or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread - Page 51

post #1501 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Perhaps you also never considered that cord cutters are sheep themselves - slowly moving toward a PPV model that will charge them every single time they want to watch something via ever increasingly expensive IP services - then yank it away without warning when the rights run out.

No. I get what I want OTA or DVD. They can't yank anything from my huge DVD collection without illegally breaking into my house.
post #1502 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

I already have a phone and a data plan, and would have one regardless. Moot point.
I already have home internet, and would have it regardless. Moot point.
Its cable I do not have.

Ah, but see that's one thing I refuse to pay for. I had Verizon a couple years ago and my plan was much more than my cable, without a smart phone and limited internet. I dropped them, went prepaid and have never been happier. I would never pay for a phone plan again. Same mantra as the cord cutters, huh? smile.gif.
post #1503 of 1689
Quote:
You really think that's how it works?

Some of the lowest rated networks (like Bravo and Hallmark) have the worst snipes and bugs. You know why? Because they think people will watch them if they throw that crap on the screen.

So how has that been working out for them? HAVE more people been watching because of them? I've stopped buying Hallmark products because of their awful channel. The ironic thing is that after CBS started using a bug, they requested it not be on during "Hallmark Hall of Fame" movies. (Funny after more than TWENTY YEARS of this logo nonsense, if you count VH-1, NOBODY has provided any hard evidence of what has been gained from it. The best they can do is give unproven theories about "brand recognition", and the best reaction from viewers has been that they "don't mind it.")
Quote:
If you want to talk about bad my friend was watching a movie on the Hallmark channel using the HD cable box, but the channel was only SD. They showed the movie in widescreen format and there was black all around the screen. They were watching the movie in a black square.

If you think THAT'S bad- my girlfriend's elderly relatives just got an HDTV, but currently only have a standard-def DirecTV box. They've ordered an HD one, but in the meantime they've been watching standard-def material in 4x3 letterbox format STRETCHED out to 16x9! (This includes standard-def feeds from DirecTV of local broadcast stations that are only available in HD over the air, so they're essentially paying to watch them in worse quality than they could get for free with a regular antenna!) They're so senile that they don't see anything wrong with it and would not let me fix it for them. I've seen many restaurants do this too- apparently ESPN's standard-def feed is letterboxed now. I swear there should be an exam people should take before they're allowed to have a widescreen TV wink.gif
Edited by 8traxrule - 1/2/13 at 6:24pm
post #1504 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsilvest View Post


That attitude is the reason we lose control. Those that pull the cord, for whatever reason, are the ones regaining control and if enough do it, then the bugs or other irritations disappear. As long as sheep continue to follow greedy or incompetent shepherds we will continue to lose control. Even if you continue to pay for content, you still have some control in choosing tiers and by what you watch and making sure you get the best deal possible and still satisfy your desires.

 

I ain't no sheep. I refused to watch it a long time ago. Still, I adapt and go on, rather than keep griping unproductively like a child about it.

 

I did find a reasonably-priced tier from a provider that gives me everything I need.

 

One of the problems people need to get past is that satellite is a viable alternative to cable (those that are able to have it). The "rain fade" excuse doesn't really cut it anymore. Mine goes out for less than 30 seconds a few times a year, during torrential downpours. My cable used to go out everytime we had one of those, for 3 hours at a time.


Edited by Rammitinski - 1/2/13 at 6:58pm
post #1505 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post


Did you watch the The UGA/Nebraska game on ABC OTA or through cable?

 

OTA and looked lousy... about as bad as ESPN streaming which is saying quite a bit.

post #1506 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post


So how has that been working out for them? 

 

Don't really know, but I haven't heard them complaining.

post #1507 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayan View Post


Ah, but see that's one thing I refuse to pay for. I had Verizon a couple years ago and my plan was much more than my cable, without a smart phone and limited internet. I dropped them, went prepaid and have never been happier. I would never pay for a phone plan again. Same mantra as the cord cutters, huh? smile.gif.

