EchoStar Asks Supreme Court to Let Unlock Local Channels 357
Consul writes "For a long time, satellite television systems were not allowed to broadcast local television signals outside of that local area. But EchoStar is asking the Supreme Court for that to be changed." This particular
issue drives me insane and I hope the courts throw out the lame laws. I don't
care about local programming, they shouldn't force it on me. The same tactics
with Newspapers would be obviously illegal.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm trying to figure that one out as well (Score:3, Insightful)
I can go down to my local mom and pop newstand here in upstate NY and get my local paper AND the NY Times, AND the Boston Globe, AND the London Times, AND. . . on, and on, and on.
Not to mention all kinds of magazines from all kinds of origins.
The statement as written not only makes little sense, but appears to contradict itself.
As it stands Satellite is regulated into a distinct competitive disadvantage to cable, which the cable companies are trumpeting all over. . . local channel advertisting.
Go figure.
KFG
Re:I'm trying to figure that one out as well (Score:4, Informative)
I'll explain it to you (Score:5, Informative)
On either of the little dish companies, Dish Network and DirecTV, or for that matter the BUDs (big, ugly dishes) you can get broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX) from various cities around the country. Actually you can't get them because your elected officials kowtow to the National Association of Broadcasters. If you work in the saltellite business you hate the NAB with the same passion as people here hate the RIAA and Disney. Something called the Satellite Home Viewers Act prohibits you from having broadcast channels from any city other than the one you live closest to. The thing about the newspapers is an analogy to explain the unfairness and of prohibiting you from watching NBC from any city other than the one you live near.
Do you get fuzzy recepting off the antenna from the local broadcast stations? Tough. If you live inside a line on a map called a "grade B contour" you cannot get the distant networks. The standard is severe. For example, here in Missouri, people who live 75 miles west of St. Louis as the crow flies out in the sticks who get crappy reception with big, expensive rooftop antennas are still prohibited from getting distand locals. Very few people in this country live outside the grade signal. Unless you're in the middle of Montana or someplace like that you are prohibited by law from receiving distant broadcast networks.
The NAB has an unusually powerfull hold on our congress because no politician wants to piss off the TV stations in their district. And since satellite dish owners are a small percentage of the electorate, then our elected scumbags side with the rich and powerfull NAB even though the prohibition on distant broadcast signals is unfair and certainly unconstitutional.
I got very involved writting letters to my congressman and senators and talking to customers about this issue back in '97 and '98 before the last Satellite Home Viewers Act and, at the end of it, became totally disgusted with the politcal process because it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats side with the rich and powerfull against the rights of individuals whenever they can get away with it.
Since getting out of the satellite business I've simply stopped watching TV and that's what I reccomend to you. Read a good book, meet friends at Starbucks for conversation, play the new Jedi Knight game. Screw TV.
Not quite the same as newspapers - examples (Score:3, Informative)
For example, certain companies (e.g., Sony, Bose, Pioneer Elite) prohibit mail-order and Internet sales of some of their products. Their contracts with retailers prohibit out-of-market selling, allegedly to "ensure that their products are properly set up and supported," but really to protect the margins of the local boutique retailers who cannot compete with mass market stores.
If you want to buy an Elite receiver, you can travel to New York to buy it from J&R, but you cannot mail order it from J&R. In short, you must travel to where the product is sold. This is obviously not fair to the consumer, but it must be legal because they keep doing it.
In the same way, I suspect the networks can claim the right to control how their product is delivered. They have decided to grant regional monopolies to local broadcasters, and using the same principal as Pioneer, they claim the right to prohibit other stations from broadcasting outside of their assigned areas. If you want to watch New York affiliates, you have to travel to the New York area.
This is speculation on my part. IANAL, and I have no first-hand experience with either industry. But, if this regulation is upheld, I'll bet this is the justification used. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's business as usual.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
When Taco said "I don't care about local programming, they shouldn't force it on me" he was saying that he doesn't want to be forced to watch only his local network channels (via antenna). Having the choice of watching other local stations' crappy programming (via satellite) would be preferable to him.
At least that's my interpretation of the Book of Taco. Other scholars may have different views on this.
I don't get it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The regulation has to do with advertising. If a small, local company advertises on your local NBC affiliate during the news, that company only has to pay the local affiliate for the airtime. If a big company wants to target an advertisement to a local population, they do the same thing--for about the same price (politics and all that aside).
If everyone can watch, say, the DC NBC news and it seems that many people outside of the DC area actually prefer that station over, say, the Baltimore NBC station, then the problem becomes how much to charge for ad slots. The local companies are paying per TV that is turned on during their commerical (ratings, etc) regardless of location. If half of these TVs aren't even anywhere close to you--like on the other side of the country--then the company is paying too much for little benefit. The DC NBC station then charges huge amounts for the ad slots and then only big corporations can afford the time. This isn't fair for small business.
In a perfect technological world, the solution would be that you could watch any affiliate you like of NBC, CBS, ABC, etc, and since they all have the same national feed you would always get the same national ads. When the remote affiliate inserts their own commercial, though, you would be forced instead to watch a commercial that is inserted at your local level. In other words, I could still watch Enterprise via UPN in Detroit (because ours always sucks) but when the Detroit station cuts to a local commercial, I would instead watch a Columbus commercial. That seems reasonable to me--but technologically its not quite there yet.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
KFG
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2)
That seems reasonable to me--but technologically its not quite there yet.
I beg to differ. The technology is there already. In Western New York, we have a (cable) station called Empire Sports [empiresports.com]. Empire sports broadcasts regional sports coverage, like the Buffalo Sabres [sabres.com] and such. It broadcasts to Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, over satellite, and points in between. It's interesting because I just watch the Sabres games.
Empire is owned by Adelphia Cable. Rochester is served by Time Warner. Adelphia broadcasts over to Time Warner. There is a system that lets Time Warner know that a local commercial coming on so Time Warner's system can add a local ad din it's place. That's why I see ads for Irondequoit Dodge in Rochester, but not ads for Gambino Ford , which is in Buffalo. I'll see ads for Time Warner's Road Runner service, and not Adelphia's Power Link service. (It doesn't always work, sometimes during Sabres games, we'll see an ad for Adelphia or something, but usually it works.)
Of course, the downside is sometimes the system works too well. I've seen the game get cut off here in Rochester with Time Warner throwing in a commercial (for some strange reason.) It's not perfect, but it is working.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2)
Oh, its there...
If you watch expressvu you can (almost) see them switching from American to Canadian programming on the "american" stations, like FOX. When Global (for example) repeats a FOX TV show, Bell repeats the Global repeat over the FOX channel. This way you get "Canadian content" and "Canadian advertising" on the FOX channel.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? Seriously!
From the article the issue at hand is consumer choice:
Current law provides that consumers can only have access to their local network channels, and prohibits Americans from watching local news and information originating from other areas of the country. EchoStar believes this law violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
When we get to the effect on advertising if the Supreme Court *allows* EchoStar to relay non-local programming, essentually that the rates will change.
Again, so what?
These companies are SUPPOSED to be paying advertising rates based on eyeballs and ears, NOT on some beurocratic ideal of "what is fair" and what is "not fair" to the local pizza joint.
The application that you are describing creates an artificially low viewer rate for some stations, thus an artifically low advertising card for those stations too.
If the WUSA audience is not the audience YOU want then you need to advertise elsewhere.
If you advertise to a local market then broadcast radio is where to drop your $, or ANOTHER TV station that draws the viewers you are trying to advertise to.
It works the same with other media, newspapers and magazines with wider circulation can (not required) command a higher rate for ads than some little weekly paper with limited circulation.
The problem here is the government trying to mess with a market that will work just fine if there were no beurocratic meddling to begin with.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have the specific history in front of me, but I believe that the regulations came about to prevent a local market from losing advertising revenue to a remote market. That and the whole "Providing service to the local community" requirement that's part of every broadcaster's license.
I'll pick an extreme example - let's say you live in Napa, California. Napa has its own affiliate network stations who depend on local ad revenues. The stations wouldn't have to worry about losing business to stations from Chicago.
But if your satellite provider can't/won't/doesn't carry Napa local stations because there isn't enough of a market, but does provide San Francisco channels - it's kind of local news (weather, etc.), but the Napa stations lose ad revenues to San Francisco. Especially since reception in Napa is spotty because of the mountains, so most people go with Dish. (Purely hypothetical example, and probably not based in reality.)
This is most important for very small markets that are near a major market - small towns that are about 40 miles from a major city, for example.
The other thing that Echo is trying to do is get the FCC to tell them that they don't *have* to carry local programming because they don't have the bandwidth to do so for every market they serve. I see their point, but a lot of people are going to be upset if they can't easily get the farm report from their local channel because the nearest locals they can get from the satellite company is 60 miles away.
I'd like to have the option to watch local programming from other markets (places I've lived in the past, etc.), but I also want to make sure that most local markets are available... a difficult proposition, especially if they really don't have the bandwidth to carry them...
These are only semi-informed opinions, BTW... hopefully someone with more concrete knowledge will chime in.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2)
But if you're watching satellite and can't get *any* local channels via satellite, then you'll probably toss the antenna since the reception is so crappy and you won't watch the local broadcast TV anyway.
Either way, the local channels lose.
Not that broadcast TV has much going for it anyway (aside from Futurama).
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you're subscribed to satellite and they don't carry any of your local channels, I doubt that signal quality or reception will be that important if you really want to watch local broadcasts, specifically, news, weather, and programs of local interest. I agree that local stations suffer if they aren't carried by a satellite provider, though... that's a certain percentage of eyeballs that they're losing and that's the whole point of legislation (to my understanding).
What I was referring to was EchoStar's attempt to modify the "Must Carry" laws which say that if they offer any local channel for a market, they are required to carry all local channels for that market.
So if they offer ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, they are also required to carry UPN, WB, local UHF channel 42, etc. EchoStar is saying that they don't have the capacity to offer every channel in every market they carry - thus if Must Carry laws are kept, EchoStar will drop some local markets, which will make the situation worse. There will be more small markets that have to rely on a nearby major market for "local" programming.
I agree with you on one thing, though, if satellite continues to grow in popularity and EchoStar is successful in challenging these laws, small market local stations will definitely be pinched. Either they'll be dropped because of "must-carry," or they'll lose out to people choosing network programming from other markets. I think, however, that the latter will have less impact. People generally want their local weather, sports, and news, so they'll keep at least one or two local stations.
It was mostly about territorial wrangling... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the satellite system started becoming popular, the local broadcasters and cable companies lobbied Wasington to protect the licenses that they had paid to broadcast their networks (from THEIR POV, this makes sense. They had paid for the right to a certain spectrum to the government when there was no other competition)
And they made the cable companies offer drop rate local only packages, normally cheaper than $10... (BTW, you can still get this package, if you call and ask they will tell you about their "cheapest package" at $30, but if you push them they will offer the $10 package)
It also seems perfectly reasonable, IF you could get the local affiliate from an Over the Air Antenna or Cable, no harm done right?
WRONG!!!!
What if your cable company sucked and (like many companies at that time) went out every time the wind changed direction? And it didn't matter if you actually HAD cable, what mattered was IF it was provided in your neighborhood you had to get the networks through cable.
And if you could receive the local stations signal was determined by: THE LOCAL STATIONS!!! And they based their determinations on distances from their broadcasting towers WHEN USING A ROOFMOUNTED ANTENNA!!! Didn't matter if you were on the other side of a mountain blocking the signal in West Virginia or not, you were within their broadcast area...
And about the only way around it was to get a letter from the local affiliate saying they exempted you.
As the satellite provider we were bound by the laws and by the whim of the local stations, and man did it suck!
Please don't ask me about conditional sports blackouts:ARGHHH!!!!
The idea here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in typical government fashion, they decided that that would be quite a bit of work, and there's always some chance that the clock could roll back fifty years, so better to make something illegal than deal with its repurcussions in a modern, thoughtfull way.
Or, at least, that's the way I see it.
Me, I hate network TV. My first choice for a Supreme Court verdict would be "Not only is it illegal for EchoStar to broadcast this crap, it's illegal for local stations or cable companies, too." Failing that, I'd settle for "The networks own the content, and if they license it to EchoStar, it's between them and their local affiliates who they're screwing."
Cheers
-b
I wouldn't mind. (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest change this could have is with advertising dollars. Local vendors would get national coverage - but if a local show suddenly became popular, it could get national dollars.
I'm not saying things are going to be perfect. Local channels that, well, suck, will find themselves really competing nationwide, and have to either get better, or change their tactics to find their niche.
