Scheme to prevent Sat from locals broadcast?

[bigjohnok]

"Almost" everyone already has access to free locals now... it's called an antenna.

Again, I think satcos shot themselves in the foot when they first launched LiL by having a dedicated charge for them.

not since the switch over to digital, I live like 3 hours from the closest major urban area.
in my region you can pull in 9 ota channels and 4 of those are pbs and 2 are Cw the only 2 major broadcast channels that come in over the air is abc and cbs

 

[Tampa8]

Digital has made it much harder to receive OTA, I had to get an antenna booster and better antenna in Fl. Luckily all the towers are in about the same place/direction. In Ct I no longer get the CT ABC OTA because since the change to digital I would need a rotor. I no longer get WCTX at all OTA. Aiming in general is more precise now. (Partly because to get these channels now I need a more directional antenna to get the signal)

 

[sam_gordon]

Digital has made it much harder to receive OTA, I had to get an antenna booster and better antenna in Fl. Luckily all the towers are in about the same place/direction. In Ct I no longer get the CT ABC OTA because since the change to digital I would need a rotor. I no longer get WCTX at all OTA. Aiming in general is more precise now. (Partly because to get these channels now I need a more directional antenna to get the signal)

not since the switch over to digital, I live like 3 hours from the closest major urban area.
in my region you can pull in 9 ota channels and 4 of those are pbs and 2 are Cw the only 2 major broadcast channels that come in over the air is abc and cbs

That's why I said ALMOST everyone has free access to locals. I know there are plenty of folks who can't receive OTA. I still feel they are in the minority (<25%?). I don't think anyone has accurate numbers that show how many people do/don't have access to OTA.

And just a reminder, the "digital transition" was forced on broadcasters. They didn't do it for any business reason.

 

[Brussam]

And just a reminder, the "digital transition" was forced on broadcasters. They didn't do it for any business reason./QUOTE]
That's true, the change was to get bandwidth for first responders in the VHF band. A public good.

 

[sam_gordon]

But what bandwidth was "gained"? A channel used to tie up 6Mhz of bandwidth before the transition, and guess what? A channel still takes up 6Mhz of bandwidth. Granted, channels were moved, so that freed up bandwidth in a certain frequency range, but unless a station didn't do the transition and elected to sign off, no additional bandwidth was freed.

 

[Brussam]

The stations moved, most from the VHF band to the UHF band which is the main reason it is harder to receive digital signals at a distance. Just because the channel numbers are low (<14) doesn't mean they are in the VHF band anymore.

The Feds wanted part of the VHF band for the first responders because of the greater distance and penetration of the VHF band.

 

[sam_gordon]

The stations moved, most from the VHF band to the UHF band which is the main reason it is harder to receive digital signals at a distance. Just because the channel numbers are low (<14) doesn't mean they are in the VHF band anymore.

The Feds wanted part of the VHF band for the first responders because of the greater distance and penetration of the VHF band.

The Feds could have accomplished the same thing by simply moving the analog broadcasts channels, which would have affected only some broadcasters, instead of forcing the transition which affected ALL broadcasters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad of the transition, and am "spoiled" by HD.

 

[harshness]

Stuart neglected to mention that STELA 2014 has already been passed by the House. If STAVRA is as bad as most assume, STELA 2014 wasn't much of an overhaul from the previous STELA (2010)

 

[dare2be]

Wonderful, status quo.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I have talked to a few people about this... and they are now coming to the conclusion the article was written to drive Antenna sales more than anything else.

 

[DishSubLA]

Something tells me the MVPDs wouldn't like that also... they make no money on those channels.

But it was the MVPD's idea, not Rockefeller's. The MVPD's support the idea because there huge costs to acquire the rights to rebroadcast locals disappears, and MVPD's are out of controversial and sometimes hurtful blackouts for locals because negotiations fall apart. The cost for MVPD's to transport the locals is CHEAP, it is the rights that are very expensive. With the proposed system, each subscriber pays and the fee is set by the broadcaster, which means the broadcasters will likely price to sell and no necessarily price their station out of reach. Also, those who don't want locals or particular channels don't have to pay for it as a cost built in to the existing bill. The packages today have "locals included" so that means the cost is shared by everyone, if one a subscriber does not want nor really care to have locals. Again, it won't happen because the big nets and NAB are sure to kill it.

 

[harshness]

With the proposed system, each subscriber pays and the fee is set by the broadcaster, which means the broadcasters will likely price to sell and no necessarily price their station out of reach.

Do you think the OTA paradigm could survive without stations knowing what their income will be from one month to the next?

If everyone with satellite and cable dropped everything but their favorite local news channel over the summer, pickings would be slim indeed.

Those customers that choose an SV (or maybe even a DNS) over the incumbent station would also cause an interesting wrinkle.

 

[DishSubLA]

Do you think the OTA paradigm could survive without stations knowing what their income will be from one month to the next?

If everyone with satellite and cable dropped everything but their favorite local news channel over the summer, pickings would be slim indeed.

Those customers that choose an SV (or maybe even a DNS) over the incumbent station would also cause an interesting wrinkle.

Um, they would know what their income would be because it is an ADVERSER based model, as it has been from the very first day many decades ago. The retransmission rights are pure gravy. Further, after they have some data of how many people are paying fees to them via MVPD's, they will get that extra money as gravy and have a clear sense of growth or maturity for those fees. And they could always raise the fees anytime they want.

 

[sam_gordon]

But it was the MVPD's idea, not Rockefeller's. The MVPD's support the idea because there huge costs to acquire the rights to rebroadcast locals disappears, and MVPD's are out of controversial and sometimes hurtful blackouts for locals because negotiations fall apart. The cost for MVPD's to transport the locals is CHEAP, it is the rights that are very expensive. With the proposed system, each subscriber pays and the fee is set by the broadcaster, which means the broadcasters will likely price to sell and no necessarily price their station out of reach. Also, those who don't want locals or particular channels don't have to pay for it as a cost built in to the existing bill. The packages today have "locals included" so that means the cost is shared by everyone, if one a subscriber does not want nor really care to have locals. Again, it won't happen because the big nets and NAB are sure to kill it.

How is that any different then "cable" channels (ie: ESPN, MTV, USA, etc)? All subscribers pay for channels they have no interest in.

 

[dishcomm]

At first sounds far fetched, but read what Solid Signal has posted. Is this a backdoor attempt to have the Satellite companies lose the right to broadcast locals?

http://forums.solidsignal.com/conte...n-jeopardy?s=f6e1e73d73c9b09178fe85bcd557e318

I think the whole DMA/local tv system should be blown up and discarded like the 1950's trash that it is.
Here's why....The DMA which serves my area stretches diagonally for some 200 road miles. From one end to the other would take 4 hours to drive.
In air distance it's about 150 miles.
The two ends of the DMA are so different, it's unreal. One is in the high peaks of the NC Blue Ridge Mts. On the other end, the South Carolina Sand Hills.
Outside 50 or so miles from Charlotte, almost no one can receive a decent tv signal by conventional OTA means. In fact, the counties on the edges of the DMA have ZERO in common with the region from which the tv signals originate.
It's STUPID beyond all comparison.

 

[dishcomm]

"Almost" everyone already has access to free locals now... it's called an antenna.

Again, I think satcos shot themselves in the foot when they first launched LiL by having a dedicated charge for them.

Not true. In fact in most of the geographically larger DMA's OTA reception is virtually impossible.

 

[harshness]

Um, they would know what their income would be because it is an ADVERSER based model, as it has been from the very first day many decades ago.

And you suppose that the advertising-based funding model is sufficient to maintain the local stations such that they are competitive with other media outlets? Broadcast TV is competing with a handful of OTT providers already for some of their most valuable entertainment programming.

Newspapers used to operate mainly on the advertising-based funding model (subscriptions did little more than cover the cost of delivery) and look where it got them. The local paper in my area is selling the online version for $12/month and daily papers for $22/month. The Sunday paper (where all of the big ads are) sells for $12/month (including the daily online version) so it is probably the only issue close to break even. To add Wednesdays (the day the grocery ads used to appear) is another $2.

 

[harshness]

Not true. In fact in most of the geographically larger DMA's OTA reception is virtually impossible.

It is the mid-sized (geographically) markets that have the most trouble. In my very large DMA (acreage-wise), each station has a number transponders to cover locations that are more than 50 miles from the station's home (or obscured by mountain ranges). I would imagine that Salt Lake, Phoenix and Albuquerque/Santa Fe also have numerous transponders.

 

[dare2be]

How is that any different then "cable" channels (ie: ESPN, MTV, USA, etc)? All subscribers pay for channels they have no interest in.

It currently isn't any different. The point is that the legislation is attempting to make it different. Consumer choice, what a concept.

 

[bluegrassboy75]

I know this is probably a dumb question but would we as subs be able to choose where we get the locals from if this passes?


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!