or those who do have access to the Networks programs online, don't mind watching them that way and generally don't care if it isn't live (Generally a minority especially if they are willing to pay for Satellite service). Even those who have OTA would be restricted in how many tuners they can record OTA unless they then also bought another OTA DVR.
As I said, there are options today we didn't have 20 years ago.
I haven't watched a "live" broadcast since I got my 501 (when it was a new receiver). The stuff I've read says I'm not alone, not even a minority, in time shifting (decoupling from the schedule) thanks to DVRs.
Satellite was doing pretty good back then without locals. Yes, having them helped, but it wasn't required then.
I think with the alternatives available now they are less required.
It was actually DISH who spearheaded the legislation to allow local into local (locals carriage) because they recognized the importance. It's the system to carry them that is unbalanced imo the importance is still there. Too many events happen on Network programming having a missing network during a dispute is one thing, having no locals a very different thing. I would be forced to get Directv if that happened.
I had C-band before DBS existed. I watched network content, but "local" content wasn't important. The same was true when I first got Dish in '97 or '98 and locals weren't an option. I honestly was happier with PT24E/W than with locals.
I paid for distant nets even when I could get usable local signals.
I remember the push to get locals. There was more to it than just locals though.
I recall Charlie's court fights and saying he thought we should be able to watch ANY channel we wanted.
That included distant nets. He lost that fight in the courts.