The basis of the "ecosystem" is scripted shows.
And that, if anything, is what will kill linear television: the "basis of the ecosystem" is something for which the technology is ill-suited for, so people like you blame the technology for the way the technology is used. It's so hard to see the use of it because so many people have a different view of what it is and that view doesn't make it look flattering, in part because the powers that be prioritize the uses that are popular behind the uses the technology is better suited for.
Slamming? You just pointed out the basic limitation of "linear" or broadcast television. Each channel is one size fits all. Limited bandwidth. No choice. And part of the problem is the old-line, terrestrial "linear" networks still trying after 88 years to be all things to all people - doing both scripted/scheduled shows and event programming, despite the inherent conflict. The old-line, terrestrial networks need to adopt formatting, like radio did. Thanks to cable, satellite and even HD sub-channels, there is now enough bandwidth.
I use "linear television" as a catch-all term to describe broadcast and cable channels, but not the Internet - places where shows come on when the powers that be say they come on, laid out in a continuous, linear schedule. It may seem that I use it interchangably with broadcast because the linear television market is badly oversaturated and I think cable channels are more fungible than broadcast ones if the broadcast industry doesn't screw it up and allow everyone else to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Digital terrestrial television has fallen far short of its potential because most of the biggest media companies, including the owners of at least three of the big four networks, also have interests in cable channels, and by the time the digital transition happened cable networks' ability to collect subscription fees had become enough of an advantage that ESPN could take over coverage of the single biggest non-NFL/Olympic sporting event of each year. The broadcast industry's response, the increase in emphasis on retransmission consent, only made broadcasters of all stripes dependent on cable and disincentivized to support their own nominal method of distribution. Outdated FCC regulations like the "E/I" requirement also help explain why there's been little "formatting" on commercial terrestrial television beyond subtle differences between cheap rerun farms. Broadcasting, meanwhile, is still a subset of the broader linear television universe, and in order to put out press releases defending their medium's right to exist (as opposed to, you know, actually giving it a reason to exist) they have to be able to say they're providing "vital information" to the people who don't get cable for whatever reason.
Would the Internet-driven revolt against linear television as a whole have happened if we had gotten a terrestrial television landscape worthy of pre-digital cable rather than one driven by four channels being programmed the same as fifty years ago, the occasional PBS thing, and a bunch of junk everywhere else? Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt it would have posed quite the existential threat to both broadcast and cable it actually does. As it stands, though, I don't know how much of a market there is for a lot of the "formats" you would want there to be. The future of linear television, if it has one, is going to be in sports, news, awards shows, the occasional parade or fireworks display, other popular live events like New Year's Eve, and other things people follow along with (read: don't want to be spoiled about) on social media; everything else people are going to want to call up off the Internet when they want to, not watch or DVR when someone tells them to. And frankly, the demand for spectrum/bandwidth for the Internet may force the "all things for all people" model back to being the norm, limiting the number of channels to the largest number of events warranting the linear treatment happening at one time. But I'd much rather have a future where all those things I mentioned at least have the option to be on linear television than one where
everyone has to go on the Internet for
everything.
Ultimately, we both want the same things: the right tool for the right job, and a broadcast industry that does what it does well and serves the viewer rather than frustrating them. You want to be able to watch your favorite scripted shows without getting screwed over with breaking news, sports overruns, and other things you don't care about. I want to avoid a future where net neutrality isn't a quaint memory because everyone wants to get their breaking news and sports fast more than they want to keep the Internet out of the control of those with big pockets. The Internet is great at delivering a lot of things to one person at a time, but linear television is better at delivering one thing to a lot of people at a time.
Maybe that's why, a few weeks ago, when ESPN's Cowboys-Redskins game was simulcast in Dallas on WFAA 8, the local station's rating was 75% higher than ESPN's. Than more than accounts for the homes that don't have cable.
In my case it would have been the novelty of seeing ESPN on a non-ESPN channel and what sort of programming the station put around the game, but I'm weird that way.
There's a reason 3 of the Big 4 networks keep buying up all the stations the government will allow: it's still a great business with plenty of room for growth and no sign of weakening overall.
Then why did at least two of those three threaten to become cable-only if Aereo got its way? It may have been an idle threat, but you know they would have done it if they thought they could get away with it. Consolidation isn't a sign of a healthy industry, but an unhealthy one. The Big Four may not be acquiring failing stations, but the Sinclairs of the world sure are.
Still, it's rare that one single cable channel gets more than a 10 share for a show. What is making cable workable is a single company can own multiple cable channels. That's a great way to make a pile of money. I'd say given that, the days of broadcast network ownership limits are pretty short.
Unless part of the purpose of broadcast ownership limits is to put them at an unfair disadvantage compared to unregulated cable networks. Even if that wasn't originally their purpose, I wouldn't put that past the FCC, certainly not when the heads of the FCC and cable company lobby used to have each other's job.
