Watch out the NAB is working against us.

[sam_gordon]

Last I checked, ESPN, CNN, FX, and HBO don't broadcast their signal free, either. And as Scott pointed out, LiL makes more money for more eyeballs with ads.

AND makes more $$ for the satellite/cable provider. Last time I checked, the LiL fee for Dish is $5.99. Lets say there are 5 stations in the market. The station is probably charging Dish .10-.25 for each subscriber. So for 5 stations, that's a total of $1.25 per subscriber. But Dish charges $5.99? Tell me how that's free.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sure, given everyone you would send a copy to was also supposed to receive a free copy.

Fine, I'll rephrase... if I record a show OTA, I should be able to sell a copy because everyone should have been able to see it?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

AND makes more $$ for the satellite/cable provider. Last time I checked, the LiL fee for Dish is $5.99. Lets say there are 5 stations in the market. The station is probably charging Dish .10-.25 for each subscriber. So for 5 stations, that's a total of $1.25 per subscriber. But Dish charges $5.99? Tell me how that's free.

And how is that stations signal getting from the area to the satellite companies uplinks? Fiber feeds are not cheap. The TV stations are not paying for that feed, the satellite companies are.

In addition since the satellite companies are PAYING to rebroadcast the locals because the stations demand payments then guess who pays... yup the consumer.

Now sure the satellite companies are making money off it, but why not after all everyone in between is as well.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I get a decent OTA signal from all my locals. I put an antenna in my attic.

And if you do that, then guess what you don't need to pay $5.99 for locals from Satellite.

However in many areas the signal from over the air stations do not reach all the areas that it is supposed to, and for them they can now view these previously unviewable channels on cable or satellite.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sorry, that's the price of doing business. Dish & Direct wanted/needed to show the LiL in order to compete with cable.

And I'll agree the consumer ends up paying for the retrans agreements, but I have no doubt Dish/Direct/Cable make SOME money off it.

 

[Peter Parker]

And how is that stations signal getting from the area to the satellite companies uplinks? Fiber feeds are not cheap. The TV stations are not paying for that feed, the satellite companies are.

In addition since the satellite companies are PAYING to rebroadcast the locals because the stations demand payments then guess who pays... yup the consumer.

Now sure the satellite companies are making money off it, but why not after all everyone in between is as well.

That might be true in some cases but i don't think that it si universally true. In some cases the stations are paying for the fiber and a re only carried due to must carry. But I agree that the sat companies have expenses. If nothing else they maintain all those PoPs.

 

[sam_gordon]

So the world revolves around you, now. You get your signals, so everyone can?

News for you: Lot's can't

Not my point. Believe me, I *KNOW* there are people who can't receive OTA broadcast no matter what kind of antenna they put up. But they are the exception rather than the rule.

At least not HBO, which has no commercials to otherwise pay the bills.

Agreed.

 

[TheKrell]

It is perfectly legal for me to build a 500' tower and put a rotating deep-fringe antenna on top and receive all OTA channels for free from my entire state. (Probably exaggerating here.) Broadcasters should be happy, because they are supported by advertisers, and my 500' tower is only increasing their viewership, allowing them to charge their advertisers more.

I can furthermore pay somebody for installation of said 500' tower and deep-fringe antenna, and still get all those channels for free. Installer is for profit. He does not share his profit with the broadcasters.

Now, all of a sudden, the NAB gets laws passed that allows local broadcasters to extort money from cable and satellite providers, even though they're doing nothing more than efficiently erecting one 500' tower (or satellite system) to do the same darn thing as my own personal 500' tower and antenna system.

Should the cable and satellilte providers offer all this expensive infrastructure for free? Of course not! My local installer doesn't install a 500' tower for free either. The only reason the broadcasters are doing this is they can, operating through our elected representatives, to the detriment of their local viwership who choose to live too far away, or in a hollow, or who don't care to erect 500' towers, so as to receive that otherwise-free signal.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

With many of the networks now showing their programming on the web, sometime in future the local broadcasters will not be needed eacept for local news and weather.

Thats the way things are going.

Look at whats happening to newspapers today. I feel that off air broadcasting will go the same way.

 

[mdonnelly]

It is perfectly legal for me to build a 500' tower and put a rotating deep-fringe antenna on top and receive all OTA channels for free from my entire state. (Probably exaggerating here.) Broadcasters should be happy, because they are supported by advertisers, and my 500' tower is only increasing their viewership, allowing them to charge their advertisers more.

I can furthermore pay somebody for installation of said 500' tower and deep-fringe antenna, and still get all those channels for free. Installer is for profit. He does not share his profit with the broadcasters.

Now, all of a sudden, the NAB gets laws passed that allows local broadcasters to extort money from cable and satellite providers, even though they're doing nothing more than efficiently erecting one 500' tower (or satellite system) to do the same darn thing as my own personal 500' tower and antenna system.

Should the cable and satellilte providers offer all this expensive infrastructure for free? Of course not! My local installer doesn't install a 500' tower for free either. The only reason the broadcasters are doing this is they can, operating through our elected representatives, to the detriment of their local viwership who choose to live too far away, or in a hollow, or who don't care to erect 500' towers, so as to receive that otherwise-free signal.

If the cable and satellite operators choose to give away the signal for free, just as the stations do, I'd say more power to them. Since the operators are charging for the stations, then I say the stations deserve their cut. If the cable and satellite operators don't think they're getting enough for their investment, then they should raise their rates to cover the infrastructure costs AND the license fees.

 

[sam_gordon]

And what of the broadcasters who also have expensive infrastructure? That's just the price of doing business, right? Before you say broadcasters are advertiser supported, remember sat/cable providers are also. They also run ads. I'm GUESSING they're also paid by the shopping channels to carry their programming.

 

[goaliebob99]

AND makes more $$ for the satellite/cable provider. Last time I checked, the LiL fee for Dish is $5.99. Lets say there are 5 stations in the market. The station is probably charging Dish .10-.25 for each subscriber. So for 5 stations, that's a total of $1.25 per subscriber. But Dish charges $5.99? Tell me how that's free.

In my local channels there are like 15 local channels that dish carry's also you forget that there is a retransmision cost assocated with it, IE: getting the signal from your local station to dish, then the power to transmit to the satellite, subscriber costs, ect, ect that is factored into this.

 

[Peter Parker]

Actually I am not sure that all that many stations actually geta cah payment from thee satellite companies. More usually carriage is linked to other statiosn in other markets or to cable offereings of the same comapny.

 

[sam_gordon]

In my local channels there are like 15 local channels that dish carry's also you forget that there is a retransmision cost assocated with it, IE: getting the signal from your local station to dish, then the power to transmit to the satellite, subscriber costs, ect, ect that is factored into this.

But that retransmission cost happens REGARDLESS of whether the local broadcasters get paid or not. So having the local broadcaster charge 25 cents for every subscriber only increases the cost 25 cents.

Again, satellite companies had to offer locals in order to compete with cable. The costs associated with do so (local receive points, fiber to uplink, etc) is part of doing business. No different than broadcasters needing to pay electric bills, cameras, employees, antennas, transmitters, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Yes616]

What really upsets me about this whole situation of someone dictating what you can receive is the fact that cable companies are favored by the FCC and the NAB. Most cable companies broadcast locals from 2 dmas, the local cable company in my area broadcast locals from 3 dmas! Satellite, of course we get one. How did this unfair policy come to be?

I agree. I am 15 miles from a different DMA to the north and 25 miles to another off to my west. Since I so close to those, I should be able to sub to them along to the one I am in (which by the way does not give me a usable signal unless I get a 700 to 900 dollar antenna system).

 

[MikeD-C05]

With many of the networks now showing their programming on the web, sometime in future the local broadcasters will not be needed eacept for local news and weather.

Thats the way things are going.

Look at whats happening to newspapers today. I feel that off air broadcasting will go the same way.

Won't that be kind of Ironic, when you consider all the money invested by both DISH and DIRECTV to provide those locals in both sd and now HD? THen all you would need is one central station for news and sports for each dma and the national broadcasting stations like ABC,CBS,NBC,Fox could just provide national feeds for their programming.

The other way to look at it is that the sat and cable companies could provide internet access through your boxes , so you could watch those programs via the internet through your receivers with the same picture and audio quality. But then all people would have to have internet access ,dsl or broad band to be able to see the shows. Either way you will have to pay to watch what used to be FREE ota.

 

[sam_gordon]

OTA *IS* still free. Just like it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now 00s.

Granted some people have lost reception on the transition to digital, but some have gained.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Yes and those who can not get OTA are not being properly serviced by their local television stations who are supposed to be serving them, but thanks to Cable and Satellite viewers in those areas can see those channels.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Now here is an interesting read.

NAB Vetting Satellite Proposal To Share Costs of Local-Into-Local - 2009-06-16 17:02:56 | Broadcasting & Cable

 

[shkarter1985]

I've read the link to the article that Scott posted. I live in the Greenville, SC DMA and I disagree with Sam_Gordon about if your station pre-empts too much, complain to the network. You can't complain to the network, you have to complain to the local TV stations. I'm a subscriber to DirecTV (used to be subscriber to Dish Network) also I wrote a letter to my local NBC affiliate why they're not carrying the fourth hour of The Today Show (the hour in which Kathie Lee Gifford hosts), they said it's due to local program obligiations and they don't have the time slot to scheduled it in.

Speaking of the GSP market, stations WYFF (NBC), WSPA (CBS), WLOS (ABC), WHNS (FOX), etc. broadcast local news, but mostly the ABC affiliate WLOS does North Carolina news and less South Carolina news because they're located in Asheville, NC (part of the Greenville, SC DMA). Only four stations in this market does high definition news, WSPA/WYCW, and WLOS/WMYA, and unfortuately, WMYA (MyNetworkTV) and WYCW (CW) aren't available in HD on DirecTV nor Dish Network.

I've heard they said "You can purchase the New York Times in any city or listen to radio stations from other markets online, but why not TV stations from outside your market on satellite?" Wouldn't be nice to watch an out-of-market station like New York City (WCBS, WNBC, WNYW, WABC, etc), Los Angeles (KCBS, KNBC, KABC, KTTV, etc), Chicago (WBBM, WMAQ, WLS, WFLD, etc), Philadelphia (KYW, WPVI, WCAU, WTXF), San Francisco (KTVU, KPIX, KGO, KNTV, etc), or Washington, DC (WRC, WTTG, WJLA, WUSA, etc.) on satellite? Unfortuately the answer is the law saids no, you can't watch out-of-market locals because of an outdated law called SHVERA, but you have no choice to get just your market that you live in on satellite. I disagree with the National Assoication of Broadcasters, but everybody has their own opinions. But I agree with Mike Mountford "The law needs to change with the times." This isn't the 1950s, it's the 2000s (almost the 2010s). I've heard about the subcommittee testmony. I've watch the earlier subcommittee testomonies on the internet where Jim Yager, Charles Eagen, others testify. But I disagree with Yager. I've found out that thousands replied to Mountford's MyTVRights petition at MyTVRights.com and I've contacted my congressman's local officle and spoke to his secretary to forward my views on the SHVERA law in Washington, DC weeks ago.

Thank you for your time