Yep, that's it in a nutshell. You still need to be in a white area, have an RV, or get a waiver. But now it does not matter if Dish carries your locals, since your provider for distants is a different provider than Dish.
Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 124K
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. You still need to be in a white area, have an RV, or get a waiver. But now it does not matter if Dish carries your locals, since your provider for distants is a different provider than Dish.
Don't take it the wrong way at all.Tampa8 said:
I am saying that if the Congress Critters need to look at the law to restore signficantly-viewed again, I would bet you a dozen donuts that the NAB will stand there and try to find a way to limit the creation of a third distant network DBS provider in NPS.
That is incorrect. It would actually make it competitive. Think about it for a second:Tampa8 said:
Dish Network has 174 markets available. DirecTV has 142. DirecTV would be prohibited from most of the markets, and NPS would easily be prohibited from a majority of them. The preference is to provide local channels, where available.
Sure it has been provided by law. But now with another entity in the mix, it was never the intention to allow someone to get both locals and distants on one system. That was why the no-distant-if-local provision was given.Tampa8 said:
And all I am pointing out is that if there is legislation to address the significantly-viewed stations removed from Dish Network, that means the entire license will probably be examined to "improve" it. And there is no doubt the NAB hates this last move, and will march right up to Capitol Hill to make some changes as well.
Then why did we even bother with the digital transition? We are using 1950's technology to provide for state-of-the-art digital transmissions.minnow said:
Keep in mind that is the networks that have given their affiliates first run rights. Until this changes, nothing will prevent the networks and their affiliates to keep the business model alive.
"I am saying that if the Congress Critters need to look at the law to restore signficantly-viewed again, I would bet you a dozen donuts that the NAB will stand there and try to find a way to limit the creation of a third distant network DBS provider in NPS."
Greg, on this we agree 100%. They very well will try to attack this in several ways, ways that we have not thought of yet! I do not think the whole issue is over - just the court order part. But my gut tells me even if the NAB is successful in ending third party distants providers - or at least third party on the same system, that those now doing it would be grandfathered.
Greg, on this we agree 100%. They very well will try to attack this in several ways, ways that we have not thought of yet! I do not think the whole issue is over - just the court order part. But my gut tells me even if the NAB is successful in ending third party distants providers - or at least third party on the same system, that those now doing it would be grandfathered.
Yes that is correct today. But 2 years from now ? I'm not so sure. I just read an article about some new guy named Jean-Briac (J.B.) Perrette to President, Digital Distribution at NBC. His job is to oversee distribution of the company's TV content to digital platforms including interactive TV, wireless, on-demand and IPTV. NBC see's the future and I'm not so sure that includes your local broadcaster.
Well I found a Ghost Town In Nevada,,,,,I went to Antennaweb.org and typed in that the antenna will be 1000 feet high under OPTIONS,just to make sure that there are nooo stations at all near by..
And still there are no stations.I even called the Local township of the town in Nevada and asked them if they had any TV stations...
The good people of the ghost town lol said there are noooooo station anywhere near them and the only way to get any TV is Cable or satellite........So I think I might be in very good shape,what do you good folks think?JT
A couple of comments. Those who bow and scrape at the feet of VoIP or IP Video or IP whatever should remember that there is no clear authority end to end. You know with cable, DBS even OTA generally who is responsible for ensuring that the signal arrives at you home. Unless and until (not likely) some commercial entity wants to overbuild the Internet any IP-based service is subject to the vicissitudes of net life. Perhaps a major university is upgrading routers and has to detour traffic through a path likely to intermittently fail - just when you're watching the Super Bowl or that the number of customers using bandwidth hogging services (which are being carried at no direct cost to them) rises sharply -- who is going to be the first booted - your ABC or DOD C4I traffic? Now the heavy redundancy makes this less of a problem but its like driving on a public road - you never know when the orange cones are coming out and the guy in the sleeveshirt directs your Acura through a muddy field.
As for the programming itself, perhaps unbundling of network and local is an idea. There would be one (or a couple) of nationwide feeds for each network (HD of course - with either dark periods where local used to be or repeated programming). Just think how much space that would open up. And there would be (at least initially) locals which could fill in open spots and be purchase for those who really wanted to know what was going on in Main Street. Chances are that all but the few top markets would fail and then everybody would have NY and/or LA-centric news, weather and sports. No more seeing little Tommy score the touchdown or knowing that a blizzard is coming (but it's a beautiful 88 degrees in downtown Los Angeles!) -that's what newpapers and/or radio are for. But then we could purchase as many or as few locals as we cared to and everybody would still get network programming as desired. What's not to like?
As for the programming itself, perhaps unbundling of network and local is an idea. There would be one (or a couple) of nationwide feeds for each network (HD of course - with either dark periods where local used to be or repeated programming). Just think how much space that would open up. And there would be (at least initially) locals which could fill in open spots and be purchase for those who really wanted to know what was going on in Main Street. Chances are that all but the few top markets would fail and then everybody would have NY and/or LA-centric news, weather and sports. No more seeing little Tommy score the touchdown or knowing that a blizzard is coming (but it's a beautiful 88 degrees in downtown Los Angeles!) -that's what newpapers and/or radio are for. But then we could purchase as many or as few locals as we cared to and everybody would still get network programming as desired. What's not to like?
In corporate America today there is a concerted effort to cut out the middleman whenever possible and sell direct to the consumer. Hopefully, the broadcast affiliates begin a long slow death spiral and the corporate parents will push their content over the internet to us.
The only downside to this is that I see them finding ways to force us to watch ads. We'll see how it plays out....
The only downside to this is that I see them finding ways to force us to watch ads. We'll see how it plays out....
I am so greatfull for NPS. That said, I now want them to carry the networks in HD. Is this possible?? Does NPS have the bandwidth/uplink/feed??? I think Dish should be glad to give it to them. I hate to seem greedy but this would be a great Christmas and make for a better Superbowl.
I see some are still quick to say someone is wrong, when it was only a comment about what could happen if those that you elected to congress modified a law without thinking it all the way through.
However, now for some more opinions...
I'm sure if the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) were allowed to operate from either 1 or 2 locations in the country (NYC & LA) and broadcast their 1 or 2 signals across the country using repeaters and/or maybe some sort of satellite signal on the TV bands, and not provide any content to the many currently affiliated TV stations across the USA, they would find enough national advertisers to support, sustain, and supplement their current revenues.
This would eliminate a lot of the current local TV stations. You would probably be watching either NYC or LA, and their weather and crime reports via some UHF repeater as if it was a local TV station.
There goes your local sports team as well; when they are playing out of town you would not be able to see them, unless they were playing in NYC or LA. While on the subject of sports, would your team survive if no one showed up for the local games? I suspect attendance would greatly drop if you could just dial up a distant station to watch a home game.
Yes, it's all about economics.
We need to protect the local TV stations which often provide a (revenue making) PUBLIC SERVICE to the local area, and often a regional area via UHF repeater transmitters/licenses.
Yes, we all want more choices, and the TV stations need to stay competitive; but putting them in a corner is not the way for them to survive. It would be nice to be able to sit in the pool in your backyard with your big screen and watch any sport game for free, no matter what part of the country it was playing in. Football use to be a sport, but it is now a money making organization with paid players.
Most of the country (less parts of Southern CA, MS, LA, and WV*) are now in the 21st century. I'm sure eventually, the local affiliates and non-affiliates will need to become more creative to remain in BUSINESS. But in the meantime, (I feel) congress should ensure these stations are not put at a disadvantage until it comes up with or redevelopes a national plan.
Maybe NavyChop, or since ThomasRz mentioned DOD C4I, or others would like to comment on the National Security implications of putting all of the local TV stations out of business?
Just another commentary.
By the way, "I feel strongly both ways!"
(* Based on a recent report that Southern California has taken the lead on being the less educated.)
However, now for some more opinions...
I'm sure if the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) were allowed to operate from either 1 or 2 locations in the country (NYC & LA) and broadcast their 1 or 2 signals across the country using repeaters and/or maybe some sort of satellite signal on the TV bands, and not provide any content to the many currently affiliated TV stations across the USA, they would find enough national advertisers to support, sustain, and supplement their current revenues.
This would eliminate a lot of the current local TV stations. You would probably be watching either NYC or LA, and their weather and crime reports via some UHF repeater as if it was a local TV station.
There goes your local sports team as well; when they are playing out of town you would not be able to see them, unless they were playing in NYC or LA. While on the subject of sports, would your team survive if no one showed up for the local games? I suspect attendance would greatly drop if you could just dial up a distant station to watch a home game.
Yes, it's all about economics.
We need to protect the local TV stations which often provide a (revenue making) PUBLIC SERVICE to the local area, and often a regional area via UHF repeater transmitters/licenses.
Yes, we all want more choices, and the TV stations need to stay competitive; but putting them in a corner is not the way for them to survive. It would be nice to be able to sit in the pool in your backyard with your big screen and watch any sport game for free, no matter what part of the country it was playing in. Football use to be a sport, but it is now a money making organization with paid players.
Most of the country (less parts of Southern CA, MS, LA, and WV*) are now in the 21st century. I'm sure eventually, the local affiliates and non-affiliates will need to become more creative to remain in BUSINESS. But in the meantime, (I feel) congress should ensure these stations are not put at a disadvantage until it comes up with or redevelopes a national plan.
Maybe NavyChop, or since ThomasRz mentioned DOD C4I, or others would like to comment on the National Security implications of putting all of the local TV stations out of business?
Just another commentary.
By the way, "I feel strongly both ways!"
(* Based on a recent report that Southern California has taken the lead on being the less educated.
)
Last edited:
Yes, where would be without:
- The Car Chase of the Day
- Cock Fights in Our Area (actual KTVU lead story this week)
- Whoever Died Violently in Town Today
and other reports that are crucial to my everyday life !
I can get my local weather from accuweather.com and my local sports has not been covered on any television in the last 15 years, nor any other event within 50 miles of me...
Not everyone is wired, at least not with internet, satellite and/or cable
, many only have local TV.Maybe the Feds should come up with a new scheme, such as...
All DBS services will provide a spot beam with free local channels to anyone desiring it, without charge. If there is no local channel in the area, then the closest market will be provided. And the Little 4 Networks should be required to provide a national feed to each time zone to be broadcast to those same area's free of charge.
EDIT: Was that a legal cox fight? If so, what state are you in, I believe there are only 2 states left that permit such sport.
Last edited:
Most local sports teams are not carried on networks stations. Football is, but could just as easily not be. Then the networks and affiliatates would not have to spend their money on broadcasting games and getting the rights. I like sports and ESPN etc.., but people make a very valid point when they say ESPN should be a separate subscription so you are not made to pay for it. Same applies here. Let NESN, YES, or the local RSN'S carry sports programming and let those who want it pay for it. The argument that not everyone has access to programming other than free OTA may be true, but sports teams have not been worried about that for years.
As for attendance - Virtually every Red Sox game is carried on NESN. Has been for years. Shown two or three times. Try to get a ticket at Fenway. In addition, you can already watch your team anywhere by paying a modest subscription to watch on the internet. Same for college basketball for many teams, and for the playoffs.
Scott is right on the money in my opinion. And I have posted that you cannot stop technology. How we get our "TV" services are on the verge of changing, or at the least, having more than one or even two options. The Slingbox has already revolutionized watching TV for me.
The structure for local network stations has to, and is going to change.
But I don't think how you get first-run programming will change. Let's not forget that both CBS and FOX are at the set ownership cap of reaching 38 percent of the households in the US. Both networks have a vested interest in keeping first run programming available through their affiliates, because they own a lot of them.
And this comes from a guy that has three DVR's so I never watch first run programming on the schedule they set (ain't technology grand ).
That isn't to say that the networks would find a way to bypass some local affilliates when in comes to making money off of new technology. But the landscape will not change to allow stations from different areas to be rebroadcast into new areas. Copyright law and the contracts between affiliates and networks will always practically forbid it.
