Local Choice Rivival?

[Dished Off]

STELA Act is up for reauthorization as the 2014 version is due to sunset on December 31, 2019. Back in 2014 the idea of "Local Choice" was introduced as an attack against forced bundling of local channels (which contain vital information such as local emergencys, breaking news event coverage, Amber alerts, Weather Alerts, and more.) with the cable channels. It was a proposal that could have ended blackouts. The station would set the price it wants to charge the consumer and the consumer would then elect to pay to receive it. This amendment was SILENTLY killed by the broadcast special interests back in 2014 and was not included in the final bill.


"Local Choice"
During consideration of the STELA Reauthorization Act, Senator Thune and then-Senator Rockefeller proposed a provision they called "Local Choice." Their proposal would have removed the statutory requirement that cable operators who carry broadcast stations pursuant to retransmission consent agreements carry those stations on the entry-level basic tier of programming. Instead, only noncommercial stations and commercial stations that elect must-carry would automatically be carried by cable operators on the basic tier. A station that elected to be carried pursuant to retransmission consent would set a price for subscribers to receive it on an a la carte basis. This proposal was not enacted, but the 114th Congress may revisit the issue if it pursues a comprehensive revision of communications and copyright laws.

Reauthorization of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA)

 

[dishdude]

The big corporations that own the stations will kill it again. I love the idea though.

 

[Jim S.]

I have a better idea: the government should mandate that broadcasters deliver a usable signal to every home in their DMA.

 

[Claude Greiner]

My feeling is if the station is offering an OTA signal for free, cable providers should be able to retransmit it for free to the areas the signal covers.

Get rid of all this DMA Crap, and only charge the customers if the signal is retransmitted outside of the area the free ota signal does not cover.

If the locals want to get paid, then they can surrender their broadcast license and go to a cable like station.

 

[lparsons21]

Totally agree Claude! Cable has to provide all the local broadcast channels and even if they are not ‘must carry’ channels, they have to pay for them. That’s just wrong!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JSheridan]

Finally I get to 'Like' a Claude post again.

 

[dishdude]

My brother in law works for a TV station that is one of the big 3 major affiliates, he said they make more off retrans fees than advertising.

 

[The Fat Man]

My feeling is if the station is offering an OTA signal for free, cable providers should be able to retransmit it for free to the areas the signal covers.

Get rid of all this DMA Crap, and only charge the customers if the signal is retransmitted outside of the area the free ota signal does not cover.

If the locals want to get paid, then they can surrender their broadcast license and go to a cable like station.

I agree. I remember back sometime between 2011 and 2012 making an analogy of McDonald's giving out free Big Macs, then complaining that as part of deal I made, it included the Big Mac that was given out for free. I got major opposition for that.

To me, if they give it out for free then they can't complain what people do with it. It's also the same as Linux distros all of a sudden demanding compensation for HP and Dell selling computers bundled with Ubuntu or Linix Mint.

 

[truckracer]

I have a better idea: the government should mandate that broadcasters deliver a usable signal to every home in their DMA.

Right! Instead of me setting up high gain antennas on Towers to get enough carrier to noise to watch locals

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Dished Off]

I have a better idea: the government should mandate that broadcasters deliver a usable signal to every home in their DMA.

I am curious about their plans for ATSC 3.0 which would supposedly do just that. What leverage will they have then to force the cable companies to pay up if most people were able to get a FREE usable signal.

 

[Jim S.]

I am curious about their plans for ATSC 3.0 which would supposedly do just that. What leverage will they have then to force the cable companies to pay up if most people were able to get a FREE usable signal.

I admit that I haven't looked at the 3.0 specification, but I'd love to know how it proposes to deliver better reception from a more-complex signal. I haven't had reception from any station in my DMA or the adjacent one (which was always much better, due to terrain) since the analog days...

 

[navychop]

ATSC 3 includes an optional Internet component. And- it allows forpaid subscription OTA.

You thought they were doing it out of the goodness of their heart?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sam_gordon]

I am curious about their plans for ATSC 3.0 which would supposedly do just that. What leverage will they have then to force the cable companies to pay up if most people were able to get a FREE usable signal.

ATSC 3 won't help signal reception. It gives more data throughput in the same bandwidth.