-
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
NBC Might Scale Back Hours
- Thread starter JayR
- Start date
Dan Dennis said:
Terrestrial broadcasting isn't dead. In fact, given the declining economy, it could very well see a resurgeance with people dropping subscription television for free digital TV. You do have a point that internet delivery of dramas, sitcoms, and movies is coming into its own, providing more of an on-demand choice for entertainment. But in reality, all they've done is complement a regular linear broadcast instead of replace it.
And where are you going to go for live events like the award shows, election coverage, and major sports? As greedy as the NFL, NBA, MLB, and major college football get in making another devilish deal with ESPN or from starting their own channels, they aren't going to beat the reach of broadcast TV. You've still got to place The Finals, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and Ohio State/Michigan on a network TV. Again, they're complementing broadcast TV and not replacing it for the majority of people.
The business model has been adjusting for broadcast TV for a while now. The networks have had to rely on cheaper reality programming, and they've been quicker to axe underperforming shows. But to the extent that broadcasters will totally go away anytime soon is crazy. You don't see the same obselescence occuring with music delivery (moving from vinyl to 8-tracks to cassettes to CDs to MP3s).
4
4UH8SIMBKAGN
Guest
Major College Football is moving to cable/satellite. With the new contract that ESPN just got last week, the BCS will NO LONGER be seen on OTA television. Most every sport you mention continues its migration to cable/satellite (likely MNF was the first to go and it's doing just great on ESPN). Only major sporting events, such as the Super Bowl, will likely be broadcast OTA tv but with the BCS deal, maybe not even them.Nate Wesley said:
Huh? Those growing up in the internet age don't have to turn a tv on or even own one AT ALL to get their entertainment. The internet does not complement OTA tv, it destroys it. I'll be happy when all OTA signals are replaced with WiMax and satellite. There should be no OTA broadcast signals at all, both radio and tv. Everything needs to move to the internet, wirelessly.
I got all my election coverage from cable/satellite networks and over the internet. I had ZERO use for NBC, ABC or CBS.
Ya, I watch the MTV Awards on NBC...next idea of yours I can throw in the trash heap.
If we're talking of "cheaper" programming, why don't we talk about all the hits on cable networks that are being produced for cheaper and yet audiences are flocking to them.
I wouldn't even mention the music industry. They're a good example of what not to do when technology is changing faster than their old execs can change their Depends. They still don't have the clue that their old business model doesn't work.
One of my friends is an installer for AT&T DSL and does so in poor areas of Los Angeles. He has so many jobs, he's working 7 days per week. They may buy their food with food stamps and be on welfare but they've got a computer at home and are installing high speed DSL at an increasing rate. The economy isn't going to hurt the internet ONE BIT.
It might be reasonable to state that Cable and Satellite could replace broadcast TV. It is simply not reasonable to say that WiMax could. Essentially you'd be eliminating a huge portion of spectrum (VHF + UHF) to replace it with a relatively small bit of spectrum. Each person who wants to watch NBC Nightly News would require an equal chunk of that spectrum. If there are even 10,000 people in a small city who want to watch the program, the amount of spectrum required is immense.
Also note that DTV is more efficient than WiMax at using spectrum.
Also note that DTV is more efficient than WiMax at using spectrum.
I
in3media_be1
Guest
Some posts from this thread have moved to Take It Outside
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,115796.msg928752.html#msg928752
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,115796.msg928752.html#msg928752
4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
Now I know you're just being contrarian. I knew about the BCS moving to ESPN in 2012 (I included CFB as making 'devilish deals' with the alleged world wide leader). But your shading the story wrong on ESPN's Monday Night Football. MNF is no longer the premier NFL telecast--NBC's Sunday Night Football is. With the advent of flex scheduling to benefit the broadcast network, what ESPN essentially has is their old Sunday Night NFL game delayed by one day, surrounded by the past MNF history associated with ABC. Disney was tired of losing money on its expiring MNF contract, yet didn't want to be totally out of the NFL business. Clearing the games on the dual revenue platform of cable (along with the cheaper talent team of Tirico, Jaworski, & Kornheiser) put it back into the black.
Actually, I imagine you will need to own a television to watch the ESPN you were just talking about. Even that satellite and FiOS services will need to connect to something other than a mere computer monitor (assuming you want to enjoy it fully). And as another poster has pointed out, WiMax probably won't (or can't) be enjoyed by everyone.4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
While all of those services have plenty of advantages, none of them have yet to the achieve rock-solid reliability that terrestrial broadcasting has had for basic entertainment and information. Your notion that 'everything' will be replaced by some form or wireless internet is probably hogwash from a practical standpoint.
4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
Again, subscription services versus free services. Some will place a priority on paying for the content they want, some will make due with the free stuff. There's room for both to co-exist.
We'll see.4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
M
Morgan Wick
Guest
4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
Either you completely missed the point with this one or you're one of those people with the "DTV=end of OTA" misconception.
Yeah, you'd never see the BCS National Championship Game - which generally gets bigger ratings than three of those four events - leave network TV. Wait...Nate Wesley said:
Internet delivery of live events is coming into its own as well, especially for live events.
Unlike 4U8 something, I'm not rooting for OTA television to die (I wrote a lengthy post on my blog defending it and excoriating the BCS and ESPN when that whole thing happened), but I suspect it may just happen, especially if, as some people seem to think, more people go to cable instead of away from it after the digital transition. By the end of the next decade, we could see the FCC making plans to scrap the OTA spectrum entirely and replace it with a wireless broadband network. Even cable could have trouble competing with the Internet. On the other hand, the DTV transition combined with the economy could turn out to be the best thing to happen to OTA...
By the time Fox's brilliance in scheduling only two hours became clear, the other three networks had big hits at 10 (especially NBC with ER and Law and Order, and later, CBS with the CSI spinoffs), and as has been mentioned, the affiliate agreements generally tend to be rock-solid and hard to change until they come up for renewal. I'd like to see a network schedule the 7-10 block every night of the week instead of 8-11 and only programming 7 on Sundays.
4UH8 might be a little over the top in his death of OTA prediction, but I'm going with the idea that the technology that is the simplest to install and use will win in the long run regardless of whether the picture is in true HD.
I'm not certain that TV over the internet is necessarily that answer but I'm really uncertain that it will be OTA DTV unless the vast majority of viewers will get all the channels (not subchannels) that they got before with rabbit ears or some sort of small in-house antenna. In hooking my own sets up as well as several family and friends sets as well I've seen no evidence that's possible in any area with any kind of hilly terrain. Every person I've hooked up or that I've spoken to who installed a DTV converter to an in-house antenna has lost channels.
OTA DTV is just too unreliable without big rooftop antennas that are expensive and dangerous to install and even then you still have no guarantees that you'll get a signal. (My father-in-law is losing FOX despite the beam and rotor atop a 30-foot tower.) I'm going to make a go of it as long as I can (will lose ABC altogether and PBS, CBS, and NBC are all tricky on the bedroom set).
I'm predicting that the number of OTA-exclusive HHs will be near zero within a decade and if that happens, all bets are off as to whether the broadcast nets are willing to stay with the current affiliate-based system of program distribution and what the OTA affiliates will do if the networks abandon them.
I'm not certain that TV over the internet is necessarily that answer but I'm really uncertain that it will be OTA DTV unless the vast majority of viewers will get all the channels (not subchannels) that they got before with rabbit ears or some sort of small in-house antenna. In hooking my own sets up as well as several family and friends sets as well I've seen no evidence that's possible in any area with any kind of hilly terrain. Every person I've hooked up or that I've spoken to who installed a DTV converter to an in-house antenna has lost channels.
OTA DTV is just too unreliable without big rooftop antennas that are expensive and dangerous to install and even then you still have no guarantees that you'll get a signal. (My father-in-law is losing FOX despite the beam and rotor atop a 30-foot tower.) I'm going to make a go of it as long as I can (will lose ABC altogether and PBS, CBS, and NBC are all tricky on the bedroom set).
I'm predicting that the number of OTA-exclusive HHs will be near zero within a decade and if that happens, all bets are off as to whether the broadcast nets are willing to stay with the current affiliate-based system of program distribution and what the OTA affiliates will do if the networks abandon them.
Chad-Stevens,
The other thing to keep in mind is that some stations will be making technical improvements after the transition. If I recall correctly, you're in Alabama. WBRC-DT plans to move their channel 50 antenna to the top of the tower once they can remove the channel 6 antenna, which may provide some relief with regard to that signal. WCFT-DT will be moving from 5 to 33 a few months after the transition, which should make ABC receivable if you can see 17-1 now. (Honestly I'm not sure what exactly is keeping them from being ready on the transition date, but that's another story.) Your PBS is known for weak signal, and their return to channel 10 is probably not the end of the story there, as I can't imagine that 3 kW on channel 10 will do too much.
Unfortunately, the FCC picked ATSC as our digital standard. It was a poor choice that we now have to live with. I've seen plenty of cases of it working poorly; just as many as cases of it working well. I do think that if this economic downturn is as severe as it could be, we'll see OTA numbers grow somewhat at least in the short term as people attempt to cut costs. I know my roommate's mom is planning to cut the satellite and get an antenna; I'm supposed to go do signal tests over the Winter break for him. I think he'll have good luck with it.
I also think that Internet-based TV is the future (for better or for worse, I think for worse), but it cannot be done until decent internet speeds are more widespread and more affordable. I also don't expect to see it go away entirely, some will stay on for emergency purposes basically, when other infrastructure can be knocked out.
- Trip
The other thing to keep in mind is that some stations will be making technical improvements after the transition. If I recall correctly, you're in Alabama. WBRC-DT plans to move their channel 50 antenna to the top of the tower once they can remove the channel 6 antenna, which may provide some relief with regard to that signal. WCFT-DT will be moving from 5 to 33 a few months after the transition, which should make ABC receivable if you can see 17-1 now. (Honestly I'm not sure what exactly is keeping them from being ready on the transition date, but that's another story.) Your PBS is known for weak signal, and their return to channel 10 is probably not the end of the story there, as I can't imagine that 3 kW on channel 10 will do too much.
Unfortunately, the FCC picked ATSC as our digital standard. It was a poor choice that we now have to live with. I've seen plenty of cases of it working poorly; just as many as cases of it working well. I do think that if this economic downturn is as severe as it could be, we'll see OTA numbers grow somewhat at least in the short term as people attempt to cut costs. I know my roommate's mom is planning to cut the satellite and get an antenna; I'm supposed to go do signal tests over the Winter break for him. I think he'll have good luck with it.
I also think that Internet-based TV is the future (for better or for worse, I think for worse), but it cannot be done until decent internet speeds are more widespread and more affordable. I also don't expect to see it go away entirely, some will stay on for emergency purposes basically, when other infrastructure can be knocked out.
- Trip
Chad-Stevens said:
Depends on how you want to define "OTA-exclusive". Specifically, how do you categorize someone who drops cable and satellite and maintains their TV viewing via a combination of OTA, Internet video, and DVDs? Because I think that may be become increasingly common over the next decade.
Meanwhile, the effect of the digital transition is going to take years to sort out. Some viewers gain by digital versus analog OTA (here in the Dallas area, I've got several friends who get far better digital reception than they ever got with analog), while others lose -- and the result is that some viewers who are currently OTA will end up switching to cable or satellite, but other viewers who are currently on cable or satellite may discover that their digital OTA reception is better than they got from analog and go back to OTA viewing.
While I don't see OTA broadcasting disappearing and the FCC reallocating that spectrum to other services, one very real possibility is that the big media companies could abandon OTA in favor of the subscription services at some point, leaving the broadcast service as the playground of entrepreneurs and small business people. The result from that sort of change could be very...interesting.
TexasTom said:
I'm defining OTA-exclusive HHs as households that A) watch TV and B) have no subscription to an outside service. I know lots of people who don't own/watch TV for various reasons but I'm not counting them as the DTV switchover means nothing to them. I'm predicting that OTA HHs will be near zero within 10 years as it will require fidgeting with antennas, something that audiences have been conditioned not to do - just like getting up to change the channel. You're right that the effects of the digital transition will take years to sort out and I think very few people will have the patience to wait and see if there's something they or the broadcasters can do to get their locals back OTA. The loss of one station will probably be enough to get people to - maybe grudgingly - get a subscription.
If audiences can get ALL of the channels that they got before without having to do much more than nudge the rabbit ears, than OTA might survive. In Dallas that might be feasible, but I doubt it is the case in very many cities, and certainly not in the exurbs and countryside. Maybe the broadcasters might blanket the area with translators to fill in the gaps, but again, is it worth it at this point considering the demos of those most likely to be relying on OTA reception? Read: elderly, inner city, ethnic, poor, rural, or just plain stubborn.
As for the greater picture quality of OTA HD, there's so much confusion among consumers on this point as to what is/is not HD that I think it hardly matters as a selling point for OTA. People who can spend four-figures for a true HDTV set almost always have a subscription service hooked to it. People who like a show or follow a sports team will continue to do so whether they're watching it in HD or not.
I don't necessarily see those remaining 300 MHz of TV spectrum being reallocated, though it becomes a very tempting target, but I definitely see the nets leaving the broadcast channels at some point. Maybe in 5, 10, or 15 years but certainly at some point in the near future.
The broadcast channels will survive, but only because/if they have must-carry status on cable. The transmitter becomes even more irrelevant. Whether syndicated programming develops to fill the void or stations, having lost their network status, slide into a sort of half life with whatever niche/infomercial/quack/huckster programming is available (like most AM radio stations) remains to be seen.
Chad-Stevens said:
Maybe I'm an isolated case, but I'm getting much better digital reception than I ever got with analog. I'm about 60 miles east of the Sioux City towers, and the attic antenna in my one-story house never got a clear analog picture. Now, with the same antenna in the attic, I get reliable digital reception on all but one... which is running digital at lowered power and not from their 2000 foot tower. Adding an antenna amp took care of that problem.
Previously, I got my locals from Dish Network. But the digital reception is so good I dropped Dish Network and went to Direct TV, which doesn't offer the Sioux City locals.
I'm guessing the antenna amp would have significantly helped the analog reception as well from your distance.jh said:
If NBC was smart, they would cancel "NBC Nightly News", have Brian Williams
return to MSNBC where they could revive, "The News With Brian Williams" at
9pm Eastern, with a replay at Midnight, and as for their prime time, cut it to
8 to 10pm Eastern & Pacific, and 7 until 9pm in all other time zones, leave
a one hour block at 10pm & 9pm, especially for "local news" have Jay Leno
start at 11pm & 10pm, followed by Conan, and Jimmy Fallon.
return to MSNBC where they could revive, "The News With Brian Williams" at
9pm Eastern, with a replay at Midnight, and as for their prime time, cut it to
8 to 10pm Eastern & Pacific, and 7 until 9pm in all other time zones, leave
a one hour block at 10pm & 9pm, especially for "local news" have Jay Leno
start at 11pm & 10pm, followed by Conan, and Jimmy Fallon.
PTBoardOp94 said:I'm guessing the antenna amp would have significantly helped the analog reception as well from your distance.
Maybe for the 2 VHF stations, I don't know as I only have the UHF antenna hooked up now. But for the 3 UHF analog signals, one is pretty good, two are quite snowy with the antenna amp.
I'm using a nearly 10 year old Channel Master 4221 4-bay UHF if that makes any difference.
Chad-Stevens said:
By your definition, I'd qualify as being in an OTA-exclusive household -- I do watch TV, and have no subscription TV services, whatsoever. I watch digital broadcast TV (usually delayed, using a DVR) and supplement what is available off-air with what I can get via the Internet. What I am doing makes a great deal of sense for a certain type of TV viewer -- one who isn't a sports fan, and who is a moderate viewer that is interested in following specific programs. For that kind of TV viewer, the combination of OTA and Internet is an extremely viable option, and one that I believe will become more popular in coming years.
Chad-Stevens said:
Another forum that I frequent is dedicated to high definition and home theater buffs -- and you might be surprised to find that the percentage of individuals in that forum who rely on off-air reception for HDTV is approximately 15%. That mirrors the oft-quoted percentage of OTA-only viewers amongst the broader public, which suggests that the stereotype of OTA viewers as being ethnic and poor may not always be accurate.
OTA-only viewership tends to be higher in areas that are relatively flat (like Dallas/Fort Worth or Minneapolis/Saint Paul), and those are also going to be the areas where OTA digital tends to work well. As for whether viewers will be willing to fiddle with an antenna -- the answer is going to be that some will, and many won't. It's like computers -- some folks are willing to go through a lot of hassle to configure their computer exactly the way they want it, while others just want to be able to turn the thing on and send an e-mail. Folks in the former category may be quite willing to fiddle with an attic or rooftop antenna in order to save $50 per month, whereas the folks in the latter group will keep on paying up.
Chad-Stevens said:
And on this point, I definitely disagree -- there are a significant number of HD viewers who have their televisions hooked to an antenna. In some instances, this is because they bought the set before signficant HD content was available on cable, but in other cases it is because we see the OTA signal as being a better value and/or of better quality.
I guess we'll begin to know in the first few months after D-Day.
I know a lot of people who bought the converters but haven't hooked them up or haven't started using them yet since most are not analog-pass-thru and in some instances, stations will be flash cutting. My father-in-law didn't use his until WAKA-8 cut off analog on Dec. 1. To him, at age 75, the converter was another confusing box with another confusing remote.
WBRC-6 did a piece last night that urged people who bought the converters to hook them up now and familiarize themselves with the operations and added that many people who could get the analog signal may be unable to receive the digital without an outdoor antenna. My money is still on OTA reception becoming an anachronism very quickly and almost unheard of in 10 years. It's not like it wasn't headed that way anyhow in a 500+ channel world, and that the American DTV transition should serve as a lesson to the rest of the world how not to do a DTV transition.
I know a lot of people who bought the converters but haven't hooked them up or haven't started using them yet since most are not analog-pass-thru and in some instances, stations will be flash cutting. My father-in-law didn't use his until WAKA-8 cut off analog on Dec. 1. To him, at age 75, the converter was another confusing box with another confusing remote.
WBRC-6 did a piece last night that urged people who bought the converters to hook them up now and familiarize themselves with the operations and added that many people who could get the analog signal may be unable to receive the digital without an outdoor antenna. My money is still on OTA reception becoming an anachronism very quickly and almost unheard of in 10 years. It's not like it wasn't headed that way anyhow in a 500+ channel world, and that the American DTV transition should serve as a lesson to the rest of the world how not to do a DTV transition.
tripinva said:
Can you explain to your congressman and others about how bad ATSC is? If you can get others to do the same thing, Analog might still work on February 17 while a more suitable digital standard is found (DVB-T, ISDB, etc.). Just mention "luxury television" in this economy and a picture of an unaffordable wall-mounted flat-panel widescreen TV costing thousands of dollars should pop up in mind.
- Status