 

If you have good T-Mobile service in your area, get an unlocked Nexus phone and get their monthly 4G plan for $30 with unlimited text and unlimited data (first 5GB at 4G speeds).  I have yet to go over 1 GB in a month.  :)

post #1508 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

No. I get what I want OTA or DVD. They can't yank anything from my huge DVD collection without illegally breaking into my house.
That was more directed at people that still want to watch new stuff and tend to stream a lot of it, which is the only way to cut the cord and still watch cable-based content in a timely manner.

But, if the telcos have their way, you won't have your OTA option. They want those frequencies to sell you expensive data plans. It's becoming much more attractive for stations to consider selling out, too - especially those little stations showing the very content you like so much.

As far as DVD, those could go the way of VHS where it's getting hard to find a player and replacement media for what gets damaged over time. People are all into streaming content and discs are no longer popular among the up and coming younger set.

They may not be able to take away your DVDs, but they can make it harder to get any more of them.
post #1509 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

OTA and looked lousy... about as bad as ESPN streaming which is saying quite a bit.

It might be your lousy ABC affiliate or your TV. The OTA HD feed from my local ABC affiliate was amazing. ESPN streaming is full of pixellating and skipping.
post #1510 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

But, if the telcos have their way, you won't have your OTA option. They want those frequencies to sell you expensive data plans. It's becoming much more attractive for stations to consider selling out, too - especially those little stations showing the very content you like so much.
As far as DVD, those could go the way of VHS where it's getting hard to find a player and replacement media for what gets damaged over time. People are all into streaming content and discs are no longer popular among the up and coming younger set.
They may not be able to take away your DVDs, but they can make it harder to get any more of them.

Some of the smaller stations might dedide to sell out but there is no way a big four broadcast network will sell out and go out of business.

The only thing that will replace DVDs is Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray players will also play DVDs. But if all the players went away the money spent on DVDs will be the same as money spent on a monthly pay TV bill. Gone for good.
post #1511 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post


Some of the smaller stations might dedide to sell out but there is no way a big four broadcast network will sell out and go out of business.

 

Maybe not, but you can best believe ALL local stations would love to be able to reduce their OTA broadcast power bills as much as possible. Might even have to do it out of necessity someday.

 

Maybe even down to nothing, which could happen, since there are other methods to get that programming to the people now.

post #1512 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

Some of the smaller stations might dedide to sell out but there is no way a big four broadcast network will sell out and go out of business.
The only thing that will replace DVDs is Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray players will also play DVDs. But if all the players went away the money spent on DVDs will be the same as money spent on a monthly pay TV bill. Gone for good.
For the most part, "the big four networks" don't own the local stations. They provide a feed to them and affiliation is merely by contract. Even among those they own, I'm sure they've been mulling over the idea of dumping OTA and going just over the MSOs.

The thing is, there are plenty of markets where OTA penetration is very small (including a couple of big ones). Those affiliates could very well opt to go cable/sat only when they way the cost/benefit of running a transmitter. Just the electrical bill alone may be the deciding factor, not including maintenance and making sure the lights on the tower are on so the planes don't hit it. I'm sure there are also some building s in major cities that could make better use of roof space for helicopter landing pads instead of TV towers.

The fact is, while OTA is a great deal for viewers, it's a terrible distribution method. There are plenty of affiliates that would likely benefit from shutting down their transmitters and using that money to pay the cost to have the last mile wired up for cable.

The fact is, the networks really don't need the affiliates nearly as much as the affiliates need them. Both of them need OTA even less. CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX could easily benefit from becomeing cable networks - and the move of MNF to ESPN is one example of how benefitial that could be for them.

