Re: Small tv markets
12-22-2011 09:22:41 AM
Local channels, in the big scheme of things, bring relatively NO value to a pay TV operator. The reason that local broadcast networks are even carried on "cable" is because back in those old, old, prehistoric days 30-40 years ago, in some areas it was one of the only ways to get a reliable signal. Remember those old top-of-the-roof antenna days?
Remember back in the early days of satellite when there was no such a thing as having your local channels? Why did they change that? Out of convenience, for the most part.
Once Congress changed the field in 1992, "must-carry" rules basically went out the window. I would venture, out of all of the OTA channels nationwide, maybe only 10%, maximum, have it worked out with their cable operator where they opt for the "must-carry" over being paid per subscriber.
Just think for a minute ...... if you're paying for U200, are you selecting that service tier for the "cable" stations, or your local broadcasters? In my case, I get U300, and the only time I turn on the locals is pretty much for the local news. I've still got an antenna hooked up for getting one of the OTA subchannels, since Uverse doesn't have it. If local channels weren't available, I'd still get U300, for all of the channels that are available on that tier. If I want OTA, and that's my primary viewing, why would I bother with any type of cable?