I doubt anyone will notice. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:49 PM Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> So under the current rules, they didn't even have to staff the local > studio, it just had to be sitting there empty? If so, then pretty much > nothing changes other than cutting out some wasted costs for the operators > and there really is no downside. I'd guess the majority of stations have > absolutely no locally produced content anyway, so even if they did have > local people sitting around, nothing would really change other than a few > pointless jobs being cut out. > > I really can't see this as anything to be concerned about. > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Right, most don’t staff the local office. >> >> But they have had to have one so that people can come and physically >> inspect FCC files and records and file complaints etc. >> >> This should have been done years ago when satellite feeds first started >> happening. >> >> *From:* Lewis Bergman >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:28 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: local broadcast >> >> You might be surprised how many stations already operate entirely >> remotely and only meet the studio requirement in a technical manner and >> have no local presence at all. We do some work for some and others like >> them rent tower space from me. They have internet feeds for content, some >> have sat backups, and some interface to pull in NOAA weather alerts. Lights >> out all the time. >> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:21 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> wow >>> I dont like regulations, but this will turn out bad. the partyline vote >>> is not suprising >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Jason McKemie < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This seems like it will have some negative consequences, what are the >>>> upsides? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356887-fcc-eliminates-local-studio-requirement-for-broadcasters >>> >>> >>> >> >
