Future of OTA TV and the Big Three (or four) Networks?

[LKellerIII]

Whether or not the current broadcast networks shift to all cable with no local presence or simply replicate their current sturcture without using OTA transmitters at all is a long way from being known (and it's nothing near term in any event). But whether the content happens to be zapped over the air in addition to being sent via fiber or satellite to the cable/satellite provider is a meaningless distinction to the viewers. How Fox gets Family Guy to DirecTV means nothing to most subscribers. There's still a lot of money to be made in the current system, even as it inevitably evolves, just as it has since day one.

I agree. These predictions are often off base, or the timing is wrong, in any case. My analogy: In the early 90s, I worked in management for Blockbuster. About 1993, their stock price started to go down because the future-pundits were predicting the total irrelevance of video stores within 5 years because the 500+ channel world was coming, bringing with it literally thousands of available on-demand movies.

As we all know now, Blockbuster and other video chains are now either bankrupt or suffering - but it took 15 years - not 5, and its not because of 500+ channel cable and satellite, but primarily due to low price DVDs and NetFlix. When that huge on-demand movie library finally comes, it will be on the internet - through NetFlix (and competitors), not primarily through cable. The future predictors were not entirely wrong, but they weren't "right" either.

Cost is also a factor. There is extreme resistance from consumers in regard to paying for content they're used to getting for free - or not pay-per view, in any case. Comcast used to charge 99 cents for On-demand shows from CBS, NBC, and ABC. They stopped because most people weren't willing to pay additional fees to see network shows on demand. So how will the new internet-content networks make their money? Advertising, similar to current OTA and cable network commercials? That remains to be seen.

An affluent friend of mine has Apple TV. At this point, it's too expensive for me. I'd be paying hundreds of dollars per month instead of the $130 per month I now pay to Comcast for OTA channels, basic and premium HD cable, and HBO.

Yes - the death of traditional OTA networks is a good bet, but I'd predict it's at least a decade away, maybe longer.

 

[kc0ltv]

I hope it won't end any time soon.

For one thing, I DX TV. That means I enjoy receiving and "logging" distant stations when certain atmospheric conditions bring them in, and even watching them (mainly local news and educational TV) when they are stable and nothing special is being received.

That aside, there are two reasons why I don't want OTA TV to disappear, at least in the next ten years. #1, We've disconnected from Dish Network. I can't get cable in my area, and there is nothing that cable can provide that Dish Network cannot, other than public access channels. The biggest reason was financial (having a $100+ bill lifted off our chests is a relief), but another reason is the declining quality of satellite / cable networks. Back in 2000 - 2001, when we first got Dish Network, it was amazing. Formerly we only could receive 5 TV channels; our local ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX affiliates, and our local PBS member station. Now we could get 200+ TV channels and 50+ audio channels. The TV channels actually had QUALITY programming on them. Discovery Civilization, in particular, was an excellent channel before it devolved into Discovery Times and finally into iD. MuchMusic USA, VH1 Classic, Colours TV, WorldLink TV, etc. regularly had quality programming on them. Then it started going downhill, and hasn't stopped yet. There have been good moments in the process (for example, Dish's coverage of the excellent VOOM selection, which it discontinued, or the International Music Feed, which was discontinued - nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public), but they have ended. Now I'm left with 13 channels, more than twice what we used to get. While a lot of them are programmed with reality TV garbage, the PBS channels in particular have a lot to offer. Also, I plan on getting a 90 cm FTA dish to replace my old 80 cm dish, bullet holes courtesy of my brother, so that should bring more programming into our house (PBS World, MHz Worldview, NTA, etc.) as well as feed, without contracting with any specific programming provider. #2, Localism. I can't stand the American landscape turning into a non-stop repetition of Red Lobster, Wal-Mart, Ruby Tuesday, and U.S. Bank. If we lose our local affiliates, we will no longer have at least three sources of local news.

 

[radiojomo]

Well, here's an interesting web address:

http://google.com/tv

Basically, Google wants to sell you a box (or a TV with some additional smarts inside it) that removes the barrier between scheduled content and downloadable content, and puts it all up on your TV. This is an area where Apple is currently failing (and I own an Apple TV) so it'll be interesting where Google heads (and where Apple tries to head them off.)

Internet capable TVs (TVs that you let you YouTube, Pandora, Twitter and Facebook) are becoming standard on all new TVs, Google isn't really doing anything new. The only advantage that they have is that they're selling a seperate box, however, in order to succeed, they have to make sure the box has a low price to try to reach the mainstream audience. In all, we all know Google's going to find a way to make money through advertising on the box!

I think it would be very interesting if Google launched its own cable-esque provider service that would compete with cable and satellite.

 

[dave73]

Well, here's an interesting web address:

http://google.com/tv

Basically, Google wants to sell you a box (or a TV with some additional smarts inside it) that removes the barrier between scheduled content and downloadable content, and puts it all up on your TV. This is an area where Apple is currently failing (and I own an Apple TV) so it'll be interesting where Google heads (and where Apple tries to head them off.)

Internet capable TVs (TVs that you let you YouTube, Pandora, Twitter and Facebook) are becoming standard on all new TVs, Google isn't really doing anything new. The only advantage that they have is that they're selling a seperate box, however, in order to succeed, they have to make sure the box has a low price to try to reach the mainstream audience. In all, we all know Google's going to find a way to make money through advertising on the box!

I think it would be very interesting if Google launched its own cable-esque provider service that would compete with cable and satellite.

After looking at this, this looks similar to the WebTV service that was around in the 90's and early 2000's. With that though, it was just internet & e-mail using a set top box. I thought of it as a great service. Too bad it didn't evolve to integrating their service to PC users. I had WebTV for a year, but used it for 6 consecutive months, and on & off the other 6 months. I got a PC in June 1998 and started out with AT&T Worldnet. I changed providers overtime. But if WebTV had software to allow their service to be used for PC users, I would have continued the service. The only reason WebTV (later rebranded MSNTV) has been discontinued (hardware wise, but the service still exists for existing users) is because computer prices have come down in price. Had computer prices remained high, MSN TV might still be selling set top boxes for the people who couldn't afford a computer. My first computer: an IBM Aptiva with a AMD 300mhz processor, 64mb RAM, 4GB hard drive, & CD-ROM drive, plus a 15 inch IBM monitor for $1300 (before then Indiana 5% sales tax). My current computer is a Compaq Presario with 250GB hard drive, 512mb memory (upgraded to 2GB later), dual CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives, & a 17 inch LCD monitor for $700 (before shipping & then Indiana 5% sales tax). After all that, it came to approximately $850. That was in 2005. Newer computers are so advanced that they're slowly being integrated into the TV. I should say some computers are getting smaller that they could almost resemble the size set top boxes that WebTV brought to the market in the 90's.