Watch out the NAB is working against us.

[goaliebob99]

Broadcasters Will Keep Close Eye On SHVERA Bill - 2009-06-15 04:05:08 | Multichannel News

I would for one actually like to sponser a bill that makes it so you could subscribe to any network from any city no matter where you live. Sorta like selling the new york times in LA. I would also like to have one syndicated feed that all could get via satellite of the networks, inconjuction with their local stations. While I understand that the stations get payed via the advertising they are selling, im sure if they increased the local channel fee by a buck at the most on satellite and cable, they could make up the difference.

Watcha think?

 

[TheKrell]

I think you are dreaming. I like this dream, but:

• It takes a legislator to sponsor a bill.
• Neither Dish Network, DirectTV, nor both together, nor any cable providers, can feed all local channels to all subscribers in all states via existing pipes. Bandwidth doesn't exist on satellite, and remote station feeds don't exist to cable head-ends.
• Internet TV may do it without any legislation.

 

[tomcrown1]

NAB is nuts and local broadcasting is dead. The real secret of digital broadcasting is that the internet will soon be the source for all tv watching good bye NAB you dummies.

 

[HDRoberts]

Internet is NOT (yet) the future of TV. Too many of us do not access to good, cheap high speed internet sufficient for multiple HDTV streams.

 

[ehren]

All I want is to have my Philadelphia networks in HD here in Wisconsin. I miss the days of FOX Philly on Primestar when I got Phillies games and local news.

 

[cj9788]

REPENT THE END IS NIGH!!

 

[fredfa]

The NAB has a storied history opposing FM radio, UHF TV, cable TV, VCRs, DVDs, satellite TV, satellite radio, and on and on.
The scary thing is, although it obviously ends up losing, it almost always can drag things out for years. Money (and guaranteed access on TV for local pols) can work wonders.

 

[HDRoberts]

All I want is to have my Philadelphia networks in HD here in Wisconsin. I miss the days of FOX Philly on Primestar when I got Phillies games and local news.

That is unlikely to happen whatever congress says. There isn't enough room on any TV systems to carry ALL US networks. Local TV sells more systems, so look at spot beams to continue to be used.

 

[pabeader]

That is unlikely to happen whatever congress says. There isn't enough room on any TV systems to carry ALL US networks. Local TV sells more systems, so look at spot beams to continue to be used.

There are only 4 US networks. That doesn't seem like too many to me.

 

[tempVAdish]

I think the NAB is a bunch of hypocrites. They blatently advertise that they will loose $$ w/ the broadcast tax that the record industries want to put on music for radio airplay, but insist on charging sat & cable cos for local rebroadcast of something that's free... I think there's something rotten in Denmark...

 

[sam_gordon]

There are only 4 US networks. That doesn't seem like too many to me.

ehren is looking for the local content the Philly affils provided. He's not worried about getting NBC (for example) from Philly, he gets the same feed from his local (occasional preemptions not included).

Now, if you feel your local network affiliate is preempting too much, complain to the network.

As far as the NAB working against satellite viewers, why do you think the NAB should be working FOR "us"? They are the National Association of BROADCASTERS? They're working for the good of their members... the local broadcasters. Why should they be FOR taking viewers away from the local broadcaster?

 

[sam_gordon]

I think the NAB is a bunch of hypocrites. They blatently advertise that they will loose $$ w/ the broadcast tax that the record industries want to put on music for radio airplay, but insist on charging sat & cable cos for local rebroadcast of something that's free... I think there's something rotten in Denmark...

So it's ok for ESPN/CNN/FX/HBO/etc to charge the sat/cable companies to carry their programming, but it's not ok for local broadcasters to do the same?

 

[brownover]

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?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

So it's ok for ESPN/CNN/FX/HBO/etc to charge the sat/cable companies to carry their programming, but it's not ok for local broadcasters to do the same?

Isn't it sad that the local broadcasters can do their job and bring viewers in their area a decent receivable off air signal?

Satellite is doing these stations a favor by bringing their signal (and mor eimportantly their ADS to the viewers they are supposed to serve.

My thinking is perhaps the locals should be paying satellite companies for helping get their signal to the viewers they are supposed to be serving.

After all the more viewers who see their signal the more the stations make in ad revenue.

 

[goaliebob99]

So it's ok for ESPN/CNN/FX/HBO/etc to charge the sat/cable companies to carry their programming, but it's not ok for local broadcasters to do the same?

Thier programming isnt braudcasted through public airwaves like braudcasters signals are. Anyone can create a channel and have it delivered to cable / satellite companies and they can charge what ever, but the moment you get a license to transmit your channel on a tower using public frequency's assigned from the FCC, you become accountable as that transmission is now public and should be free.

 

[sam_gordon]

Isn't it sad that the local broadcasters can do their job and bring viewers in their area a decent receivable off air signal?

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.

Satellite is doing these stations a favor by bringing their signal (and mor eimportantly their ADS to the viewers they are supposed to serve.

My thinking is perhaps the locals should be paying satellite companies for helping get their signal to the viewers they are supposed to be serving.

After all the more viewers who see their signal the more the stations make in ad revenue.

Same thing applies to ESPN/HBO/CNN/etc. Aren't satellite/cable companies not only HELPING, but GETTING their signal to the viewers? Shouldn't ESPN/HBO/CNN/etc be happy the sat/cable companies are showing their programming?

 

[HDRoberts]

There are only 4 US networks. That doesn't seem like too many to me.

The poster wanted local Philly programming. He spcifically said local news and Phillies games. That won't come from a national feed.

Like I said, people want local programming as much as the national stuff. They want the 6AM, 6PM, and 11PM newscasts. They want the local yokels giving them info.

So it's ok for ESPN/CNN/FX/HBO/etc to charge the sat/cable companies to carry their programming, but it's not ok for local broadcasters to do the same?

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.

Here in Cleveland, where the Fox and CBS affiliate's new digital signals are barely receivable in Cuyahoga County, broadcasters should thank their lucky stars that cable and sat are carrying their signals out to Akron and Mansfield.

 

[sam_gordon]

Thier programming isnt braudcasted through public airwaves like braudcasters signals are. Anyone can create a channel and have it delivered to cable / satellite companies and they can charge what ever, but the moment you get a license to transmit your channel on a tower using public frequency's assigned from the FCC, you become accountable as that transmission is now public and should be free.

You're right. The transmission is public and IS free. What's NOT free is "REbroadcasting".

I guess once something is out in the public, it's "free"? Does that mean I can put a new cover on a Harry Potter novel and sell it? What about "I, Robot"? Can I duplicate copies of that and sell it on the internet?

 

[HDRoberts]

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.

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

News for you: Lot's can't

Same thing applies to ESPN/HBO/CNN/etc. Aren't satellite/cable companies not only HELPING, but GETTING their signal to the viewers? Shouldn't ESPN/HBO/CNN/etc be happy the sat/cable companies are showing their programming?

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

 

[HDRoberts]

You're right. The transmission is public and IS free. What's NOT free is "REbroadcasting".

I guess once something is out in the public, it's "free"? Does that mean I can put a new cover on a Harry Potter novel and sell it? What about "I, Robot"? Can I duplicate copies of that and sell it on the internet?

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