There will always be local stories that are important - but for those who really want a choice, well, I hope that Echostar wins.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:2)
World! There are loads of people who have an interest in local interests from other parts of the world. Perhaps I'd like to watch Australian rules football, or Italian gameshows, or Chinese cooking shows.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:3, Funny)
It's too bad that satellites don't cover more than half a hemisphere at a time. From the US it is just not possible to see the European Astra or Eutelsat constellations. Thus we must pay our satellite companies to rebroadcast to see "the A Team" dubbed in German.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider that most local news stations pick up their regional/national/international news from a wire service and feed it to a talking head, so that news is pretty much the same wherever you go.
Now consider that if your local news station can't compete in its market against some station from New York, you aren't going to get local news. A station in Ass End, AK isn't going to be able to compete with a station in NYC, because not much happens in Ass End, the national news is all the same, and the WNYC has tons of money to throw around because of the size of its market... so Ass End's station eventually goes out of business. What then, when Ass End has a mayoral election?
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:2)
But would anyone besides dish users see the NY station? I don't think we're dealling with enough eyeballs here to significantly damage the local channel's standing. Cable and plain old antenna are still in the majority from what I remember. This could possibly be the killer app for dish tho'.
My town (Belleville, Michigan) doesn't have a TV or radio presence that I'm aware of. If you want to know about local government, you read the paper. I'm betting it's the same in a large chunk of the US.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they are, but it seems to be changing. I use to be the only one on my block with a dish, now there are 9 house that obviously have one. I don't know how many went with a harder to see install.
Plus there are a lot of areas in the country where you can't get a local cable station, so the choice is OTA with very few stations, or a dish (large or small). Of corse those areas are likely to be the least effected since they probably already quality for out-of-area reception.
I also think more people would switch to one of the mini dish systems if they knew how much better then cable it was, but that is another whole thing :-)
I do hope this goes through, it would give me 4 chances to record network TV (one DTiVo, two tuners, two air times...).
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:4, Interesting)
Great - then we can make them just a 15 minute item, and leave the rest of the time for other local programming. That would still leave space for your local politics and what not, or for local response to national events. (I can already think of a few histerical shows that might result from the Little Old Ladies Group in Ass End having a 15 minute local show commenting on national news - my bet it would become a hit just because it would be so cute.)
Like I said, there's always a need for local programming - or it gets compressed. Take some news stations for the cities of Ass End, Back End, and No End. They have a "local" weather report - though it's delivered by the same guy who just tapes each cities segment before the show, then broadcast on the local transmitters. Or national shows now cut their programing from 1 hour to 45 minutes - and leave the last 15 minutes for either local broadcasts (so you can watch that), or for other "big news" (so you can switch the channel and watch that instead).
Again, it's about comptition, either in the local end of the world (I personally watch local news once in a blue moon, others only watch that), or the world news.
Then again, I could be wrong. And the only way we're going to find out is if we open it up to let people try it. (And make some regulations to prevent Clear Channel style "buy every damn station in the world" approach.)
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:3)
there's always a need for local programming
Well, sort of.
I like to know what's happening locally.
But, just to state the obvious, the reason for all the opposition to this scheme is that it makes mincemeat of locally targeted advertising.
Those advertising dollars are what provide the lifeblood to your local radio and TV stations. If someone 14000 miles away sees that Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace is having a sale, they won't rush right down to buy one `o them Vehicles At Fantastic Savings. More importantly, if you're getting your national CBS TV feed from a different local market, you're not seeing those advertisements that were meant for you. That makes your local advertisers mighty unhappy.
I predict that the opposition would be considerably mollified and disappear entirely if there were a mix `n match technology so that your satellite receiver would shove the advertising stream from Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace into the slot occupied by some local outfit from a place many thousands of miles away.
I mean, that's what the local affiliates do by hand right now anyway.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:2)
Awwww, poor poor advertisers...
Most locally produced advertising is horrible anyway. Personally, if I need to see what's available locally, I read the local paper, not watch the local TV station. I'd be really surprised if that weren't the case for most people.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at Omaha, NE. ~#75 market in the nation, 2 years from now when there are 125-150 local networks available Via satellite, covering just about every reasonable sized market in the country. Do the Omaha stations hurt because people have a choice of stations? Very doubtful. In fact I bet they flourish. In addition to the people in the area, thousands who were from the area at one time would likely pick the channels up to keep up with local news. This would be the same for most other small markets out there.
The guys who will suffer are the cable companies (they deserve it, after they've gaffed us for so many years). Satellite will become a more legitimate competitor, and with more bandwith, no worry about your location, and superior choice, will knock out cable.
The cable companies want to at least keep the playing field level by keeping these stupid laws around. I for one wouldn't shed a tear if I never had to see a bloody COX truck, box, or office in my life.
Just look at Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Now consider that if your local news station can't compete in its market against some station from New York, you aren't going to get local news.
We get "local" programs from all over Europe. This hasn't killed the smaller country's stations even in places where people readily understand the neighbors' language. On the contrary: you can get Radio Luxembourg all from the South of France to the East of Germany, and it fares pretty well (... and in the process tarnishes the reputation of Luxembourg, but that's another question altogether...). Basically, RTL has programs in French, German, English for their various markets, while the local market is still being served by a program in Luxembourgish language (which still does include coverage of local events, so you won't miss neither the news about the recent battue hunt, and its impact on the local wildlife & economy, nor the news about the whereabouts of the postmen's Union's president and "his" money, etc. ...).
For international news, it's interesting to get different viewpoints: indeed, in many conflicts (Yougoslavia, Iraq vs. US, etc.), the French have a slightly different point of view that the rest of Europe. Being able to compare French and German news reporting gives you the ability to hear both sides of the story (don't worry: since September 11th, even the French side with the US, though...)
Moreover, being able to check the local weather of your skiing resort before going there is also interesting. And before we had Eurosport, many people watched RAI for its excellent sport coverage, even though they didn't understand Italian (but understanding the language is not really needed in order to follow a soccer match...).
So, being able to get local programming that is not local to you is a definite plus (except of course if you live at a place whose "local" programs become popular all over Europe for the wrong reasons...)
Re:I wouldn't mind. --- PBS unification (Score:2, Informative)
The stations pool their monies together to be able to buy programming.
Some programming they are required to carry, like Seasame Street, Nova, and so on.
