Is it finally going to happen? And which two networks will it be?

[FredLeonard]

I don't think the NFL would let either Fox or NBC keep their packages if they abandoned OTA, and Major League Baseball might have something to say about Fox pulling that off as well.

As long as they pay the leagues for broadcast rights, why should the leagues care? Besides, the leagues themselves have been more an increasing portion of their games to cable/satellite already.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Well, the NFL has been insistent on putting even cable games on broadcast in the local markets, and Fox in particular has a regional package much of whose value lies in regionalization. More importantly, I believe baseball's anti-trust exemption has generally been conditional on the World Series being on broadcast, so for Fox to attempt to take that to cable could get Congress involved.

 

[KeithE4]

Well, the NFL has been insistent on putting even cable games on broadcast in the local markets, and Fox in particular has a regional package much of whose value lies in regionalization.

Fox (and the other networks) could do what its ancestor Dumont did: Keep the network operating for sports while shutting all other operations down. IIRC, Dumont only ran sports in its last year of existence (1955-56 season).

More importantly, I believe baseball's anti-trust exemption has generally been conditional on the World Series being on broadcast, so for Fox to attempt to take that to cable could get Congress involved.

First of all, Congress has far more important things to do right now than deal with baseball (of course, that's never stopped them before). Besides, nothing would change until the new deal that begins next season expires (2021?).

 

[TheBigA]

So what would Fox do with all it's broadcast TV stations?

 

[michael hagerty]

So what would Fox do with all it's broadcast TV stations?

Sell them and eliminate the Owned Stations group, eliminating a couple thousand salaries.

 

[KeithE4]

So what would Fox do with all it's broadcast TV stations?

Sell them and eliminate the Owned Stations group, eliminating a couple thousand salaries.

And sell the UHF spectrum for wireless services. VHF channels aren't practical for such things.

 

[TheBigA]

Sell them and eliminate the Owned Stations group, eliminating a couple thousand salaries.

I have no reason to believe they's even consider that. Selling stations without a network means they'll lose even more money. News Corp. isn't Clear Channel.

You really need to study that Forbes article. It's based on very questionable information. There are lots of cable channels in far worse shape than News Corp's O&O division.

And sell the UHF spectrum for wireless services. VHF channels aren't practical for such things.

Once again, no one in the big companies are considering this. This reads like a cross between wishful thinking and an April Fool's story.

 

[KeithE4]

And sell the UHF spectrum for wireless services. VHF channels aren't practical for such things.

Once again, no one in the big companies are considering this. This reads like a cross between wishful thinking and an April Fool's story.

Nobody thought that Fox would outbid CBS for the NFC in 1994 either. If they can get good money for their spectrum, they very well might sell it. Obviously we're all speculating at this point.

 

[TheBigA]

Nobody thought that Fox would outbid CBS for the NFC in 1994 either. If they can get good money for their spectrum, they very well might sell it. Obviously we're all speculating at this point.

I have no reason to believe News Corp has any financial concerns or reasons to sell at this point. Same with the other three. If anything, I think HULU is the weakest link in the chain right now, not broadcast.

 

[michael hagerty]

Sell them and eliminate the Owned Stations group, eliminating a couple thousand salaries.

I have no reason to believe they's even consider that. Selling stations without a network means they'll lose even more money. News Corp. isn't Clear Channel.

You really need to study that Forbes article. It's based on very questionable information. There are lots of cable channels in far worse shape than News Corp's O&O division.

And sell the UHF spectrum for wireless services. VHF channels aren't practical for such things.

Once again, no one in the big companies are considering this. This reads like a cross between wishful thinking and an April Fool's story.

Garth Ancier isn't just some guy. He's willing to be quoted by name and Forbes is willing to put their reputation behind reporting it.

It all hinges on a key piece of tech. If the nets can't stop it, there's very little point in riding OTA into the ground. The sooner they make the decision to sell, the more likely they'll get a decent price from affils of other nets who haven't announced an intention to abandon ship, operators of indies or religious outlets looking for a stronger signal than they have now.

 

[TheBigA]

Garth Ancier isn't just some guy. He's willing to be quoted by name and Forbes is willing to put their reputation behind reporting it.

He's been out of work for a while, and I'm not sure that's anything more than a blog on the Forbes web site. It's very loose reporting that ignores a lot of facts, as I've pointed out. They have far bigger things to worry about, ie the previously mentioned HULU, which is still losing money.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Apparently Univision, of all networks, is making noise about moving to cable (scroll to the bottom): http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/492791-NAB_Smith_Fox_to_Cable_Highly_Unlikely.php

It sounds like if broadcasters have that much to fear from Aereo, they're going to need to radically shake up their business model or cost structure if cord-cutting catches on.

 

[Casey]

Fox has made their intentions pretty clear “If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution. One solution would be to take the network and make it a subscription service. We’re not going to sit idly by and let people steal our content.” -- Fox's COO

http://allthingsd.com/20130408/news-corp-threatens-to-pull-fox-off-the-airwaves-if-aereo-wins/

I don't totally believe they would do it. But I wouldn't rule it out. They can reach the vast majority of people through cable/satellite services. The rest they could reach through a subscription service offered on Roku, game consoles, etc. They could even make it free.