And this comes from a guy that has three DVR's so I never watch first run programming on the schedule they set (ain't technology grand
).That isn't to say that the networks would find a way to bypass some local affilliates when in comes to making money off of new technology. But the landscape will not change to allow stations from different areas to be rebroadcast into new areas. Copyright law and the contracts between affiliates and networks will always practically forbid it.
Then it will become like Napster. People will steal what they can't obtain easily through legal channels.
Once the networks realize the scope of the problem, they will have to embrace the problem and meet the demands of the market. Itunes and their ilk are making a ton of money for the music companies. The studios see this and will embrace it, one way or the other.
How much longer until we see CBS selling "all you can eat" access to their programming like Major League Baseball does now. The affilates get first run rights, and then the website will sell you the program via streaming HD over a broadband connection any time after that.... The trick is to find a way to easily port the picture over to our TVs instead of our PCs. Once this happens the floodgates will open...
Once the networks realize the scope of the problem, they will have to embrace the problem and meet the demands of the market. Itunes and their ilk are making a ton of money for the music companies. The studios see this and will embrace it, one way or the other.
How much longer until we see CBS selling "all you can eat" access to their programming like Major League Baseball does now. The affilates get first run rights, and then the website will sell you the program via streaming HD over a broadband connection any time after that.... The trick is to find a way to easily port the picture over to our TVs instead of our PCs. Once this happens the floodgates will open...
Most of the country (less parts of Southern CA, MS, LA, and WV*) are now in the 21st century
How totally insulting! I can not speak for the other areas but I assure you that not only is MS in the 21st century it is leading the way in many areas. Where was the first heart transplant performed in the US? The "grass" that the Giants football team plays on was developed and first used where? Most acoustic accomplishements that you hear from your radio or tv are developed where? Very, very insulting and stupid remark!
How totally insulting! I can not speak for the other areas but I assure you that not only is MS in the 21st century it is leading the way in many areas. Where was the first heart transplant performed in the US? The "grass" that the Giants football team plays on was developed and first used where? Most acoustic accomplishements that you hear from your radio or tv are developed where? Very, very insulting and stupid remark!
Any Moderator: Please remove my rant. I'm sensitive about this perception but I was totally out of line. I will go back and not post for awhile. Sorry Smitty, nothing intended.
Sure. And look at Napster's business today. They aren't making a lot of money.Bob Murdoch said:
Oh, everything in this paragraph depends. It depends on the definition of "making a ton of money". The iTunes store has over 1.5 billion downloads. Using the $1 a song theory, that is $1.5 billion. That money must be shared by all of the music companies, the television distributors such as ABC and iTunes. In the grand scheme of things, has any company been able to reap a piece of the pie over $100 million off of the arrangement since the beginning of iTunes over three years ago? Probably Apple, but any others?Bob Murdoch said:
And the cable companies and the satellite companies boast revenues in the billions every quarter.
....and they are the speed bumps in the inevitable march to new technologies.
Most only upgrade when they are forced to (either from competitive or regulatory pressures).
They've been dragging their feet on the HD upgrade for a decade. Others have imposed censorship on content by refusing to air programs "they" feel are objectionable. The sooner they get flushed out of the way, the better.
Most only upgrade when they are forced to (either from competitive or regulatory pressures).
They've been dragging their feet on the HD upgrade for a decade. Others have imposed censorship on content by refusing to air programs "they" feel are objectionable. The sooner they get flushed out of the way, the better.
OK, swap out Napster for BitTorrent. There is a demand for the content. The broadcasters can either spend briefcases full of legal money trying to fight it, or they can figure out a way to embrace the new paradigm shift and profit from it.
As for ITunes, there are few unit costs. No factories to run, no returns, no "cutouts" to mark down. Just royalty checks that show up once the master is made.
They don't get the huge profits anymore from conning people into paying $10-20 for a CD with 1 or 2 songs on it anymore, but they lost that anyway once the IPod became dominant..
