Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV

[JayR]

From Yahoo! News:

Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV

This quote is very interesting...

Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.

 

[Mark Giardina]

I subscribe to cable TV, but I am not happy one bit with the numerous channels that are offered.

Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for informercials, or religious broadcasts?

A number of other networks offer repeats of the same movies so many times that I know the scripts by heart.

The only reason I do subscribe to cable is because there are a few shows I do enjoy, but are not featured on "free TV" because they might contain a swear word. :

Yet if "free TV" goes the way of cable, there are plenty of viewers who will not pay extra for cable or satellite television. Hey maybe people will start reading books again, or subscribing to Netflix.

 

[imhomerjay]

Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for informercials, or religious broadcasts?

You aren't. You choose to pay for satellite or cable; you're not forced to. If the few shows that you like are valuable enough to you, that's all well and good, but it is still a choice.

 

[KeithE4]

From Yahoo! News:

Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV

It's inevitable. Like AM radio, over-the-air TV is dying a slow death. It won't happen tomorrow, next year, or 5 years from now, but the more people subscribe to cable or satellite, that's less people using the expensive transmitter and tower. In another 10 years or so, the number using OTA will be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent in many markets. It won't be worth keeping them on the air with that low a viewership.

Also, TV on your cellphone is finally arriving. It ain't hi-def, but it is portable and doesn't use the big towers. And (correct me if I'm wrong), you do have to pay for it. And then, there's YouTube and Hulu... Why do I need a TV antenna anymore?

This quote is very interesting...

Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.

NBC or Fox will be first. Senior-friendly CBS will be last. 2011 may be a bit early; 2015 or 2020 is more likely.

 

[BRNout]

I tend to agree with Keith except when it comes to who will be first to go "cable" only: it will undoubtedly be NBC. Especially now that Comcast is buying them out. It's in Comcast's interest to eventually transition NBC to a cable channel, particularly when they have ZERO experience in running anything that's "over the air." Mind you, this will probably be 5+ years out.

After NBC, it could take quite a while for the next one, but most likely to go next (to me) would be ABC, followed by FOX (why? because FOX is actually the healthiest of the bunch). CBS will be last, but not by much.

What about CW and My? They'll be gone even before NBC goes cable only.

 

[KeithE4]

I should say that, of course, cell-phone TV is "over the air." So is watching internet TV on your laptop via your WiFi connection. But the idea of watching something called a "television set," tuned to "channels" that map to "frequencies" of 54-698 MHz in 6 MHz increments is going the way of the do-do-bird.

So is the concept of "free TV." We will be directly paying the costs of the transmission method, not the stations, regardless if the transmission method is cable, satellite, internet, or cellular. Most of us already do anyway.

There are better ways to use TV broadcast frequencies. But more WiFi isn't one of them. Expanding the soon-to-be-lone method of free broadcasting - FM (with or without HD) radio - is.

 

[landtuna]

Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for informercials, or religious broadcasts?

You aren't. You choose to pay for satellite or cable; you're not forced to. If the few shows that you like are valuable enough to you, that's all well and good, but it is still a choice.

I believe you missed the point. At the present time both cable and satellite providers use a tiered services offering whereby you subscribe to a tier of services for a set price per month. That tier includes both services you want and many others you don't. But you don't have a choice. To get the ones you want you have to pay for the ones you don't.

I recently cancelled my DirecTV subscription after several years of viewing because it occurred to me I was paying $70/month for exactly FIVE services. Out of 200+ services I watched, on a regular basis, FIVE.

I may return to satellite TV if and when they offer an ala carte method of subscribing and do it with reasonable fees. I'm not about to pay for substandard services loaded with even more commercials than OTA TV.

 

[imhomerjay]

No, te point is that given the options, as they exist now, you have a choice whether to take a service or not. That is a choice, by definition. You made the choice not to subscribe, others make the choice to subscribe. Wanting a different array of choices is a separate issue; as it exists now, you can decide to take one of the three generally available services (and sometimes four or five), or not.

 

[landtuna]

No, te point is that given the options, as they exist now, you have a choice whether to take a service or not. That is a choice, by definition. You made the choice not to subscribe, others make the choice to subscribe. Wanting a different array of choices is a separate issue; as it exists now, you can decide to take one of the three generally available services (and sometimes four or five), or not.

Yes, you have a choice of whether to subscribe or not but no, you have only a choice of whether to accept a tier, not a specific service.

Mark was complaining about his necessity of supporting religious and infomercial programming which can only happen in a subscription environment.

 

[imhomerjay]

And thus, by definition, is not a "necessity." One may not get every conceivable option one wants to pick from, but that doesn't mean one is being forced to do something. Those options may well change--and expand--over time, but choices do exist now.

 

[justpassingthough]

Broadcast TV and Radio are finally catching up to nearly every other medium- where the business model is partially ad supported and partially supported through subscription fees. Newspapers, even with their cheap subscription costs, have followed this pattern for decades. Of course, there are occassionally throwaway community papers delivered for free, but they are typically owned, operated, and/or delivered by larger companies that also operate on a subscription/ad revenue model. Nothing in this world is as truly free as broadcast TV and radio have been since the 1920s. Frankly, its a bit shocking it took them this long to catch on.

Honestly, I think this transition was a long time coming. Public airwaves should be used for the public good. "Accidentally on Purpose" in no way serves the public. If you want to watch it, then pay to have CBS delivered to your television.

How this really turns things on their heads is through local, ad supported television news, which will disappear or greatly diminish, in all likelihood. If the broadcast channels turn into cable channels, and we are left with local affiliates that air only syndicated fare and local news, what is the likelihood that these stations will be able to feasibly run local news operations at the same expense they run news operations now?

 

[MR5229]

I remember free TV used to have local sports teams available but now you would have to pay for cable/satellite/broadband TV to see them. In the SF Bay Area, most of the local sports teams are on CSN Bay Area or CSN California, which requires you to pay extra. I remember 10 years ago, the Golden State Warriors used to be on KICU 36 and KPIX 5 for some games. Up to 2 years ago, even the Oakland A's were on KICU 36 for some games. The SJ Sharks were even on KICU 36. But now, all those teams are cable/satellite/broadband exclusive, save for the SF Giants, who have a few games on free TV, KNTV 11 (not as many games as when KTVU 2 had the OTA rights to Giants games). If I had the choice, I would be happy just to subscribe to MLB.TV or NBA.com to see my favorite local teams and not subscribe to cable. However, that's still not possible to do if you're within the local coverage area the sports team so I'm stuck with cable. I guess that's where the money is now for TV...

 

[landtuna]

And thus, by definition, is not a "necessity." One may not get every conceivable option one wants to pick from, but that doesn't mean one is being forced to do something. Those options may well change--and expand--over time, but choices do exist now.

I must be speaking a language you don't understand.

Follow me here = Mark subscribes to pay-TV. No matter what tier he chooses there are services on that tier he doesn't want to support. Tough. His dollars go to the entire tier, not just the services he watches. Ergo, he is FORCED to pay for services he doesn't want.

This "choice" does not exist on free-TV because you are not forced to watch and/or pay-for any service.

If you don't get it now you never will. But I'm done. :

 

[brian4]

NBC or Fox will be first. Senior-friendly CBS will be last. 2011 may be a bit early; 2015 or 2020 is more likely.

I agree with either Fox or NBC will go first. I would say NBC since the Comcast deal but I think Fox has the cojones to make change plus the biggest show in American Idol to test the waters. I could also see the Tiffany Network holding on until the end. Lastly I also think between 2015-2020. So in essence I'm channeling Keith!

 

[KeithE4]

NBC or Fox will be first. Senior-friendly CBS will be last. 2011 may be a bit early; 2015 or 2020 is more likely.

I agree with either Fox or NBC will go first. I would say NBC since the Comcast deal but I think Fox has the cojones to make change plus the biggest show in American Idol to test the waters.

I said either NBC or Fox because it'll be either because Comcast has never run a broadcast network and probably has no clue how, or because King Rupert is one greedy SOB. One of those two will be the first, but which wins out: Incompetence or greed?

I could also see the Tiffany Network holding on until the end.

Only because much of their core audience is 55-to-room-temperature, which is reluctant to embrace new technology and/or is too poor to afford it (How do they stay on the air even now with that demo? That, of course, must be impossible - no advertisers for that ancient demo, right? Uh, right. : ).

Lastly I also think between 2015-2020. So in essence I'm channeling Keith!

As well you should! ;D

 

[imhomerjay]

I must be speaking a language you don't understand.

I didn’t realize “illogic” was a language.

Follow me here

Ooooh, oooh, these games are fun.

>>>Mark CHOOSES TO subscribes to pay-TV. No matter what tier he chooses there are services on that tier he doesn't want to support. Tough. KNOWING THAT CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES, A CONCEPT WE TEACH EVEN SMALL CHILDREN, his dollars go to the entire tier, VERY LITTLE OF IT TO RELIGIOUS CHANNELS GIVEN THE RELATIVELY MINISCULE AMOUNT COLLECTED IN PROGRAMMING FEES, not just the services he watches. Ergo, he is CHOOSING to pay for services he doesn't want, WHEN HE COULD ALSO CHOOSE NOT TO SUBSCRIBE TO PAY TV. This "choice" does not exist on free-TV because you are not forced to watch and/or pay-for any service. (Except that this is about pay TV, rendering that point irrelevant).<<<

If you don't get it now you never will. But I'm done. :

Sounds good.

 

[JeeperOne]

There are better ways to use TV broadcast frequencies. But more WiFi isn't one of them. Expanding the soon-to-be-lone method of free broadcasting - FM (with or without HD) radio - is.

Erm....Unless I missed something, AM Radio is still free.

Cheers

 

[KeithE4]

There are better ways to use TV broadcast frequencies. But more WiFi isn't one of them. Expanding the soon-to-be-lone method of free broadcasting - FM (with or without HD) radio - is.

Erm....Unless I missed something, AM Radio is still free.

Cheers

My point was that AM radio will cease to exist, at least as we know it today, in the same time frame that broadcast TV will cease to exist - 10 years from now. It doesn't have to be that way, but if current trends continue (ad revenue decreasing, lack of good programming, or the remaining good programming currently on AM moving to FM. I think the aging-demo issue can be fixed with the right programming but the technical issues can't be)...

 

[mjlarochelle]

So if a network - say NBC - pulls all its affiliation agreements and becomes a cable network, where does that leave the affiliate stations? Will they try to go on as independent stations? Radio dealt with the same issue - The big radio networks faded away and the affiliate stations became independent, although in some cases still under the same ownership. But can it be done with TV? Look how KRON in San Francisco has been doing since it ceased to be an NBC affiliate.

I don't see much of this happening without a huge fight from station owners, especially the bigger ones including Gannett. The bigger stations aren't going to give up OTA or network affiliations very easily. Politically, I wonder if a Democrat administration would even dare entertain the idea at all.

Even though I'm in my early 20s, I have no use for "mobile TV" or "broadband TV". I don't want "on demand". The picture quality is awful and in my case in Canada, anything transmitted to a cell phone is obscenely expensive. I want a high-quality TV picture on a TV.

 

[LKellerIII]

Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for informercials, or religious broadcasts?

You aren't. You choose to pay for satellite or cable; you're not forced to. If the few shows that you like are valuable enough to you, that's all well and good, but it is still a choice.

I believe you missed the point. At the present time both cable and satellite providers use a tiered services offering whereby you subscribe to a tier of services for a set price per month. That tier includes both services you want and many others you don't. But you don't have a choice. To get the ones you want you have to pay for the ones you don't.

I recently cancelled my DirecTV subscription after several years of viewing because it occurred to me I was paying $70/month for exactly FIVE services. Out of 200+ services I watched, on a regular basis, FIVE.

I may return to satellite TV if and when they offer an ala carte method of subscribing and do it with reasonable fees. I'm not about to pay for substandard services loaded with even more commercials than OTA TV.

I use way more than 5 services on Comcast, not to mention On Demand and the DVR I pay a few extra bucks a month for. But there are probably at least a hundred that I rarely or never use. I agree that an "a la carte" service would be better, where we could pick only the individual services we use.

But you have to be careful what you wish for. I know damn well that "a la carte" would somehow end up being even more expensive. The cable and satellite providers have no incentive to change to a cost structure that would lose them money compared to the current system, not to mention the increased administrative and billing costs.

I can imagine the angry phone calls: "I just checked my bill. Discovery Health and Fox News are not on my menu. I demand a $6.00 refund!"

I've lived most of my life in fringe reception areas, so I've almost never gotten TV over the air. And I have to conced ethat I do watch a lot of cable channels, and cannot even imagine going back to OTA viewing.