• 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

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

KeithE4 said:
Exactly how would station licenses be involved? Let's say this does happen, and Fox goes strictly cable. That leaves 200 or so O&Os and affiliates without network programming.
Click to expand...

You don't think any of those former affiliates will complain? To anyone?
 
TheBigA said:
KeithE4 said:
Exactly how would station licenses be involved? Let's say this does happen, and Fox goes strictly cable. That leaves 200 or so O&Os and affiliates without network programming.
Click to expand...

You don't think any of those former affiliates will complain? To anyone?
Click to expand...

Sure, they'll complain. They might even sue News Corporation (good luck with that). But stations have involuntarily lost network affiliations as long as there's been TV (See: WTTV Indianapolis, NBC/1956 & ABC/1957, and KTVK Phoenix, ABC/1994, among others). The FCC has done nothing because they can do nothing.
 
If Fox shuts down the OTA network, then it is gone. The FCC cannot stop them from shutting down the network. If they launch a new network, the FCC has little grounds to prevent it. There would not be a shift from free to paid of the free network was dissolved. Even if they could find a way to block it which would assume the FCC actually cares enough to try to block it, News Corp has over a dozen cable channels. They could simply rebrand one of them as Fox and be done with it.

I am not convinced News Corp would go the cable TV route however. If they do buy Hulu, they could just use that. Then they could do whatever they desired and the FCC could do absolutely nothing to stop it. They could launch shows with more nudity than Game of Thrones and never give the FCC a second thought.
 
Casey said:
If Fox shuts down the OTA network, then it is gone. The FCC cannot stop them from shutting down the network.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're ignoring the core issue, which is WHY they'd be shutting it down. That changes things.

Fox is already part owner in HULU, with NBC and ABC. Right now, it's losing money.
 
They could come up with a million reasons why. This is News Corp we are talking about. Truth is not something they specialize in.
 
This morning (April 9th), I heard on Bloomberg Radio a discussion on this topic and the host and interview guest said Barry Duller had an interest in Aereo.

You probably know that Diller was one of the earliest top executives of ........the Fox Network!

What irony.
 
Casey said:
They could come up with a million reasons why. This is News Corp we are talking about. Truth is not something they specialize in.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the FCC might not simply let it go quietly.
 
Here is what I see: the broadcasting industry is going after this threat from Aereo, etc. wrong. Dyle and all the other mobile DTV applications they're trying to implement are already dead before leaving the starting gate. I'm really seeing the same pattern as the radio industry has taken with HD Radio so far on mobile DTV.

Instead of building out the infrastructure for services that will never catch on, why doesn't the TV broadcast engineering community look for ways to improve reception of over-the-air DTV? If they can find a way in which no viewers will have a need to subscribe to something like Aereo, then that's what will save over-the-air network television for at least another generation.
 
They could just allow their affiliates to start streaming online. That would eliminate half the threat right there. They could even implement region blocking to protect their territory. The other half of the threat is that Aereo will partner up with cable companies to eliminate retransmission fees. There is no direct solution for that, but if they can get rid of one of Aereo's biggest cash sources, there is a chance the company would implode.

My guess is that it isn't Aereo they are truly afraid of, but the technology. If Aereo wins and even if the company collapses in bankruptcy, what is going to prevent a cable company from doing exactly what Aereo did to deliver OTA stations to their customers without retransmission fees? There is more at stake here than meets the eye.
 
Casey said:
They could just allow their affiliates to start streaming online. That would eliminate half the threat right there. They could even implement region blocking to protect their territory. The other half of the threat is that Aereo will partner up with cable companies to eliminate retransmission fees. There is no direct solution for that, but if they can get rid of one of Aereo's biggest cash sources, there is a chance the company would implode.

My guess is that it isn't Aereo they are truly afraid of, but the technology. If Aereo wins and even if the company collapses in bankruptcy, what is going to prevent a cable company from doing exactly what Aereo did to deliver OTA stations to their customers without retransmission fees? There is more at stake here than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

According to a tweet I got this morning (unfortunately with a bad link, FOX is presenting its streaming plan to affiliates at the NAB in Vegas today.
 
Mark said:
Perhaps we should do away with affiliates and let, at least the big four, go with national service.

For instance, label all Channel 14 stations as NBC, and just have NBC broadcast a relay on channel 14 nationwide

CBS can be channel 15, ABC channel 16, FOX channel 17 and so on.


If that's possible with digital broadcasting.

Then you could assign one or two independent stations in each market, provided they were LOCALLY owned and ran. This way you'd actually increase local service, in some markets.

Considering that the only local shows are really news and most of the news is the same stories told all on channels just by different anchors and in a different order, it is something worth looking at.
Click to expand...
I've toyed with an idea like this in the past.
TheBigA said:
KeithE4 said:
Why would Fox need the FCC's permission to move its network programming to cable?
Click to expand...

Both cable and networks are regulated by the FCC. The role of the FCC is to protect the consumer. What Fox has said publicly is they're taking free content and moving it behind a paywall. That is unfair to the consumer, and challenges the FCC to get involved.

Casey said:
If they dissolve the existing network and create a new one under a similar name, the FCC would undoubtedly approve it. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Not if the goal is to take free content and place it behind a forced paywall, and it could be positioned that way.

Casey said:
News Corp has a tremendous pull on cable companies already. They would carry the network.
Click to expand...

I've already given the example of Fox Business, but there are several other Fox channels that are in the bottom tier. There is no reason for cable companies to move this network to a higher status if they don't have to. Right now, they have to. This threat is a temper tantrum. That's all.
Click to expand...
All sorts of TV shows and sporting events, "previously free content", has moved to cable over the years. The case that comes to mind right now is Law and Order: Criminal Intent, which moved from one NBC-owned channel (NBC) to another (USA). If Fox were to move all its scripted programming to FX Networks, Fox News Sunday to Fox News Channel, and whatever sports they could get away with to Fox Sports 1, how is that a difference of more than degree, and how could the FCC crack down on that coherently?
 
Morgan Wick said:
If Fox were to move all its scripted programming to FX Networks, Fox News Sunday to Fox News Channel, and whatever sports they could get away with to Fox Sports 1, how is that a difference of more than degree, and how could the FCC crack down on that coherently?
Click to expand...

Have you compared the ratings of those cable channels with Fox OTA? And as we've been saying, it leaves the lucritive O&Os without content. Not a good idea.
 
Morgan Wick said:
I think we took that out of the conversation a few pages ago...
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've also dismissed the threat as hot air. I'm sure his boss pointed out that his threat would screw their O&Os and their contracted affiliates. It was a temper tantrum. Nothing more.
 
Casey said:
Perhaps Fox would launch as a premium channel, like HBO. Then ratings won't matter. The FCC won't matter.
Click to expand...

Nothing stopping them from doing both. Or they could buy Starz. So what?
 
michael hagerty said:
Meantime, here are the details of the FOX streaming plan it presented to affiliates today at the NAB:

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/66751/fox-unveils-streaming-plan-to-affiliates
Click to expand...

"The service would be offered by cable and satellite operators, who pays stations for the TV everywhere rights."

Not available to over-the-air viewers, just like WatchESPN and the NCAA Tournament games on the Turner channels. I think this says a lot about what Fox and the other networks think about the 15% (and growing) of the country that doesn't subscribe to cable or satellite. They don't, that's what, otherwise they'd offer subscriptions over the internet via Roku and the like.

Fox, ESPN, Turner, and anyone else that uses this business model, are stuck in the '90s. People will (and do) pay for online access if the price is right. But they refuse to offer it - I think, to their eventual peril.

"Under a TV everywhere plan, the affiliates would presumedly pay Fox for the rights to network content. Hopkins declined to comment on any contractual agreements between the network and affiliates. "I think, by and large, everyone will be onboard by the fall.""

Even the smaller-market affiliates, who may not be able to afford it? I can see them dumping Fox as soon as they are able. Not that Fox will notice the loss of about 15% of its viewership at most (markets 100-210), most of whom aren't part of The Sacred Sales Demos anyway.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom