In the end, all costs are borne by the consumer -- in the end. :shrug:
Local Stations to Pay for Network Shows
Along with the ability to deliver more programming because of DTV, Media Watch reports that local network affiliates are suddenly confronted with this:
See also NBC Affiliates Prepare to Swallow Bitter Reverse-Compensation Pill. So what is broadcast TV going to look like in 2015?AFTER DECADES OF NETWORKS PAYING affiliates to run their programming, networks now want a completely opposite equation, one where stations send checks to networks.
Station executives are up in arms....
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
But you still get it free with an antenna.Nick said:In the end, all costs are borne by the consumer -- in the end. :shrug:
You only choose to pay for local TV if you wish to have it delivered by a third party.
Nothing new here. S O S, Pure Corporate GREED at the expense of the affiliates and the public. Yes, it's expensive to produce good quality programming, but think of the $$$$$$ charged for advertising and the revenue generated for the networks. Sports programming wanting too much money.....Let the networks tell them to find another market. Supply and demand, no takers, contract prices drop really quickly, and maybe some of these extraordinarily overpaid athletes would make a million or 2 a year instead of 10 or more.
Stations have to have the quality programming for their viewers to attract local market commercials and the resulting revenue for the stations. Do the networks care if smaller stations go under.....Not as long as THEY are making money!
Stations have to have the quality programming for their viewers to attract local market commercials and the resulting revenue for the stations. Do the networks care if smaller stations go under.....Not as long as THEY are making money!
Yes, I could "choose" to run 1500 feet of feedline to a hilltop and install a tower with a mast-mounted pre-amp like my family had 40 years ago, but I "choose" to have it delivered by a third party.Kansas Zephyr said:But you still get it free with an antenna.
You only choose to pay for local TV if you wish to have it delivered by a third party.
You make it sound like we're stupid to pay for it.
I would suspect that free tv will go the same way free radio went: to subscription services that you must pay for. Radio became more and more mediocre with too much repetition, DJs in distant cities on 5 or 10 different radio stations by voice tracking, too many commercials. People got sick of it and started paying for Sirius and XM.
My guess is TV will go the same way. Except for sports, the Olympics, maybe some news programs, TV already stinks (I mean really, how many more reality programs can we handle? We get them shoved down our throat because they're cheap to produce.). And people will start tuning away. We're already cutting out commercials with our DVRs and playing on the internet instead of watching another episode of America's Greatest Dogs.
My guess is pay TV is coming.
My guess is TV will go the same way. Except for sports, the Olympics, maybe some news programs, TV already stinks (I mean really, how many more reality programs can we handle? We get them shoved down our throat because they're cheap to produce.). And people will start tuning away. We're already cutting out commercials with our DVRs and playing on the internet instead of watching another episode of America's Greatest Dogs.
My guess is pay TV is coming.
It's already here on cable and satellite in the form of "premium services" and specials in addition to video on demand. As far as the airwaves are concerned, they're free as far as the listener/viewer is concerned. If local stations are compelled to pay for network programs, they will have to insert local commercials during breaks. They already do this on shows where the net hasn't sold commercial time targeted for their specific broadcast area.Scott in FL said:I would suspect that free tv will go the same way free radio went: to subscription services that you must pay for.
...
My guess is pay TV is coming.
Oh, I agree. There will always be free OTA tv. I'm just saying that the quality of its programs will continue to decline because of limited advertising revenue, fewer people will watch, and there will be additional services springing up that we can choose to pay for. It might be in the form of additional premium services, or somebody might start something completely new. Just like Sirius and XM: there is still free over the air radio, but fewer people are listening.
Local stations get their revenue during network "avails" as you pointed out, plus during local programs like news and syndicated shows. But the advertising dollar is shrinking and will continue to do so. Local stations are not going to fork over money to the networks without a fight. The locals are really hurting, especially in medium and smaller markets. Less viewers, less advertising money, lousier programs, less viewers...
Local stations get their revenue during network "avails" as you pointed out, plus during local programs like news and syndicated shows. But the advertising dollar is shrinking and will continue to do so. Local stations are not going to fork over money to the networks without a fight. The locals are really hurting, especially in medium and smaller markets. Less viewers, less advertising money, lousier programs, less viewers...
Our local NBC affiliate is owned by LIN. They are so greedy and tightfisted that they'd probably drop NBC affiliation before they'd pay the network.
Wow.. this info sure makes it sound like OTA network TV will be a bit different down the road. Maybe in 10 years, things will be like they were back in the 1950s when local stations picked and chose and some stations had programming from CBS and NBC, or from NBC and Mutual, etc.
Maybe we'll start to see a bidding process for local stations to bid on what network programs, from all of the major networks, they want to broadcast. We may see some 'former' NBC stations now showing some NBC, some ABC, some CBS, and maybe some CW programs.
I didn't know Fox and CW already had this reverse program. Interesting... especially now that the local stations are having to pay for the digital conversion as well.
Maybe we'll start to see a bidding process for local stations to bid on what network programs, from all of the major networks, they want to broadcast. We may see some 'former' NBC stations now showing some NBC, some ABC, some CBS, and maybe some CW programs.
I didn't know Fox and CW already had this reverse program. Interesting... especially now that the local stations are having to pay for the digital conversion as well.
No.paulman182 said:Yes, I could "choose" to run 1500 feet of feedline to a hilltop and install a tower with a mast-mounted pre-amp like my family had 40 years ago, but I "choose" to have it delivered by a third party.
You make it sound like we're stupid to pay for it.
There is/was no such implication. However, you did choose to live in an area that made third party delivery a necessity.
My point was that local stations now have even less revenue, and yet still must provide a free OTA product.
When you add the effect of the ever expanding universe of channels, the Internet, and other methods to deliver advertising, local TV stations very existence are being threatened.
So much for local content/programing/news then, huh?
If you want "free" tv, you're going to have to pay for it -- one way or the other!
If the networks expect the affiliates to pay for it - the quality better go up. I for one don't watch any reality shows.
Fortnightly was rightly decided, and Congress mucked it up. Local TV should be free, OTA or via a "third party".
Stations are just going to charge cable and DBS, and thus you and me.
Stations are just going to charge cable and DBS, and thus you and me.
Why would it be fair for a third party to profit by charging per household, sell commercial insertion, and dilute the local TV station's audience, and advertising pool, and not compensate the local stations for using their product to do so?SamC said:Fortnightly was rightly decided, and Congress mucked it up. Local TV should be free, OTA or via a "third party".
If you want it for free, live where you can put up an antenna and get it. Otherwise, pay. Just like you do for ESPN and everything else on cable and DBS.
How silly.
As the Supreme Court rightly decided in Fortnightly, some people live where they can receive signal from those using the PUBLIC'S airwaves as a PUBLIC trustee, and others do not. So a cable company (and in today's world, DBS) provides a service of a community antenna.
The underlaying program (which does not have "commercial insertion" and which INCREASES the local station's audience, not "dilutes" it was produced for FREE distribution. The local stations, and the networks, with a government granted monopoly use of public property, have already made their money via commercials.
That was the system from the birth of TV until 1990. It worked.
As the Supreme Court rightly decided in Fortnightly, some people live where they can receive signal from those using the PUBLIC'S airwaves as a PUBLIC trustee, and others do not. So a cable company (and in today's world, DBS) provides a service of a community antenna.
The underlaying program (which does not have "commercial insertion" and which INCREASES the local station's audience, not "dilutes" it was produced for FREE distribution. The local stations, and the networks, with a government granted monopoly use of public property, have already made their money via commercials.
That was the system from the birth of TV until 1990. It worked.
Networks better watch out.
Third party productions may well undercut their price and popularity and networks will then have no outlet for products.
This may be the last gasp of a dieing dinosoar.
Third party productions may well undercut their price and popularity and networks will then have no outlet for products.
This may be the last gasp of a dieing dinosoar.
The issue is to identify the dinosaur. From the standpoint of someone who has no access to OTA, East and West HD feeds of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, MyNetwork, and PBS (12 channels) seems so much more logical that literally having satellite and cable deal with hundreds of local stations.Jim5506 said:Networks better watch out.
Third party productions may well undercut their price and popularity and networks will then have no outlet for products.
This may be the last gasp of a dieing dinosoar.
That's how it was for a while back in the early days of C-band. However, people seem obsessed with always having access to their local news and local programs, even though as has been said, the quality of those have all declined drastically, so what's the point?phrelin said:The issue is to identify the dinosaur. From the standpoint of someone who has no access to OTA, East and West HD feeds of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, MyNetwork, and PBS (12 channels) seems so much more logical that literally having satellite and cable deal with hundreds of local stations.
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
DBSTalk Forum
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
