• 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?

What a terrible idea. Of course wasn't it Fox who decided to extend the time it takes for shows to become available online after they air in an effort to fight piracy? Piracy surged after that idiot idea.
 
Sounds like the same idiot plan ABC floated a while back. The whole point of authentication is to prove you're already paying for the channel, except you don't have to pay for broadcast channels, so you're cutting off people who get your OTA signal from your stream.

If you don't want people watching your content for free, why ARE you running an OTA network? Any network without a cord-cutting strategy at this point might be doomed one way or the other. I'm struck by the words of Aereo bigwigs in one of these articles to the effect that if Fox doesn't want to use the airwaves, someone else will. It's Netflix all over again.
 
Listen to this:
NPR: Pirates Steal 'Game Of Thrones': Why HBO Doesn't Mind

More than 1 million fans illegally downloaded the first episode of Game of Thrones Season 3 this week, within 24 hours of its premiere.

That set a record, according to , a blog that reports the latest trends on file-sharing. The blog also named the popular HBO series the most illegally downloaded television show of 2012.

The illicit popularity of the show, based on George R.R. Martin's best-selling fantasy books, has wider implications for the future of TV. Wired.com writer Graeme McMillan tells NPR's Jacki Lyden how online piracy is shaping what we watch....

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/07/176338400/pirates-steal-game-of-thrones-why-hbo-doesnt-mind
Click to expand...
 
And what makes it all the more stupid is that Fox is actually one of the bigger players in mobile DTV, including being part of the Mobile Content Venture!

Retransmission consent is the worst thing to happen to OTA broadcasting. It's institutionalized the dominance of cable by turning the one group that could stand against the juggernaut into an ally of it, driving them to a business model that leaves them wholly unprepared for what should be the best thing to happen to them.

Meanwhile, more analysis in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ox-threat-cable-only-20130409,0,5098893.story
 
Morgan Wick said:
Meanwhile, more analysis in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ox-threat-cable-only-20130409,0,5098893.story
Click to expand...

Good article, except it ignores the big elephant, which is that Fox gets prefered placement on the cable box because it's on an OTA channel. Not all of Fox's channels are available on all systems, nor are they placed or grouped in a convenient way. There are much bigger and more powerful people at News Corp than the CEO of the Fox TV Network. I expect one of them will have a word with their feisty friend and point out some realities. Think of that scene in the movie Network. "You have meddled with the primary forces of nature, Mr. Beale."
 
There are many reasons why this will not happen.
1. Look at the zero tv thread. Thats a far larger concern for tv folks than Aereo and ota stations are the only way to potentially reach those folks.
2. Politics will stop this. Politicians have repeatedly pushed to make sure big events like the super bowl are available on free tv. They won't let those shows go to cable and close hundreds of local tv stations in the process - costing tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
3. Economics. The networks have each invested billions in local tv stations. Moving to cable only would cut the value of those stations severely because they would no longer have the network programming.
 
Morgan Wick said:
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?
Click to expand...

The kind of theoretical shifts you and others are talking aren't nearly as easy and simple as you're making it. Fox, Fox News Channel, and FX serve different purposes...serve different content providers...serve different audiences...and service different national advertisers. This 'oh we'll just stick New Girl on FX and save shows like The Following on FXX' work out real nice for posters on a message board working with imaginary money.

That's not what News Corp. deals with. They're more p-o'ed about someone else disrupting their business models than threatening to do so themselves--which isn't what it really wants to do.

I gare-unn-tee (a la the late Justin Wilson) that NBC, The CW and even Ion Television would only benefit from Fox deciding to quit terrestrial broadcasting altogether.
 
michael hagerty said:
A way to do that would be to turn off their transmitters and only feed their signals (including the FOX network programming) to the local headends for cable and satellite in their markets (which they already do). That would protect most jobs and bring savings in terms of transmitter operating and maintenance costs.
Click to expand...

The Chase Carey doesn't have the power to do that.

And once the local transmitter is turned off, they lose the channel on the cable box.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry
 
Stations can demand cable systems carry them under must carry.

Stations can say cable systems can not carry them unless they pay.

Stations with small audiences and little viewer interest can get onto cable systems which otherwise might decide not to bother with them. The big network affiliates that cable systems have to carry or people won't want to subscribe can get paid.

Think UHF: Weird Al's station can't be shut out by cable companies. R. J. Fletcher gets big bucks from the cable companies.
 
TheBigA said:
michael hagerty said:
A way to do that would be to turn off their transmitters and only feed their signals (including the FOX network programming) to the local headends for cable and satellite in their markets (which they already do). That would protect most jobs and bring savings in terms of transmitter operating and maintenance costs.
Click to expand...

The Chase Carey doesn't have the power to do that.

And once the local transmitter is turned off, they lose the channel on the cable box.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone suggests that one guy at FOX has that power. Nor that Chase Carey decided to just go off at NAB.

There's must-carry and there's re-trans. Believe me, your local cable company doesn't want to have the conversation with irate subscribers about why they can't see The Following, American Idol, The Simpsons, Glee and Bones. Deals will get done if this ends up happening.
 
Morgan Wick said:
What about the irate OTA viewers?
Click to expand...

Did you see the ADS/Cable penetration chart? Actually, it looks like that post got broomed somehow. Here it is again:


http://admin.tvb.org/iframe/dma/Cable_and_ADS_Penetration_by_DMA.asp?sortby=DMAName


Not enough to upset ad rates in an earth-shaking way...likely offset by the cost reduction of no longer operating and maintaining the transmitter.

Some will have the means and voluntarily join the migration to Cable/ADS. Some who have the means won't switch and will simply live without FOX.

Those who argue financial hardship can probably mount a successful effort for a government subsidy should other networks do the same.
 
Once again we're speculating that Fox will actually carry through on their threat. As I've been saying throughout this thread, there are multiple reasons why they won't.
 
TheBigA said:
Once again we're speculating that Fox will actually carry through on their threat. As I've been saying throughout this thread, there are multiple reasons why they won't.
Click to expand...

Actually, we're just discussing ways they could carry through. Whether they will or not, I have no idea. But it would appear they could do it without devastating consequences to the network, the owned station group or the affiliates if they chose to.
 
michael hagerty said:
Whether they will or not, I have no idea. But it would appear they could do it without devastating consequences to the network, the owned station group or the affiliates if they chose to.
Click to expand...

Assuming once again that they are the only ones who have a say in the decision.
 
Depends. The particular scheme I linked last page has a lot going for it: it's not abandoning the stations entirely, and therefore could be seen as not actually moving to a pay structure at all, plus they can use the stations as cover to maintain their channel positions on cable systems. The question is whether it's legal, and whether cable companies would be meeting their must-carry obligations by going along with it. The FCC and Congress could have a lot to say about it as well.

I don't know whether or not they're serious about it, but I'm not sure that's the question so much as whether they can, and whether or not it would be a monumentally stupid decision in the wake of the small but real and growing cord-cutting trend.
 
michael hagerty said:
Not enough to upset ad rates in an earth-shaking way...likely offset by the cost reduction of no longer operating and maintaining the transmitter.
Click to expand...

An interesting side note, I read a history of WLW, America's great AM station in the 30s and 40s.

Anyway they went to 500,000 watts as an experiment and it worked out quite well for them, EXCEPT for the added costs. They found when they added in the cost of the electricity and the additional sales people they needed to cover the massive area, and the admin costs, it was the same as running the station at 50,000 watts with no additional costs.

So as the above poster said, the cost savings can be quite valid for some issues.
 
I cut the cable cord because the cost wasn't worth the benefit.

Should OTA go subscription and/or cable-only they would get cut as well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom