Fox: Save Good Stuff for Paying Customers

[Casey]

A lot of the cable/satellite TV statistics will tell you subscriber growth rate has flattened or actually decreased when taking into account the growth of houses being built. But many of them do not take into account the growth of IPTV delivery methods, such as what is offered on xDSL networks like U-Verse and Prism or fiber networks like FiOS and EPB. Essentially the same thing as cable TV, just different delivery methods.

 

[michael hagerty]

You would think that would be the case. And up to about 70 or so, there's some truth to it (less because they're not tech-savvy and more because they became cable or satellite customers in their 40s, 50s and 60s).

But people 80 and above are, as a group, very resistant to the idea of paying for TV, especially if they never have before.

Yes, but since NFL advertisers don't care about people 80 and older, would the NFl care if the 80+ can't see their games? Would fox care if they loss the 80+ demo?

No, and if you read the quote above the one you copied, you'll see that's the point I made: Factor out the 80+ and other subsets advertisers don't care about and any loss in dumping OTA is very small.

 

[KeithE4]

Yes, but since NFL advertisers don't care about people 80 and older, would the NFl care if the 80+ can't see their games? Would fox care if they loss the 80+ demo?

No, and if you read the quote above the one you copied, you'll see that's the point I made: Factor out the 80+ and other subsets advertisers don't care about and any loss in dumping OTA is very small.

We've already had a glimpse of what could happen in the future, at least here in Phoenix. On March 21 & 22, KPHO-TV's transmitter failed, and they were off the air during the second round of the NCAA Tournament. This didn't affect cable or satellite subscribers one bit since they are fed via fiber. Those of us without cable but with internet service (I'm one of those) could still watch the games via CBSSports.com and their local news via KPHO.com.

As a rough guess, I'll say they lost maybe 10% of their audience at most (people who don't have cable, satellite, or internet at all) by not having a working OTA transmitter, and most of that is outside The Sacred Sales Demos. I'm sure CBS wasn't happy, and KPHO has never said anything about it since they got the transmitter fixed, AFAIK.

But I wonder if their advertisers were all that upset, and how much money did KPHO have to give back due to the lost audience? And how much money does it cost to keep that South Mountain transmitter operating? Does it really make any money on its own, or does it exist mostly to feed upstate translators and keep CBS happy, as well as being viewed by a comparatively small audience in metro Phoenix?

 

[FredLeonard]

It's sounding like all of a sudden the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War ended and Communism died.

Now, all of a sudden it's all over for broadcast TV.

The age of broadcasting end. The age of on demand begins.

Phone carriers will probably be happy to buy the towers.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Some stuff can't be "on demand". What's going to happen to them?

 

[KeithE4]

It's sounding like all of a sudden the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War ended and Communism died.

Now, all of a sudden it's all over for broadcast TV.

Not yet, but the writing is on the wall.

The age of broadcasting end. The age of on demand begins.

The age of on-demand has already begun. It started probably about 5 years ago, if not earlier. Other than live events (news, sports, award shows, etc.), the days of network suits telling us that we're going to watch shows when they feel like airing them, and like it, are just about over.

And the FCC has made it clear that the TV spectrum will be reduced by 1/3 to 1/2. 99% of the country uses wireless services in some form. Only 15% (actually, probably less since some of us also use internet TV) uses OTA television exclusively. The marketplace has already made that decision. Broadcast television has lost.

It is deja vu 1952 all over again, when network radio shows started fading away. That took 10 years for the most part, with a few stragglers hanging on into the '70s (Arthur Godfrey, long-form newscasts). So will the eventual reduction of OTA television services.

Phone carriers will probably be happy to buy the towers.

Or more likely FM broadcasters. Those are not going away anytime soon. Phone carriers need limited-range sites. That's the basis for cellular telephone service - short-range transmitters but a lot of them.

 

[mgsports]

Digital Sub Channels FOX4KC has Antenna TV so I guess somebody else will picked it up in KC area. What about Local Newscast?

 

[Morgan Wick]

The days of people using OTA exclusively are probably over. But that doesn't preclude using OTA in conjunction with on-demand, and in fact the decline of a need for linear channels may hurt what we now know as "cable" more than broadcast.

 

[FredLeonard]

Some stuff can't be "on demand". What's going to happen to them?

Pay Per View - Live Stream

 

[PTBoardOp94]

But I wonder if their advertisers were all that upset, and how much money did KPHO have to give back due to the lost audience? And how much money does it cost to keep that South Mountain transmitter operating? Does it really make any money on its own, or does it exist mostly to feed upstate translators and keep CBS happy, as well as being viewed by a comparatively small audience in metro Phoenix?