But after that, they're able to make local decisions on what programs to purchase and run based on what their contributors say.
This is why one station might carry Red Dwarf, but another one will carry Antiques Road Show.
Re:I wouldn't mind. (Score:2)
This is not necessarily true. Satellite companies typically license content and frequently take care of ads themselves, replacing local ads.
This is great but... (Score:3, Interesting)
But let's face it -- I don't think that Echostar really cares that much about the First Amendment in this case. They simply want to be able to get everyone to buy their service, including those people, like myself, who have resisted getting a dish because of the SNAFU with getting network programming.
That said, I hope they win.
Re:This is great but... (Score:2)
Re:This is great but... (Score:2)
Re:This is great but... (Score:2)
Local Programming... (Score:3, Informative)
however, equally annoying (to me) is some professional sports teams...i understand that they all have their own broadcasting contracts with their local stations...but something needs to be worked out...for instance if you get DirectTV and an NHL package, you can't get most of the Philadelphia Flyers games, because they are broadcast on ComcastSportNet (Comcast owns the Flyers), and Comcast doesn't release the signal to the satelitte TV providers...i think the same thing hold true for the Mets, Yankees and the other MSG teams up in New York...
we live in an age of information, and yet they continue to make it harder for us to get what we want....
Re:Local Programming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Local Programming... (Score:2)
Or this is a hedge against the merger failing. Or the figure if they sell you distant feeds at $1/station, or $5/city very few people will buy enough to drop the NFL Sunday Ticket subscription.
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a Canadian, and I had no idea you guys had weirdo laws like this. Up here it is standard to have multiple timeshifted feeds of all network programming, which is naturally accomplished by picking up a local feed and rebroadcasting it nationwide. It is very convienent to be able to get home an hour late for a show, and still be able to watch the feed from Ontario, or even later, the one from Vancouver (I live out east). I dunno why the companies put up with it for this long!
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
I watch it when I want and fast forward through all the commercials meaning I can get through and hour of programming in 45 minutes. I can save up episodes of a show and watch them in a row...no more, "Damn, I have to wait til next week to figure out what happens."
keeping track of the politicians (Score:5, Interesting)
Today, consumers living outside of New York are permitted to subscribe to their local newspaper as well as the N.Y. Times, Washington Post or other newspapers across the country, yet those same consumers are denied access to New York television news.
Personally, I think it would be good for the country to be able to see what the local news is like in LA, Houston, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, etc.
And it would make it much more difficult for national politicians to get away with lines spun for one market. This would at least allow a shot at something interesting to see on the TV. I am tired of all the same old junk.
It sucks... (Score:2, Funny)
:-)
Copyright ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Copyright ? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright ? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright ? (Score:2)
Local stations pretty much never pre-empt the network feed. The will sometimes do it for sporting events (which are pretty big money makers), and once in a while for very important local news, but never for a movie. After all the network feed is the most expensive thing a local station buys, and the one that brings in the most advertising money. (Except for PBS)
Re:Copyright ? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright ? (Score:2)
And another thing! What could be interesting is that local channels might develop national niches. Like a channel that just showed sci-fi movies. Could be the end of cable channels!
Open it up already! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope that the law gets over turned. It was a pretty stupid law in the first place. Granted, with three hundred CBS/ABC/NBS networks at your fingure tips your gonna get pounded with the same programming, but having the news could prove to be very useful.
If your going to go to LA for the weekend and you have access to the Local News on your TV (yes, I realize you can get this all from the internet etc..) then you can quickly get aquianted with what has been going on recently over there, weather, traffic etc....
Also, consider this quote from the article... "Even Congressional members are today prevented by this antiquated law from monitoring TV news coverage from their home states while working in their offices in Washington, D.C". This seems to be unreasonable. These people are supposed to be represnting the people, how can you expect someone to stay in touch if they can't even see the news! ;)
Any the real reason this would be awesome is to avoid that damn local blackout for sporting events ;)
-ryanRe:Open it up already! (Score:4, Informative)
Changing the law would not change that, except for Congress members from NY and LA. DirectTV uses spot beams for locals, and Dish will be using spot beams soon. Spot beams aim the signal at a relatively small area. So, instead of sending the Seattle locals to the whole country, for example, they just send them to the Seattle area on a spot beam. That lets them use the same frequencies on another spot beam for the Memphis locals.
Only the LA and NY locals are on wide beams, so that they can provide those to people who are in markets whose locals are not available.
There isn't enough capacity on Dish or DirectTV to send everyone's locals everywhere.
Re:Open it up already! (Score:2)
It could damange the revenue stream of the event, and could cause them to charge more... But I for one wouldn't go to any more or any less games than I go to know, but i would watch the game if I could get it. Which would possibly help to increase the revenue stream of the commercials and networks.... Possibly allowing all interested parties to profit more from the event. Anyways, the only reason the major networks carry NBA/NFL/MLB etc is so that they can advertise there shows... Fox lost money on the NFL last year, but gots tons of advertising to a huge viewer base for a small cost with the super bowl... (small is relative :D)
-ryanHear hear! Go Echostar! (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, until recently, I was able to receive the nationwide PBS feed on my DirecTV satellite system. Unfortunately, DTV recently switched my PBS to the local PBS. Now, instead of getting all the high budget, awesome PBS programming like Nova, Frontline, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, etc. I have to watch all the terrible (not all of it, mind you, but a lot) local, low budget shite. I'm sorry, all you PBS workers, but even in Chicago, a good deal of the locally produced public television is little better than cable access tv.
What I would really like to be able to have is both, and I did for a month...but because of these ridiculous FCC rules, I can no longer have the nationwide PBS feed, and have lost most of the programming I was accustomed to getting in a timely manner.
Hell, I'd pay more for the nationwide PBS than I do for HBO.
the actual reasoning behind the law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:the actual reasoning behind the law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact is, most people still interested in watching the local stations are doing so precisely because either A) they're too cheap or poor to subscribe to a cable or satellite subscription, or B) they want to watch the local news.
Local stations will pretty much be able to stay in business as long as there are a fair number of people interested in receiving free TV via antenna. (With cable and satellite prices climbing ever higher, I think it's safe to bet that "free" sounds good enough to lots of local residents.)
Issues about what's carried on monthly subscription-based alternates to broadcast TV seem rather moot to me. Even the argument about advertising makes little sense to me.
