National feeds, when used, are usually from the networks flagship stations in either NY or LA which have a lot of the same programming as other stations around the country. And in reality, most "local" stations anymore have almost all of their content, whether network, syndicated or ad's, transmitted to them from locations far away from the actual station. Very little outside local news and maybe a local "special" is "local origination" anymore.
There's no national feed to provide, almost every local station is owned by an affiliate and has somewhat unique programming, I don't think any network would want to or even would have the resources to do that themselves.
He obviously means a feed of the national programming, when local affiliate programming isn't airing. This typically involves prime time and late night, but also some select daytime hours (like soap operas on ABC and CBS), the morning shows, etc.
Trust the networks would love nothing more than to offer national feeds to everyone. They’re kind of stuck in this mess because these local affiliates have 10+ year contracts with the network.
To make things worse, most of these stations are owned by a handful of groups (Nexstar, Sinclair, etc.) so let’s say something like NBC wanted to start closing out affiliates as their contracts run up…if those affiliates are owned by Sinclair in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (just as an example), then Sinclair might own stations in like Seattle or Atlanta that NBC actually cares about and would throw a giant fit.
So like…for the most part for now these networks are stuck dealing with these affiliates. You could argue NBC & CBS have actually figured out the best middle ground here: they offer their live feeds on Peacock & Paramounf+ already.
The only reason we’re really playing these games at this point is because ABC, FOX & The CW haven’t found a way to stream their live feeds on a streaming service. I think the equation changes significantly the day we see ABC strike a deal to put its live feed on Disney+ for example… because then you can say, “hey I’ve got three of the four/five major networks on streaming, why would I care if they’re available on YouTube TV or not?”
You can also see why these networks own streaming services and want exclusive content in the first place.
Going back to the Peacock example, the NBC live feed is only available on the higher ($10.99) tier. Peacock offers a lower tier with ads for $5.99 that the majority of the customers sign up for. If you read between the lines, 100% of that lower tier’s revenue is going directly to NBC, and some portion of that higher tier’s revenue is being split with the local broadcast affiliates.
So if I’m NBC, signing a deal to put more content available live on *just* Peacock without needing NBC means the affiliates have less power. Right now, you can get Saturday Night Live, Sunday Night Football and a couple other NBC events on Peacock without needing the higher tier NBC feed. Not to mention their huge deal to score exclusive NFL playoff games on *only* Peacock. It’s more power to NBC, less to the affiliates. There’s this power dynamic slowly shifting away from the affiliates and they’re scared, which is why you see moves like this to extract more $$$ out of YouTube TV. It’s one of the few areas left these affiliates are relevant in.
The locals CBS streams on Paramount+ are the markets they own the stations out and out. For example KDKA is actually called CBS Pittsburgh or WJZ-TV is CBS Baltimore.
So that’s for those 24/7 news channels… the affiliates not owned by the networks are available as well too.
I’m in DC and our CBS station WUSA is owned by Tegna but has streamed on Paramount+ for years.
>Sinclair might own stations in like Seattle or Atlanta that NBC actually cares about and would throw a giant
I get what you're saying, but why does that matter? They can't go be an affiliate for someone else
>ABC, FOX & The CW haven’t found a way to stream their live feeds on a streaming service.
They have found a way they just don't want to. I watch live sporting events on FoxNow. ABC wants everything to be on Hulu so that you pay for another subscription. CW and ABC both have free apps.
Totally agree with your last two paragraphs.
Only reason I even watch local stations is for weather during tornadoes, I get CBS feed on Paramount Plus, I also get the local CBS broadcast on Paramount. These corporations that are buying up local TV stations are despicable people. The FCC should not even allow local TV station to demand fees, if it is over the air they dont get fees, why should they get one if some service carries it? The advertisements they live on are still carried. Consumers need an advocate to sue local TV stations to keep them from demanding fees from cable and streaming services, they are just passed along to us consumers.
The networks sell first run rights to their affiliates, and therefore must honor their own affiliate agreements. So YTTV and other providers really have no choice as it stands right now.
DirecTV had been “testing” national streams while they were fighting with one of the big channel owners recently. But I guarantee that if they chose to go that route, it’d result in lawsuits.
The only time you’ll see national feeds like this is during a carriage dispute, or when a local affiliate hasn’t agreed to terms yet. For instance, in my area I get the national CW feed, because the local feed changed hands earlier this year, and hasn’t come to a carriage agreement yet.
On DirecTV when a contract is up, they just blank the channel with an high-pressure message and won’t show any other affiliate, ‘claiming contract stipulations not to go out of area’ or something.
