Could they possibly in the future make some of the stations in markets 100 and below repeater stations of stations in the larger cities so those areas get some OTA TV. But the problem would be they would lose local news coverage.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Are broadcast networks becoming obsolete 10-20 yrs from now?
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
Ran into that problem myself with a show on A&E...
When I ditched the No. 1 provider of satellite TV for a streaming service, that was the only thing that we didn't get to keep when we went with a popular OTT streaming service.
There was quite a web portal (sorry, can't recall what it was...) that compared the dozens of various OTT platforms and features to distill your best bet for what you watch regularly.
Cut my video bill in third - I can deal with missing a single cable network for one hour of TV for that kind of savings.
As more people cut the cord and cable subscriptions drop there will have to be a time (eventually) where must carry fees/revenue drops. Wonder if we will see more standoffs (and temporary dropping of programming) as cable operators try to negotiate these fees downward.
They've tried, and get a lot of blowback when they do. Local channels are a popular feature (certainly more popular than a lot of the other channels), so the cable companies just pass the cost on to the subscribers.
Yes. This is a death spiral. Price of a service goes up, more people find the price unjustified and cancel, so the price goes up again to make up the lost revenue, chasing away more customers. Rinse and repeat.
The closest parallel that comes to mind is how the rail industry in the United States imploded after WWII.
They had a lot of help from the government, who kept over-regulating railroads, while funding interstate highways and airports.
Coincidentally, the government continues to regulate broadcasting, while allowing internet total free reign. The networks aren't stupid. They know where their bread is buttered. They go where there are no regulations, and where you can create multiple revenue streams.
TV Networks will continue to evolve as consumers change their preferences. The old business model might become obsolete but the networks will continue to evolve. Just as fewer people listen to AM and FM radio via radios, the business uses online platforms to reach the listeners on phones, computers, etc. Cable TV companies are pushing high speed internet and non-TV or non-cable options for viewing.
Last edited:
I've always said that someday Sinclair will shut down KIMA and KEPR's news departments, reverting to pre-recorded taped-at-KOMO segments targeted to eastern WA. I don't know how KIMA keeps going, but it's like the little engine that could...even with WX from KEPR, weekends at KEPR and mornings at KEPR...
Meanwhile, KHQ Spokane newscasts are aired on weekends on KNDU/KNDO. Could they become full 'Q6' repeaters by the end of the decade? Let alone KXLY w/ KAPP-KVEW?
And you'll note that no one today thinks this was a bad policy decision. Every once in a while you'll find a governor or mayor who thinks we should bring back a passenger rail route through their state or city.
But no one is advocating for bringing back the rail network we had in 1940. Sometimes it is best to let obsolete technology go.
The technology is only obsolete if we're talking about steam. If you go to Europe or Japan, you'll see modern trains with digital operation. We never got to that stage because of regulations. We're seeing the same thing with radio. Regulations imposed on radio that don't exist for online media. That's why the networks are diverting their budgets to streaming.
In the Dallas-Fort Worth TV market, the percentage of Over The Air homes has jumped significantly. It's at least 25% and probably more than that. You can look at cable and satellite companies and see that people are "cutting the cord" in droves. A lot of them are adding antennas to get local channels for free. That's why you see more subchannels being added to stations. I don't know how much money stations are making on things like that, but this area of growth is a sign that stations are probably going to be okay, for a while anyway.
In Des Moines WOI 5 aired 5.1 through 5.5 which 5.5 is a simulcast of 5.1 but then this year 2022 they jumped all the way up to 5.9 adding 4 new subchannels.
How is the signal on the digi-subs? In my experience fast moving scenes don't do well. Things like weather forecasts, preachers etc do much better. Unfortunately, channels like HSN and other total commercial programs are total garbage although the broadcaster might be earning some money off them.
DFW has tended to have a relatively high percentage of OTA homes for years -- we're a perfect market for it, with all the major stations broadcasting from a common area using tall towers in an area with relatively flat terrain.
They don't come in that great depending on the station while others like KDSM KDMI (19) and KCWI subchannels come in pretty good for the most part.
...better than 4K?
I've been lurking and reading everyone's thoughts on this for a day or two. So here are mine. For those who aren't familiar, I spent 31 years of my career in local TV (1981-2012).
First, yeah---I think broadcast networks (at least ABC, CBS and NBC) will be purely streaming within the 10-20 year time frame and maybe---actually, probably---a lot sooner than that. At least when it comes to entertainment and sports programming.
I'm 66 years old and there are exactly four broadcast network TV shows that I watch---THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE, LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MYERS and SNL. And if my local NBC affiliate stopped carrying Seth and SNL tomorrow, I have Peacock. I imagine Colbert is on Paramount Plus and (I had to look this up) Kimmel streams on Hulu.
Apart from that, everything my wife (who's 59) and I watch is on a streaming service. Shows that are technically cable shows---like BETTER CALL SAUL and DARK WINDS on AMC---I've been able to watch those without commercials the past couple of years on AMC+.
What would prompt me to turn the TV on and dial up KCRA (NBC), KXTV (ABC) or KOVR (CBS)? Probably a major local news event, though, still working in broadcast news (the local NPR affiliate), I know where they get their information and I'd be just as likely to go to those sources online until and unless I absolutely had to see video---and even then, most video of breaking events comes from viewer smartphones and is online well before the news crews can get a live truck there or even a chopper overhead.
Anything other than that---a national or international story---I can get online or streaming a lot quicker than I can by turning on the Sacramento affiliate of a national network.
I think NBC handing back an hour of primetime to local stations (if it goes through with it) is just the first piece of ice falling off the melting iceberg. The rest will come more quickly and regularly. It won't surprise me at all if, by the early 2030s, the networks deliver national news and not much else to local affiliates---using NBC as the example, however many hours the TODAY show or its spinoffs run, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and MEET THE PRESS.
Essentially, a network TV affiliation for a local station would be a lot like a network radio affiliation was in the 70s---a news service and not much else. And as the already-geriatric audience for network half-hour newscasts gets older (remember, I'm 66 and don't watch), we could see the day when those shows give way to a re-purposed version of whatever the networks are doing---much more cheaply---for streaming.
How do the local stations fill what was once network time? For those already doing news, more news. It's cheap to produce. Syndication is expensive.
I think CrainBebo is a little overly pessimistic about markets 100 and below---at least down to maybe 150. Reno, where I started my TV career in '81, is market 104 and has about 525,000 people. There's probably a business case for a news-heavy local TV station or two. Three or more might be a stretch.
Even market 146 (Palm Springs) is a metro of 487,000 people. There's probably a there there. Below market 175, though, I think local broadcast TV could be in serious trouble.
First, yeah---I think broadcast networks (at least ABC, CBS and NBC) will be purely streaming within the 10-20 year time frame and maybe---actually, probably---a lot sooner than that. At least when it comes to entertainment and sports programming.
I'm 66 years old and there are exactly four broadcast network TV shows that I watch---THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE, LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MYERS and SNL. And if my local NBC affiliate stopped carrying Seth and SNL tomorrow, I have Peacock. I imagine Colbert is on Paramount Plus and (I had to look this up) Kimmel streams on Hulu.
Apart from that, everything my wife (who's 59) and I watch is on a streaming service. Shows that are technically cable shows---like BETTER CALL SAUL and DARK WINDS on AMC---I've been able to watch those without commercials the past couple of years on AMC+.
What would prompt me to turn the TV on and dial up KCRA (NBC), KXTV (ABC) or KOVR (CBS)? Probably a major local news event, though, still working in broadcast news (the local NPR affiliate), I know where they get their information and I'd be just as likely to go to those sources online until and unless I absolutely had to see video---and even then, most video of breaking events comes from viewer smartphones and is online well before the news crews can get a live truck there or even a chopper overhead.
Anything other than that---a national or international story---I can get online or streaming a lot quicker than I can by turning on the Sacramento affiliate of a national network.
I think NBC handing back an hour of primetime to local stations (if it goes through with it) is just the first piece of ice falling off the melting iceberg. The rest will come more quickly and regularly. It won't surprise me at all if, by the early 2030s, the networks deliver national news and not much else to local affiliates---using NBC as the example, however many hours the TODAY show or its spinoffs run, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and MEET THE PRESS.
Essentially, a network TV affiliation for a local station would be a lot like a network radio affiliation was in the 70s---a news service and not much else. And as the already-geriatric audience for network half-hour newscasts gets older (remember, I'm 66 and don't watch), we could see the day when those shows give way to a re-purposed version of whatever the networks are doing---much more cheaply---for streaming.
How do the local stations fill what was once network time? For those already doing news, more news. It's cheap to produce. Syndication is expensive.
I think CrainBebo is a little overly pessimistic about markets 100 and below---at least down to maybe 150. Reno, where I started my TV career in '81, is market 104 and has about 525,000 people. There's probably a business case for a news-heavy local TV station or two. Three or more might be a stretch.
Even market 146 (Palm Springs) is a metro of 487,000 people. There's probably a there there. Below market 175, though, I think local broadcast TV could be in serious trouble.
Someone brought up the radio networks as an example, and historically that's what happened to the radio networks. The entertainment shows shifted to TV and the radio networks primarily became news & sports until the 70s, when all three began to integrate long form music shows, and sought to chase FM affiliates.
Keep in mind that the old network radio shows, the dramas, the comedies, and the variety shows, were owned by the sponsors, not the networks. Whereas news & sports were owned by the networks. That changed when the networks diversified prime time sponsorship, and later, got into the TV production business. Once again, the networks have a new platform for their programming, so we'll see if history repeats.
- Status