Originally Posted by willscary
If Pay TV went away, MOST people would simply install antennas.
And MOST people would have a lot LESS program content to choose from.
Some would not have reception no matter what due to their location.
Damn right! Hold that thought.
Of course, for these people, most likely they would need DBS anyways because cable would not reach their remote area.
You don’t seem to understand that DBS IS Pay TV, just like cable. I actually think we (the People/public) made a mistake not to require more of a free, or at least non-suscription, service from DBS as a condition of license, but we didn’t, so it’s a pay service.
If OTA went away, [l]ess affluent people would need to go without TV because once OTA went away, naturally the price of basic cable would rise.
It’s fast rising anyway, and will continue to do so, unless/until we either curb retrans consent fees and/or mandate retrans stations to be sold a al carte only to those who want them.Do you understand that the pay TV subscribers of America, many of whom may have no interest whatsoever in the offerings of ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC, are effectively SUBSIDIZING YOUR “FREE” SERVICE???
Also, local programming would disappear so people
Well, I’m guessing that you’ve never tried to watch your city council meeting on TV, or you’d know that you can only find that on cable, or in few cases perhaps LP, PBS, or other NCE outlets. But definitely not on so-call “local” commercial broadcast.
Bull. In my area, Lin broadcasting pulled their local Fox affiliate from Dish last week. People around here with Dish are angry at Lin. Why? Because … you tell them that it is Dish's God given right to steal local signals and distribute them to the masses for Dish's own profit.
Rebroadcasting a “free” signal intended for the pubic is NOT “stealing”. That is broadcaster/NAB propaganda. Unfortunately they were able to bribe Congress to turn that propaganda into law.
Why is it that ESPN can garner $5+ per subscriber per month, yet a local Fox or CBS station should not be allowed to charge $1-2 per month per subscriber for their content, which is watched MUCH more than ESPN content is?
Because ESPN is a PAY service not using public spectrum as a delivery vehicle.
And fortunately, most systems do not force you to pay for it to get the lowest tier of service. But most people do have to pay for ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC to get ESPN. So effectively, ESPN viewers are “taxed” (think government or think Sopranos, same difference) by ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC when they buy ESPN.
How is that fair? Either to ESPN or their subscribers?
By the way, if ESPN, Discovery, etc. are such commanding broadcasters, then THEY should be also making their money via huge advertising contracts and not by huge retrans fees...after all, that IS what you are paying them also, correct? If not, why are you not forcing them to give you their content at no cost?
Because they are not using a scarce public resource, broadcast spectrum, as a delivery vehicle.
Why is their model different than OTA?
They have a “dual revenue stream” business model, meaning they get money from advertisers and subscriptions. And dual revenue stream is also the business model that ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC deeply covet.
What you don’t seem to understand, dear “free”-OTA viewer, is that YOU are a MERE PAWN in the networks’ battle to achieve that end.
Major networks could indeed go "Pay TV" like ESPN. Local OTA would be reduced to locally produced content only.
Works for me!!! Isn’t that the line broadcasters have been peddling for years? They deliver local content.
Eventually, most local broadcasting would cease, then perhaps all of it.
Rubbish! As long as we provide spectrum, people will line up to use it. They might not broadcast the same nationally distributed content that you get now, but they will broadcast something.
Unfortunately, while Pay TV wins in the short run, they lose in the long run because overall viewership goes down because not everyone will pay for TV.
Why would anyone who likes CNN, ESPN, or HBO stop paying for it just because ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC go away? That makes no sense whatsoever.
At some point then, internet or some other medium takes over and Pay TV dies also.
And the problem with that is?
HBO is already shifting to internet distribution. And if/when that internet service becomes as friendly to my DVRs and TVs as Verizon does now, why shouldn’t I cut out the unnecessary middle man?
I once got HBO from cable. Then I got it from DBS. Now I get if from a telco. Technology advances, the market shifts, life goes on. What’s the problem?
Unfortunately, the cost of all of this is our fantastic national Emergency Broadcast System, which has served us much better than new technologies when true disasters strike.
Please tell me when that has ever been invoked.
Only thing I’ve ever seen is the obnoxious mandatory test messages, and unfortunately no, they don’t go away when you switch to cable/telco, they actually get much WORSE.
