Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV

[landtuna]

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.

In the earlier days of C-band ala carte was the common subscription method. Service providers had a web site that you simply checked off your desired services and five minutes later they were on the air. No "increased administrative and billing costs".

When cable made bigger inroads and satellite TV replaced C-band the programmers discovered they could make more money by tiering their services and ala carte virtually disappeared.

I don't agree with your statement that ala carte would necessarily cost more than the current tiered system. More likely that is a scare tactic by the service providers. I've never seen any independent data to back up the claims.

Since 1988 I have had a combination of C/Ku-band (big dish), cable and/or pizza dish (DTV) TV providers. The Big Dish was the best from a price performance and PQ/audio standpoint. Cable was the easiest to operate but was the worst from a reliability point. DISH/DirecTV were moderately cheaper than cable, with better PQ, but with horrible customer service and reliability not much better than cable (storms). I too was accustomed to watching quite a bit of non-OTA TV, the only exceptions being live sports. Surprisingly, over the last few months without cable/satellite I miss only a very few programs - usually live sports not carried by OTA stations. And I've found an acceptable, if not perfect, way to view most of these online.

So, until the cable/satellite providers get back to offering their services in an acceptable manner I will live off the Internet subscription-free.

 

[LKellerIII]

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.

In the earlier days of C-band ala carte was the common subscription method. Service providers had a web site that you simply checked off your desired services and five minutes later they were on the air. No "increased administrative and billing costs".

When cable made bigger inroads and satellite TV replaced C-band the programmers discovered they could make more money by tiering their services and ala carte virtually disappeared.

I don't agree with your statement that ala carte would necessarily cost more than the current tiered system. More likely that is a scare tactic by the service providers. I've never seen any independent data to back up the claims.

I don't have any data, and I haven't heard any scare tactics. It's just common sense applied to capitalism. No corporation is going to sit back and allow a major change in the way they do business that will lose them money. However, you may be right that it wouldn't be that hard to administer - especially in the online computer age.

I hope I don't sound like an apologist for cable. I've had plenty to complain about over the years, and the prospect that I'm going to have to pay even more in the future does not make me happy.

The problem is - there's not enough competition in the marketplace at this point, so there's no incentive for the few providers to hold costs down. As to reliability - other complaints aside - Comcast where I live is very reliable, with none of the weather related outages or suddenly poor reception like in the old Viacom Cable or TCI days. You can probably credit modern technology (fiber optics, etc.) and the fact that much of the infrastructure has been under-grounded where I live.

 

[TexasTom]

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 is it more of a public service to use that same bandwidth so that mobile users can stream clips from Comedy Central on YouTube?

Yes, much of broadcast television is junk. I'd say that an even higher proportion of what's on cable is junk. Ditto for the Internet, magazines, newspapers, books...pretty much any medium produces it's share of garbage. That doesn't mean that free broadcast television isn't a valuable service, though.

And, frankly, I don't understand why you're so anxious to see stuff that is currently available for free being charged for? Are you really that fond of getting screwed over by the big media companies?

 

[mescutia]

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?

Well, if they're in small markets that are missing one or two of the other major networks, I would think they'd simply switch to one of those. [Terre Haute, for example, has no ABC affiliate.]

 

[mjlarochelle]

I also question whether networks would give up on OTA when that represents 30 million viewers nationwide at this point. Even if OTA drops to 4%, that's still 12 million viewers. That doesn't even count viewers of U.S. stations in border areas of Canada and Mexico.

I just can't see the TV spectrum being completely reallocated to other uses. Perhaps what we will see is a reduction in the number of OTA services, maybe to a level similar to the early 1960s. A market like New York might keep 7 stations OTA (with subchannels), while a market like Watertown might go down to one OTA station, again with subchannels. New York, for example, might continue to have its major stations in HD with SD subchannels, while Watertown might keep a single station broadcasting SD programming on the main channel and all its subchannels.

 

[stationless listener]

If we do see a move away from OTA from the big networks, I think the Spanish-language networks may see a temporary boon. That's due to the possibility that full-power stations would, then, become available for purchase or affiliation. For example, in Washington, D.C., only Univision has a full-power station. Both Telefutura and Telemundo have to make due with a couple of low-power stations whose signals don't go outside the District. They could end up benefiting big-time if many stations, especially if they are My Network or CW stations in cities with growing immigrant populations, become available all of a sudden. Cities like Orlando, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston and San Diego also have similar issues. Even a smaller network like Azteca America would be a big beneficiary of this scenario.

Eventually, they'll follow in the footsteps of the English-language big networks, assuming that that step is taken.

PBS, religious broadcasters and major independents would be the ones still standing tall.

 

[robbbc]

PBS, religious broadcasters and major independents would be the ones still standing tall.

Yep- This could be for PBS what deregulation was for NPR. PBS could become the only full-service OTA TV network and might be able to benefit from that. People will feel differently about funding when its the only game in town (more money from the Gov't, more local programming). Could highly benefit the programming which needs a lot of work to get up to NPR standards.

I see in my crystal ball one 24 hour local news channel and one news/talker (standby Mr. O'Rielly wanna-bees et al.), religious programmers (gotta have at least a couple), and PBS. In other words, radio with pictures (but no easy listening...).

I am interested in seeing what happens at the FCC if something like this goes down. Would A la carte get shoved down cable's throat? My guess- something is going to happen to cable to get rates under control one way or the other. Not sure what the FCC will do, but not doing anything won't be politically wise for either a democratic or republican administration (and we are talking 10 years or so from now)

 

[JayR]

If we do see a move away from OTA from the big networks, I think the Spanish-language networks may see a temporary boon.

Eventually, they'll follow in the footsteps of the English-language big networks, assuming that that step is taken.

Univision and Telemundo are primarily distributed via cable/satellite. In most areas, they were only available on cable or satellite before there was even a station available to carry them.

 

[kenglish]

Does anybody know why the Broadcasters have not said anything publicly about this issue?
We happily promote EVERYTHING our competition does, yet we never give much (if any) air time to issues that affect the viability of our own business, and the ability of our viewers (customers) to watch us.

Do broadcasters just feel that we "are too big to fail"?

 

[vchimpanzee]

In other words, radio with pictures (but no easy listening...).

Please define easy listening, as I have seen many definitions.

Also, are you for it or against it?

 

[FreddyE1977]

even if only 10% or less are receiving their television over the air via an antenna, there will
be someone wanting to go after that audience and that revenue. Follow the money.