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 ...
That's a real knee-slapper. Just show me where I can find some of that "good programming" he's talking about!
I totally gave up on the drek Hollywood produces after Leave It to Beaver, My Three Sons, Sugarfoot, The Rifleman, Maverick, Father Knows Best, What's My Line, and Home Improvement went off the air. Now I buy the occasional British series like "Foyle's War" or, most recently, "Danger: UXB," which I can watch when I want with no interruptions. Superb acting, great plot lines, and none of the so-called "reality" crap.
If cable gets more expensive, they’ll be in trouble too.
I wrote a paper in an ethics class in college, arguing that free broadcasting was immoral, or at least suspect, because the purchaser is the sponsor, the seller is the broadcaster, and the commodity is the audience. And this arrangement gives the advertiser and the broadcaster an incentive to encourage the audience to become less and less critical and disciplined.
Think of all the problems that would never have existed if Saturday Morning TV had been something that parents BOUGHT, rather than sometime pumped into the ether by toy manufacturers and sugary cereal makers.
There is some history of OTA pay services. Back in the 80’s SelecTV provided movies through a scrambled analogue transmission.
Shot my TV in 1996. Haven’t missed it but for a very few major sporting events. (Hook ‘em!) I had two middle schoolers in the house then. They soon adapted. Today they are both college graduates and (hold on, here) BOTH are employed full-time!
Oldplayer
More mandatory free viewing for your list:
Jericho (season 1): http://www.cbs.com/primetime/jericho/
Have to admit, I watched it online, then bought both seasons on DVD. Brilliant series. And I never once had to put up with any CBS.
Let’s see.
Mythbusters, Mythbusters, Mythbusters, Mythbusters, NFL, NFL, NFL.
Uh, “The Christmas Choir”
That was my weekly viewing. Used maybe 5 channels?
For what I would pay in cable, I could afford to go out to a bar and watch my NFL games on the weeks that my team is nationally broadcasted (about once a month), and get a nice meal to boot. And that’s with the cheapo plan.
More expensive programming isn’t the cure for crappy TV. I’d think OTA on a lower budget with fewer, shorter commercials would maintain a niche.
I have Dish and use an antenna for the local channels because the picture quality of Dish’s local channels is inferior. Satellite companies have a problem here. There are more local channels than national ones, and the numerous locals eat up the satellite’s bandwidth, so they squash those signals. Cable doesn’t have that problem.
The things keeping me from going to TV over the internet are (a) picture quality and (b) a television-set-like user interface which my wife would insist upon.
Because we swore off cable as a cost- cutting move, We get only OTA. It consists of 50% mexican stations, and the big 3 networks. My wife was watching their (very poor) news broadcast the other night, and she commented that it's obviously geared towards the ignorant, poor, and elderly. It's so biased we actually laugh sometimes, as every story follows the same repeating liberal memes (or is it tropes?).
Agreed. In the long run they’re going to have to un-bundle. I’m not going to continue to pay higher fees for crap that I don’t watch and actually hate.
hulu.com
Hulu is planning on charging for their services.
I had worked at a local TV affiliate for many years and the idea of affiliates paying the network (much like cable companies pay their "networks") had been floating around since the early '90's. No one thought it was a viable model, so it was dropped. In other words, this is not a new idea - I just don't think it would work for OTA stations/affiliates.
One other thing that many OTA Network operators and local stations have to recoup are the millions upon millions they had to spend over the last ten years converting to digital transmission as mandated by the Feds. Cable Networks did not have this mandate but did it anyway since the technology was already there in the form of satellite and fiber optic delivery.
OTA stations had to install new transmitters new transmission lines and antenna (in some cases new towers as well), run digital and analog transmitters in tandem (running up all sorts of power fees) then upgrade the studio with A/D converters, upconverters and full digital equipment. No cheap proposition there.
The only show that I really miss is Holmes on Homes. lol
When your green pastures become full of bull$hit don't expect to find any cash cows.
I am disappointed with Rush for still shilling for the NFL after they treated him like a fool. The NFL is a pro Obama commercial.
The problem is your say $50 cable bill divides up $1 per month for each channel. If you have cable or sat tv - you are keeping the liberal facists media alive. They have enslaved us and destroy conservative politicians.
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.