WRAL-TV Raleigh NC Testing For Internet Broadcast Availability

[Keith_Lake]

WRAL-TV announced Wednesday they are testing technology to make its shows available on the Web *only* to viewers in its OTA coverage area. This is the first step to get network approval for delivery of national programming via the internet. The test is intended to show CBS that it is possible to operate
as a local affiliate without becoming an online competitor to the national network.

Further details will be posted as they become available. We now return you to your regularly scheduled postings.

KL<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>

 

[DougBroda]

Here's a link: http://www.wral.com/news/6652148/detail.html

Looks like they have the whole press conference to view.

If I understand the technology, however, it will not limit viewership to those physically in the DMA, but rather only to those having a credit card billed within the DMA. And I can see huge holes in such a system... Someone from WRAL's local area could watch their signal while vacationing in Florida, which might be an issue to TV stations in resort areas, but I see other possible problems well beyond that.

> WRAL-TV announced Wednesday they are testing technology to
> make its shows available on the Web *only* to viewers in its
> OTA coverage area.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Such a system might work only if there could be some way to confirm the location of a computer receiving the WRAL-5 webcast to insure that it's within the station's coverage area.

But what about this: Someone living in Raleigh/Durham owns a laptop. Most of the time, he/she uses it in the local area and can watch WRAL online.

But then he/she takes the laptop with him/her on vacation to Cape Cod, and connects to the Internet in his/her hotel room there. Unless the system can track the current location of a computer, the computer user from Raleigh/Durham would be able to watch WRAL's local newscasts on his/her laptop, instead of those of WBZ-4 Boston on a TV set in his/her hotel room, because the laptop is believed by the tracking system to be in the Raleigh/Durham market.

 

[DougBroda]

> Such a system might work only if there could be some way to
> confirm the location of a computer receiving the WRAL-5
> webcast to insure that it's within the station's coverage
> area.

And you discuss one of those possibilities' flaws. If it is physically on the computer, the computer can be moved (and the info on its HD maybe hacked and duped). IP addresses don't reliably tell computer location. Login info moves with the logger-in.

What it basically will come down to is whether the nets and their affiliates are willing to accept the inherent weaknesses that probably will only affect a relatively few viewers.

 

[bhayes1016]

> But then he/she takes the laptop with him/her on vacation to
> Cape Cod, and connects to the Internet in his/her hotel room
> there. Unless the system can track the current location of a
> computer, the computer user from Raleigh/Durham would be
> able to watch WRAL's local newscasts on his/her laptop,
> instead of those of WBZ-4 Boston on a TV set in his/her
> hotel room, because the laptop is believed by the tracking
> system to be in the Raleigh/Durham market.
>

Hotel rooms don't have Nielsen boxes, so I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to watch the news from back home if they want.

 

[TedL]

The most recent posters have missed the point:

It's not about whether anyone could watch the Ralegh station's newscast out of the market, its about whether the station could keep them from watching the NETWORK'S national programming outside the market:

As Keith indicated in the thread's initial post:

"This is the first step to get network approval for delivery of national programming via the internet.

The test is intended to show CBS that it is possible to operate as a local affiliate without becoming an online competitor to the national network."

"National" not "Local"

Ted.

 

[clichemoth]

> The most recent posters have missed the point:
>
> It's not about whether anyone could watch the Ralegh
> station's newscast out of the market, its about whether the
> station could keep them from watching the NETWORK'S national
> programming outside the market:
>
> As Keith indicated in the thread's initial post:
>
> "This is the first step to get network approval for delivery
> of national programming via the internet.
>
> The test is intended to show CBS that it is possible to
> operate as a local affiliate without becoming an online
> competitor to the national network."
>
> "National" not "Local"
>
> Ted.
>

With the way ratings surveys are conducted, would it even matter? I thought that if I downloaded a network show (legally or not-so-legally) or watched it on an out-of-market station (for example, if I'm watching Survivor and CSI from CBS 3 in Columbus, GA because in-market WIAT-42 puts out a horrible signal here) and listed that in a diary, the in-market station would be given credit anyway.

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

> The most recent posters have missed the point:
>
> It's not about whether anyone could watch the Ralegh
> station's newscast out of the market, its about whether the
> station could keep them from watching the NETWORK'S national
> programming outside the market:

[snip...]

> The test is intended to show CBS that it is possible to
> operate as a local affiliate without becoming an online
> competitor to the national network."

Right now, with the current existing technologies, that answer would have to be NO for all the reasons given (and maybe a few more no one, including myself, has even thought of). To be even more blunt, at this point, I'm not confident such technology CAN be created. The networks just may have to bite the bullet when it comes to the Internet.

> "National" not "Local"

Wouldn't make a difference.

Just my opinion

Cheers

Pat<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[bpatrick]

> > But then he/she takes the laptop with him/her on vacation
> to
> > Cape Cod, and connects to the Internet in his/her hotel
> room
> > there. Unless the system can track the current location of
> a
> > computer, the computer user from Raleigh/Durham would be
> > able to watch WRAL's local newscasts on his/her laptop,
> > instead of those of WBZ-4 Boston on a TV set in his/her
> > hotel room, because the laptop is believed by the tracking
>
> > system to be in the Raleigh/Durham market.
> >
>
> Hotel rooms don't have Nielsen boxes, so I see nothing wrong
> with someone wanting to watch the news from back home if
> they want.
>
That's not even a new idea. I live in WRAL's coverage area
(although I prefer WFMY when I watch CBS since the signal is
stronger), yet I watched WHAS11 Louisville's news on the internet
until they quit streaming all but selected stories. Yet being
able to watch the hometown newscast on the road is the only
advantage I see to this plan; WRAL's schedule isn't THAT
different from any other CBS affiliate.

 

[jegrant]

This sounds like a good idea.

Would it be an end run around retransmission consent / must carry ?

That is, those who have cable or other high-speed internet might be able to use it to watch stations that don't have retransmission consent agreements with the cable or other video operator.

Unless the local station would intentionally block any ISP owned by an operator that doesn't have consent.
Or the cable operator could decide to block access to websites (and therefore, streams) of stations that won't give them consent.

(Ideally the FCC or Congress will outlaw both the above restrictions, preserving my first point about this being a way around retransmission consent.)