This is getting out of hand!Don't look now, but there are now three threads about Nexstar.
Here is a fourth Nexstar thread: Nexstar Email Response
Nexstar dispute looming...
- Thread starter pattykay
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 164
- Views 18K
Here is a fourth Nexstar thread: Nexstar Email Response
Thanks! So, comparing the lists, markets with CONUS locals and no disputes are:
Baltimore, MD
Casper, WY
Cincinnati, OH
Paducah, KY
I cannot disagree strongly enough. This isn't the dark ages, and this isn't a third-world country. There shouldn't BE a price for living remote. (My solution is the same as my solution for high-speed internet access: cut out the middlemen -- the government should just run fiber to everyone and be done with it. It only needs to be done once, then everyone could access everything everywhere forever.)
Well then no one has anything to complain about. Why are there four threads on this?
Any market with Nexstar and there are many, plus add in the Apollo markets like Seattle (KIRO). There many be others disputes out there that I do not know of.
Remember a lot people live in rural areas without OTA reception.
All stations should stream. That way most could get the channels. There are probably some that does not have high speed though.
The last station that was blanked out was 26-01 which was a Scripts station. It has back for a number of months. We have guide data for all of the Big 4 networks. So, it appears that we can't just go by that data list.
That is such BS! Cable/sat simply extend their ad-supported viewership beyond the strictly OTA audience that pays NOTHING, and net them greater ad revenues from the increased viewership! They shouldn't be charging cable/sat AT ALL, let alone these astronomically spiraling rates! They do it simply because they can- they OWN their broadcast localities as well as their signal, thus they can dictate any price they want, and all cable/sat can do is to take them down or just pay & pay. Billions. Ridiculous. They can't substitute an out of market network signal because the local broadcaster owns all the eyeballs in their areas for that content.
This has to end, one way or another. There should simply be regulation setting a de minimis carriage fee. If local broadcasters can't make it on their economics anymore without extorting providers, given competition, DVR, etc., then they just can't. They can appeal to gov't for subsidy as a community benefit. They already have had their broadcast spectrum GIVEN to them in exchange for their acting in the public interest!
I went to get a beer around midnight, and came back to a solid green screen on 25 (WEEK, Peoria). Went to 31 (WMBD), and there's the DiSH message.
I have not had my local FOX station for six months. Now NBC is gone. We have had blackouts before and eventually they settled and programming resumed. The FOX station owner (not sure who it is) and Dish obviously are no longer talking or at least not making progress. I'm not sure where negotiations are with the NBC owner who pulled the station the other day.
Does anyone think these disputes will be resolved as in the past? Or do you think this is a permanent thing that, if so, will no doubt eventually spread to other local stations making all locals no longer applicable to Dish?
Does anyone think these disputes will be resolved as in the past? Or do you think this is a permanent thing that, if so, will no doubt eventually spread to other local stations making all locals no longer applicable to Dish?
Well, first, much as DiSH would like to frame this as the local affiliates "taking down" their signals, it's Charlie who does the taking down. As in, off sat, because he doesn't want to pay the freight the locals are asking. Which is astronomical, and only skyrocketing from there. Over the years, DiSH has been the provider most resistant to locals demands, and has consequently had the most takedowns, but others, particularly DTV, have done a lot more takedowns as this has continued to worsen. Sat is under lots of pressures, and this may become a breaking point. They may well elect not only to forego lots more locals for lots longer, but possibly to concentrate the pain so that consumers rack up complaints with gov't. It costs providers like DiSH a ton already just to uplink & manage all of these disparate locals. Meanwhile over the years, more and more of the TV audience has been migrating away from the big 4 nets, and fewer and fewer really care about local content. They have websites & Facebook. If all sat locals were to go away, I would daresay most viewers would manage.
Well at least you can say you were the first one to post.This is getting out of hand!
...which would be the singular for "COX."I meant COX but put COC.
My neighbors and I are sick and tired of these disputes over FREE OTA TV.
We (5 households) would like to all chip in to put up a ~100' tower to reliably receive Green Bay locals and distribute the channels to each of us via Wi-Fi bridges and HD Home Runs.
Is a setup like this legal? Would my neighbors and I have to negotiate re-transmission consent contracts, or can we just do it?
Sean
We (5 households) would like to all chip in to put up a ~100' tower to reliably receive Green Bay locals and distribute the channels to each of us via Wi-Fi bridges and HD Home Runs.
Is a setup like this legal? Would my neighbors and I have to negotiate re-transmission consent contracts, or can we just do it?
Sean
Not 100% sure of the top of my head but I think 100’ is doable as long as you aren’t in an FAA class airspace. Or whatever FAA classes their higher priority space. Might be 200’ is the max but check with FAA and FCC. Good luck
What you're proposing is basically the old community antenna TV systems (CATV) that pre-dated today's cable systems. A suitable tower was erected with the antennas fed to a distribution system that supplied each member household with a wired signal. There's nothing illegal about several neighbors sharing the signals from a shared antenna. I would suggest involving a lawyer though, to generate an equitable agreement that each party signs covering equipment ownership and any liability issues. There definitely should be insurance on the tower and distribution equipment. This might be a good application of an LLC to limit individual liability. As far as the height issue, as I recall, the FAA tower lighting/marking requirements start at 200 feet, but don't hold me to that.
Similar threads