The cost of running the transmitter will probably cost a station like KPHO in the low 6-figure range per year once you account for electricity, tower rent or maintenance, transmitter maintenance, and the staff time to administer all of this.

 

[mjlarochelle]

The days of people using OTA exclusively are probably over. But that doesn't preclude using OTA in conjunction with on-demand, and in fact the decline of a need for linear channels may hurt what we now know as "cable" more than broadcast.

Not to mention those who have cable but only on one TV, with additional TVs using OTA.

 

[SixtiesGuy]

But I wonder if their advertisers were all that upset, and how much money did KPHO have to give back due to the lost audience? And how much money does it cost to keep that South Mountain transmitter operating? Does it really make any money on its own, or does it exist mostly to feed upstate translators and keep CBS happy, as well as being viewed by a comparatively small audience in metro Phoenix?

The cost of running the transmitter will probably cost a station like KPHO in the low 6-figure range per year once you account for electricity, tower rent or maintenance, transmitter maintenance, and the staff time to administer all of this.

In other words, it isn't trivial, even for major-market stations that get enough ad revenue to offset this cost.

One significant sign of the big decline in the importance of OTA TV: the new 1 World Trade Center, which was designed from the start with substantial OTA broadcasting facilities, is having a hard time convincing some of the most profitable local stations in the country (New York City is market #1) to spend the large sums of cash needed to relocate (actually return) there from the Empire State Building, even if it means improved market coverage. The WTC's massive antenna system may end up being a very expensive and anachronistic decoration - the 21st Century equivalent of the mooring mast for dirigibles on the ESB.

 

[KeithE4]

But I wonder if their advertisers were all that upset, and how much money did KPHO have to give back due to the lost audience? And how much money does it cost to keep that South Mountain transmitter operating? Does it really make any money on its own, or does it exist mostly to feed upstate translators and keep CBS happy, as well as being viewed by a comparatively small audience in metro Phoenix?

The cost of running the transmitter will probably cost a station like KPHO in the low 6-figure range per year once you account for electricity, tower rent or maintenance, transmitter maintenance, and the staff time to administer all of this.

In other words, it isn't trivial, even for major-market stations that get enough ad revenue to offset this cost.

One significant sign of the big decline in the importance of OTA TV: the new 1 World Trade Center, which was designed from the start with substantial OTA broadcasting facilities, is having a hard time convincing some of the most profitable local stations in the country (New York City is market #1) to spend the large sums of cash needed to relocate (actually return) there from the Empire State Building, even if it means improved market coverage. The WTC's massive antenna system may end up being a very expensive and anachronistic decoration - the 21st Century equivalent of the mooring mast for dirigibles on the ESB.

IIRC, cable/satellite use in the NYC market is on the order of 95% - for obvious reasons, especially in Manhattan. Why bother spending the money relocating (again) from one very tall building to an even taller building when only about 5% of the market even uses the OTA transmitter?

 

[SixtiesGuy]

IIRC, cable/satellite use in the NYC market is on the order of 95% - for obvious reasons, especially in Manhattan. Why bother spending the money relocating (again) from one very tall building to an even taller building when only about 5% of the market even uses the OTA transmitter?

Does anyone know if OTA DTV is at all usable anywhere in Manhattan? Multipath is the bane of DTV and I recall it was horrendous there in pre-DTV days.

 

[KeithE4]

IIRC, cable/satellite use in the NYC market is on the order of 95% - for obvious reasons, especially in Manhattan. Why bother spending the money relocating (again) from one very tall building to an even taller building when only about 5% of the market even uses the OTA transmitter?

Does anyone know if OTA DTV is at all usable anywhere in Manhattan? Multipath is the bane of DTV and I recall it was horrendous there in pre-DTV days.

I'd be surprised if it was. When I visited my grandfather in Manhattan in 1968, I was shocked at how bad the TV signals were (he used rabbit ears). He was on 46th St. near 1st Ave. and the transmitters were on the ESB. IIRC, they later set up UHF translators to cover parts of the city.

 

[Markxxx]

To read this is funny, when I look at old Chicago Tribune articles how WLS-TV (ABC Chicago) was moving their transmitter to the John Hancock, and the article explains how they plan on moving it again, once the Sears Tower is complete.

 

[SixtiesGuy]

To read this is funny, when I look at old Chicago Tribune articles how WLS-TV (ABC Chicago) was moving their transmitter to the John Hancock, and the article explains how they plan on moving it again, once the Sears Tower is complete.

Having lived in the Chicago metro area in the 1970's I recall that WLS-TV went straight from Marina City to the Sears Tower, never having migrated to the John Hancock Tower as the other major Chicago stations did in the very late 1960's. They may have planned to move to the Hancock, but they never did. They were the first TV station on Sears. Their antenna was strapped to the side of one of what were to be the bases for the current antenna masts. The move to Sears eliminated a very prominent ghost in their signal that developed when the Hancock building was topped out around 1969. They made a big deal of their move to Sears, having their chief meteorologist at the time, John Coleman (who would become the founder of The Weather Channel) record a croaky version of Johnny Nash's I Can See Clearly Now.

 

[Markxxx]

I doubled checked the articles in the Trib do mention WLS, but you are correct, WLS moved from Marina City to Sears.

I did find that

WBBM -> American National Bank -> John Hancock -> Sears
WFLD -> Marina City -> John Hancock -> Sears
WGN -> Prudential - John Hancock -> Sears
WMAQ -> Kemper Insurance Building -> John Hancock -> Sears
WTTW -> 1000 Lakeshore Plaza -> Sears
WSNS -> Debuted on Hancock

Thanks for the catch.

Still it shows you how eager the stations were to move.

The article I found also says, John Hancock sued to stop Sears from going higher than 65 stories and lost and also John Hancock wanted to double the size of it's antenna but the stations on there wouldn't commit so they dropped it.

 

[SixtiesGuy]

I doubled checked the articles in the Trib do mention WLS, but you are correct, WLS moved from Marina City to Sears.

I did find that

WBBM -> American National Bank -> John Hancock -> Sears
WFLD -> Marina City -> John Hancock -> Sears
WGN -> Prudential - John Hancock -> Sears
WMAQ -> Kemper Insurance Building -> John Hancock -> Sears
WTTW -> 1000 Lakeshore Plaza -> Sears
WSNS -> Debuted on Hancock

Thanks for the catch.

Still it shows you how eager the stations were to move.

The article I found also says, John Hancock sued to stop Sears from going higher than 65 stories and lost and also John Hancock wanted to double the size of it's antenna but the stations on there wouldn't commit so they dropped it.

I know this is way off topic, but what the hell. After I wrote my post I decided to fact check myself (I know, check before, not after it's out there) and I came across one brief reference to a failed attempt by WLS-TV to move to the Hancock Tower. The article stated that circa 1969, with much fanfare, the Honorable Richard J. Daley himself was rolled out to flip the switch firing up Channel 7's brand new transmitter on the Hancock... and the resulting signal was worse than what had been emanating from the Marina City stick. It was allegedly a major engineering goof. Supposedly WLS very quickly flipped back to Marina City and stayed there until their move to Sears. I never heard this story when I lived in "Chicagoland." Urban legend?

 

[dave73]

I doubled checked the articles in the Trib do mention WLS, but you are correct, WLS moved from Marina City to Sears.

I did find that

WBBM -> American National Bank -> John Hancock -> Sears
WFLD -> Marina City -> John Hancock -> Sears
WGN -> Prudential - John Hancock -> Sears
WMAQ -> Kemper Insurance Building -> John Hancock -> Sears
WTTW -> 1000 Lakeshore Plaza -> Sears
WSNS -> Debuted on Hancock

Thanks for the catch.

Still it shows you how eager the stations were to move.

The article I found also says, John Hancock sued to stop Sears from going higher than 65 stories and lost and also John Hancock wanted to double the size of it's antenna but the stations on there wouldn't commit so they dropped it.

WSNS debuted on the John Hancock, but moved to the Sears Tower in the 90's.

WCFC (now WCPX) also debuted on the John Hancock, but I believe moved to the Sears Tower after Pax bought the station.

WCIU went from the Chicago Board of Trade to the Sears Tower.

WPWR-TV (both on 60 & 50) & now WXFT (ch. 60 only) have always been on the Sears Tower.

WFBN (now WGBO) has always been on the John Hancock.

WYCC (since this stations inception only) has always been on the John Hancock (not sure when WTTW owned it, & had the call letters WXXW).

As for the other stations mentioned, WBBM-TV only moved to the Sears Tower, because it was cheaper to acquire WTTW's old VHF antenna to use for RF 12, than to build new facilities on the John Hancock (where they were broadcasting their analog on RF 2 & digital on RF 3.

WGN-TV & WFLD kept their analog facilities on the John Hancock, but built digital facilities on the Sears Tower. Those that were on the Sears Tower in analog built new facilities for digital on the Sears Tower as well. WJYS was the only station to move from Tinley Park, IL (original analog transmission site) to the Sears Tower, since they couldn't locate their analog facilities in Chicago, but could for digital.