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 >> >> >> >
