Does anyone have any idea how many have signed the petition? Do you think it has any chance of success when the decision is made at the end of the year?
MyTVRights.com
- Thread starter nrholland
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 11
- Views 2K
What's shameless about it? I don't understand it. I think everyone should be able to watch locals from another market if they want it and are willing to pay for it (so the local channels are not hurt by it).
Last edited:
I'm not even sure how possible this would be to implement... Think about the spot beams on the 110 that carry the locals.. they have a local coverage area to cut down on bandwidth....
Do you propose to have every local channel out there available to every one regardless of location? If yes then:
1. you would need to require Cable Co.s to do the same
2. you would need the government to subsidize the launch of additional satellites to handle the increased bandwidth. (the govt would be making the law so they would have to pay for the cost of implementation)
3. you would need some sort of secondary channel numbering system for channels with the same dial number.
4. you would need to have a set criteria for what channels get preference for lower numbers.
5. you would need a customer base willing to pay at least 5 times the cost of current locals for remote locals.
IMO I don't see it happening.
I think it would be more feasible to make all television stations simulcast on the internet and then require customers that want remote locals to have their STBs hooked up to a broadband connection... but I really don't see a market for this unless you are in an RV which is kind of a small market.
Do you propose to have every local channel out there available to every one regardless of location? If yes then:
1. you would need to require Cable Co.s to do the same
2. you would need the government to subsidize the launch of additional satellites to handle the increased bandwidth. (the govt would be making the law so they would have to pay for the cost of implementation)
3. you would need some sort of secondary channel numbering system for channels with the same dial number.
4. you would need to have a set criteria for what channels get preference for lower numbers.
5. you would need a customer base willing to pay at least 5 times the cost of current locals for remote locals.
IMO I don't see it happening.
I think it would be more feasible to make all television stations simulcast on the internet and then require customers that want remote locals to have their STBs hooked up to a broadband connection... but I really don't see a market for this unless you are in an RV which is kind of a small market.
Well, at the very least, let us have the distant nets if we want them instead of all this waiver crap. It's ridiculous to think that your local channel is going to go out of business because a few people on satellite are going to watch the distant nets now and then. Come on, local channels!! Get real! This isn't the 1950s anymore!!!
Now I think that the above would be an idea. Choose whichever locals you want (and pay for them of course) and have them streamed online to your receivers. Is that possible? I think that would be a great idea. It would save the satellite companies from the needed bandwidth to have all the locals conus once again.
Any comments?
I want to bring pro sports into this conversation. Back in the late 90s I had San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York network channels with DishNetwork. I was able to watch the SF 49ers, the St Louis Rams and the New York Giants at will. There were times that I had the opportunity to watch 12 games on a given Sunday. This was a great time for a football fan. Now, let's think about what that might do to Season Ticket. Why would I want to pay all that money for that plan when I could spend less than $10 a month and get all the football games I could care about. Well, it's business you see. The NFL didn't like that scenario because they weren't making any money out of it.
So, there are business aspects beyond the simple thinking that take effect when talking about distant networks.
So, there are business aspects beyond the simple thinking that take effect when talking about distant networks.
Yes, but if you were charged $5.99 per city per month it could add up real quick if you needed several cities in order get all of the games. And then again, they could blackout the games on the distant nets if they chose to or were ordered to by the NFL.
There is a program in place for RV'ers all ready. They can get national networks.
The other problem with the availability of locals available everywhere is advertising. Ad space is sold by available viewership.
This is one of the main reasons for this never happening.
What local advertiser would pay more for ad space just because it is broad casted nationally.
No one from California would be interested in a local furniture store from Chicago, etc... etc.... etc......
This. Will. Never. Happen.
Local affiliates (and thus the networks) will never freely allow a distant network free-for-all, as it jeopardizes their income.
As for the government, they currently prohibit distant locals except in certain very specific situations. And you want them to mandate distant local availability? Not anytime soon ...
Local affiliates (and thus the networks) will never freely allow a distant network free-for-all, as it jeopardizes their income.
As for the government, they currently prohibit distant locals except in certain very specific situations. And you want them to mandate distant local availability? Not anytime soon ...
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
TWhy the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale: Closing the Government's Data Aggregator Loophole
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
-
