via a link from Digg.com:

NBC in NY only in LA promotion (http://www.laist.com/2007/06/14/la_directv_cust.php)

Don't know if it's in HD, but as the article states "Lets hope this is the first step in the inevitable of all channels available for all Americans... at a price"

So, how exactly were they able to pull this off?

Is it because both NBC's are O&Os?

SJKurtzke: Yes.

And although this is obviously a test, expect to see more deals of this kind available.

Until now the NYC signals (as I understand it, the NBC feed is available in SD only) have been $1.50 per month each for people in "white" areas, or those receiving the signals because of a waiver granted before December of (I think) 2004.

I would expect to see this sort of thing spread to add the other networks if this succeeds. And I am sure that cash-hungry NBC will also make available the NYC feeds to any subscriber in any of its O&O markets.

And if this test turns out to be a money maker for NBC, expect to see the next round of affiliate agreements give NBCU the right to sell its NYC signals in any market.

However, it is quite a price hike. Here are the charges for the grandfathered NYC (SD) stations from my current DirecTV bill:

05/20 06/19 Network: ABC from NYC Monthly 1.50
05/20 06/19 Network: NBC from NYC Monthly 1.50
05/20 06/19 Network: CBS from NYC Monthly 1.50
05/20 06/19 Network: FOX from NYC Monthly 1.50

This is so nice. And if the HD feeds from WCBS, WNBC, and WABC are provided, I would be very happy as those stations have HD newscasts (here in LA it is only KCBS, KABC, KTLA, and KCAL). I see the networks are giving in as they are seeing their ratings slump. Finally, real live network programming and not the tape delay crap they keep feeding us (as some of us west coasters go online and check for results for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars before the tape airs in our time zone even though both shows originate in LA).

The relationship between networks and their affiliates is rapidly becoming something like Donald Trump and his "old" (as in age, not as in "ex") wives.

Dump her for a newer, cuter, younger model.

Wonder what kind of "alimony" the local affiliates will start demanding from our "ex'es"?

This is great news. I would gladly pay the extra each month for those NYC feeds, especially in HD. It should have happened a long time ago.

Until now the NYC signals (as I understand it, the NBC feed is available in SD only) have been $1.50 per month each for people in "white" areas, or those receiving the signals because of a waiver granted before December of (I think) 2004.

Just wait until Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hear about this! :rolleyes: :D

I thinks it's about time that we have the rights to see other TV market out of town local news!!

I don't mind paying to get NYC or any other TV markets for $6 dollars a month.

I used to get NYC on Directv before they added SD Albuquerque local channels, but now grandfathered just only HD L.A. channels with my local Albuquerque HD channels.

Let's hope they spread this offer to other TV markets. So that Albuquerque's TV viewers can get the out of town TV stations if they want to. :)

Can't wait to see NYC HD local news other than L.A. HD local news, and of course the lousy Albuquerque TV stations hasn't even started the local HD news they are just foot dragging IMHO. :p

6-18-07

Ken's right, this is not going nationwide without a huge fight, and as a practical matter it would only help the western two time zones even if it was allowed. (And SHVERA generally doesn't allow it, which may be a reason why this is so hush-hush. If this deal flies it's only because both stations are NBC O&O.) It doesn't help people in the Eastern or Central time zones at all since their prime time airs simultaneously with New York. Plus there are only a handful of viewers who'll want to give up their local news for New York's on a regular basis.

Also, it appears WNBC does have a subchannel, though they probably handle it as well as they can.

I can't see paying that much for another market's crappy, multicast-to-hell stations, but if D* were to turn into a network affiliate and encode their MPEG4 directly from the full-bitrate ABC/CBS/CW/NBC network feed, I would be interested.

Why can't we get KNBC here in the New York market ?

Why can't we get KNBC here in the New York market ?

There's no market for watching a show later....you East Coasters all work 9-5 :D .
(This jibes with my complaint that non-tech people in TV don't know that the rest of us work odd hours. They think we all work 9-5, weekdays only.)

Well, if there's a market for Los Angeles viewers who can't stay up 'til 10 or 11, there's a market for New Yorkers who stay out late and want to catch primetime at midnight. But then again, the market for such a service would be a little smaller since ... well, they make machines that let you do that.

Please remember there are people like me wants to get out of town local news other than primetime TV shows, so there is a market for that too. :)

And please don't tell me go to the video internet, the picture sucks big time and they only show short clips, and besides I preferred SD or HD satellite tranmissions this way you get whole lot better picture quality and be not front of the computer and that's whats TV is for. ;)

Sooner the better the local stations, will have to wake up and smell the coffee and better serve the TV viewers kinder way of treating them nice instead of snubbing them or worse shooting them self in the foot because you annoyed them by turning down the broadcast waivers. "Dumbest law ever IMHO....."

It's a brave new world boy and girl, so get on with it.......

Beside AM radio is still alive and well in this day and age. :) :cool:

6-19-07

How many of you like watching sporting events 3 hours after it aired? (sports in the west coast are live though, this is just an example.) Most national TV specials like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Miss Universe, some reality show finales, Big Brother, some national news and all national morning news, the Grammys (but not the Oscars), even New Year's Eve specials (with the exception of the 1999-2000 transition) are all aired three hours late in the west coast. The reasoning behind this is to get as many eyes in the west coast glued to their programming.

I have been on live chat forums for some reality TV shows and there is a lot of activity during the east coast broadcast, even some west coasters are on the chatrooms, but much less during the west coast broadcast. East coast feeds are like gold.

This DirecTV/NBC effort is simply a test.

There is not enough bandwidth now to allow all stations to be treated in the same manner, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the network NYC O&Os available to anyone in another network O&O market fairly soon if this test end up providing a decent revenue stream to NBC.

The number of NY expatriates around the country makes it a potentially attractive proposition, as does the advantage to those in the west of getting programming three hours earlier. There are many people in the west who work east coast hours to deal with their home offices (think especially financial, Wall Street and similar companies) and so a decent number of eyeballs are available.

Fortunately I have grandfathered east coast SD feeds. And I was really devestated when they took away my East Coast HD Feeds last year.

Being on the west coast, yes we can watch Survivor earlier with the east coast feeds. I think the bigger advantage, is that some evenings there are more than 2 programs I would like to record/watch.

With the opposite coast I get the opportunity to watch twice as much prime time.

What I don't understand is that HD opposite coasts are not allowed. But now SD is available for a price ???

I contacted D* the other day and they confirmed that HD is not available for this test.

However, since the Networks now publish their prime time shows online after broadcast, why is it not allowed to sell to the opposite coasts ?

Dave B

I would be relatively secure that HD versions will be available, in O&O markets, if this SD test works well -- that is it makes money for NBC.

The new twist here is that the NBC NYC feed is available to anyone in the LA area. I too am grandfathered, but if and when I move, even if I stay in the same zip code, I lose my grandfathered status and thus the NYC signal.

Fortunately I have grandfathered east coast SD feeds. And I was really devestated when they took away my East Coast HD Feeds last year.


Me too. Don't ever give them up as you can't get them back. Although, I'll have to admit, I don't watch them much anymore since they are SD only...

John

What I don't understand is that HD opposite coasts are not allowed. But now SD is available for a price ???That's between the network, the affiliate (which in this case is owned by the network), and D*. Technically, providing either feed is now illegal. But SHVERA is designed to protect the networks and their affiliates (it's their programming, not D*'s), and if the network and the affiliate agree to waive that, that's their decision. And if they don't want to provide an HD feed, that's their right, too.

SHVERA, of course, doesn't cover the Internet, though you'll find that in many cases the shows aren't available until the day after they air anyway.

I hear a rumor that KNBC will be available in ny and chicago before september on a similar trial.

What legal restrictions would prevent a network to writing "non-exclusive" affiliation agreements with local stations ??? In other words, language to the effect that says "station A has exclusive terrestrial broadcasting rights within it's market, but is not protected from a third party, i.e. cable operator, satellite operator, internet provider, etc. from transmitting network programming from an alternate source".

Sure would change the retransmission landscape, which would be good news for the consumer.

Nothing would prevent that at all.

Getting local stations (the vast majority of which are owned by corporations with many local stations) to agree to it would probably be very difficult.

What legal restrictions would prevent a network to writing "non-exclusive" affiliation agreements with local stations ??? In other words, language to the effect that says "station A has exclusive terrestrial broadcasting rights within it's market, but is not protected from a third party, i.e. cable operator, satellite operator, internet provider, etc. from transmitting network programming from an alternate source".

Sure would change the retransmission landscape, which would be good news for the consumer.

Nothing would prevent that at all.

Getting local stations (the vast majority of which are owned by corporations with many local stations) to agree to it would probably be very difficult.

But if the network can easily bypass the local affiliate, then the ball's pretty much in the network's court then, isn't it ???? ;) ;) ;)

Quite frankly, the "local" model is fairly obsolete in 2007. Not just in TV, but radio, retail, restaurants, everything. The only real local content is the "blood and guts" local newscasts, which are tabloid at best.

When some local network stations have actually gotten out of the news business altogether (Sinclair in a few markets, for example), is there any compelling reason to protect localism ???

Perhaps NOT having protection would actually stimulate an effort to be relevant. At this juncture, there's no real reason to be.

But if the network can easily bypass the local affiliate, then the ball's pretty much in the network's court then, isn't it ????

If they bypass the local affiliates, then they pretty much become a cable/satellite channel -- of which there are already plenty (too many, some would say!) -- and they're largely owned by the same corporations that own the over-the-air networks.

If they bypass the local affiliates, then they pretty much become a cable/satellite channel -- of which there are already plenty (too many, some would say!) -- and they're largely owned by the same corporations that own the over-the-air networks.

I find that since the networks rely more and more on copycat talent contests to fill their primetime schedules, that I'm more likely to watch a cable/satellite channel anyway. And the scripted product seems to get weaker and weaker all the time. Especially the sitcoms. NBC is doing what it's doing to squeeze every possible eyeball out of a mostly dismal lineup of mediocre product. I'd much rather watch Leno at 8:30 than "Dancing with a Fifth Grader".

More news on getting out of town stations issue.......

http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/legislation-allow-important-tv-signals-0625/?r=1

I think it would be nice to get El Paso stations or any next door TV markets here in Albuquerque via satellite if this proposed law does pass. :)

6-25-07

How are things going in LA getting WNBC, and any expansion on this project to other areas? :)

I hope the someday that, any americans can enjoy any out of town TV stations markets regardless of signal receptions, with no dumb waiver issue to deal with.

7-23-07