The question is, who will be first to jump off the OTA ship? It's not likely to be CBS, NBC or FOX since they're in the Super Bowl rotation. ABC wouldn't be a bad candidate, though. There's really very little motivation to continue the way they do. Unserved viewers simply isn't enough to feed the bottom line and the FCC can't stop them from giving up their licenses.
Edited by NetworkTV - 1/4/13 at 3:56am
post #1513 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

For the most part, "the big four networks" don't own the local stations. They provide a feed to them and affiliation is merely by contract. Even among those they own, I'm sure they've been mulling over the idea of dumping OTA and going just over the MSOs.
The thing is, there are plenty of markets where OTA penetration is very small (including a couple of big ones). Those affiliates could very well opt to go cable/sat only when they way the cost/benefit of running a transmitter. Just the electrical bill alone may be the deciding factor, not including maintenance and making sure the lights on the tower are on so the planes don't hit it. I'm sure there are also some building s in major cities that could make better use of roof space for helicopter landing pads instead of TV towers.
The fact is, while OTA is a great deal for viewers, it's a terrible distribution method. There are plenty of affiliates that would likely benefit from shutting down their transmitters and using that money to pay the cost to have the last mile wired up for cable.
The fact is, the networks really don't need the affiliates nearly as much as the affiliates need them. Both of them need OTA even less. CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX could easily benefit from becomeing cable networks - and the move of MNF to ESPN is one example of how benefitial that could be for them.
The question is, who will be first to jump off the OTA ship? It's not likely to be CBS, NBC or FOX since they're in the Super Bowl rotation. ABC wouldn't be a bad candidate, though. There's really very little motivation to continue the way they do. Unserved viewers simply isn't enough to feed the bottom line and the FCC can't stop them from giving up their licenses.

I think Comcast having a controlling interest in NBC makes them the most likely candidate to drop OTA first. They could possibly "sub-lease" their rights to the SB to independent stations across the country. Is there a contract stipulation that SNF has to be on free broadcast TV? Disney/ESPN might be quite unhappy that NBC paid way less than them and gets the "A" game each week and now shows it on cable.
post #1514 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post

I think Comcast having a controlling interest in NBC makes them the most likely candidate to drop OTA first. They could possibly "sub-lease" their rights to the SB to independent stations across the country. Is there a contract stipulation that SNF has to be on free broadcast TV? Disney/ESPN might be quite unhappy that NBC paid way less than them and gets the "A" game each week and now shows it on cable.
I think the opposite, for the very reasons you pointed out:

- Comcast putting NBC on cable would likely violate some of the terms of the approval of the merger. Whether that scares them or not is unknown, but it seems like they'd want to save their violating for something that is more lucrative. Further, it would put Comcast in a position where they would lose leverage with other operators who could claim unfair practices - and their voices are louder than some guy with an antenna.

- NBC gets just about the sweetest deal out there for the NFL. ABC used to have a pretty sweet one, too. ESPN started out with a decent one, but now has a downright craptacular one. You think Comcast might have taken notice of that? The message? Don't move your NFL product to cable or the NFL will take you to the cleaners and give you pocket fluff in return. The NFL doesn't want their product on cable unless it's their own channel or you're willing to pay too much for too little in your contract.

- Comcast would never, ever want to lose potential eyeballs by having to simulcast the NFL on an OTA network if they no longer had one - and they'd have to in order to be in the running for a Super Bowl. SNF doesn't have to be OTA, but for the foreseebale future, the Super Bowl does.


Honestly, I don't know who would be less likely to go all cable: NBC or CBS, which has a large older population that has a large amount of OTA viewership within it. ABC skews far younger and has no major sports ties that aren't already cable based. Fox would probably be second most likely (of the big 4) based on Rupert being a bit crazy in the head. He's likely do it just to see how people react to it.

However, if you go beyond the big 4, I would say something like MYTV would be a front runner. The CW would be a good call except for its ties to CBS. It's the one network that should have been on cable from the start (along with the WB and UPN, which combined to form it) but CBS's sensabilities would likely prevent it from being the easy call.

