OK, so WHO is lying?

[navychop]

We are pleased to announce that DISH and Grant Group have reached a multi-year agreement and your local stations have been restored. We hope you enjoy your favorite programming, including the Daytona 500. Thank you for your patience and support during this negotiation. We appreciate your loyalty and commitment to DISH.

I support every provider playing hardball with these local stations. I suspect they'd prefer to drop all OTA and it's costs, and still be paid by cablecos & satcos. Sorry, at the point they become no OTA or paid OTA, they've become extinct, IMO.

And the satcos and cablecos don't owe the networks their old business model. If commercials go away, it's up to the networks to develop a new business model. No one owes buggy whip manufacturers a guaranteed continued existence.

 

[KAB]

The last thing we need is another federal bureaucracy screwing with the marketplace.

Absolutely correct. The marketplace is screwing itself up just fine by itself. Who needs them!

 

[dare2be]

The last thing we need is another federal bureaucracy screwing with the marketplace.

The marketplace screwed itself up after federal deregulation.

 

[whatchel1]

We are pleased to announce that DISH and Grant Group have reached a multi-year agreement and your local stations have been restored. We hope you enjoy your favorite programming, including the Daytona 500. Thank you for your patience and support during this negotiation. We appreciate your loyalty and commitment to DISH.

But not w/ Ramar Communications.

 

[sam_gordon]

I support every provider playing hardball with these local stations. I suspect they'd prefer to drop all OTA and it's costs, and still be paid by cablecos & satcos. Sorry, at the point they become no OTA or paid OTA, they've become extinct, IMO.

When you say "they'd prefer to drop all OTA", are you referring to the broadcasters or the cablecos & satcos?

Now, answer this... let's say OTA goes away. How exactly do you plan on cablecos & satcos getting the signal. There are over 100 (I think close to 120) cablecos that service my market. Add in E* & D*. At this point, only one company (Time Warner) can get feeds from locals in some way OTHER than OTA. D* gets one local via fiber. They get the rest via OTA. D* gets all the locals OTA.

So OTA can only go away if: Someone invests in a fiber infrastructure to get the signal (mega-mega-mega money), or the cable/satcos get the network feeds directly off satellite. But then you run into another problem... the networks aren't filling 24/7. So the networks (or providers) would need to fill the remainder of the schedule, which, guess what, costs money. And who exactly do you think is going to end up paying for all this?

 

[TheKrell]

I think navychop is referring to the broadcasters, who would be happy to get rid of their transmitters, and just keep on escalating both advertising and carriage fees into the stratosphere. Note that they have been forced by the FCC to broadcast OTA in the clear, which makes it impossible for them to impose DRM on their content. What they would really like to do is kill free TV altogether.

 

[Tampa8]

I support every provider playing hardball with these local stations. I suspect they'd prefer to drop all OTA and it's costs, and still be paid by cablecos & satcos. Sorry, at the point they become no OTA or paid OTA, they've become extinct, IMO.

And the satcos and cablecos don't owe the networks their old business model. If commercials go away, it's up to the networks to develop a new business model. No one owes buggy whip manufacturers a guaranteed continued existence.

Amen. And can I get a Hallelujah?

 

[dare2be]

I think navychop is referring to the broadcasters, who would be happy to get rid of their transmitters, and just keep on escalating both advertising and carriage fees into the stratosphere. Note that they have been forced by the FCC to broadcast OTA in the clear, which makes it impossible for them to impose DRM on their content. What they would really like to do is kill free TV altogether.

There wasn't a "Really Like" button. Free, DRM-less OTA exists because of government regulation. Not all (but most) regulation is bad. Something needs to be done to roll back the 1996 deregulation fiasco too.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think navychop is referring to the broadcasters, who would be happy to get rid of their transmitters, and just keep on escalating both advertising and carriage fees into the stratosphere. Note that they have been forced by the FCC to broadcast OTA in the clear, which makes it impossible for them to impose DRM on their content. What they would really like to do is kill free TV altogether.

The problem, as I mentioned in my previous post, is sat & cable providers (with rare exception) rely on OTA to get the signal to the head ends. So if they get rid of the transmitters, that will cut a LARGE percentage of viewers off. So that argument really makes no logical sense.

As far as escalating costs, isn't that a prime example of "let the market decide"? I'm sure Dish (and Direct, and cable cos) would love to keep escalating the fees they charge too. But if either one escalates charges too much, not enough people will purchase and they get bitten in the long run.

