Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Television -- As We Know It -- Is Finished


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,615 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 18 August 2009 - 10:35 AM

...they omitted the last line from the report....

The Sky is Falling. :D
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,715 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 18 August 2009 - 11:00 AM

While you have a point phrelin, consider this - DBS didn't really take off until people could get their "local" network stations, much like they could from their cable companies. That, IMO, is probably the biggest driver in the growth of DBS.

Now, I'm not going to pretend I know all the answers in this field (far from it), I'm just bringing up the point that, inspite of their recent problems, people still watch the networks when they have desired programming. There are some TV stations out there that do very well on locally originated programming - there others that just barely put out the minimum they have to.
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

#23 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 11:41 AM

Within the context of retransmission fees, who exactly gets punished by the mandatory requirement to carry all local OTA channels in a DMA if Dish or Direct decide to carry any local?

Dish Network or DirecTV, of course, because you'd essentially be forcing them to pay a fee that they may not want to pay. Alternatively, if you say that they wouldn't have to pay the fee, then the broadcaster, from whom your depriving a source of revenue that has nothing to do with their civic responsibility to provide broadcast television over-the-air.

Does the requirement that prevents distants from being available to everyone obstruct the business of local stations or the public's access to competition?

Most of the time, distants aren't provided because of the desire to use bandwidth for non-duplicative services. For example, cable customers in Bristol County MA recently lost Boston stations because they're in the Providence DMA. They did have the distants, and now they don't, but it was the service provider's decision based on what they felt was the best utilization of the available resource.

However, the main point is that it is the locality's best interest to assert primacy of the local affiliate over distants. The fact that you personally aren't especially locally-minded doesn't obviate the fact that there is a value to the local area to have their local stations supported over distants.

In the end, if you don't like retransmission consent -- if you wanted every as free must-carry -- then it is on you to convince legislators to change the law. They didn't overlook something. They didn't make a mistake. People raised the issues you raised and lost the debate. You can try to cast reckless aspersions on the manner in which our nation is governed, to try to make your sides loss in that debate seem unfair, but that's just a cop-out. You might as well just put up your "Anarchy Now" flag and say "Down with the USA" and start burning the flag etc.

Ok. "Monopoly" is the wrong word. Let's call it socialistic favorable preference from the government for a private business - local OTA stations - for no good reason.

Let's call that your very biased, anti-government perspective. Let society call it what it is, which is a bunch of companies granted a license to do something with certain obligations attached which they fulfill. Period.

The competition will be open only when someone who lives 500' from an ABC station's tower in Seattle can choose to watch an ABC station from Boston or Los Angeles.

That's what you want. That is not, in any way, a definition of what is necessary to constitute market competition in our economy.

#24 OFFLINE   Herdfan

Herdfan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 5,969 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2006

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:28 PM

Yeah, gone are the days of the $1+ million an episode for an actor in a half-hour sitcom.


And not too long ago there was a show that had 6 of them.

#25 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,452 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:08 PM

Stewart, I think your argument has a gaping hole in the middle. Expecting networks to lower their expectations (for revenues) without expecting viewers to lower their expectations (for programming) is unreasonable. Every dollar invested always competes with every other possible way of investing that dollar. As soon as the decline in the value of viewership reaches the point where broadcasters (and we're not talking about ABC, NBC and Fox, here, but rather Disney, General Electric and News Corp.) would be better off cutting back their investments in broadcasting and redirecting that capital to other efforts, or worse, just into financial investments, that is what they're going to do, and what they should do, by all rights.


I don't entirely disagree with you, except that the networks have already proven they can produce quality television on their cable networks.

Consider the example of Monk... ABC tried it for a while and didn't like the ratings it got. During the writers' strike, NBC aired it for a bit too and didn't like the ratings.

But the NBC/Universal owned USA channel seems to have been quite happy for 7 (soon the be 8 and done) seasons of the show.

The difference?

The expectations for ratings that are considered "good" on USA is considerably lower than on ABC or NBC.

That's what I mean about adjusting their expectations. Someone is making quality TV, and getting what they think are good enough ratings for USA, TNT, and other cable networks even though those ratings are well below what the networks consider "good".

So... if networks take the route of killing scripted TV to cut costs that seems to be a nose-to-spite-your-face situation to me... when in many cases those networks also own cable-only channels on which they have lower expectations and thresholds for success.

I argue that if USA/TNT/Syfy/etc. can air several seasons of a high quality show and be happy with their ratings... why can't the traditional networks be similarly happy?

I think they are still using metrics that just aren't appropriate since probably 10-15 years or more ago.

-- I like to go fast (not really)


#26 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,702 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:38 PM

I argue that if USA/TNT/Syfy/etc. can air several seasons of a high quality show and be happy with their ratings... why can't the traditional networks be similarly happy?


There are some excellent shows on cable channels, many are equal to or superior in entertainment value to what's on the broadcast networks.

However, most cable shows have much shorter seasons - 22 on broadcast, often only 13 on cable. Cable networks also are chock full of reruns and old series. Look at the typical prime-time schedule for USA/TNT/FX, etc and only about 20% of it is new, original programming.
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#27 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:40 PM

@Stewart I think you're putting too much stock in this non-existent concept of happiness your talking about. Happiness isn't relevant or applicable. The issue is simply a matter of what programming fosters the most profit. If less costly programming consistently raises enough revenue to beat more costly programming with higher ratings, then the less costly programming is better, vis a vis the overriding considerations of the enterprise, the best interests of the owners.

#28 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,316 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:48 PM

Dish Network or DirecTV, of course, because you'd essentially be forcing them to pay a fee that they may not want to pay. Alternatively, if you say that they wouldn't have to pay the fee, then the broadcaster, from whom your depriving a source of revenue that has nothing to do with their civic responsibility to provide broadcast television over-the-air.

I have no problem with them paying a fee. I do have a problem with them paying hundreds of locals a fee to broadcast the same network content when it has been made clear that the locals intend to demand high fees which ultimately will be passed on to me. And that doesn't count uplink and transponder costs. "Must carry" means some poor guy in Bangor, Maine gets 6 channels for the same price I get 22 channels (most of aren't on my favorites). Maybe he'd like one of my 22, but the law says he can't get it.

Most of the time, distants aren't provided because of the desire to use bandwidth for non-duplicative services. For example, cable customers in Bristol County MA recently lost Boston stations because they're in the Providence DMA. They did have the distants, and now they don't, but it was the service provider's decision based on what they felt was the best utilization of the available resource.

If the 7 networks were offered one each in 5 time zones, for satellite providers that would mean 35 channels. That's 35 Conus transponders and 35 uplinks instead of hundreds devoted to a myriad of ill-designed DMA's. Add one local that actually spends money on news and local programming from each DMA for civic/emergency broadcast. That's another 210 spotbeam transponders and uplinks.

However, the main point is that it is the locality's best interest to assert primacy of the local affiliate over distants. The fact that you personally aren't especially locally-minded doesn't obviate the fact that there is a value to the local area to have their local stations supported over distants.

Yeah. I can have distants. At one point in time when Dish played too loose I had Sacramento stations. Two of the Sacramento network affiliates provided weather and occasional news for my County area.

But I now have San Francisco which is my DMA. I had email exchanges with all four network affiliates over the issue of at least providing weather info if no news. In one case I was essentially told they just don't have time because they (KGO ABC) also covered via cable Monterey DMA of more value. Now they sometimes provide the temperature on the fancy map.

In the end, if you don't like retransmission consent -- if you wanted every as free must-carry -- then it is on you to convince legislators to change the law. They didn't overlook something. They didn't make a mistake. People raised the issues you raised and lost the debate. You can try to cast reckless aspersions on the manner in which our nation is governed, to try to make your sides loss in that debate seem unfair, but that's just a cop-out. You might as well just put up your "Anarchy Now" flag and say "Down with the USA" and start burning the flag etc.

I'm not arguing for anarchy. I want the rules changed away from the 1958 model, other than the rules that have already been changed since then to eliminate many of the public obligations.

Let's call that your very biased, anti-government perspective. Let society call it what it is, which is a bunch of companies granted a license to do something with certain obligations attached which they fulfill. Period.

Hmmm. Most consider my political opinions pro-government and leftist. My problems are that:
  • the regulations that "burdened" the networks and locals with civic responsibilities were repealed a couple of decades ago;
  • most of the regulations adopted more than a decade ago regarding distants protect anachronistic corporate interests.

That's what you want. That is not, in any way, a definition of what is necessary to constitute market competition in our economy.

A free market economist would argue there should be no regulation at all. I want anti-trust regulations. It's no coincidence that ABC, Fox and NBC are all invested in Hulu.com while NBC essentially is experimenting with how little a commitment to its affiliates it can get away with.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#29 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 02:13 PM

I have no problem with them paying a fee. I do have a problem with them paying hundreds of locals a fee to broadcast the same network content when it has been made clear that the locals intend to demand high fees which ultimately will be passed on to me.

First, what's the difference? And second, on what basis, other than your own personal preference not to have to pay more, do you base an implication that they don't deserve a cut of what cable and satellite companies get from subscribers, given that such a large percentage of what people watch on cable is from broadcast stations? It sounds to me that they have more right to want to be paid as you have a right to not want to pay, since the law is deliberately on their side.

Add one local that actually spends money on news and local programming from each DMA for civic/emergency broadcast.

You're focused only from your own perspective. You'll never understand the reality you're encountering that way. You need to understand where the localities are coming from, where the broadcasters are coming from, where the networks are coming from, where other viewers are coming from. If you just look at the world from your own perspective you'll always be bitterly disappointed with what you experience.

I'm not arguing for anarchy. I want the rules changed away from the 1958 model, other than the rules that have already been changed since then to eliminate many of the public obligations.

Like I said: What you want other people put forward into the debate and lost. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an oversight. It wasn't corruption or conspiracy. Reasonable people disagree and your side lost. Sorry.

#30 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,702 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 18 August 2009 - 03:22 PM

Part 2 is available. Here's an excerpt:

The language is stark, the message is unmistakable: The future is looking bleak for network TV.

That's the verdict from Time magazine, which paints a bleak picture of what's to come for the big boys of broadcasting.

"In network television, nothing adds up," according to the newsweekly. "The networks are still scrapping with one another for ratings supremacy, but the days when they dominated the airwaves so thoroughly are just a 'Wonder Years' memory. (The) companies that have virtually defined American television...are sick and fighting for survival."

"As the network audience dwindles," Time continues, "one of the Big Three may be forced to close down or sharply curtail its operations."

Scary stuff.

One caveat, though: Time's harsh warning about the state of network TV was written back in October ... of 1988.

..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#31 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,316 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 03:24 PM

You're focused only from your own perspective. You'll never understand the reality you're encountering that way. You need to understand where the localities are coming from, where the broadcasters are coming from, where the networks are coming from, where other viewers are coming from. If you just look at the world from your own perspective you'll always be bitterly disappointed with what you experience.


Like I said: What you want other people put forward into the debate and lost. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an oversight. It wasn't corruption or conspiracy. Reasonable people disagree and your side lost. Sorry.

My "reality" has to do with what I believe will happen to the local stations outside major markets. It's speculative, but not unreasonable, to foresee the time when most local broadcast stations will simply disappear in the economic free-for-all being discussed in the article in the original post.

If you look at what happened to radio stations between 1948-58 (and perhaps even what's happening to newspapers, though they are less comparable), one can anticipate what will happen to broadcast tv between 2008-18.

None of what I said here what I want. It is what I think ought to be examined within the broadcast-industry-related public policy arena without the protectionist bias. But I'd be the first to admit that I don't know what should be done. I do think maintaining the regulatory status quo so favorable to local broadcast stations is an error that will ultimately harm the local broadcast industry.

But my interest is advocacy for scripted programming. And as I admitted in post #8, in 2007 I didn't foresee the 2009 rise of the cable channel scripted shows. I thought the internet would become a bigger player. Now I'm beginning to think that when NBCU threw the spaghetti made up of its web efforts and its cable channels against the wall in 2008, cable channels stuck while the web efforts need to cook longer.

What I wrote in November 2007 included the following:

Yes, that ad supported NBC channel you watch now may degenerate into only news, sports, and televaudeville.

But I continued:

But there is something you need to know about that TV station - it has gone digital. Over-the-airwaves local TV stations are now broadcasting as many as four digital channels. A digital signal can be encrypted, meaning you could be charged for access to the signal.

We could begin to see subscription-based over-the-airwaves TV following the HBO/Showtime model. NBC-Universal may figure this out and may help their affiliate local stations by distributing scripted programming for subscription-based TV, perhaps with shows having a sponsor like the PBS model. And if the NBC/Universal thinks of it, you could start seeing the cable USA and Bravo channels on those sub-signals, attempting to capture that remaining 15% of the TV market not served by cable or satellite. The FCC will allow all this in the name of competition.

In major metropolitan areas, the subchannels could mean a lot of revenue for local broadcasters doing what they are supposed to do - broadcast content viewers will want to watch over the airwaves.

It's a fun time to be a viewer if you like change and don't mind looking around for scripted programming. It's not a fun time to be employed in local news and programming at your local broadcast station even in the major metropolitan areas. Nor is it a fun time to be a Hollywood veteran writer of scripts for scripted tv.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#32 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,702 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 18 August 2009 - 03:39 PM

Analysts and forum members here have picked on NBC, in part because of the Jay Leno at 10 move that eliminates 5 more hours of prime time traditional dramas. But it's clear the network is trying to "right-size" itself for the future. It wouldn't surprise me if NBC did the following in the next 2-3 years:

- Fully merge NBC news into MSNBC and axe a huge number of people
- Hand Saturdays over to local affiliates
- And eventually do the same with 7pm Sundays
- Better exploit their Weather Channel purchase (bye, bye Al Roker)
- Import more programming like Merlin from the UK or maybe co-produce
- Run daytime (aka the 6-hour Today show) more like CNN/FOX/MSNBC
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#33 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,316 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 03:42 PM

Analysts and forum members here have picked on NBC, in part because of the Jay Leno at 10 move that eliminates 5 more hours of prime time traditional dramas. But it's clear the network is trying to "right-size" itself for the future. It wouldn't surprise me if NBC did the following in the next 2-3 years:

- Fully merge NBC news into MSNBC and axe a huge number of people
- Hand Saturdays over to local affiliates
- And eventually do the same with 7pm Sundays
- Better exploit their Weather Channel purchase (bye, bye Al Roker)
- Import more programming like Merlin from the UK or maybe co-produce
- Run daytime (aka the 6-hour Today show) more like CNN/FOX/MSNBC

Those all seem like smart moves from a bottom line viewpoint and lord knows GE is very profit growth oriented.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#34 OFFLINE   bidger

bidger

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,940 posts
Joined: Nov 19, 2005

Posted 18 August 2009 - 04:17 PM

- Hand Saturdays over to local affiliates
- And eventually do the same with 7pm Sundays


The fly in the ointment for the second proposal is Sunday Night Football's Pre-Game show. I, as a hardcore NFL fan, stay with whichever network had the the 4:15 game and watch their post-game show. That's because there's too damn many people in the SNF Pre-Game show (NBC could save some money there).

Ceton 6 tuner eth, Cisco Tuning Adapter 1520, TWC Digital Explorer Pak and Standard cInternet, TiVo HD (upgraded to 500 GB) for OTA,TC-P50U50, SONY NSZ-GT1 BD player and Google TV box, Yamaha RX-V373 A/V receiver, Squeezebox Duet music streaming device


#35 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 04:54 PM

My "reality" has to do with what I believe will happen to the local stations outside major markets. It's speculative, but not unreasonable, to foresee the time when most local broadcast stations will simply disappear in the economic free-for-all being discussed in the article in the original post.

And let's be clear: I don't disagree. They are not sacred.

None of what I said here what I want. It is what I think ought to be...

"What I think ought to be" == "what I want"

I do think maintaining the regulatory status quo so favorable to local broadcast stations is an error that will ultimately harm the local broadcast industry.

That assertion seems internally inconsistent to me. Local broadcast stations very likely will be hurt, but not because of DMA-related restrictions and retransmission consent -- quite the opposite: Those things will forestall what you've indicated is the likely inevitability.

But my interest is advocacy for scripted programming.

Yet you haven't hit on anything that will actually foster scripted programming. Indeed, you oppose retransmission consent which is likely to have only positive impact on scripted programming.

#36 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,316 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 05:08 PM

"What I think ought to be" == "what I want"

Not really. What I want is a premium cable channel group devoted exclusively to new quality scripted programming and the opportunity to not pay for anything else.:sure:

That assertion seems internally inconsistent to me. Local broadcast stations very likely will be hurt, but not because of DMA-related restrictions and retransmission consent -- quite the opposite: Those things will forestall what you've indicated is the likely inevitability.

Well, yes and no. Yes they will forestall the likely inevitability. But they also facilitate the slow decline when the lack of protection might (and yes, this is a doubtful "might") cause them to innovate creating a new economically successful role for broadcast locals.

Yet you haven't hit on anything that will actually foster scripted programming. Indeed, you oppose retransmission consent which is likely to have only positive impact on scripted programming.

Since I didn't anticipate the growth of cable channel scripted programming, I'd have to admit I don't have a feel for that issue. But keeping the independent Channel 50 in Santa Rosa, California, on Dish, DirecTV and Comcast isn't going to help with that unless residuals for really old writers of really old tv series and movies somehow helps.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#37 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,702 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 18 August 2009 - 05:41 PM

Phrelin, on your comparison of broadcast TV to radio in the 40's and 50's... I'm not really up on radio history, but was radio during this era dominated by national networks feeding full programming schedules? And so, over time, all these national radio programming networks faded away and were replaced essentially by independent stations.

If broadcast tv were to follow a similar path, then the stations would survive, but their programming would be dominated by reruns (Gilligan's Island) syndicated fare (Legend of the Seeker) and some locally produced shows. Since TV is generally more expensive, there might be a loss of some stations.

With more independents, it might actually lead to a re-birth of the syndicated shows, like back in the early 90's when there were a dozen or more like Star Trek TNG, Hercules, Xena, Highlander, etc.
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#38 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,316 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 06:27 PM

Phrelin, on your comparison of broadcast TV to radio in the 40's and 50's... I'm not really up on radio history, but was radio during this era dominated by national networks feeding full programming schedules? And so, over time, all these national radio programming networks faded away and were replaced essentially by independent stations.

If broadcast tv were to follow a similar path, then the stations would survive, but their programming would be dominated by reruns (Gilligan's Island) syndicated fare (Legend of the Seeker) and some locally produced shows. Since TV is generally more expensive, there might be a loss of some stations.

With more independents, it might actually lead to a re-birth of the syndicated shows, like back in the early 90's when there were a dozen or more like Star Trek TNG, Hercules, Xena, Highlander, etc.

I'd like to see a re-birth of syndicated tv. The big question is whether local stations could come out of The Great Recession with any advertising revenue to support that.

Regarding radio, yes the major networks all provided programming. My uncle was a producer of "Fibber McGee and Molly," a comedy show on NBC. What happened is that economically successful radio shifted in the 1950's to the local DJ playing records (think Alan Freed and payola and The Big Bopper and Wolfman Jack) and then evolved into what it is today.

Now defunct radio networks such as the Mutual Broadcasting System (MBS) are part of my life's memories as the network of "The Lone Ranger," "The Adventures of Superman. and "The Shadow."

NBC, which was the top national radio network of the 1930's and 40's, survived as a corporation in the entertainment industry mostly because of its early TV efforts. And in the summer of 1987, NBC Radio's network operations were sold to Westwood One, and the NBC-owned stations were sold to various buyers. The same occurred with the Mutual Broadcasting System and CBS Radio, which Westwood One acquired and essentially merged with NBC Radio.

My uncle, like a lot of others in network radio didn't make the transition to tv and ended his career as a recording engineer. He had an incredible collection of recordings of various NBC radio shows on 78 rpm records. I always wondered what happened to them, but I wasn't in the area when he died and haven't broached the subject with my cousins.

But there was a "Golden Era of Radio." And that's me saying I'm old.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#39 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,452 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 August 2009 - 06:35 PM

@Stewart I think you're putting too much stock in this non-existent concept of happiness your talking about. Happiness isn't relevant or applicable. The issue is simply a matter of what programming fosters the most profit. If less costly programming consistently raises enough revenue to beat more costly programming with higher ratings, then the less costly programming is better, vis a vis the overriding considerations of the enterprise, the best interests of the owners.


But if that were true... wouldn't ALL the networks be moving in the same direction? That being less and less scripted TV?

What I'm seeing, however, is while the networks are trying to cost-reduce with non-scripted TV... the cable networks are actually increasing their original scripted programming.

IF truly the answer was to reduce cost to increase profit, I submit that the other networks on cable wouldn't be increasing their new scripted content.

I think this is simply a case of networks using the old 3-network ratings plateaus to set their expectations without regard to how the landscape has changed.

NBC, for example, makes a big deal out of being in "5th place" with regards to the other broadcast networks... when I think they should be more concerned with their place as compared to ALL cable channels.

In the "Syfy" thread we were all talking about how being in the top 20 was a good thing for Syfy... but it seems like the networks are ignoring all the other channels and trying to operate as if broadcast is the only competition.

-- I like to go fast (not really)


#40 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 18 August 2009 - 06:58 PM

Not really.

Huh? You must be speaking some strange dialect of English that I'm unfamiliar with.




spam firewall