My biggest gripe with Verizon right now is that the damned EAS notifications interrupt not only viewing but recording as well whenever they broadcast them. So my DVRs are effectively useless between about 0230 and 0430 because I can never be sure I won’t lose one or two crucial minutes in the middle of a movie.
And what’s even worse, the messages interrupt and disable real weather information being presented on regular channels. How in the world is that helpful? I, frankly, would much rather normal broadcast operations continue during an “emergency” than have the government effectively commandeer all frequencies for its own message.
Actually, NO! It is NOT "their" content, once they broadcast it!!! It’s actually OUR content, at least to a limited extent, which we ALREADY PAID FOR by giving them free spectrum.
Originally Posted by willscary
Then one way for them to fight is by charging retrans fees. It's their content.
That was supposed to be the deal. WE, THE PUBLIC, give broadcasters spectrum, and they give US free content, which they pay for by selling ad time within the free content.
If another broadcaster wants to use the local affiliate's broadcast, then they should pay them just as they do ESPN, Discovery, Disney, etc.
Cable, DBS, and telcos are NOT broadcasters, they are multichannel service providers, bundlers basically, and when they deliver broadcast content, they are simply finishing the job that broadcasters were supposed to do anyway as a condition of license.
If they don't want to pay them, then don't carry them.
When broadcasters can deliver a plug-and-play service to 100% of households, we can get rid of must-carry. Until then, we need must-carry. If broadcasters don’t want the free carriage, then they should be sold a la carte at whatever price the market will sustain.
But if it then turns out that they are only reaching a small minority of the population in their licensed service area, that should be grounds to reassign their license to a broadcaster who will use their spectrum more effectively.
OK, so then Pay TV telcos go directly to the networks and ask to carry their signals. If ESPN gets $5+ per subscriber per month, what do you think that CBS and FOX would want? I would bet that it is well over $5 per subscriber per month.
As long as the service is not on a mandatory tier, who cares what they charge? People who think it’s worth it can pay, and those that don’t won’t. I certainly won’t pay, I can tell you that.
many prior posts rip on [broadcasters] as greedy companies who can not run their business well enough to survive on their own without retrans fees from Pay TV telcos.
I bet they could.
Fine. Let’s abolish retrans consent and let them do it.
Originally Posted by willscary
The remainer of the people have to go to greater lengths, with some not being able to get reception reliably no matter what they try to do (mountainous and sparsely populated desert dwellers)
Actually, a lot of those people lost service in the transition. I personally know people who lost CBS completely. I think restoring that service should be a high priority, even if it’s in SD.
The only fact that matters is that for several YEARS our government told us that DTV was going to be great, offering crystal clear digital picture and sound
Which it does and could continue to do even better using high powered 6-in-1 multiplex channels on VHF-hi only.
PLUS HDTV with an even better picture and full surround sound.
Which could also continue using a more spectrum efficient technology such as that described in Sinclair’s comments.
However, to reiterate, I think restoring major network service, even in SD, to those that lost it should be a higher priority than maintaining free HD service.
The HD or mobile service could be free, assuming we create the proper regulations.
To do this, they claim all these wonderful new services that will be available like watching movies on a 3.5" smart phone screen. WOW! At what cost? Will these new services be free, or will those who are willing to pay (or can afford to pay) high usage bandwidth fees going to be the only ones to get these services?
We could, for instance, grant broadcasters must-carry rights on the service of any wireless provider who offers video streaming using the reallocated spectrum. If they only provide handheld-quality streaming, then broadcasters would get that, but if they provide HD streams as in Sinclair’s model, broadcasters could have that, too. And those service could also be required to be in the clear, meaning they would be FREE, if the broadcaster elected must-carry instead of retrans consent.
. . .At the end of the day, the basic problem with your thinking is your assumption that the major broadcast nets WANT to provide a free service to you. But the evidence is clear, even in the news article that you, yourself, have cited, that they really do NOT want to do that, and you really need to get a clue about that.
–Disclaimers/disclosure: I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for a broadcast company, cable company, DBS company, telco, or wireless provider. Closest I ever came was writing some software for use on cell phones. But now I'm retired.