Posted on 12/28/2009 9:32:21 PM PST by SmithL
For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.
That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels — a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.
"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."
Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts — including college football bowl games — could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Anyone who expects to still have OTA network affiliates in 2019, stand on your head.
Too bad that there isn't any. I got rid of TV 2 years ago.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
People still watch that crap?
Well..if Direct TV raises its price for 500 and something channels OF ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DAY AFTER DAY MONTH AFTER MONTH, then I’m just gonna go without TV. Nothing but Obama on tv anyway, and who the hell wants to see that? If I want to watch a movie, I’ll just buy the blu ray or watch it on the net.
I mean seriously, how much do they think I’ll pay for movie channels that show soft core porn more than movies, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters, mythbusters...The gay and lesbian channel, National Geographic- “KKK: American Terror”, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, COPS, ...
Hell, I think I’m going to cancel this crap right now.
Basically that would put MTV/CNN/MSNBC and a bunch of the liberal cr#p out of business. I'd even cancel Nick for some of the PC cr@p they're trying to pull. I'd go for just pay as you go with recording rights. the only reason half of the cable channels are on is because they are bundled.
Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns the local CBS affiliate and manages the local FOX affiliate, is threatening to pull both stations from Mediacom cable starting this Friday unless the parties come to an agreement. That would mean no Orange Bowl (Iowa Hawkeyes) on cable for us, and of course no NFL playoffs either.
If the networks think that they are going to survive by going all-Pay TV....they are dead. They cant compete with pay cable now....they will not be able to compete if they challenge pay cable directly
I often wish we could choose programming a la carte. I have basic DirecTV, and I customize the guide to block out anything I know I will never watch (hi, MSNDNC & CNN). I end up with maybe thirty channels. I’d lose even some of those if I could pay only for those I really want.
The icing on the cake would be the quick demise of lots of liberal channels (hi again, PMSDNC) and lots of absolute crap (too many to mention). Like most liberal enterprises, the liberal channels would probably not be able to compete on their own merits...they need subsidies from unwilling donors.
How true.
I get X number of channels from Verizon and most I don't watch or don't need.
Why can't I watch what I want when I want? I willing to pay a reasonable amount for that.
The market will decide. Provided Obama and the Gummint stay the hell out. In other words, stay tuned for Nationalized TV.
Unfortunately, they won't because they'll go broke and it looks like the fees will be passed on to those who already pay for cable.
No problem, the Obama Regime will take over TV, radio, Internet and newspapers and magazines.
Worked fine in the old USSR.
They’ve known for years that if we were allowed to select the channels we wanted to pay for, it would become obvious that they could not justify the bandwidth to carry many of the lesser-watched channels. That would be fine by me, let the market decide what is worthwhile and what isn’t - not some cable executive. The problem is, if “we” only choose to watch 10 or 20 or 30 channels of our choice, we wouldn’t want to pay as much as the bundles of 50 or 100 or 200 they shove across the satellite or cable today. They don’t want a bunch of $20/month customers, they want a bunch of $80/month customers.
Try an antenna. Since everyone went digital, there’s no such thing as a fuzzy picture. You either get it in crystal clear digital, or you don’t.
FOX is trying to position the situation as the cable companies not wanting to pay their fair share. But they’re asking for $1 per subscriber.
The signal’s out there absolutely free - go get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.