If you're a small, local store - why do you *care* that people thousands of miles away see your TV ad? They're not your target customer anyway. The ad still reaches the audience it was created for, and everything else is just "spillover" that doesn't typically benefit the person buying the advertising.
Therefore, letting local stations be re-broadcast nationwide via satellite and/or cable shouldn't really change anything.
Re:the actual reasoning behind the law... (Score:2)
Or C) want to watch ER, West Wing, or one of the other very popular shows that are only on NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox. Cable only gives you "local" stations, and while satellite can give you distant stations they are normally prohibited from doing so by this law.
While I'm sure they exist, I don't know anyone who does this. Even my mother who was rabidly anti-TV when I was growing up, and probably watches less then 30min a day of TV has cable.
You don't, but you do care that lots of people are no longer forced to watch your advertising, when a bunch of people stop the prices you are willing to pay for advertising will go down. When they go down enough you no longer have a local ABC affiliate. Go down enough more and you have one less TV station.
It reduces (maybe significantly) the value of advertising to local stores, and thus the money local network stations get.
That said, it sounds more fair then the status quo.
Community? (Score:2, Insightful)
Local news coverage may not be as professional, but it is usually just as important. Ignoring it is a big mistake.
Satelite dish local channels. (Score:2, Interesting)
Since pirating the programming on american systems is legal in canada.
Local channels are rumored to be "spot beamed" so that only a specific geographic area can recieve the channel, and then only if it has a valid postal, and city/state code set. For the downstream. People in ontario canada can receive local channels on a properly configured satellite dish for either detroit, or new-york. Though once I got the local channels from pheonix arizona to work for a few minutes.
This is done, by changing some information on the iso standard smartcards with card readers which are becomign very common in canadian households with directv Satellite systems.
I personally think that anyone should be able to watch the local channels of anywhere else, at will. Why don't they want people to view the local news from another city? it doesn't cost them any extra.. the only people who might be hurt that i can think of are the advertisers whose products show up on the local channels.
And thats not such a big deal. Because the intended audience is probably still going to watch the local channels for there area.
Enough already... back to work.
Re:Satelite dish local channels. (Score:2)
Cable, satellite competition. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure the reason this law is in place is for the same reason the other was; the cable companies are fearful that they will be overtaken by something better. Doubtful however; even if they don't have as many subscribers for television, they will for broadband, at least until satellite becomes reasonable.
I have a friend who lives out in the middle of nowhere; he'd have to pay to have cable line laid for broadband. He was checking satellite BB prices - $100 a month for any decent speed... so there's really no competition there unless it's the only choice.
Echostar/Directv and local channels (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Echostar/Directv and local channels (Score:2)
Let me add that, as a Dish customer, I am so glad that EchoStar is buying Hughes, as opposed to vice-versa.
Re:Echostar/Directv and local channels (Score:2)
One of the reasons Echostar wants to buy DirecTV is because DirecTV HAS the bandwidth (they happened to launch a new satellite just at the right time...)
My complaint is that DirecTV probably would have carried more HD content if they hadn't had to use that bandwidth for all the pesky locals that I can't watch...
My theory: If you want to time-shift your shows... get a TiVo.
Bonus (Score:3, Funny)
This could affect satellite radio (Score:2, Informative)
If this law gets thrown out, I suspect it would apply to radio as well (this would be a good thing)
Re:This could affect satellite radio - not.. (Score:2)
XM even provides station identification which explicitly says its a re-broadcast. I can also listen to the traffic information and local news for LA - which is good when I take a trip from my home in Fresno. XM also provides standalone radio units that are provided with new cars and trucks this year from multiple manufacturers. They also just recently released a new Alpine deck (I think), check their press releases for more information.
I've been an XM customer since Day 1 here on the West Coast. I have a Sony XM deck and I love XM. I don't miss local talk radio and news, I've got BPM, CNN and XM Comedy. Smooth. Let me know if you have any questions.
-Pat
Re:This could affect satellite radio - not.. (Score:2)
Not that anyone would WANT to listen to "MIX" 98.6. Ick.
I wonder if... (Score:2)
A terrorist or disgruntal postal worker could capture a local station with a lot more ease than a national broadcast station. There are thousands of these facilities, some of them very very small. A person would get the attention of the nation and nobody could stop them...
I don't really see a problem with this since conversely it keeps the government from fsking one small town and nobody else hears a peep.
I would love to know what Californians really think instead of what the government, their polititians, and their newspapers tell me they think.
Give us more broadband for internet broadcasts and this will be a moot point however.
Further Reduction in Competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, it seems some people here don't care about local news, but I think for many, it's (sadly) their main tie to the community.
Alternative Title for this Article (Score:3, Troll)
What the hell, the grammar is about the same...
"EchoStar Asks Supreme Court to Let Unlock Local Channels"
The real problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one advantage of libing out in the sticks. We can't get broadband affordably, but we can get distant networks. Personally I would take the broadband.
Wouldn't it be fun... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's fun to compare local newsreaders from different markets, as well as find out what's happening in Cincinatti or Billings. But, then, I'm an information junkie.
Of course, the big losers will be the TV sports packages where you can watch any game going on in the country, because that would now be possible without paying anything extra.
We would LOSE local news! (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't really care about the local as much as they care about the network programming.
However, there is some good in this country to have local news. Any more eliminatation of local involvement jeopardizes the Republic, that needs a citizenry knowledgable of what is going on at the local level. The separation of powers between the state and federal governments is weakened if you don't get information on local officials without jumping through hoops...
Alex
Re:We would LOSE local news! (Score:2)
Furthermore, the local stations could do a lot more to improve their viewership. I live in a big city, and even here - our local stations are pretty pathetic. Sure, I'll still watch them occasionally for the local news, but that's about all they offer of value. Their movies and sitcoms are "bottom of the barrel", and I'll pass on the soaps and game shows, thanks.
I really believe that most locals have come to rely on their news coverage as the reason they're "guaranteed an existance". (Look how often they pimp up a given weather forecaster or news anchor throughout the day, on little blurbs between shows.) Maybe, making it easier for people paying upwards of $40 per month for satellite or cable to watch alternatives would force them to improve their programming!
They do it now because they have too! (Score:2)
You don't think that they would drop 34 of those stations in a heart beat? I understand how the technology works, why don't you try understanding the business and legal case.
Alex
Unintended consequences (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that unless you have friends or family in Des Moines, you really don't have much reason to watch it. In fact, even if you are in Des Moines, there's a good chance you'll opt for the higher-quality news from somewhere else. The small, stations will probably lose more local viewers this way than they gain in distant viewers. Soon the national ad dollars will flow even more to the larger stations, and the resources (and quality) of the small ones will deteriorate even more.
This is just for news. How about the impact on local broadcasts of network feeds? No one will have any reason to watch those channels at all, and local ad dollars will dry up. Besides what this does for your local TV station, think about what it does for the mom-and-pop shops. They don't have the money to advertise on a national station -- which is what we'll end up with, one primary carrier of each network in each time zone -- and no one watches the local ones. The only companies with the resources to effectively advertise will be large national chains.
Just another step in the homogenization of America.
C-Band had it (Score:3, Informative)
Oh please let this be true. (Score:2)
After all of that I then stumbled across alt.dss.hack and therein lies your answer. There is a huge hacking scene for satellite tv that involves cheap equipment and freeware and even smart card emulation running on commodity pc hardware. I now receive every channel on directTV including the network, premiums, PPV's and all the sports, porn, etc.. etc.. all for nothing. I don't even bother keeping a small basic subcription.
Ha! Take that fuckers.
other sites you might check for info:
Kayo [megsinet.net]
dssfreeware [dssfreeware.com]
Pirates Den [pirateden.com]
----------
Grab your ankles, mate: (Score:2, Funny)
Please stay where you are. Any attempt to change locations will be considered an attempt to subvert our encrypted electronic DMCA-violator-location technology, and will be prosecuted as a violation of the DMCA. Any attempt to hire legal representation will be considered an effort to crack our Automated Litigation System, and will be prosecuted as a violation of the DMCA.
According to the license you implicitly signed by turning on your computer, you agree to allow our lawyers into your home for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting violations of the DMCA. Rest assured our staff will be there to roger you shortly.
Thank you for your business.
-Mass Media
Huh? (Score:2)
The same tactics with Newspapers would be obviously illegal.
Since when is it legal to scan in a newspaper and broadcast it for free over the internet?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Very few T.V. stations mind if their signals are retransmitted outside their service area because more viewers == greater ad revinue. Its actually the reverse: T.V. station do not want the viewers in their coverage area to be able to receive outside stations, because some viewes may prefer the outside stations and stop watching the local station.
Limited markets (Score:4, Insightful)
For the next Charlie Chat, ask him why he doesn't carry west coast feeds of most channels. Answer? "Takes up bandwidth." "Redundant programming." I can see the same argument from him for local networks.
Don't be fooled into thinking you'll get 500 locals to choose from one day.
Two problems (Score:2)
First, what about syndication exclusivity? If you can drop non-local stations down in competition with a local station, how do the rules that give stations protection from others airing the same programming have to change?
Second, what about the performance contracts on the commercials? Doesn't this raise the same issue that currently requires stripping many local commercials from the national radio netcasts? Wouldn't the same problem exist with TV?
VERY Interesting (Score:2)
Hmmm...
I can see a lot of people don't know the laws (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, they just gave network stations to anyone who asked for them. Mostly New York/LA feeds. Naturally, the local stations were ticked off about this, as they have exclusive copyright over their network's programming for their area (so they argued). They tried to get it prohibited outright. But a lot of people don't get all the networks. My parents have no CBS channel over the antenna, for example.
So, in the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) (1996? 97?), Congress granted a limited exception to the exclusive programming copyrights enjoyed by TV networks and their affiliated stations because it recognized that limited numbers of households are unable to receive network signals over the air. The exception is a very narrow compulsory copyright license that direct-to-home satellite video providers may use for retransmitting signals of a defined class of television network stations to "persons who reside in unserved households." If defines "unserved household" as someone who:
"cannot receive, through the use of a conventional outdoor rooftop antenna, an over-the-air signal of grade B intensity (as defined by the Federal Communications Commission) of a primary network station affiliated with that network, and has not, with 90 days before the date on which that household subscribes, either initially or on renewal, to receive secondary transmissions by a satellite carrier of a network station affiliated with that network, subscribed to a cable system that provides the signal of a primary network station affiliated with that network."
So my parents would be able to buy CBS, but nobody else. It did provide for waivers as well, which allows my parents to obtain waivers from, say, the local NBC station, and get New York's NBC over the dish.
In 1999, the SHVA was amended by Congress, resulting in the passage of the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act (SHVIA). The SHVIA also amends both the 1988 copyright laws and the Communications Act of 1934. One of the key elements of the SHVIA is that it, for the first time, permits satellite carriers to transmit local television broadcast signals into local markets, also known as "local-into-local." This Act also authorizes satellite carriers to provide distant or national broadcast programming to subscribers. "Local-into-local" means that if a satellite customer lives in an area where the satellite company has decided to provide the service, the customer can receive local TV channels.
In short, the satellite company can decide to carry a local markets channels on their feed and offer those channels to that local market without getting waivers or anything. Obviously, they have to work out carry rights with the local stations involved, but that pretty well covers it.
More recently, cable companies have gotten "must-carry" approved into satellite feeds. The principle here basically says "if you carry any local stations in a market, then you have to carry all local stations in that market" in somewhat more complex terms. There's a few catches, such as they don't have to pay to carry a station if the station invokes their must-carry privilege, and so on, but the upshot is that even pointless locals like religious channels nobody watches can get satellite coverage for their area.
DirecTV responded by launching their spot beam satellite. This lets them broadcast to a single spot on the ground, covering one market. The upshot of this is that it vastly increases their total bandwidth, as they can reuse the same frequencies for locals in a bunch of different spots. St. Louis can only see St. Louis, for example. Actually, the spots are quite large, and St. Louis can probably see Chicago stations too, but the principle is basically that. Thus, by reusing all this bandwidth, they have a very simple way to put locals down all over the country without having to waste half their total bandwidth on 300+ "local" channels.
Echostar hasn't got spot beams. And they are subject to must carry too. So they're getting screwed right now. They're looking for any way out they can find. They're trying to eliminate local restrictions, they're trying to get must carry suspended, they're trying to buy DirecTV to have more bandwidth, anything. Because if they don't, they're going to go out of business. Unless they can get some spot beams up real fast. And they can't, for at least a year.
Which is the state of satellite TV.