The problem with going outside the big 4 is many of those stations outside the major markets are subchannels of Big 4 stations. They share tower space, have lower powered transmitters and often share studio and news resources. They're already running on the cheap and the power bill is less of a motivation.
Edited by NetworkTV - 1/5/13 at 6:21am
post #1515 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I think the opposite, for the very reasons you pointed out:

- NBC gets just about the sweetest deal out there for the NFL. ABC used to have a pretty sweet one, too. ESPN started out with a decent one, but now has a downright craptacular one. You think Comcast might have taken notice of that? The message? Don't move your NFL product to cable or the NFL will take you to the cleaners and give you pocket fluff in return. The NFL doesn't want their product on cable unless it's their own channel or you're willing to pay too much for too little in your contract.

I thought it was an open bid for MNF. Disney just bid that high because they wanted to be absolutely sure they would keep it. They overbid by about double IMO.
post #1516 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post

I thought it was an open bid for MNF. Disney just bid that high because they wanted to be absolutely sure they would keep it. They overbid by about double IMO.
Not true.

The NFL wouldn't accept any lower from them because they felt ESPN was getting too good a deal for SNF.
post #1517 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsilvest View Post

As long as sheep continue to follow greedy or incompetent shepherds we will continue to lose control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

They're so senile that they don't see anything wrong with it and would not let me fix it for them.

Is it just me, or does it seem that calling people "sheep" or "senile" is probably not an effective way of bringing them around to your viewpoint?

I don't take any pay TV service because I consider these services to be grossly overpriced -- and most of my friends feel the same way. If I talk to someone who is watching primarily broadcast programs or material that they can conveniently get through other channels (such as Netflix or just buying DVDs and Blu Rays in a store) and is paying for cable or satellite, I'll suggest to them that they could save moeny by dumping the pay service. But the final decision is theirs -- and if they make a different decision, that doesn't automatically mena that they are "sheep".

And, yeah, I also hate the look of stretched SD on an HDTV -- but, again, I don't call people who do this "senile". I recognize that their priorities are differnet from ine and let it go. However, I also wouldn't go to a TV watching event at the home of someone who has their TV set up that way...
post #1518 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

That was more directed at people that still want to watch new stuff and tend to stream a lot of it, which is the only way to cut the cord and still watch cable-based content in a timely manner.

The only legal way, to draw a distinction. And it's an important one, because the existence of torrents and other means for people to illegally obtain programming is a constraint on the ability of the content providers to do whatever they want regardless of their customers' desires.

Exhibit A in this is the broad availability of non-DRM protected music downloads through legal sources such as Amazon and iTunes. Does anyone think that the record labels would ever have allowed the sale of unrestricted downloads if it weren't for Napster and other sources of illegal MP3s?

By the same token, the movie studios may try to lock everything down, but they're unlikely to succeed.
post #1519 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Maybe not, but you can best believe ALL local stations would love to be able to reduce their OTA broadcast power bills as much as possible. Might even have to do it out of necessity someday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The thing is, there are plenty of markets where OTA penetration is very small (including a couple of big ones). Those affiliates could very well opt to go cable/sat only when they way the cost/benefit of running a transmitter. Just the electrical bill alone may be the deciding factor, not including maintenance and making sure the lights on the tower are on so the planes don't hit it. [...]The fact is, the networks really don't need the affiliates nearly as much as the affiliates need them. Both of them need OTA even less.

I'd say that the evidence contradicts both of these statements -- during the DTV transition, there were plenty of stations (even in markets with very low OTA usage) that opted to maximize their digital transmission facilities. Those stations could choose to file a CP request to cut their transmission power any time they want to -- and I haven't seen anyone file such an application. Similarly, how many DTV stations have switched from VHF to UHF, despite higher power bills on the UHF band? Apparently, being able to offer a receivable signal does continue to matter. For whatever reasons, TV stations do continue to care about their OTA coverage.