I hope Aereo wins this. The company has a pretty strong case.

 

[TheBigA]

Networks are also regulated by the FCC. They aren't going to turn it into a subscription service w/o approval.

 

[michael hagerty]

Networks are also regulated by the FCC. They aren't going to turn it into a subscription service w/o approval.

You mean the FCC that's entertaining every spectrum buy-back plan this side of Eminent Domain?

Look at it this way:

If...when...the tipping point comes and OTA viewing is in the minority (I'm already watching 75% of my TV via online services), do you want to be the CEO who explains to the shareholders why you held onto brick-and-mortar stations until they were worth a fraction of what you paid for them?

As with AM radio 30 years ago, there are types of TV where the audience hasn't begun cord-cutting and may not for a while (religion, foreign language). Selling to them or working out a sell off of spectrum to the Feds in exchange for tax breaks and/or other useful legislation is going to make that shareholder meeting a whole lot easier.

 

[Casey]

Considering how much of a let down the FCC has been lately, that shouldn't be terribly hard. One less company opposing refarming TV spectrum and one the size of News Corp no less. I am sure the only thing the FCC will want to know is where do they sign.

 

[TheBigA]

Selling to them or working out a sell off of spectrum to the Feds in exchange for tax breaks and/or other useful legislation is going to make that shareholder meeting a whole lot easier.

Once again, you're basing all of this on a very weak story and a quote from an unemployed TV programmer.

Also, I've owned stock in some of those companies, and they never bring up issues like that at stockholder meetings. Ever.

Considering how much of a let down the FCC has been lately, that shouldn't be terribly hard.

There's a difference between spectrum space and a TV network. I think you're confusing the two. The FCC is not going to approve anything that puts the Super Bowl behind a pay wall. Fox can't turn their network into a subscription service. The public is already pissed about their rising cable bill. They won't let this get past their Congressmen.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Networks are also regulated by the FCC. They aren't going to turn it into a subscription service w/o approval.

You mean the FCC that's entertaining every spectrum buy-back plan this side of Eminent Domain?

Look at it this way:

If...when...the tipping point comes and OTA viewing is in the minority (I'm already watching 75% of my TV via online services), do you want to be the CEO who explains to the shareholders why you held onto brick-and-mortar stations until they were worth a fraction of what you paid for them?

As with AM radio 30 years ago, there are types of TV where the audience hasn't begun cord-cutting and may not for a while (religion, foreign language). Selling to them or working out a sell off of spectrum to the Feds in exchange for tax breaks and/or other useful legislation is going to make that shareholder meeting a whole lot easier.

Well, technically OTA viewing already is the minority. The other way to look at it is, if the tipping point comes and cord-cutting becomes a boon to OTA broadcasters instead of a threat, do you want to be the CEO who explains to the shareholders why you went all-in on cable when it was already past it's peak, and gave up on the infrastructure you already had in OTA broadcasting?

Not that OTA would be that strong a revenue stream, but I'm trying to prove a point here: the obsolescence of broadcast TV is far from inevitable, but several stakeholders are making decisions that will have a tremendous impact on the future of content for everyone.

I'd hold out hope for Congress to get involved, but considering they can't wait for the spectrum auction to be done with to pay off their own spending sprees...

 

[TheBigA]

I'd hold out hope for Congress to get involved, but considering they can't wait for the spectrum auction to be done with to pay off their own spending sprees...

With cable and cell bills rising, they'll get involved soon.

 

[michael hagerty]

Selling to them or working out a sell off of spectrum to the Feds in exchange for tax breaks and/or other useful legislation is going to make that shareholder meeting a whole lot easier.

Once again, you're basing all of this on a very weak story and a quote from an unemployed TV programmer.

And I've owned stock in some of those companies, and they never bring up issues like that at stockholder meetings. Ever.


There's a difference between spectrum space and a TV network. I think you're confusing the two. The FCC is not going to approve anything that puts the Super Bowl behind a pay wall. Fox can't turn their network into a subscription service. The public is already pissed about their rising cable bill. They won't let this get past their Congressmen.

1. What I'm about to say in points 2 and 3 isn't based on Garth Ancier or Forbes. I could have told you five years ago that the clock was ticking on OTA. I just had no idea how fast the train would start moving, and especially how soon after the analog-to-digital conversion the FCC would try to get that spectrum back.

2. They never bring it up in stockholder meetings because no one has ridden billions of dollars worth of TV stations all the way into the ground. Yet.

3. Free OTA viewing is a minority compared to pay services (markets like San Diego and Phoenix are more than 80% cable or satellite...and we're not counting Netflix and other pay services). The Feds want spectrum. The percentage of people adversely impacted will be small. If they believe the issue for OTA households is financial, there'll be subsidies ("The President gave me a cell phone AND cable!").