[chiefnut]

I am so tired of blackouts. My local fox is not sending hd signal yet and I cannot watch the playoffs on my $2000 high def set that I bought because they won't give me a waiver. Now if that is not enough, my local cbs has been skimping on high def lately. They were carrying my game in sd eventhough the guide said it would be hd. So I think no problem, I'll just watch it on D* but I get the dreaded not available in your area. I can't even tivo my games anymore and watch them again because they are blacked out on D* and D* is not carrying my locals yet. All this spendy equipment I have is being wasted because my local affiliates want me to watch local commercials. Well I have news, I don't watch commercials. I hate them. Something needs to be done to fix this bs. If you can't get high def locally that you can get on D* then you should be automatically be given a waiver. How can high def progress when there is crap like this going on?

 

[Morris Jones]

It's rather cheeky of you to expect the local broadcaster to spend thousands of dollars on HD modulation and transmission equipment when you are a liability to his income.


Maybe you could offer to sponsor his equipment upgrades.


Mojo

 

[Artisn]

chiefnut - Rent DVDs then, or go to the games. Networks are not non-profit organizations. They need to be paid by advertisers or charge for their programming - take your pick.

 

[hefe]

And by the way, blackouts and waivers are 2 different issues. You can have a waiver, and still be blacked out from a sporting event. (As people who receive the national CBS-HD feeds can attest.)

 

[lvthunder]

I too think the waiver system isn't fair. I can't get CBS OTA so I applied for a wavier. It was denied so I asked for a signal test. This was back in March. In July I sent Directv an email asking for a status of the test. They sent me an email that said I had to write a letter to the place in California that I sent the request for the signal test. I still haven't heard a status of when the test will take place. So I emailed Directv again and they sent me another application for the test. All I want is CBSHD so I can use my new TiVo. If the local station wants to keep me as a viewer that's fine I have no problem with that. I will be more than happy to let them show me I can get a signal from them. No wonder so many people are "moving".

 

[TheFerret]

Quote:

Originally posted by Morris Jones It's rather cheeky of you to expect the local broadcaster to spend thousands of dollars on HD modulation and transmission equipment when you are a liability to his income. Maybe you could offer to sponsor his equipment upgrades. Mojo

This is BS. I bet movie theaters would love to apply that line of thinking. How about this. I don't expect jack from the locals and pretty much get exactly what I expect. With this in mind, I am certainly not forcing them to engage in this business, and to back that up I can say I don't want their business. BUT, to sentance me through enforcement to NOT get what I want when the service provider (DBS) and the customer (me) are wishing to engage in a business relationship is absolute bull ****.


If the FCC can disallow DBS mergers to promote intra-DBS compeition then why can't their be intra-affiliate (a la CBS) competition?

 

[ileff]

hey local OTA broadcasters: We dont want your service, go away.


to be blocked from national feeds to "protect" local ota is outragous. what if you had to apply for a buggy whip waiver before you were allowed to buy a car? this is flat out unamerican. let the free market decide.


if local news and local programming is so darn good people will seek it out and pay for it. why block us from modern technology to keep alive something created to serve needs from the 1900s?


content by broadband download is just around the corner, thank goodness! nobody will be smiling bigger than me when these dinosaurs are finally put out to pasture.

 

[Kipp Jones]

Life is not fair, deal with it...

 

[TheFerret]

Kipp, we are dealing with it in the only way we know how: complain.

 

[dmguru]

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFerret This is BS. I bet movie theaters would love to apply that line of thinking. How about this. I don't expect jack from the locals and pretty much get exactly what I expect. With this in mind, I am certainly not forcing them to engage in this business, and to back that up I can say I don't want their business. BUT, to sentance me through enforcement to NOT get what I want when the service provider (DBS) and the customer (me) are wishing to engage in a business relationship is absolute bull ****. If the FCC can disallow DBS mergers to promote intra-DBS compeition then why can't their be intra-affiliate (a la CBS) competition?

I'm with you 100% Ferret! I never understood government protection of businesses in a free market society. Let the market decide.

 

[hefe]

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFerret This is BS. I bet movie theaters would love to apply that line of thinking. ...

Not sure I understand the analogy.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFerret How about this. I don't expect jack from the locals and pretty much get exactly what I expect. With this in mind, I am certainly not forcing them to engage in this business, and to back that up I can say I don't want their business. BUT, to sentance me through enforcement to NOT get what I want when the service provider (DBS) and the customer (me) are wishing to engage in a business relationship is absolute bull ****. If the FCC can disallow DBS mergers to promote intra-DBS compeition then why can't their be intra-affiliate (a la CBS) competition?

I agree that the enforcement is ridiculous. I have been dealing with the same where I live. Can't get a channel no matter what, had to jump through hoops to get the waiver.


I can understand in concept though what they are trying to do. It has been determined that this broadcast media has some level of public interest responsibility that is best served by local stations. How much is certainly debatable, and not everyone appreciates what having a local station provides, whether it is news, community information, severe weather warnings, public access programming, other local interest programming like sports for markets that still do this, and a place for local advertisers to promote their businesses where they can afford the air time as well as target an audience who might actually use their business.


I guess the fear is that the public interest is not served by allowing local stations to be put out of business because they can't compete with a national entity. If "free" commercial TV goes away, some segment of the population won't have access due to financial or geographical issues. Small businesses won't be able to advertise on the most powerful medium that exists. Competition will eventually suffer after a lot of it is killed off and a handful of media corporations own all the broadcasting outlets and content.


Again, I do think the enforcement is ridiculous however...if you can't be adequately served by an existing station, I don't see how they should be able to call you their customer. And I certainly think there is quite an overhaul that could be done to the rules...

 

[ileff]

locals can add a lot of value, i do plan to subscribe to hd lil next year.


but why block national feeds? local is better right? local ota can offer higher bandwidth right? let them compete.

 

[minorthr]

If you have D* you could always "move" to an area that gets you what you are looking for.

 

[Paul_Seng]

It sounds like the way most here want it, they will end up paying for network feeds like it was TNT, your basic subscription would go up. It's free because the local affiliates are around. Take away the local affiliates and you have a national network just like TNT or USA. And their income is made by making the providers charge you for the service.

 

[jambroni]

Quote:

Originally posted by hefe And by the way, blackouts and waivers are 2 different issues. You can have a waiver, and still be blacked out from a sporting event. (As people who receive the national CBS-HD feeds can attest.)

My distant nets have not been blacked out for a football game.

 

[TheFerret]

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul_Seng It sounds like the way most here want it, they will end up paying for network feeds like it was TNT, your basic subscription would go up. It's free because the local affiliates are around. Take away the local affiliates and you have a national network just like TNT or USA. And their income is made by making the providers charge you for the service.

So be it! At least I would then have a choice between two sources. As it stands, I do not have a choice. I have the local yahoo's and that is it.

 

[hefe]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambroni My distant nets have not been blacked out for a football game.

I have had NFL football blacked out on Sunday on channel 80.

 

[sregener]

Okay, people, there are two different issues here. One is the waiver process and the latest issue related to it: high-definition reception. The FCC has mandated digital broadcasting. It has not mandated high definition. No broadcast affiliate is required to put out an HD signal by the government. Sure, some people have spent a lot and bought a lot of equipment to watch HD, and they feel that they deserve a true HD signal. It sucks, but they're wrong.


The second issue is the affiliate system itself. Some of you say, "let the market decide." It *has*. It decided that you couldn't get distant affiliates, ever. The government stepped in and created rules so those who aren't served by an affiliate could. The affiliate system decided they didn't want to be on satellite television. The government stepped in again and made the affiliates agree to be carried on satellite.


But the affiliate system itself? It's no different than a McDonald's franchise. You can't buy a Big Mac at Wendy's. You can't walk into your local McDonald's and demand a Whopper. The fact is that a creator of content has the intellectual property rights to that content. They can determine how they want to distribute the programming. The networks have selected the affiliate system. The only way to break up the affiliate system would be to break up what the free market has selected.


Sorry, folks. Begging the government to take away the distribution rights of copyright holders isn't "free market" economics. It's just more government regulation.

 

[jambroni]

Quote:

Originally posted by hefe I have had NFL football blacked out on Sunday on channel 80.

Which begs the question, "Why would yours be blacked out and not mine"?

 

[hefe]

I understand you point, but the fast food analogy is flawed. It is more like saying you can't get your Big Mac from the McDonalds in the next town because you have one in your town. But having said that, even that analogy is flawed as the setup does not simulate serving the public interest due to being a local entity as can be argued with broadcast media.