As for whether the networks need their affiliates -- those affiliates provide a local prescence and a clear difference between top broadcast networks and their cable counterparts. Move ABC from broadcast affiliates to a national cable network, and it becomes no different than TNT or USA. Considering that ABC's audience is several times that of either of those (high rated) cable networks, that's probably not a compelling change.
post #1520 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

Is it just me, or does it seem that calling people "sheep" or "senile" is probably not an effective way of bringing them around to your viewpoint?
I don't take any pay TV service because I consider these services to be grossly overpriced -- and most of my friends feel the same way. If I talk to someone who is watching primarily broadcast programs or material that they can conveniently get through other channels (such as Netflix or just buying DVDs and Blu Rays in a store) and is paying for cable or satellite, I'll suggest to them that they could save moeny by dumping the pay service. But the final decision is theirs -- and if they make a different decision, that doesn't automatically mena that they are "sheep".
And, yeah, I also hate the look of stretched SD on an HDTV -- but, again, I don't call people who do this "senile". I recognize that their priorities are differnet from ine and let it go. However, I also wouldn't go to a TV watching event at the home of someone who has their TV set up that way...

No one's trying to bring them around to a viewpoint, it's just an observation. I happen to be a senior so I consequently am around quite a few others. Many of them watch only local stations and are paying Comcast 50-60 bucks a month. On top of it, they are only getting SD because Comcast (as well as sat providers) have put ludicrous charges on for HD. They could install an antenna (and I have gotten a few to do just that) and get rid of the cost and have HD for their flatscreens. Anyone that continues to put out that kind of money unnecessarily well fits the title of "sheep" and they really don't need to be senile, just plain stupid or lazy. Unfortunately, it's not only seniors (who really grew up with just the broadcast stations) but a lot of younger ones that display no more initiative. Sorry, but we have so many ignorant and lazy citizens in this country anymore, it's hard not to chastise and label them.
post #1521 of 1689
Why are cable companies even bothering to send out standard-def versions of HD broadcast stations anyways? That makes no sense when the standard-def analog stations have been gone for almost 4 years. Why not just send them out in HD over cable and include a standard-def compatible output on the cable box for older TVs, the same way the "converter boxes" work?
post #1522 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

Why are cable companies even bothering to send out standard-def versions of HD broadcast stations anyways? That makes no sense when the standard-def analog stations have been gone for almost 4 years. Why not just send them out in HD over cable and include a standard-def compatible output on the cable box for older TVs, the same way the "converter boxes" work?
Harder to continue to justify the $10 "technology fee" if they do that.
post #1523 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

The only legal way, to draw a distinction. And it's an important one, because the existence of torrents and other means for people to illegally obtain programming is a constraint on the ability of the content providers to do whatever they want regardless of their customers' desires.
Exhibit A in this is the broad availability of non-DRM protected music downloads through legal sources such as Amazon and iTunes. Does anyone think that the record labels would ever have allowed the sale of unrestricted downloads if it weren't for Napster and other sources of illegal MP3s?
By the same token, the movie studios may try to lock everything down, but they're unlikely to succeed.
Wrong.

I-Tunes did have what was called Fairplay DRM prior to 2009 - and and tracks sold like hotcakes despite the competition being free. It wasn't until 2008 that Amazon offered non-DRM MP3s to undercut Apple and Apple responded with a premium non-DRM service. At that point, it was over for DRM music as the following year, Apple dropped DRM completely. That was long after Kazaa was pretty well decimated and Napster had gone legit.

The market - not piracy - decided that one. The new market is deciding streaming music is the future.

The problem with TV and music is, nobody thinks there should be any money in it. No one wants to pay for it and they don't want ads. So they go for services that eliminate the money and the ads. There are a lot of people that must think magic elves make this stuff.

TV doesn't want to go the path of the music industry and wither away for pennies a stream. They're going to hang onto the old model until the barn burns down - then eat any cows still in it.

They can do it far longer, too. MP3's are tiny. You can download them with dial-up. You need broadband to download and good broadband to stream. That's still a small part of the population. They still have plenty of time to figure out a way to make money in a new way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

I'd say that the evidence contradicts both of these statements -- during the DTV transition, there were plenty of stations (even in markets with very low OTA usage) that opted to maximize their digital transmission facilities. Those stations could choose to file a CP request to cut their transmission power any time they want to -- and I haven't seen anyone file such an application. Similarly, how many DTV stations have switched from VHF to UHF, despite higher power bills on the UHF band? Apparently, being able to offer a receivable signal does continue to matter. For whatever reasons, TV stations do continue to care about their OTA coverage.
As for whether the networks need their affiliates -- those affiliates provide a local prescence and a clear difference between top broadcast networks and their cable counterparts. Move ABC from broadcast affiliates to a national cable network, and it becomes no different than TNT or USA. Considering that ABC's audience is several times that of either of those (high rated) cable networks, that's probably not a compelling change.
That was then, this is now.

The government has since offered to buy back spectrum and auction it off to the telcos. Before that, it was a straight swap nd the stations were already paying a ton to convert to digital. Now all that equipment as been amortized for about a decade and streaming has taken off. Stations are more concerned about their facebook status than with their OTA signal.

I see future where more stations bite on selling off their spectrum. I'll bet most are simply waiting until the price gets high enough to make it worth it - and the longer they wait, the higher it will be as the telcos get more hungry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

Why are cable companies even bothering to send out standard-def versions of HD broadcast stations anyways? That makes no sense when the standard-def analog stations have been gone for almost 4 years. Why not just send them out in HD over cable and include a standard-def compatible output on the cable box for older TVs, the same way the "converter boxes" work?
Because there are a ton of places where you have a lot of customers like my parents: they still have an analog TV with a standalone analog TiVo, which doesn't play well with a box. They live in a heavy OTA market and could definitely pop the old antenna back up - cable is just easier. In that area, if analog cable went away and people had to get a box, all those 10's of thousands of customers would drop them and use a digital OTA box if they had to use a box at all.

The cable company in that area has a hard enough time competing with free there.

They also are losing out more and more to satellite ever since the locals got added to both services not too many years ago. People who once opted for the cable box now want the D* or E* box because the cable box blows.

There seems to be a "suck it up" mentality among the HD elite that makes them believe it's OK for them to tell others to just deal with a box and the increased monthly price that goes along with it. Those boxes are only offered free if the cable company actually shuts of analog service - and some markets have too many of those to do so.
Edited by NetworkTV - 1/5/13 at 5:23pm
post #1524 of 1689
....People who once opted for the cable box now want the D* or E* box because the cable box blows.
[/quote]

Forgive a possibly dumb question: Why D* and E*? What do these stand for? If D* is DirecTV, why not just say that? I have typed "DirecTV" in posts (like this one) several times.
post #1525 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by crabboy View Post

Forgive a possibly dumb question: Why D* and E*? What do these stand for? If D* is DirecTV, why not just say that? I have typed "DirecTV" in posts (like this one) several times.
It's an old holdover from when Digital TV first came out. People were referring to Digital TV as DTV, which was also a common abbreviation for DirectTV. At that time, Dish Network was known as Echostar. So the board "rules" evolved to refer to DirecTV and Dish Network as D* and E* respectively, and DTV is usually taken to mean digital TV. If you want to spell out DirecTV, then there is no confusion.
post #1526 of 1689
Illuminating. Thank you.
post #1527 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


The government has since offered to buy back spectrum and auction it off to the telcos. Before that, it was a straight swap nd the stations were already paying a ton to convert to digital. Now all that equipment as been amortized for about a decade and streaming has taken off. Stations are more concerned about their facebook status than with their OTA signal.
I see future where more stations bite on selling off their spectrum. I'll bet most are simply waiting until the price gets high enough to make it worth it - and the longer they wait, the higher it will be as the telcos get more hungry.

You are forgetting that pay TV picks up most broadcast stations OTA. The reason there are affiliates in each city is for local programming. Local news and local emergencies like bad weather. The more viewers a station has means it can sell ad time for more money. Having OTA gives them more viewers. They didn't recently spend a lot of money upgrading to digital just to go out of business.
post #1528 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

You are forgetting that pay TV picks up most broadcast stations OTA.
They don't have to - and some get the signal via a wired link. That's how many did until the upgrade to HD which caused some outlets to not bother to upgrade to a fiber link. For some stations, upgrading that fiber link would be cheaper than running a transmitter.

