Scheme to prevent Sat from locals broadcast?

[Tampa8]

At first sounds far fetched, but read what Solid Signal has posted. Is this a backdoor attempt to have the Satellite companies lose the right to broadcast locals?

http://forums.solidsignal.com/conte...n-jeopardy?s=f6e1e73d73c9b09178fe85bcd557e318

 

[Juan]

someday (soon) most of the TV broadcast frequencies will be auctioned off to cell phone companies (etc) and there will be no broadcast station..they will find away to survive on the internet or just fade away

 

[bigjohnok]

You can thank the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision for crap like this.

It means basically any corporation or special interest group can contribute unlimited amounts to what ever political action group/committee they want. Basically they can spend what ever amount they want supporting whatever group/committee that supports their politician that supports their view.

So basically anyone running for office can be made just by these groups spending gobs of cash to fund either positive ads for a candidate or negative attack ads.

Now they cant directly donate to a candidate running for office.

 

[ChadT41]

I do not agree with STAVRA, to start off. The only issue I have with this article, it does not explain how it could be heinous. Maybe you can elaborate? The way I read it, and probably way off base, is it will give the oppurtunity for locals to say "we don't feel like offering you locals, because you may override us elsewhere, or put us out to national". The reason i do not like it personally, is it opens the door to future lawsuits that will force STELA back in place in the future, and give locals ten times the power. Remember, when dish was offering distant networks, it was technically legal, but they still overall lost the lawsuit.

 

[sam_gordon]

someday (soon) most of the TV broadcast frequencies will be auctioned off to cell phone companies (etc) and there will be no broadcast station..they will find away to survive on the internet or just fade away

Of course, if you think about, current TV frequencies are 6Mhz wide. There are 50(right?) available channel slots... so that's 300Mhz. On AVERAGE, how many stations are in a given market? 5? Six, maybe 7? Let's even allow for surrounding markets and say 25 slots need to be "protected". That still leaves 25 slots available for cell phone/whoever need the bandwidth.

Have they even utilized all the bandwidth the digital transition freed up?

 

[bigjohnok]

Of course, if you think about, current TV frequencies are 6Mhz wide. There are 50(right?) available channel slots... so that's 300Mhz. On AVERAGE, how many stations are in a given market? 5? Six, maybe 7? Let's even allow for surrounding markets and say 25 slots need to be "protected". That still leaves 25 slots available for cell phone/whoever need the bandwidth.

Have they even utilized all the bandwidth the digital transition freed up?

I dont know how true this is because I do not feel like reading FCC regulations in my free time but I have read in various articles that if a spectrum holder doesn't utilize their holdings that eventually the FCC will stop granting them licenses.

 

[Jim5506]

There is already use of so called white space - unused TV frequencies - in larger metropolitan areas.

The camels nose is already under the tent - these frequencies have already been auctioned off and now the cell phone and otherwise communications people are looking at poaching active TV frequencies.

The frequency is more valuable to cell companies than the worth of these TV stations - ergo... follow the money.

If somebody offers you more money than your TV station is worth, for your 6MHz of frequency, what would you do.

Only the FCC is holding these people back from collapsing the entire OTA broadcast TV system - and how hard they are holding is questionable after all the Feds are money grubbers, too.

 

[sam_gordon]

There is already use of so called white space - unused TV frequencies - in larger metropolitan areas.

The camels nose is already under the tent - these frequencies have already been auctioned off and now the cell phone and otherwise communications people are looking at poaching active TV frequencies.

The frequency is more valuable to cell companies than the worth of these TV stations - ergo... follow the money.

If somebody offers you more money than your TV station is worth, for your 6MHz of frequency, what would you do.

Only the FCC is holding these people back from collapsing the entire OTA broadcast TV system - and how hard they are holding is questionable after all the Feds are money grubbers, too.

Wouldn't the bolded depend on the station/market? Yes, I'm sure there are stations are are barely getting by (or at least not making much money) which might be primed for sale, but I don't think all stations will go that way.

I still believe OTA broadcast will be around for a while. I know that's an unpopular opinion here. But I think there will continue to be a market for OTA channels. Maybe not 4-5 in each market, but I don't feel they'll go away entirely.

I've mentioned before, 99% of the cable companies and both satellite companies pick up our market because of OTA. If all the stations shutdown, everyone would lose all local programming. Maybe that's not the case in all markets, but I'm willing to bet it's true for the majority of markets.

 

[Tampa8]

I do not agree with STAVRA, to start off. The only issue I have with this article, it does not explain how it could be heinous. Maybe you can elaborate? The way I read it, and probably way off base, is it will give the oppurtunity for locals to say "we don't feel like offering you locals, because you may override us elsewhere, or put us out to national". The reason i do not like it personally, is it opens the door to future lawsuits that will force STELA back in place in the future, and give locals ten times the power. Remember, when dish was offering distant networks, it was technically legal, but they still overall lost the lawsuit.

The premise is this proposed new STELA won't pass and when it doesn't there will nothing in place. When it does not pass you don't just go back to what was in place because it is expired. It will take another version to come up, and when will it come up? The cable companies have been quiet on this issue, and Solid Signal feels that is because they know it won't pass and there will be no STELA at that point.

 

[ChadT41]

That clears things up some. Thank you.

 

[DishSubLA]

The writer of the article/post does not make clear what he is talking about, so it's hard to comment on it. However, I like the proposal that each subscriber would pay a monthly amount determined by broadcasters to view our locals via sat or cable. The MVPD's would mere collect and then pass on that full amount to the broadcasters, the MVPD's make no money on that. It would put control with the consumer and END the blackouts because of negations failing between the broadcaster and the MVPD. Of course, that really excellent option will never see the light of day because the broadcasters don't want it.

 

[sam_gordon]

The writer of the article/post does not make clear what he is talking about, so it's hard to comment on it. However, I like the proposal that each subscriber would pay a monthly amount determined by broadcasters to view our locals via sat or cable. The MVPD's would mere collect and then pass on that full amount to the broadcasters, the MVPD's make no money on that. It would put control with the consumer and END the blackouts because of negations failing between the broadcaster and the MVPD. Of course, that really excellent option will never see the light of day because the broadcasters don't want it.

Something tells me the MVPDs wouldn't like that also... they make no money on those channels.

 

[sam_gordon]

My idea...

A national plan is put into place that predetermines how much local broadcasters charge MVPDs.
For example, the 'Big 4' (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) get 75 cents/subscriber (for example).
CW, MeTV, MyTV, RFN, etc. get 50 cents/subscriber
All other channels get 25 cents/subscriber.

My numbers are made up. But it would end retransmission negotiation... it's that cost or MVPDs can't use them. There's all kinds of ways you can limit this (by market size, ratings average over the last 'x' months/year, etc).

 

[bigjohnok]

My idea...

A national plan is put into place that predetermines how much local broadcasters charge MVPDs.
For example, the 'Big 4' (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) get 75 cents/subscriber (for example).
CW, MeTV, MyTV, RFN, etc. get 50 cents/subscriber
All other channels get 25 cents/subscriber.

My numbers are made up. But it would end retransmission negotiation... it's that cost or MVPDs can't use them. There's all kinds of ways you can limit this (by market size, ratings average over the last 'x' months/year, etc).

what your are proposing is price controls for what is considered "luxury" service.

 

[sam_gordon]

So?

I should clarify... the cost should be negotiated/arbitrated, NOT dictated (by either side).

 

[bigjohnok]

So?

I should clarify... the cost should be negotiated/arbitrated, NOT dictated (by either side).

it will never happen because even utilities which are considered "needs" have been deregulated.

 

[Stargazer]

They could offer the locals on satellite for free if you do not have a subscription to free up airwaves but the locals would not like that because they would not be receiving revenue. People could just buy their own system and install it and get their free locals. Another way of looking at it is if they do not subscribe to a regular package then they are not losing any money as they would not have paid for the locals anyways.

 

[77TA]

I would like to see them do what I think stargazer is suggesting. Require dish network and directv to unencrypt there locals so anyone with a fta receiver or dbs receiver could receive the spot beams in their area for free. In exchange the satellite companies would not have to pay carriage fees and locals would still be available with your subscription channels. It would insure almost everyone had access to free locals like they were originally supposed to.

 

[Stargazer]

They would only have to pay the carriage fees for those that actually subscribe to Dish/Direct. This would still give them their carriage fees and the ones that would normally receive tv OTA would get it FTA instead. Perhaps some of the money received in auctions could have a fund (one time monetary amount) to the networks to compensate for those that do not pay carriage fees and to pay for systems to be installed like they did for converter boxes. This would allow more people to receive their network stations.

 

[sam_gordon]

I would like to see them do what I think stargazer is suggesting. Require dish network and directv to unencrypt there locals so anyone with a fta receiver or dbs receiver could receive the spot beams in their area for free. In exchange the satellite companies would not have to pay carriage fees and locals would still be available with your subscription channels. It would insure almost everyone had access to free locals like they were originally supposed to.

"Almost" everyone already has access to free locals now... it's called an antenna.

Again, I think satcos shot themselves in the foot when they first launched LiL by having a dedicated charge for them.