Should Dish be spending their resources to enable locals?

S

saseenthar

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
May 17, 2006
56
0
With so much discussion going on about lack of national HDs and bandwidth to carry them, Should Dish be spending the effort on enabling locals?

When it comes to priority, the ability to broadcast national feeds to the entire country should come first ahead of USA or SciFi channel, but at what cost?

I am not able to understand the logic of enabling the locals, when all that people are looking for are the "American Idol", "Heroes", "Lost", "Dancing With Stars", "March Madness", "NFL" and college football etc.

Lets face it, even in metros New York, LA or SFO all that we see from the so called local stations in terms of unique programming is their local news. Why not Dish (and Direct TV) do a national feed of ABC, NBC, CBS etc. On top of that if they push aggressively 622/722 receivers, then by 2009 90% of the subs will have a choice of national feed and OTAs for local.

I know there will be arguments about how to broadcast local emergency information. I am sure the Dish will be able to find a way to feed local emergency info to set top irrespective of the channel that they are watching and the subs don't have to specifically tune to the local channel.
 
Fanucci

Fanucci

SatelliteGuys Family
Feb 5, 2008
46
0
Let's save some time. Those with locals will agree with you and myself and others without locals will disagree. When you live 50-90 miles away from the towers, ota is not an option.

It's funny that you say the only people that are interested in local channels are......and then go on to list the MOST WATCHED PROGRAMS ON TELEVISION. I want HD by football season and if Cleveland is in HD, I'll go back to cable and get their bundle deal.
 
Derwin0

Derwin0

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Lifetime Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
38,475
16,872
Griffin, GA
The first thing people ask about satellite is "Does it carry my locals?"
Facts are, most people watch most of their programming on their locals, and adding locals is what drove most of satellites growth.
 
Voyager6

Voyager6

*Cancelled*
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 30, 2005
17,097
5,324
Wokeville
With so much discussion going on about lack of national HDs and bandwidth to carry them, Should Dish be spending the effort on enabling locals?
This has been in the works since E* purchased the Rainbow 1 satellite (E12). E* has been building the uplink centers to send the locals to E12. Locals are important to many subscribers. They get the bulk of their HD from the local networks. So if you can't get the local networks via OTA, the ability to subscribe to them is very important. Activating the spotbeams on E12 will free up several CONUS TPs for national HD. However, it will take some time for the conversion to be completed. HDLIL has to come first in order for room for more national HD to become available. I am as disappointed as the rest of you but I realize that more national HD is coming and that I must have the patience to wait for it. E* HD subscribers will not have the same wait as D* subs had.
 
S

saseenthar

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
May 17, 2006
56
0
The first thing people ask about satellite is "Does it carry my locals?"
Facts are, most people watch most of their programming on their locals, and adding locals is what drove most of satellites growth.

Correct most people watch most of the programming from locals, but the question is what program they watch from the local station?

Other than the news what content or segment of the program is produced by the local station and how much of that is in HD?
 
TNGTony

TNGTony

Unashamed Bengal Fan
Sep 7, 2003
10,019
804
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Correct most people watch most of the programming from locals, but the question is what program they watch from the local station?

This is an old, tired argument that has been around since the first satellite company put up the first local channel.

"Other than the news" is a wide sweeping statement. "Other than breathing, what do we need air for?" :) Local news programs are the single most watch programs on local TV, including network shows.

But let's forget about that. Let's focus on the main point. Yes, if networks were available nationally, only one, maybe two or three channels for each network (for time zones) would be needed saving a ton of bandwidth and expense.

If the networks wanted to do this, it could have been done decades ago. The NETWORKS own the programming, not the local channels. However, the NETWORKS decided that they will distribute their programming via local stations EXCLUSIVELY. Each local station has a contract with their network to carry that network's programming in an EXCLUSIVE area. (Exclusive= to exclude everyone else from broadcasting the same program in that area).

This has absolutely zero to do with the FCC regulations or other government laws enacted to ALLOW distant network channels in specific circumstances over the objections of the networks and local channels. If it weren't for the specific laws and regulations that ALLOW the reception of distant network channels (over the objections of the program owners) via satellite, NO ONE could legally get them. So let's dispel the myth that it is the "evil government bureaucracy" that is to blame for that.

It is the owners of the programs, the NETWORKS that refuse to allow distribution over DBS satellites and that is it!

The instant they allow national distribution is the instant that Dish or DirecTV will start carrying network programs direct from the source.

See ya
Tony
 
S

saseenthar

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
May 17, 2006
56
0
This is an old, tired argument that has been around since the first satellite company put up the first local channel.

"Other than the news" is a wide sweeping statement. "Other than breathing, what do we need air for?" :) News programs are the single most watch programs on local TV, including network shows.

But let's forget about that. Let's focus on the main point. Yes, if networks were available nation wide one, maybe tow or three channels for each network (for time zones) would be needed saving a ton of bandwidth and expense.

If the networks wanted to do this, it could have been done decades ago. The NETWORKS own the programming, not the local channels. However, the NETWORKS decided that they will distribute their programming via local stations EXCLUSIVELY. Each local station has a contract with their network to carry that networks programming in an EXCLUSIVE area. (Exclusive= to exclude everyone else from broadcasting the same program in that area).

This has absolutely zero to do with the FCC regulations or other government laws enacted to ALLOW distant network channels in specific circumstances over the objections of the networks and local channels.

It is the owners of the programs, the NETWORKS that refuse to allow distribution over DBS satellites and that is it!

The instant they allow national distribution is the instant that Dish or DirecTV will start carrying network programs direct from the source.

See ya
Tony

thanks for the clarification. Case Closed.
 
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
53,239
18,385
Northern VA
I watch very little local TV. But when I do, I want to have my choice of all the subchannels. And that means OTA.
 
TNGTony

TNGTony

Unashamed Bengal Fan
Sep 7, 2003
10,019
804
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Personally, I am the same way Navychop.

I watch more of the sub-channels than I do the standard channels when it comes to the PBS and CCBS affiliates here. NBC Weather Plus beats The Weather Channel most of the time too. :)

see ya
Tony
 
A

aperry

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 26, 2003
700
0
Let's save some time. Those with locals will agree with you and myself and others without locals will disagree. When you live 50-90 miles away from the towers, ota is not an option.
As one that does not get locals in HD, I'd disagree. I want the national HD channels. I'm not saying stop with the locals all together, but throw us a bone with some national channels. D* added 3 more channels today, and what do we get? Possible more locals for a small percentage of the country.

To be honest, and I can't even believe I'm saying this, I have actually put pen to paper to figure out exactly how much it would cost me to get out of my contract early with E* and hook up with D*. I love the Voom channels, at least the ones I watch, but I really would like to see other national HD added ASAP.
 
O

okiekevn

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 12, 2007
531
0
tulsa, ok
out of all the people who currently have locals in hd from dish, would you be willing to sacrifice your locals in hd to make headroom for more nationals? where i am in tulsa, i have ot use an OTA, and will continue to if/when we get locals in hd. there are a total of 19 channels i scanned in with my 722. thats 15 more then i would get only with dish.

but not everyone is able to get their locals in hd via ota. so for those in the dam's who do have hd in locals via dish, great. but dont complain about other dma's unless you would be willing to give up yours.
 
C

CDH

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Jul 28, 2004
498
0
Greenville, SC
Isn't biggest reason that national network feeds aren't possible that local stations depend on *local* advertising (including during prime-time) to run their stations?

What local station (not owned by the networks) is going to agree to give up thousands of viewers of those local ads?

CDH.
 
S

saseenthar

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
May 17, 2006
56
0
Isn't biggest reason that national network feeds aren't possible that local stations depend on *local* advertising (including during prime-time) to run their stations?

What local station (not owned by the networks) is going to agree to give up thousands of viewers of those local ads?

CDH.

Is that means Dish gets a cut for enabling a local?
 
mike123abc

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
24,021
2,845
Norman, OK
Networks are the way they are because that is what keeps them on the air. Why as a local station owner would you carry a cable channel on your airwaves? They want unique programs that bring eyeballs to their channel so they can sell advertisements. The networks want all the local channels carrying their programming so they can go to the advertisers and sell them airspace that is guaranteed to be able to be watched in X number of homes.

The relationship is not going to change any time soon. Look at the ratings in prime time. ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC dominate the ratings, cable channels are not even close. The most important HD to most buyers of satellite and cable are their local channels. The problem that the next most imporant channels to viewer are divided up over all the other cable channels. Some might want ESPN, HGTV, SciFi, USA, the list goes on over hundreds of channels. Dish sees the first demand being LiL HD. Yeah there might be a few POed SciFi fans out there, but there will be far more paying customers with locals in HD.

You can argue that Dish carries a fair number of HD cable channels right now... But there are always vocal people that want a particular channel added.
 
kennya

kennya

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 8, 2007
366
1
McAlester, OK
but not everyone is able to get their locals in hd via ota. so for those in the dma's who do have hd in locals via dish, great. but dont complain about other dma's unless you would be willing to give up yours.

Agreed fellow Okie... We here in McAlester cannot receive our locals OTA from Tulsa. :(
 
osu1991

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,341
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
I hope you get to see them soon Kennya, I hate to say KJRH's move to all hd for their local productions has kept me watching their news now. The graphics really pop of the screen now. I thought it looked good on my old hdtv, but I just got a new 42in lcd for my office and I am blown away by the look of KJRH now. If they could only fix some of NBC's problems now.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top