Quote:
The reason there are affiliates in each city is for local programming. Local news and local emergencies like bad weather.
Not necessary, in he eyes of the business.

You can get all that stuff in multiple ways and fewer people are relying on TV for it. If the FCC sells all that spectrum to the cell companies, it means they expect you to get a smart phone to get all your emergency information - and pay for a plan to do so. If you want it free, get a weather radio.

Most local stations have little to no local programming, either.
Quote:
The more viewers a station has means it can sell ad time for more money. Having OTA gives them more viewers. They didn't recently spend a lot of money upgrading to digital just to go out of business.
Irrelevant.

Those are local stations. The networks don't care if those go out of business. Most of the eyeballs are through other means.

Further, the stations only care about eyeballs in the prime market share. In their eyes, people who won't pay for TV in some fashion won't py for anyone else. They aren't viewers the advertisers want.
post #1529 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Wrong.
I-Tunes did have what was called Fairplay DRM prior to 2009 - and and tracks sold like hotcakes despite the competition being free. It wasn't until 2008 that Amazon offered non-DRM MP3s to undercut Apple and Apple responded with a premium non-DRM service. At that point, it was over for DRM music as the following year, Apple dropped DRM completely.

But even Fairplay was much less DRM than the record labels had previously insisted on -- because when you downloaded a song on iTunes, you could burn it to a CD. And that CD was DRM-free. Since I have some music automation software that only works with MP3s, I did this pretty regularly before I switched to Amazon for downloads -- I would burn the iTunes tracks onto a CD, then rip the CD into DRM-free MP3s for the automation software.

It wasn't all the way open, but it was much more so than any previous legal downloads had been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

That was then, this is now.
The government has since offered to buy back spectrum and auction it off to the telcos. Before that, it was a straight swap nd the stations were already paying a ton to convert to digital. Now all that equipment as been amortized for about a decade and streaming has taken off. Stations are more concerned about their facebook status than with their OTA signal.
I see future where more stations bite on selling off their spectrum. I'll bet most are simply waiting until the price gets high enough to make it worth it - and the longer they wait, the higher it will be as the telcos get more hungry.

From what I've been reading, it doesn't appear that major network affiliates are interested in selling off their spectrum. Yeah, I'm sure enough money would change their collective minds...but I think it would be a lot of money. More than the telecom companies are going to offer.
post #1530 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

They don't have to - and some get the signal via a wired link. That's how many did until the upgrade to HD which caused some outlets to not bother to upgrade to a fiber link. For some stations, upgrading that fiber link would be cheaper than running a transmitter.
Not necessary, in he eyes of the business.
You can get all that stuff in multiple ways and fewer people are relying on TV for it. If the FCC sells all that spectrum to the cell companies, it means they expect you to get a smart phone to get all your emergency information - and pay for a plan to do so. If you want it free, get a weather radio.
Most local stations have little to no local programming, either.
Irrelevant.
Those are local stations. The networks don't care if those go out of business. Most of the eyeballs are through other means.
Further, the stations only care about eyeballs in the prime market share. In their eyes, people who won't pay for TV in some fashion won't py for anyone else. They aren't viewers the advertisers want.

The networks care plenty about local stations. There are still a significant number of OTA TV watchers. Some won't (or can't) pay for cable or satellite, much less internet, DVD rental or streaming. But that doesn't mean they are not consumers.Not all commercials are for high-ticket items. A whole lot of beer commercials prove that.
And, of course, the networks are competitive. One network will not abandon a small market (not to mention medium markets) when the others provide local news and weather that will cause viewers to watch their news instead. And if all the networks pull out of a market.....can you say antitrust?
Unlike some countries, "the business" is not a monolith. And there are laws that prevent them from colluding.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread