Carl B said:
Originally posted by Paradox-SJ
Network programming is time zone adjusted to match the most common viewing hours in the zone. Also, what happens to all the local businesses that advertise on your locals. Let them go belly up? ...along with a lot of jobs? Local news is constantly expanding in our market because it draws viewers. We've already had our first HD local news for over a year. If E* can't deliver local HDTV, maybe their business model is flawed and they will be absorbed by others.
Actually one of the major points of a DVR is to time shift a program to a convenient time for the indivdual viewer, rather than the 'most common' time.
I don't really think that television advertising is keeping local business running, there are so many other means of them getting directly in your face. An argument that uses advertising as a reason for requiring something is flawed, in my opinion.
The only value added thing that local affiliates provide is locally originated programming, which is becoming more rare by the year. If the local affiliate cannot compete because of weak or non-existent locally originated programming, there is no compelling legitimate reason for anyone to have to watch it (other than restrictive laws that prevent one from viewing network programming by other means).
On the other hand, if a local affiliate currently decides to pre-empt a network feed, it doesn't have to worry about its show competing with the network broadcast. If the network broadcast was still available to the viewer, the pre-empted show would have to compete with it. Perhaps this would improve the quality of locally produced programs.
Preventing feeds from outside of the local area is EXACTLY the same as making it illegal to receive newspapers from outside the area. National news is the same. Local information is different. Without a monopoly, the local station would need to compete, just like a newspaper does. Just like newspapers, the weak ones would fold and the strong ones would get better. This is what competition is all about.
As someone else already said, the only reason the NAB is fighting to prevent distant stations is to artificially maintain something that used to be a physical limitation which props up a business model that may no longer be viable.
Technology is always changing the landscape. Legislation which retards this only benefits the entrenched businesses for the time-being. It almost never benefits the businesses in the long-run and almost never benefits the consumer (look at VCRs and DVDs).
Once a business realizes the underlying assumptions that supported its business model have changed, it either adapts or perishes. Legislation forcing stagnation only staves off the inevitable in the short term.