For a preview of what this would be like.... (Score:2)
The spot beam technology, as described in a post above, physically restricts which markets can see which channels, but I know that in Boston its possible to receive New York, L.A., and several other local markets.
For some interesting info on how this is done (all illegal hacking issues aside) on the DirecTivo systems, take a look at the following threads on one of the popular hacking sites:
here, [dealdatabase.com]
here, [dealdatabase.com]
and here [dealdatabase.com]
--noah
Timeshifting network content, merger (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if the content is broadcasted at another (earlier) time by a remote station, it makes the remote more attractive. For example, on the west coast, you could set your VCR or TiVo (or, if DirTV would do the same, DirectTiVo) to record remote east coast locals, and just watch all your favorite prime time shows when you get home, commercial free.
Currently I have both DirectTV and DishNetwork. I have 2 DirecTiVos. I first got Dish, but I got tired of waiting for Echostar to come up with a good digital PVR (I have a DishPlayer, which was good for its time, but buggy as hell, and the 521 (?) doesn't seem to be much better). DirTV's DirecTiVo just blows Dish's PVRs out of the water. The main reason why I still have Dish is because of the SuperStations package (one of which is UPN, not available in my market), which would be equivalent to remote locals. The SuperStations package is why many people choose Dish over DirTV... Another thing I miss from Dish is a simplified international programming (DirTV reps can't figure out how to set my account up to get all english programming plus spanish channels, I have to choose either or).
Why is EchoStar pushing for this? Probably because that way they will be able to claim true 500+ channels when competing against cable (today they can claim 500 channels, but legally, you can only get about 200). Since must carry forced them to carry all this extra channels, overtaxing their bandwidth (to the point that some DBS users have gone back to cable for better picture quality), they mights as well try and overturn the law, and turn must-carry into a competitive advantage against cable. E* will probably charge ~$5 per market, so you won't just get all remote local channels automatically. They're betting that the extra $5 to $10 bucks most DishNetwork subscribers would pay to get NY and LA locals would upset any lost revenue on premium sport channels.
If they get the law overturned, they gain a big competitive advantage over cable. If the E*/D* merger doesn't go through, E* will have a competitive advantage against DirTV (since DirTV current local implementation is based on spot beams, preventing them from offering all locals for all regions). If the merger with DirTV goes through, they'll gain more orbital positions, and will be able to still offer all locals. E* wins either way.
I want local programming! (Score:2)
Right now we are in an area where Dish Network won't let us get anything even remotely local and if we buy the broadcast networks package we will only be allowed to get NBC and Fox. I don't understand this. Our antenna hardly picks up any station but PBS with any clarity, so in essence the law blocks us from getting any local stations or having network access - not takes away our access to it my providing more options.
The networks contend that if a consumer is predicted to receive a signal from their local network TV station using a massive roof-top antenna, then the consumer should not have the option of obtaining programming
The networks forget that some of the people in the "predicted" area, cannot get their programming. And some of us are not allowed to have a massive roof-top antenna.
And while I'm on the subject, they should also rescind the law that says that if you live in an area opperated by an REC (Rural Electric Cooperative) you cannot get DirectTV unless you buy it from them. No free dish package for people who live out in the country. That's why we got Dish Network in the first place.
I don't know if everyone understands... (Score:3, Insightful)
This may not happen (Score:2, Interesting)
From my understanding of the situation, this law is due to advertising. My family used to have the broadcast network stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) on their Dish Network system, because they lived outside the range of any of the local affiliates. As long as Dish wasn't taking away viewers from the local affiliates, they could give us those stations. Plus we got West Coast feeds.
Then in 1998 they lost their local channels because Dish changed its policies. They've been planning on giving everybody local stations ever since then, but that is a lot of satellites. This is why they've got their eyes on Hughes (DirecTV). With all those extra satellites and the increased revenue, they can afford to broadcast every local affiliate in the US.
But the DirecTV merger still hasn't gone through yet, and AOL-Time-Warner-Roadrunner-Netscape-HBO-Nullsoft is really bashing satellite as much as possible. So EchoStar is using this as good PR (we're fighting for your rights) and a way to stop Time Warner from using its primary attack (you can't get the major networks with satellite).
So why do I think this won't happen? Because the local affiliates have a monopoly on local viewers. If I want to watch the latest crap-tacular reality series on CBS, I'm going to have to tune in to WRGB-6 because it's my local affiliate. Why do the local affiliates have monopolies on their respective networks? Because of advertising. Local companies can't or won't advertise on national networks, because it's too expensive and pointless in a lot of cases. Why would somebody who doesn't live in Albany, NY go there to buy a mattress?
If you follow that progression, you'll see that if Dish Network offers me crystal-clear CBS out of North Carolina and crystal-clear CBS-West out of Seattle, why would I watch over-the-air fuzzy CBS in Albany? I wouldn't. And the local affiliate would lose a lot of viewers, and they wouldn't be able to charge as much for advertising, and then they wouldn't be able to pay their slightly competent news staff, and the local companies wouldn't be able to annoy us with their commercials featuring their almost-attractive-but-still-too-ugly-for-tv relatives who can't act.
In reality, this wouldn't mean the end of the world. Local businesses would advertise on Clear Channel's local station or the local newspaper. They'd still advertise on local TV because Dish would still charge for their service and not everybody can have/would want a dish. But there would be less viewerson the local stations, and we'd have to watch WXXA (local FOX) suck even more than they already do.
But the threat of the end of local businesses might be enough to stop this from happening. That's why the law was put in place to begin with, and they'll no doubt try to use it as an argument now. I hope Echostar wins this (so I can use my DishPlayer to record the Simpsons) but I'm not holding my breath - especially when you know AOL-Time-Warner-etc. stands to lose a lot of cable subscribers if we can get those channels on satellite.
EchoStar attacking DirecTV? (Score:2)
I don't want NFL sunday ticket. I just want one game per week: the Packers. I don't want to have to pay $139 every season for "up to 13 games each weekend", when I really only want 1 game per weekend. If something like this happens, the NFL will very definately get involved. They maintain serious control over their broadcasts, and this will completely screw up the exclusive contract that the NFL has with DirecTV to provide these broadcasts.
