About Those Distant Signals
Letter to the Editor by Randy Kabrich - August 27, 2010 - SkyREPORT
Concerning DIRECTV and DISH's comments to the FCC on distant network signals and the definition of "antenna":
Is there REALLY any need for “Distant (Broadcast) Signals” in 2010? This regulation made sense 2 decades ago (in the 90s) when very few markets had Local Into Local service from the DBS providers. In 2010, ATSC HD DNS (distant network signal) service only applies to ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC. Considering that Dish now serves local into local in every TV DMA, they just simply need to turn on the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliate from the local in market station and the customer would be served without any need for DNS service.
If there is no local affiliate, there is no need to measure the signal from ANY antenna, inside or outside, is there? DirecTV has local HD Service from every TV DMA outside of a handful of the absolutely smallest markets (and one can bet that if the sub number was high enough, it would add these as well). Even in this instance, given the small population of those markets, we are probably only talking at tops a few thousand (if that) subs that would be in need of DNS service for lack of local service.
Now, should a person who lives, say, in Eastern Polk County Florida, who drives 20 miles to work at Disney be able to sub to the Orlando TV Market instead of the Tampa TV Market? Probably so, but that is a whole different debate, and whether or not they can pick up a signal, indoors or outdoors, still does not qualify them to receive Orlando stations via DBS.
So, again, with all due respect, why is there any need at all to debate what a usable signal should be in 2010, when the entire DNS concept is a totally outdated concept and there are certainly more pressing issues?Statistics: Posted by A_Z_A — Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:54 pm
]]>