law. You cannot get locals from New York City because the networks have made it so their affiliates cannot resell programming. The government allowed for in-market retransmissions, provided the stations can come to an agreement with the satellite companies.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

david_jr said:


> I assume that DISH had to make decisions as to transponder capacity and so forth and is unable to provide local HDTV into the 55th largest market in the country at a price that they feel enough customers would pay.


Even if that assumption is correct, it's E* that makes the decision to carry a specific DMA. E* has stated publically that they intend to do all markets in HD. Therefore, I assume that E* is delaying the process for their own reasons, and that decision is bothering their customers.


----------



## hazydave (Jan 7, 2006)

david_jr said:


> Isn't it the government that decides what stations I belong to and what grade of reception I get? After all the government decided that Berkshire County, MA belongs to Albany, NY DMA, yes? The same government decided that I belong to Boston for sports. So even though I live in an area with an equal amount of NY & Boston sports fans I get Boston sports and no NY sports channels. Conversley people who live in Connecticut are able to receive Boston and NY sports channels. Correct me if I am wrong but this is all decided by the government.


Actually, much of it's decided by agreement between the networks and their local affiliates. There are some rules overseen by the FCC, but it's a matter of contract: if ABC licenses its content to an affiliate designated to cover you, basically, they're your service provider, and anyone else providing that service would technically be in violation of that exclusive contract. Naturally, this has nothing to do really with you, and like most deals between companies, the individuals on the fringe probably get hosed. Same reason I'm paying $80/month for an internet connection that's typically only slightly faster than dialup. But I digress.

I'm a good example of this, and also why it's not strictly a government issue. I live in South Jersey, a part of the country OTA signals would pretty much like to avoid. Given my ChannelMaster roof antenna and 35dB amplifier, I can actually pull in digital TV from Philadelphia. Or Wilmington. Or even Atlantic City. But based on my location, I'm in the Philadelphia area... I guess, being a larger city, they get more turf, I dunno.

Anyway, this is actually a good thing... not as good as being judged in no-man's land, but good enough. See, the CBS affiliate in Philly is owned and operated by CBS itself. Because of this, they had no problemo allowing me the special privilege of watching the CBS HD feed from New York, via Echo*. Particularly good in the years when they carried practically no other HD channels... and also, Philly's big enough to rate an HD locals package now.

The FCC is caught up in a lot of things, regulating what you get, etc. In other ways, probably not enough... the only reason they ran phone lines to rural areas, back ages ago, was the deal between Uncle Sam and AT&T that allowed to be a monopoly, but included a few issues like having to run a phone out to anyone who asked. Today, you probably live in an area that offers 2 or 3 forms of real broadband/TV etc.



david_jr said:


> The government has assigned me to Albany for network programming, but really I understand that they have only assigned me to the Albany for the local advertisements because the programming is exactly the same no matter where the feed comes from and it is only the ads that are local along with a few hours of news a day.


Thing is, the company broadcasting from Albany, carrying network programming, etc. is very likely not the same company you'd find available on Dish (unless, of course, they carried the Albany locals). Basically, the nets sold their rights to that content in that specific area... they'd be in violation of that contract if they were permitted to offer the same content via a different means. Sucks for you, no doubt, but even if it's the government enforcing it (well, that is their job), they didn't create the situation itself. If, say, the ABC station in Albany was owned by ABC, then ABC would still have the rights to that content and you could get it via satellite, like my CBS feed from NYC.


----------



## Rockets (Jan 13, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Fine.
> 
> Destroy an industry. Put hundreds of thousands of local people out of work.
> 
> ...


It's an easy fix. You must buy your local market first, then you can purchase as many or a fixed amount (maybe 5) one for each time zone. This allows you flexibility with your DVR. Oops! I forgot, this is about advertising monies.


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

kenglish said:


> Fine.
> 
> Destroy an industry. Put hundreds of thousands of local people out of work.
> 
> ...


Ever heard of a weather radio? It goes off every time a watch or warning is issued for your location.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

Rockets said:


> It's an easy fix. You must buy your local market first, then you can purchase as many or a fixed amount (maybe 5) one for each time zone. This allows you flexibility with your DVR. Oops! I forgot, this is about advertising monies.


no, no, no. you've got it all wrong. this has never been about money. according to nab spokesperson dennis wharton, it's about strengthening "broadcasting's rich tradition of localism".


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Tower Guy said:


> You, that's who.
> 
> "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke)
> 
> We all have property rights in the US. Property rights are what prevents someone else from living on your land or taking your car.


What rot! This isn't about me stealing their signal. It's about me choosing to watch another signal, when they want me to watch theirs. In particular, it's about poorly operated stations wanting to bar better-operated stations from competing in their market.

Example: Let's take station NY and station LOCAL. Assume that both are franchises of the same network. Station NY has, to me, much more interesting local content. I'd gladly pay a small fee to get it. Station LOCAL is supposed to be local to me, but has such a poor transmitter that I can rarely get it. Their HD works for maybe 6 blocks. Most of the time, when they aren't showing the network feed, they're running infomercials. Utter crap.

Now, if I get station NYC, is NYC being hurt by extra eyeballs watching their channel? Unlikely, as they spend quite a bit in their home market encouraging more people to watch. How am I "stealing" something they want go give to as many people as possible?

Yet, I am forced by a government that, being beholden to free political coverage during elections from NAB members, to submit to the ownership of me by station LOCAL. Yes, LOCAL might be hurt by my actions, but they ought to be. To say that I'm stealing from them would be like calling it stealing every time I turn my TV off.

Another Example: Let's assume that all stations are equally interesting, but I just want to get news of Boston, where I grew up, rather than Atlanta, where I live. Assuming that there are equal numbers of people making swaps like this, no one at all is being harmed. Or everyone is being helped/harmed equally. ONLY when government tells people that they must watch stations in market X alone is anyone being harmed. And actually everyone is being harmed, including the TV stations because now my only choice is to turn the TV off, reducing viewership.

Why do lawyers keep on trying to turn positive-sum games into zero-sum ones?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Yet, I am forced by a government that, being beholden to free political coverage during elections from NAB members, to submit to the ownership of me by station LOCAL.


Each station on the network, including the NYC station, has signed a contract involving all other stations on the network giving each local station certain rights. These rights are NOT imposed by the government in any way, shape or form. These are voluntary contracts signed by the stations.

One of those certain rights is that the local station has exclusive rights to the network content within a defined area. Generally speaking that is their television market or the reach of their OTA signal. Where two network stations overlap in coverage they share the rights. These rights, once again, are a feature of the provate contract negotiated between the stations and the network.

Don't blame the government. If you want this changed get the privately owned networks and affiliates to change their contracts.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

kcmurphy88 said:


> What rot!
> 
> Why do lawyers keep on trying to turn positive-sum games into zero-sum ones?


Becaue you choose to refuse to accept reality.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

kenglish said:


> 100 million dollars would be enough to keep the "Big 3" affiliates of ONE CITY alive for one year.
> 
> It certainly does not even start to compensate the hundreds of stations that are harmed by the loss of viewers who get distant nets illegally.


I "harmed" WMAZ tonight... but I did it legally... we watched the Superbowl in its entirety on WRBL-DT from Columbus. Now, we're not a Neilsen family, so the simple fact is, it will not affect WMAZ's ratings in any way.

Of course, I didn't view WRBL via satellite... I did it over the air.

Which just points out that digital TV is going to have to implement the "local market" flag.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

oldave said:


> I "harmed" WMAZ tonight... but I did it legally... we watched the Superbowl in its entirety on WRBL-DT from Columbus. Now, we're not a Neilsen family, so the simple fact is, it will not affect WMAZ's ratings in any way.
> 
> Of course, I didn't view WRBL via satellite... I did it over the air.


It's only illegal when you pay someone else to receive it for you.


----------



## geoff (Jan 3, 2004)

Let's ignore local news for a minute and assume it's all about local advertising, which in reality, it is....

with our DVR's and and VOD technology, if an advertiser wants to run a local ad to the dish E* and D* viewers in a geographic area, dish and direct can preload the commercials onto the hard drive, and when the network flag fires for local commercial insertion, my DVR box inserts the local advertising....How much bandwith would that save for Dish or Direct to only have to carry 2 or 3 feeds (different time zones)of each of the the national networks, instead of having the same programming broadcasts at different qualitys to every DMA out there. 

I would like to think that Major networks would like to control the quality of signal dish rebroadcasts instead of relying on their local affiliate not to screw it up from when they receive it, process it, but there stupid call letters and logo on top of it and send crap to dish to rebroadcast. (local affiliate logos can even be inserted..see below)

As far as local news, if the local new people could start their news promgram 5-10 minutes early and time shift it for local broadcast, that same broadcast could be streamed to peoples DVRs and inserted at the correct time as well based upon the network flags as well.

we already know dish has the ability to pop stuff up on your screen telling you to pay your bill, plug your phone line in, etc that same technology can be used to pop up weather alerts to recievers located in in certain zip codes or special news breaks can be delivered the same way.

I live in north Atlanta, and we have a HUGE DMA, do I care about the severe thunderstorm 120 miles to the south that is preventing me from watching my favorite episode of Lost just because I'm served by the same TV station. With all these alerts targeted specifically for the zip codes that it effects, it's better for everyone.

I know that ALL of the above would require a major paradigm shift in the thought process of the entire industry, but I think it makes sense. this way local alerts/advertising/etc could be sent to people who can not receive ANY off air signals.

...just my 2 cents...


----------

