By "higher priority", I meant the retrans crawl physically covered up the weather crawl. I don't think the FCC cares about the size difference in crawls as long as the emergency information is legible.
My opinion (just that) is satellite and cable companies gave the OTA locals more viewers AND people signed up for the satellite and cable companies because they could the locals and the cable networks from one source. Symbiotic.
Not my market.
Don't plagiarize my product. I can take a pretty picture, or a picture that's monumental, and post it on my web page for all to see. YOU can't download that picture and sell it.
I disagree with plagiarism. That's outright incorrect. Plagiarism means that they are taking someone else's work and calling it their own. The satellite and cable companies are redistributing signals that are already distributed for free. I ask for proof that without locals, satellite and cable can't be competitive, or would not draw the subscriptions that they currently draw. This is all based on archaic system where the broadcast networks held greater clout. In the 80s, more people were accustomed to OTA. That was the time when Chicago even held back cable from being allowed to protect broadcast television. It has always been about how they can get their cut. Then, people subbed mainly to get better reception of the big three networks. That isn't the case now. Outside of the NFL and local news, the networks do not have the same clout that they had 35 years ago. In the end, I shouldn't have to pay extra to Cox Media to view an OTA channel in my market that I can receive OTA, just because I'm watching it through my satellite provider.
Your position is based on greed in my opinion. "I want to give this away for free, but if someone else puts it with other channels that are only available for a subscription, then I want to be compensated." How about, pull your station from OTA and make it cable/satellite only? Then I would completely not take issue. It's pure greed on the owners behalf.
Addition
Your comparison about the picture is inaccurate. That would be Dish taking a broadcast of the local news and rebroadcasting it on channel 102. They boost the signal range. And this notion that Dish is selling the signal is inaccurate. They are selling it because, you complained that what you gave away for free was included in a sale with other items. I argue that without retransmission agreements, in theory, cable and satellite companies could charge equipment fees and basically redistribute the signal at no cost. That could be possible in today's day and age.
Look at Locast! They are giving the signals away for free on a streaming service. What happens? The owners complain. What profit is Locast getting? It's the same principal. Its greed. God forbid that people in the market have free access to a station that is given away for free. Superstations I totally get. Channels like USA, TBS, FX, etc, I totally get. But, I shouldn't be held to needing to pay more to watch my local CBS and ABC, just because I'm watching it on my Dish subscription. That's just absurd.