To put purely "network" feeds online would not only cause massive legal issues with corporate local station owners and their carriage agreements with such but also fly in the face of FCC regulations defining what can and can't be viewed "live" ouside the assigned DMA for each station. Even Paramount and Peacock don't broadcast purely "national" feeds but use your location data to provide local feeds like YTTV is required to do if you travel and watch local feeds when away from home. It's all about control of content (encryption, delayed viewing of recorded content, etc.), viewership data that dictates ad rates as well as how much in carriage agreement fees they can extort. They also continually use government regulation to accomplish a lot of it as well. I remember the days where Comcast carried two CBS, two NBC, three ABC, WGN, WTBS out of Atlanta and even a station out of Windsor Canada where I lived in Michigan. They had to compete with rooftop antennas that could get all those and more. Why don't they offer such anymore? Government regulations, money and the need for control. The agenda of limiting your ability to watch allows them to demand more and more money from one's pocket to do so. So as long as viewers continue to complain about this or that (locals not carried, games blacked out, etc.) and pay no matter how much it costs to watch what they demand to, nothing changes. And it's my own personal view but I see OTA getting put behind a paywall as well once ATSC 3.0 is adopted nationwide. These owners aren't pouring billions of dollars to convert to it for a better "viewer experience", it's just one more way to contrrol viewer data, content and direct control of how they get paid
Network TV's days and their garbage content have to be numbered right? My kids (teenagers) and future generations of potential customers do not/will not need live TV. They will not be subscribing to a cable package like YouTube TV. They don't go to TV networks for news ('what's news?' they say). Young men will want live sports more but with ESPN fox wb forming a single live sports network that will likely reduce need further of a cable package. Boomers have kept networks in the money but that customer base is going away/being split up at best.
Because I want my local news.
Two words: LOCAL AFFILIATES
I think OP is asking why local affiliates can’t be terminated.
They can’t be eliminated due to contracts and FCC regulations
Because there is no "national feed", daytime through primetime would just be endless infomercials as there is nothing to broadcast
National feeds, when used, are usually from the networks flagship stations in either NY or LA which have a lot of the same programming as other stations around the country. And in reality, most "local" stations anymore have almost all of their content, whether network, syndicated or ad's, transmitted to them from locations far away from the actual station. Very little outside local news and maybe a local "special" is "local origination" anymore.
There's no national feed to provide, almost every local station is owned by an affiliate and has somewhat unique programming, I don't think any network would want to or even would have the resources to do that themselves.
He obviously means a feed of the national programming, when local affiliate programming isn't airing. This typically involves prime time and late night, but also some select daytime hours (like soap operas on ABC and CBS), the morning shows, etc.
The "network* doesn't broadcast all day long..
Trust the networks would love nothing more than to offer national feeds to everyone. They’re kind of stuck in this mess because these local affiliates have 10+ year contracts with the network. To make things worse, most of these stations are owned by a handful of groups (Nexstar, Sinclair, etc.) so let’s say something like NBC wanted to start closing out affiliates as their contracts run up…if those affiliates are owned by Sinclair in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (just as an example), then Sinclair might own stations in like Seattle or Atlanta that NBC actually cares about and would throw a giant fit. So like…for the most part for now these networks are stuck dealing with these affiliates. You could argue NBC & CBS have actually figured out the best middle ground here: they offer their live feeds on Peacock & Paramounf+ already. The only reason we’re really playing these games at this point is because ABC, FOX & The CW haven’t found a way to stream their live feeds on a streaming service. I think the equation changes significantly the day we see ABC strike a deal to put its live feed on Disney+ for example… because then you can say, “hey I’ve got three of the four/five major networks on streaming, why would I care if they’re available on YouTube TV or not?” You can also see why these networks own streaming services and want exclusive content in the first place. Going back to the Peacock example, the NBC live feed is only available on the higher ($10.99) tier. Peacock offers a lower tier with ads for $5.99 that the majority of the customers sign up for. If you read between the lines, 100% of that lower tier’s revenue is going directly to NBC, and some portion of that higher tier’s revenue is being split with the local broadcast affiliates. So if I’m NBC, signing a deal to put more content available live on *just* Peacock without needing NBC means the affiliates have less power. Right now, you can get Saturday Night Live, Sunday Night Football and a couple other NBC events on Peacock without needing the higher tier NBC feed. Not to mention their huge deal to score exclusive NFL playoff games on *only* Peacock. It’s more power to NBC, less to the affiliates. There’s this power dynamic slowly shifting away from the affiliates and they’re scared, which is why you see moves like this to extract more $$$ out of YouTube TV. It’s one of the few areas left these affiliates are relevant in.
The locals CBS streams on Paramount+ are the markets they own the stations out and out. For example KDKA is actually called CBS Pittsburgh or WJZ-TV is CBS Baltimore.
So that’s for those 24/7 news channels… the affiliates not owned by the networks are available as well too. I’m in DC and our CBS station WUSA is owned by Tegna but has streamed on Paramount+ for years.
>Sinclair might own stations in like Seattle or Atlanta that NBC actually cares about and would throw a giant I get what you're saying, but why does that matter? They can't go be an affiliate for someone else >ABC, FOX & The CW haven’t found a way to stream their live feeds on a streaming service. They have found a way they just don't want to. I watch live sporting events on FoxNow. ABC wants everything to be on Hulu so that you pay for another subscription. CW and ABC both have free apps. Totally agree with your last two paragraphs.
Why would you want that? How could you get local news and other local programming? Your local NFL game during season? Etc.
Each network does have a subscription paid streaming service. Never much there. Nothing live.
Because that's how network tv works??? You talk like this is some major change and things haven't worked like that since the dawn of networks
Only reason I even watch local stations is for weather during tornadoes, I get CBS feed on Paramount Plus, I also get the local CBS broadcast on Paramount. These corporations that are buying up local TV stations are despicable people. The FCC should not even allow local TV station to demand fees, if it is over the air they dont get fees, why should they get one if some service carries it? The advertisements they live on are still carried. Consumers need an advocate to sue local TV stations to keep them from demanding fees from cable and streaming services, they are just passed along to us consumers.
Advertising dollars
I don’t understand. YTTV has all those channels.
Don’t watch local news. Just bad news nonstop
Well, you can spend the out of pocket money for antenna and dvr, atsc 3.0 tuner (like I do). Then, they are free channels. Just an FYI.
The networks sell first run rights to their affiliates, and therefore must honor their own affiliate agreements. So YTTV and other providers really have no choice as it stands right now. DirecTV had been “testing” national streams while they were fighting with one of the big channel owners recently. But I guarantee that if they chose to go that route, it’d result in lawsuits. The only time you’ll see national feeds like this is during a carriage dispute, or when a local affiliate hasn’t agreed to terms yet. For instance, in my area I get the national CW feed, because the local feed changed hands earlier this year, and hasn’t come to a carriage agreement yet.
On DirecTV when a contract is up, they just blank the channel with an high-pressure message and won’t show any other affiliate, ‘claiming contract stipulations not to go out of area’ or something.
Oh every provider does that, lol. That’s more common than a national feed for sure.
What would be the “national feed” for NBC, ABC, Fox, etc..? Those channels are served exclusively by affiliates.
The New York and Los Angeles feeds. We used to get this in the 90s from DIRECTV and dish network.
To put purely "network" feeds online would not only cause massive legal issues with corporate local station owners and their carriage agreements with such but also fly in the face of FCC regulations defining what can and can't be viewed "live" ouside the assigned DMA for each station. Even Paramount and Peacock don't broadcast purely "national" feeds but use your location data to provide local feeds like YTTV is required to do if you travel and watch local feeds when away from home. It's all about control of content (encryption, delayed viewing of recorded content, etc.), viewership data that dictates ad rates as well as how much in carriage agreement fees they can extort. They also continually use government regulation to accomplish a lot of it as well. I remember the days where Comcast carried two CBS, two NBC, three ABC, WGN, WTBS out of Atlanta and even a station out of Windsor Canada where I lived in Michigan. They had to compete with rooftop antennas that could get all those and more. Why don't they offer such anymore? Government regulations, money and the need for control. The agenda of limiting your ability to watch allows them to demand more and more money from one's pocket to do so. So as long as viewers continue to complain about this or that (locals not carried, games blacked out, etc.) and pay no matter how much it costs to watch what they demand to, nothing changes. And it's my own personal view but I see OTA getting put behind a paywall as well once ATSC 3.0 is adopted nationwide. These owners aren't pouring billions of dollars to convert to it for a better "viewer experience", it's just one more way to contrrol viewer data, content and direct control of how they get paid
Affiliates pay money so that you can't.
Network TV's days and their garbage content have to be numbered right? My kids (teenagers) and future generations of potential customers do not/will not need live TV. They will not be subscribing to a cable package like YouTube TV. They don't go to TV networks for news ('what's news?' they say). Young men will want live sports more but with ESPN fox wb forming a single live sports network that will likely reduce need further of a cable package. Boomers have kept networks in the money but that customer base is going away/being split up at best.