 

[sam_gordon]

There wasn't a "Really Like" button. Free, DRM-less OTA exists because of government regulation. Not all (but most) regulation is bad. Something needs to be done to roll back the 1996 deregulation fiasco too.

Feel free to contact your representatives.

 

[whatchel1]

When you say "they'd prefer to drop all OTA", are you referring to the broadcasters or the cablecos & satcos?

Now, answer this... let's say OTA goes away. How exactly do you plan on cablecos & satcos getting the signal. There are over 100 (I think close to 120) cablecos that service my market. Add in E* & D*. At this point, only one company (Time Warner) can get feeds from locals in some way OTHER than OTA. D* gets one local via fiber. They get the rest via OTA. D* gets all the locals OTA.

So OTA can only go away if: Someone invests in a fiber infrastructure to get the signal (mega-mega-mega money), or the cable/satcos get the network feeds directly off satellite. But then you run into another problem... the networks aren't filling 24/7. So the networks (or providers) would need to fill the remainder of the schedule, which, guess what, costs money. And who exactly do you think is going to end up paying for all this?

A.T.& T. paid for the fiber at the station I worked for so that D* could be provided it's signal. Cost us 0 for it, so either D* paid A.T.& T. or the later felt it was worth having the 2 connected for some reason.

 

[sam_gordon]

A.T.& T. paid for the fiber at the station I worked for so that D* could be provided it's signal. Cost us 0 for it, so either D* paid A.T.& T. or the later felt it was worth having the 2 connected for some reason.

I'm guessing D* paid ATT. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying the fiber is going to cost SOMEONE. And it's not cheap.

 

[budda]

OTA Will never be pulled back. When the country went digital. It took so long because it was stated that people would be be left out in the cold. Had to get there converter boxes and prepare. The poor, the elderly who have no cable or live in a remote area where they can't get a service. Just never going to happen. And if it does, we will pay for it in the form of subsidies for paid T.V. That would be like providing a free cell phone. JMO Be careful what you wish for.

 

[sam_gordon]

Don't forget, the GOVERNMENT forced the move to DTV. The stations did not do it on their own.

 

[dare2be]

Yeah, the gov forced it due to the corporate lobbyist pressure from the studios/content owners, knowing they would be able to implement tighter DRM control over content delivery vs. analog. HD was just the eye candy leading the consumer into the windowless van.

 

[Teehar]

Getting pretty political here.Just to add my .02,the wireless spectrum and $$$,is why they pushed so hard for the digital transition.

 

[Tampa8]

Yeah, the gov forced it due to the corporate lobbyist pressure from the studios/content owners, knowing they would be able to implement tighter DRM control over content delivery vs. analog. HD was just the eye candy leading the consumer into the windowless van.

Jaded? Perhaps. Realistic. Yep.

 

[sam_gordon]

Getting pretty political here.Just to add my .02,the wireless spectrum and $$$,is why they pushed so hard for the digital transition.

Here's something I don't get... DTV stations take up the same bandwidth as analog stations. So how is any spectrum "saved"? Granted, it made it easier to re allocate frequencies to free up a band (there's nothing above ch.50 now, right?), but the same amount of spectrum is still being used, right?

 

[whatchel1]

Here's something I don't get... DTV stations take up the same bandwidth as analog stations. So how is any spectrum "saved"? Granted, it made it easier to re allocate frequencies to free up a band (there's nothing above ch.50 now, right?), but the same amount of spectrum is still being used, right?

And little used in the VHF spectrum either. The one station in this area that is in the VHF spectrum 11 has more multipath issues than the rest in the UHF spectrum. 52–69 were sold off. To the person talking about DRM. They tried to push that crap on us but we got it knocked down. I would like to see a 2nd round of DTV change over happen. I would like to see the USA go to MPEG 4.

 

[mike123abc]

Here's something I don't get... DTV stations take up the same bandwidth as analog stations. So how is any spectrum "saved"? Granted, it made it easier to re allocate frequencies to free up a band (there's nothing above ch.50 now, right?), but the same amount of spectrum is still being used, right?

With analog they had to have an empty channel in between every stations. Note that 4 & 5, 6 & 7, 13 & 14 all have band gaps so you could have a station on 4 & 5 for example under the old system, but not 3 & 4.

ATSC is designed so that the channels can be right next to each other without interference.