• 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

Could Broadcast Nets eventually move to cable?

Moonves says that "the relationship between the CBS network and its affiliates is good (although it could become "obsolete" in the future) and he's not thinking about changing it anytime soon." Maybe not "anytime soon," but certainly after, say, 2020. Their core audience is getting a bit aged now.
 
"Cable operators have asked him about that, he said in response to a question. "Down the road, that's something that could happen, but maybe five or 10 years down the road" -- or once the network's long-term deals with affiliate stations expire."
 
I've thought of this scenario for quite awhile. During the days when everyone received television over-the-air, the affiliates were a necessary middleman. That is becoming more and more not the case. I've always believed that if cable/satellite penetration were to get a wee bit higher than it is now, the networks might consider abandoning their affiliates and basically becoming cable networks. And if the nets did bypass the affiliates, I think it's reasonable to assume that cable/satellite penetration would spike a bit, as viewers would fear losing their favorite shows.

The networks could easily fill the hours that they don't currently program. All the networks are either co-owned or affiliated with companies that have vast movie and TV show libraries. However, they would probably just air infomercials most of the time to make a fast buck.

The syndicators would then go into extra high gear, producing shows (most of which would probably be pretty cheap) to supply the abandoned affiliates with programming.

The big question is what would happen to the network O&Os, particularly those in New York, L.A., and Chicago. Would the networks take those stations independent, or allow them to remain network affiliates and not allow the cable version of the networks to be seen in those markets, i.e. the former WTBS/TBS situation in Atlanta?
 
Interesting that Moonves should even broach this possibility, since CBS has generally been the strongest proponent of the OTA broadcast network model.

I suspect that this may be the opening salvo in an effort by CBS to capture the retransmission consent revenue that it's non-owned affiliates manage to get from cable and satellite companies. In essence, CBS affiliates would be asked to turn over a chunk of their retransmission consent money in return for keeping CBS as a broadcast network.

As an alternative, it could also be an invitation to the big cable/satellite companies to attempt to outbid CBS's broadcast affiliates. For example, if the affiliates are averaging retransmission consent payments of $0.50/month per subscriber (I don't believe it is actually anywhere near that high right now, but that seems to be a target range that broadcasters are hoping to reach), CBS might demand $0.40 of that amount. Or if enough of the cable/satellite companies are willing to come together and offer CBS, say, $1.00/month, then they'd yank the programming off of their broadcast stations. And the threat of that happening might be a pretty solid incentive for the affiliates to give up money to CBS...

If the broadcast networks were to move to cable, they would almost certainly lose a lot of their current audience (note the average ratings of even the biggest cable networks when compared to ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) -- but by gaining those monthly "per subscriber" fees, they could become more profitable even as they lose viewers.
 
I'd never say "never" to something like this.. but I think it's unlikely to happen.
You have to ask yourself, why do people watch network affiliates to begin with? Is it the network programming? Partly. But a large part of why a viewer watches a local network affiliate is local news. I'll be the first to say that local newscasts are working very hard to drive those people away, but they do still provide a view of the local community you cannot get on cable. You also can't see cable channels over the air. In the DFW market (for example) about 22% of the homes are OTA only. They do not have cable or satellite. Is CBS,NBC,ABC or Fox really willing to give up that many viewers? I don't think so. No matter what you do, a broadcast station has more reach than a cable station. That's an advantage that isn't likely to be given up in the next 10 years or more.

But a more practical reason this isn't likely to happen is government interference. Congress (and Democrats in particular) seems interested in keeping a lot of major events on free OTA television. It seems unlikely they'll let a network take the NFL regular season and the Super Bowl (for example) to cable - even basic cable. Congress would also been sensitive to the number of jobs lost in their local districts by having local TV stations shut down. The only thing I'm sure they would like would be having no local TV reporters covering their races for re-election or investigating what they do in office. (if anyone does that now anyway)

I think what Moonves doesn't mention in this article is that most of the major networks are already doing most of their programming on cable anyway. His company is a little weird because it got split, but News Corp, Disney, and NBCU already get a huge chunk of ratings from cable programming on Fox News, ESPN and USA. (to name a few) Why take your broadcast network off the air so it can compete in a more direct way with cable channels you are already successfully programming? It makes little sense.
 
This is hard to predict, and I think it depends on what consumers want. If they want high-quality HDTV, then over-the-air programming will be forced to remain where it will be as of February 17, 2009. Networks will be forced to continue providing programming to over-the-air stations as long as people want the highest-quality HDTV. I think there will be a greater emphasis on live programming such as sports and news. The question is, would cable networks like ESPN or CNN ever consider affiliations on digital subchannels to increase reach and HDTV quality?

The future of over-the-air network television with a balance of network and local programming remains bright in the United States. I can't say the same for Canada, where everyone is just itching to dump local programming and over-the-air transmitters at the first opportunity they can get from the regulators. Up there I believe there will come a point when all the networks will be on cable only, and will operate out of Toronto with zero local programming for anywhere else. CBC will be a cable channel with two national feeds, East and West. Likewise for the others. And to protect the Canadian broadcasters, and cable companies, I can see the CRTC coming up with something to prevent reception of over-the-air American signals.
 
I didn't realize an idea like that was possible. Though I do wonder if CBS were to move to cable if the UHF CBS stations in Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta brought on by the Mid 90s FOX swap would drop news and go dark if they were to not be affiliated with CBS anymore?
 
M.J. said:
The future of over-the-air network television with a balance of network and local programming remains bright in the United States. I can't say the same for Canada, where everyone is just itching to dump local programming and over-the-air transmitters at the first opportunity they can get from the regulators. Up there I believe there will come a point when all the networks will be on cable only, and will operate out of Toronto with zero local programming for anywhere else. CBC will be a cable channel with two national feeds, East and West. Likewise for the others.
Click to expand...

You bring up something that I don't think most Americans understand: local TV news is almost unique to America. Canada has some local TV news in larger markets, but in the UK and most other areas the best you'll get is a "regional" broadcast from a national network. Canada certainly has regional broadcasts from the national networks too, but you'll also find local news operations in places like Toronto and Vancouver. That localism makes the local affiliates here much more valuable to their community than the national network.
 
Am I correct in assuming that big 4 network affiliated network stations in medium and large markets continue to be major money makers? Even CW and MY affiliates do well in many situations. If not, why are stations in smaller markets so anxious to slap new network affilates (including the big 4) on digital subchannels? Frankly, I can't understand why so many on these boards are so intent on killing free OTA network TV. How many threads have slobbered over the possibility of CW or MY TV going belly-up. That might happen, but why do so many seem to think it is a good thing?
 
tested said:
You bring up something that I don't think most Americans understand: local TV news is almost unique to America. Canada has some local TV news in larger markets, but in the UK and most other areas the best you'll get is a "regional" broadcast from a national network. Canada certainly has regional broadcasts from the national networks too, but you'll also find local news operations in places like Toronto and Vancouver. That localism makes the local affiliates here much more valuable to their community than the national network.
Click to expand...
You bring up a point that I've wondered about as I am under the impression that "local" TV, whether its news or sports or talk or advertising, is almost exclusively an American (and to a lesser extent Canadian) institution. I'd also be curious as to what cable/sat penetration is in other countries that are in the process of a DTV conversion or have already completed the transition.

But the question that remains is that if an affiliate's local newscasts are valuable to the community and highly successful, is it of any consequence to the network or even attributable to the network affiliation in any way? If the nets move to cable - which I think is inevitable - is the prospect of locally produced news (or other locally-produced programming) threatened or will the opportunities increase?
 
fortmill said:
How many threads have slobbered over the possibility of CW or MY TV going belly-up. That might happen, but why do so many seem to think it is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Because they are totally worthless?
 
Chad-Stevens said:
tested said:
You bring up something that I don't think most Americans understand: local TV news is almost unique to America. Canada has some local TV news in larger markets, but in the UK and most other areas the best you'll get is a "regional" broadcast from a national network. Canada certainly has regional broadcasts from the national networks too, but you'll also find local news operations in places like Toronto and Vancouver. That localism makes the local affiliates here much more valuable to their community than the national network.
Click to expand...
You bring up a point that I've wondered about as I am under the impression that "local" TV, whether its news or sports or talk or advertising, is almost exclusively an American (and to a lesser extent Canadian) institution. I'd also be curious as to what cable/sat penetration is in other countries that are in the process of a DTV conversion or have already completed the transition.

But the question that remains is that if an affiliate's local newscasts are valuable to the community and highly successful, is it of any consequence to the network or even attributable to the network affiliation in any way? If the nets move to cable - which I think is inevitable - is the prospect of locally produced news (or other locally-produced programming) threatened or will the opportunities increase?
Click to expand...

It seems to depend on the region. ABC affiliates tend to be #1 for local news in many of the large markets such as NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago, but there are many CBS, NBC, and FOX affiliates in other markets in first place.

It is indeed amazing to look at other countries and see how little local television there is. As is my understanding in Mexico, cities as large as Guadalajara only have one local station, with repeaters of XEW and other major Mexico City stations providing all other television service. Some cities which typically would have at least a couple local network affiliates if they were in the United States have nothing but network repeaters and sometimes repeaters of stations based in a state capital. Even in Canada the concept of local television is very fuzzy, as areas such as the Maritimes have single newscasts based in Halifax for the whole region on both the Global and CTV stations, while the CBC has individual newscasts for each province. Consequently, the newscast on CBC's CBCT in PEI has massive ratings.
 
TV in the US followed the model of radio in the USA.

I have read a couple of books on early radio history and it seems there were attempts to use shortwave or huge power to have a few stations cover a great distance. But every attempt was blocked by the FCC (and its predecessor), due to the Congressmen of the smaller states putting pressure on it, for localism.

I read about WLW (Cincinnati) experiementing with 500,000 watts, they found although they gained a larger audience and could sell their ad time for more, the ads were expensive, (especially during the 30s and the Depression) so they sold less of them. Net result for WLW's experiment was with the less ads and the extra cost of the electricity for the higher watts, it came out just about even.

This result reinforced Congressmen of the less populated states to limit ownership of AM stations and to force localism. Each Congressman wanted his town to have at least one radio station however small.

Thus radio begain the affiliate model and that carried over to TV.

Now though very few stations produce any local programs besides news and Sunday morning community shows.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom