How local TV stations plan to remain relevant as viewers shift to streaming

[babnmn]

The technology behind the distribution of television has evolved with time, from the antenna to cable to satellite, and most recently to streaming.

Now, according to EW Scripps Chief Executive Officer Adam Symson, the time has arrived for the next frontier of TV viewing:

The antenna.

As consumers shift away from traditional pay TV and toward subscription streaming services, the digital antenna will emerge as a necessary component of people’s viewing habits, Symson said in an interview.

EW Scripps plans to begin an advocacy campaign this year to explain the value of the antenna, Symson said. While he declined to say if his plan would involve giving away antennas for free or at a discounted price to consumers, Symson said he has “a large group of people” at EW Scripps working on ideas to educate Americans on how an antenna can supplement subscription streaming video.

The Whole Story At : hXXps://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/24/local-tv-stations-plot-to-remain-relevant-in-shift-to-streaming.html <<< change XX to tt

 

[comfortably_numb]

he declined to say if his plan would involve giving away antennas for free or at a discounted price to consumers

Why should they give them away?

 

[SamCdbs]

Once, in a better system, local TV was free, as it should be. If you lived in town, truly free; if you lived out a ways, CATV pulled in the signals.

Then in their greed, the broadcast monopolists got the Congress to change the rules. Forcing people to pay for free TV via retransmission. Unfair. Immoral. Wrong.

And the monopolists built a new economic paradigm for their industry. Once, simply mega-profitable via selling local advertising; they now are obscenely profitable by adding in retransmission. And they ignored the OTA customer, working to make their signals as hard to receive as possible with the ATSC change over.

And now the world is changing. The networks have all but abandoned filmed entertainment, as the proliferation of first "cable" channels and then streaming services have so fractured the audience that most of it has been replaced with idiotic game shows, faux reality, and commentary presented as news. (Old timers will remember that the monopolists SAID that retransmission was necessary to "compete" with cable to continue to produce quality shows. A lie.) And this is tied with the only truly local part of local TV is more or less the local news, which add every station in any market together, and you see that the vast majority do not care about it.

So "cord cutters". If you are not into sports (and the largest reason to be a cord cutter is to avoid high priced sports related content) then they walk away. The few programs of value on OTA TV will be streamed within a short time, and then for decades to come.

So NOW the monopolists, cut off from the retransmission teat, now want to return to the ad based revenue stream.

They could have done the right thing in the first place. Their greed has done them in. Good.

 

[Ypsiguy]

Scripps is going to make a big dent in cable and satellite with their new diginets like Doozy and Defy TV and bringing Newsy to OTA.

I think their gamble is going to pay off. I already get about 35 usable channels OTA already from the Detroit and Toledo DMA’s.

I now get internet only from Comcast and use Dish for only 3 months a year. Stream a LOT of free content via Roku.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Scripps is going to make a big dent in cable and satellite with their new diginets like Doozy and Defy TV and bringing Newsy to OTA.

This is a joke, right?

 

[Tower Guy]

Then in their greed, the broadcast monopolists got the Congress to change the rules. Forcing people to pay for free TV via retransmission. Unfair. Immoral. Wrong.

Interesting viewpoint.

Yes, at first cable TV did bring local stations to those who could not receive it over the air. Thats when the local TV stations received nothing. Yet the cable and satellite industry also added advertiser supported networks that they did pay for. This difference was not fair nor equal.

Today, I feel that cable cutters enjoy better programming on streaming services without commercials than is available on cable and satellite with commercials. The picture quality of over the air TV is awesome, and the ability to receive it will get even easier with ATSC 3.0.

The consumer wins when competition exists between broadcasters, cable companies, satellite providers, and streaming services. Even the cellular companies have a chance at grabbing some of this business.

 

[SamCdbs]

Interesting viewpoint.

Yes, at first cable TV did bring local stations to those who could not receive it over the air. Thats when the local TV stations received nothing. Yet the cable and satellite industry also added advertiser supported networks that they did pay for. This difference was not fair nor equal.

How is it not "fair"?

OTA monopolists had, and have, a government granted monopoly to use the public's airwaves as, to quote the law a "public trustee". It was, and remains, literally a crime to use those airwaves with out a government permit. If I want to build a TV station, I cannot.

"Cable" channels exist in the free market. They are not using public property. One can subscribe to whichever of these one wishes. And, of course, one has to pay for these supplemental free market services. A totally different thing than OTA television, which has ALREADY turned a profit via its monopolist status. If I want to start a cable channel, nothing is stopping me. If I have a better idea, I will succeed.

The Supreme Court said so. And the monopolists got Congress to change the law, forcing rural and suburban people, and many in certain types of building even in cities, to pay for what should be free.

Local TV should be free, for every person, without exception. Any monopolist who cannot make it just on the mega profit local advertising is, can sign their FCC license on the back and mail it to me.

 

[Trip]

The problem, in theory, is that if a cable channel can charge $1/sub and an OTA network can't, then the OTA won't be able to buy the rights to the best programming, because they'll be outbid by the cable channel since they have a revenue source OTA doesn't have. It could lead to a spiral where the best programming moves to cable, making OTA less attractive, which reduces eyeballs across the board and thus ad dollars, which reduces the amount they can spend on programming, meaning more programming moves to cable, etc. It could, in theory, lead to the end of free TV.

Whether or not you believe that theory is up to you, but it's certainly feasible. As it is, a lot of sports programming has migrated to cable because ESPN charges $7/sub or something, for example, and can afford to outbid the OTA networks as a result.

- Trip

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I got to be honest, while I have DISH and Sling TV I honest watch more OTA television then I do my subscription channels. In fact I would say 90% of my viewing is local channels. Network prime time shows and then channels like Me TV, Decades and Buzzr.

 

[N5XZS]

As the same time I would like to see high quality diginet catered to adult TV Network that's shows uncut TV shows like Games of Thrones, Sex and the city, Soprano and imported Uncensored OTA European programmings. But the FCC is so out of touch in the 21st century world, dude we are not in G-rated 70's and 80's world.

Too many G-rated diginets, tripping each other over if few remaining audiences that's like lame old show and cut up TV Shows.

Sames goes for movies are from blast from the past of 30's,40',50's and 60's are mostly uncut and sadly the movies in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's and up are chopped up for free OTA broadcast bands.

And guess what I just heard the broadcasting & cable news now saying other new diginet called Rewind TV Network from Nextstar to start on 9-1-21 more other G rated junk added to the list today!

 

[TNGuy84]

Adult content isn't coming to OTA TV in the U.S. unless it's some paid subscriber type content with controls in place. Many parents wouldn't want their 5 year old rigging up some metal to a TV to see free nudity being broadcasted.

 

[Ypsiguy]

History Channel relies at lot on reruns of its own material, for example. Scripps just bought a LOT of it for OTA broadcast over their new DefyTV diginet. With MeTV, Buzzr, H&I, etc, etc...a good chunk of cable and satellite’s filler programs are now OTA. That is hitting their bottom line hard as more people cancel and go to the OTA/Streaming combo.

 

[NYDutch]

Adult content isn't coming to OTA TV in the U.S. unless it's some paid subscriber type content with controls in place. Many parents wouldn't want their 5 year old rigging up some metal to a TV to see free nudity being broadcasted.

Most 5 year-olds could care less about nudity, including their own. 15 year olds on the other hand...

 

[baboonie]

First of all I think broadcasters should have to give all an antenna and a convertor for 3.0 to view their signal. When I was growing up I was always told the spectrum signal didn't belong to the government it belonged to the people and the government/fcc was there to do with the spectrum what was best for the people. The fcc didn't own the spectrum and it was just on loan to the broadcaster to use for tv. Now you had the fcc selling the spectrum to the cell companies that sold something that didn't belong to them. Me do that I go to jail. Whats worst of it is lots of broadcasters sold the spectrum they were using for free that the fcc could of just took back. Makeing billions for the broadcasters for selling something they didn't own in the first place,hell some sold their spectrum and got out of the broadcast business. Then you have a satellite company not even owned by someone in the USA making billions off of the spectrum that was on lone to them. So as far as I am concerned I think the broadcaster owe the people free antenna's and also free converters for whenever the stations go to atsc 3.0/nexgen tv. I also think some broadcasters,some fcc,etc, and some telco's should go to jail for selling something they didn't own or buying stolen property. Where is my money or something I didn't get for something I was suppose to own part of.

 

[TNGuy84]

I see your point on everything but getting free 3.0 tuners. The 3.0 push is market-driven rather than a government mandate like 1.0 was. 1.0 will be with us quite a while after 3.0 becomes more popular in most markets. I do think that 3.0 should've been pushed to the market sooner or that the last UHF auction should've been held up until 3.0 tech was ready to go to market. With the upper band of UHF being sold off (52-69), you had the push to 1.0. It was for more efficient use after limiting the spectrum. With a further limitation on spectrum to channel 36, I think it would've been wise to really push 3.0 tech at the same time as the stations moving to the lower part of the band. 3.0 is much more efficient than 1.0, and I think there would've been some incentive on the give and take of spectrum had stations been given the opportunity to switch over at that time. Now, you've got stations stacking and sharing bandwidth, causing very low quality bitrates on subchannels to the point some of them look like VCD quality from the early 90's.

 

[baboonie]

TNGuy84
What I mean about the broadcasters paying for a dongle for people to watch tv when go to 3.0/nextgen is if a broadcaster made billions off of selling part of the spectrum they didn't own is they should have to furnish the dongles or boxes free to anybody in their viewing area for nextgen 3.0. If a broadcaster didn't sell any spectrum then they should have to keep the 1.0 signal up and running for good. If want to have people watch the 3.0 then they can give the ones in their viewing area for that station if they want that viewer a dongle or box or keep their station on 1.0 for good. As for the ones that sold their spectrum and got out of the business they should have to pay for a dongle or box for anybody that is in the area of their viewing station at the time they sold the spectrum for that station they closed down. Don't get me wrong I'm all for atsc 3.0/nextgen tv,actually I can't wait till they get it around here.Live in a area where only have a local cbs and nbc station 30 miles away and a pbs station 65 miles aways so limited on ota and my favorites are the diginets I get off them stations. So hopeing with 3.0 with its error correction and better signal around obstacles I hope I can get a little more distance then the 75/80 miles an good antenna can reach. Since higher elevation to Pittsburgh PA and Charleston WV hope to get passed the curvature on the earth and reach 100/105 miles.

 

[baboonie]

I see you point about 3.0/nextget being market driven and not the selling the spectrum.But to me if a broadcaster moves up to 3.0 they are still using some of the spectrum that was on loan to them even if less on a smaller station group. If they are a broadcaster and still using some of the spectrum and also sold some of it then they should have to pay for the dongle or box or keep the station on 1.0 for good not for five years after starting up the 3.0 same station. They are still using spectrum for the free 3.0 signal and when it was passed about the spectrum it was stated that any broadcast station that used spectrum had to be free to the public thats why the tuners in tv's kept changeing. But back then a broadcaster that wanted to quit the business they lost the use of the spectrum unless they sold the station. It was wrong for anybody to make profit off of the spectrum. The fcc should of just told them that they were taking back some of the spectrum from you and you have to move your station below 36 since the technology is there now. And if you want to stay in business you either move your station or lose it. If you want you station in 3.0 then you have to keep your station also in 1.0 also then you can sell the dongles or boxes to your viewers until the tuners are in the tv's.

 

[baboonie]

P.S.
As for the local stations and diginets being relevent. Since with atsc 3.0 able to broadcast going down the road on a little antenna in a smartphone or tablet and being able to watch something free without subscribing to something you have to pay for like cable or streaming will definely keep them relevent and also with able to put more channels on the same channel and able to charge for some like running hbo over broadcast. ATSC 3.0 is the cable companies worst nightmare and they will do everything they can to put a dent into atsc 3.0