Which is, I suspect exactly why EchoStar is filing this suit. Notice, at the bottom of the article a reference to another article:
Already living without local content.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My hometown is a small suburb(about 4000 people) around Worcester, Massachusetts. The 'local' stations are all based in Boston. If you watch the news, you'll hear lots of news about Boston events, but unless there's a grisly murder in my town, you're not gonna hear anything about it. And for that matter, you won't hear anything about Worcester, which is a major city. People in Boston just don't give a rat's ass about what happens in Worcester, and Worcester isn't quite big enough to support its own stations.
My point is that someone who's in a tiny town isn't gonna lose access to local information, because they already don't have it. The Boston stations aren't going to suddenly go under because of deregulation, because they've got a large market interested in the local news. Any place that's big enough to support local programming now is pretty unlikely to suddenly lose all that programming.
In the mean time, those of us looking for serious local news coverage already turn to alternate sources than television...newspapers in particular. Most small towns have some sort of local paper, even if it is a tiny piece of fluff.
I say open it up, let technology do what it can. If anything, the competition could only make the content better.
YAY!!! (Why the current law sucks) (Score:2, Informative)
Well here in Central Arkansas (SEC country) we have a serious issue with our ABC affiliate. In order to bring more Arkansas Razorback games to us, they have entered into a contract with Jefferson Pilot sports. This contract forces ABC to show a bunch of SEC sports programs in lieu of the regular national programs. This means that we rarely get to see the big matchup football games. We regularly miss out on big college football games, hockey games (at least until basketball season is over), and anything else that is nationally shown on Saturday.
This isn't the only issue, however. Take my parents.. they live in a strange valley RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF LITTLE ROCK. The geography of this neighborhood makes it nearly impossible to actually get the local stations via broadcast. So if my parents want to use a satellite (and they do, being from Colorado they like the sports packages that allow them to see Colorado sports games) they have to do without local programming... and this means missing anything broadcast on these stations... They attempted to get a waiver signed by the local affiliates.. but that didn't work out. So now they are forced into "watching" local stations they can not even receive...
So here we have this DSS technology which would allow us to see the games we want (no SEC specials) clearly... and yet it is regulated away from us. Someone fix this... please.
Conventional TV Programming is Obsolete (Score:3, Interesting)
The vast majority of content on TV is produced and distributed nationally. But because of the reliance on local channels rather than nationwide networks, it gets distributed haphazardly and with gross inefficiency. At the same time there is a need for a modest amount of local and regional content (news, public access, sports), but broadcasting that everywhere makes no sense. And while there may be demand for international content (i.e. Anime), it rarely makes it onto the networks at all (at least not in one piece).
Contrariwise, advertising typically only relevant at a local level. There's no sense in people in Houston TX getting ads for Bentara's in New Haven CT, nor should someone in New Haven be getting advertisments for Sonic, a southern regional chain.
The solution? Restructure the way TV is delivered entirely. Allow the (far more efficient) satellite networks to focus entirely on the globally, nationally, and regionally produced material, giving everyone equal and complete access, while integrating Personal Video Recorders into the equation to deliver an appropriate mix of local, regional, and national advertising. Since commercials are broadcast many times over, you can have a special, satellite-controlled channel broadcasting all commercials for all markets, with the PVR downloading and storing only those targeted specifically to the viewer and locality, and inserting them into the broadcast at the appropriate time. It could also allow time-shifting, although that might better be handled with multiple channels. Let local broadcasters focus on local material and end network affiliation. Or provide them with a way to purchase select (current and classic) content from the national networks in a syndicated fashion. Or just let them die off until only a few local material stations are left, and free up the bandwidth from the airways. Digital cable could do the same thing at the local redistribution station, eliminating the need for the PVR component or local air broadcasting entirely. Restructuring could also allow for new services: user-controlled subtitling and dubbing subchannels for international content and non-english-speaking audiences; individually targeted and dynamic advertising; auto-inserted local news, sports, and weather alerts on any channel; low-demand content broadcast late at night and stored for later; Pay-per-view capabilities for individual shows.
Of course, this would all require substantial re-legislation, with the accompanying political wrangling and lobbying. If nothing else, universal PVRs and thus personal timeshifting would dramatically change the way networks compete directly against each other. But no more missing the Red Sox game just because you live near New York. No more missing Adult Swim because your local cable provider doesn't carry Cartoon Network. No more sitting through commercials intended for another audience, or missing shows because they're on at an inconvinient time or opposite another one.
No one seems to get that EchoStar shouldn't win (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake-up call: it isn't.
The 'must-carry' provisions are meant to keep local broadcasters alive - not give people across the country access to their content. When national providers like EchoStar can pick and choose which local stations to air, and which (the much more important part) not to in particular markets, then local news is going to get worse than it already is. And national mainstream media will become even more powerful. What happens when even local ad dollars go to Time-Warner (or whatever) instead of to your local affiliate, goodbye any local autonomy. More fluff, all the time.
Re:Oh PLEASE!!! (Score:2)
Also, you know longer need to live in specific areas to have access to locals. The old rules that required you to be so far away from the transmitters have been lifted. Dish recently added hundreds of locals to their system. Access is limited to your area based on zip code I believe. I live in DFW, and get 8 of the local DFW channels. If you're somewhat close to a decent sized city, you should be able to get them.
Re:why some local stations say no to satellite (Score:2)
Re:I can't even get nbc/cbs/etc (Score:2)
It *was* the lack of local channels keeping me from satellite until I heard about this local channel package. And there was no way I was shelling out the outrageous sums to the local cable monopoly.
Check out Dish; they have some great offers going on right now.
Re:It's an obscolete argument (Score:3, Informative)
Let's see, This Old House is WGBH, Boston, as is, if memory serves, Victory Garden, and perhaps Masterpiece Theater and Mystery. The Woodwright's Shop is WUNC, Chapel Hill, NC. Austin City Limits is (surprise) Austin. Washington Week in Review is WETV or something like that in Washington, D.C., KCET in San Diego, or is it L.A.? (I'm doing these from memory, folks) does at least one good show, but I can't remember which at the moment. Nightly Business Report is from the Florida affiliate and Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser was Maryland Public Television until they went insane a couple of weeks ago and gave Rukeyser the boot. (Apparently he wasn't bringing in enough of the pre-pubescent demographic to suit them. I'm expecting it to go to being just plain Wall Street Week and then just plain weak.)
Check the opening or closing credits on most of the PBS shows and you'll see that they come from specific affiliates or state PBS systems. I thing Houston is to blame for "Barney".