OTA numbers shrinking? Well.. according to Nielsen..

[kinphoenix2]

In Broadcast Engineering post http://broadcastengineering.com/transmitters/over-air-tv-market-continues-shrink there's some numbers I don't think are quite right, I agree with NAB "The Nielsen numbers are certain to cause a dispute with the NAB, which has insisted the amount of over-the-air viewing is increasing in an era of cord-cutting. If anything, more viewers are going OTA, not the other way around. I'm not very sophisticated or knowledgeable with the whole business of ratings thing, but I wonder what Nielsen's agenda is? I mean, what's the gain by insisting broadcast viewership is going down? Who win$ here? From the article:
The Nielsen numbers are certain to cause a dispute with the NAB, which has insisted the amount of over-the-air viewing is increasing in an era of cord-cutting. Last summer, the NAB produced a survey by Knowledge Networks citing about 18 percent as “broadcast exclusive” households. That total was 54 million Americans — up from 46 million in 2011. I think those numbers are still low- I think it's more than 18% of households are broadcast only (but that could be wishful thinking on my part, being a bit OTA proponent)

I did some web sleuthing and found another interesting post about Arbitron's data collection, they settled a case in March in the amount of 400k for dramatically under-representing black and Latino households. http://typesinsurances.blogspot.com/2012/03/arbitron-to-pay-400000-in-lawsuit-over.html in the same article it gives another 490k amount, but whatever. This is big stuff here, fascinating to hear about this "scandal". I wish I had read about this earlier. I also recall a TV spot on the news about those "people meters" in Nielsen homes, and how the selected home viewers themselves do not put too much faith in the collection process, stating they really aren't watching the programs the machines collect (TV left on, half hearted viewing, etc) anyone wanna pitch in on this? What do you all think of this Nielsen thing? What is their motive if they are deliberately trying to lower the OTA viewer numbers?

 

[sathman01]

In my area (D/FW), more and more of the people I know are cutting the cord because of the constant raise in rates and the lack of quality programming on cable.

Personally, I cut the cord about 3 months ago and I don't miss it. I have a Roku with Netflix and Hulu and I am happy. Only problem I have is CBS hasn't got on board with Hulu and the next day streaming concept.

 

[carolinaradio]

I don't know how people get by with Netflix. I don't want to wait a year to see new seasons/episodes of shows. I'd only be a fan of a streaming service if they provided episodes of all of the new shows immediately after they aired (mainly cable).

 

[TomParks]

I cut the cord a few years back, and I dont mind waiting for my shows to come out on DVD. Last week I purchased all 9 seasons of the waltons at Sam's for $10.00 per season....about the cost for one month pay tv and no commercials.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

What's there to dispute? I don't even see apples-to-apples numbers.

It appears that Nielsen's idea of a "broadcast only" home is one where all TVs are connected to an OTA antenna and nothing else (no PlayStation, DVR, or Roku, etc.). OTOH, NAB believes that an OTA viewer is one who does not subscribe to cable or satellite.

Regardless, there's not many actual households to argue over. Both surveys find that at least 85% of American households subscribe to cable or satellite TV.

 

[Markxxx]

Don't forget a lot of people in cities have lost access to OTA TV.

As you all know, I live in Chicago and I get no TV since the digital transition and I'm not alone. At work I can only get two TV stations, on my laptop with a USB TV tuner. (I work downtown).

A lot of minorities also live in the city and can't get TV. I also work with a lot of young people and none of them watch OTA TV. They all stream it online or torrent it. Illegal streams from Canada are easily available and torrenting gives you episodes 10 minutes after they have aired.

I have to you all hear my experience with Aero and how easy I was able to get it from NYC, even though I live in Chicago. So online viewing is entirely possible without having to wait.

Finally remember Nielsen is not a statistically scientific poll. Though in its defense it never has claimed to be. It isn't really a measure of all TV viewers but a measure of TV viewers important to the advertising market.

Which of course makes sense. No point advertising to people that won't or can't buy.

 

[FreddyE1977]

With all of you cutting the cord, mark my words....

This obscure little argument about Net Neutrality that has been going on for a number of
years is about to be thrust front and center into all of your lives.

 

[landtuna]

With all of you cutting the cord, mark my words....

This obscure little argument about Net Neutrality that has been going on for a number of
years is about to be thrust front and center into all of your lives.

I might have gotten all excited about that statement.....if only I knew what it meant. ???

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I might have gotten all excited about that statement.....if only I knew what it meant. ???

Cliff's Notes: Net neutrality is the idea that service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, etc.) are prohibited from snooping the data that you are accessing, and treat it differently based on that. Companies like Netflix want this prohibited because that could damage their business model.

 

[landtuna]

I might have gotten all excited about that statement.....if only I knew what it meant. ???

Cliff's Notes: Net neutrality is the idea that service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, etc.) are prohibited from snooping the data that you are accessing, and treat it differently based on that. Companies like Netflix want this prohibited because that could damage their business model.

Thank you but I didn't ask the right question.

Why is net neutrality about to hit front and center now? New challenges? New technology? New laws?

 

[arnoldevns]

The fact is Nielsen needs to redefine OTA households and TV households. The current definitions don't tell the whole story.

 

[dave73]

I've been one that has strictly been OTA for many years now. I especially got into OTA more when DTV came out. I have a few extra choices on channels that I didn't have with analog. One local PBS station, I actually got better reception from their digital signal than from their analog signal, in their COL of Gary, IN. What I'm not able to watch OTA, I'll watch online where possible. For me, I'm using 3 outdoor antennas (2 UHF antennas with an 8 bay pointed at Chicago amplified, & a 2 bay pointed toward Cedar Lake IN for my local PBS station, unamplified, & an amplified all VHF channel antenna for 2 full power VHF-Hi stations & 1 class A VHF-Lo station, with the antennas pointed at Chicago hooked to an RCA pre-amp). While the full power UHF stations don't need amplification, 3 LPTV stations need amplification to receive them, due to the signals being weak toward Indiana. The sole VHF station that needs amplification, is because the station only broadcasts at 300 watts on channel 4. I spent some big bucks on my antennas, including replacing 2 Winegard UHF yagis that gave me problems with ION TV & ABC, & occasionally WTTW (all stations that broadcast in the 40-49 channel range, though ABC is also available on RF channel 7, for now).

 

[vchimpanzee]

I haven't been OTA only since February 14, 2009.

It's not that cable is cheap, but recording equipment that would allow me to tape shows off the air AND be able to select the channel to be taped was just too expensive. An antenna that actually works would have cost too much because it would have to be installed. I'm not sure how my trees would affect the signal, although I am in an ideal area. Some of the channels I watch on cable are too far away to pick up OTA, and then there's WGN America.

 

[Bob1370]

About 25% of viewers in most markets still get their TV over the air for several reasons. Many of them are unable to afford cable...others aren't close enough to a cable or FIOS terminal to make the hookup...and some don't think the other channels they could get beyond the half-dozen or so that they can easily pull from an antenna are worth the bother.

That's why OTA television will still be with us for the foreseeable future. I do subscribe to cable myself and like the luxury of having 96 channels available to me, many of them in HD, but I'll concede it's a bit of a luxury and could live without it if need be. If I had to choose between cable and broadband Internet access, broadband would win every time...

 

[blizzard59]

Nielsen has maintained for a few years now that the number of households relying solely on OTA reception is around 10% of all households with at least one TV set, give or take a percentage point or two. However, that number is an average across the entire country (or, actually, the Lower 48, I believe), and the likelihood of a household using only OTA for TV viewing depends a great deal on where that household is located, with the percentage of OTA viewers, according to Nielsen, ranging from less than 0.1% in the Boston market to around 30% in the Harlington-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen market in the southern tip of Texas.

The latest information for cable and satellite and OTA penetration by market I was able to look at was from 2010, but I suspect the market rankings in terms of OTA viewership since then have not changed all that much. At the time, the following markets had the ten lowest percentages of OTA viewership within the Lower 48.

1. Boston, MA
2. Hartford, CT
3. West Palm Beach, FL
4. New York, NY
5. Palm Springs, CA
6. Bluefield-Beckley, WV
7. Miami, FL
8. Johnstown-Altoona, PA
9. San Angelo, TX
10. Clarksburg-Weston, WV

At the other end of the scale were these eleven markets (there was tie for 10th place) with the highest percentage of OTA viewers.

1. Brownsville-McAllen, TX
2. Boise, ID
3. El Paso, TX
4. Milwaukee, WI
5. Ft. Wayne, IN
6. Green Bay, WI
7. South Bend, IN
8. Idaho Falls-Pocatello, ID
9. Fresno, CA
10t. Twin Falls, ID
10t. Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS

One of the biggest factors in determining how many people in a given market watch television OTA appears quite simply to be how easy OTA reception is in the market. Places where reception is difficult because of dense urban developments, rugged terrain, or some other reason are more likely to have more cable and satellite subscribers than markets in flatter, less dense areas that are well-served by OTA signals. The average income of a market is another factor in some places, with lower-income markets obviously having fewer people with money to spare on pay-TV. The size of the market, in terms of number of households, probably plays a role as well, considering that just five (Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, and Minneapolis-St. Paul) of the top 20 markets have a higher-than-average number of OTA viewers. This makes sense, though, given that the markets with the most number of people are naturally going to have the highest number of potential customers for the cable and satellite companies to try and sign up.

 

[jc]

I have to you all hear my experience with Aero and how easy I was able to get it from NYC, even though I live in Chicago.

How easy?