OK, so WHO is lying?

[sam_gordon]

Point is it isn't as easy to get OTA as you are saying.

Please find a post of mine saying that it's easy for everyone to get OTA.

I do agree you can't just go by how many antennas you see, but even taking into consideration there are many who could get OTA, there are many many more who couldn't, or it would be a major hassle to do it,

You don't have any facts to back that statement up. At the same time I don't have any facts that say those who can get OTA outnumber those who can't.

and thus the affiliates/networks are at least as dependent on Satellite as Satellite is on them.

I've been saying that for years. I'm glad you agree.

A problem for the Networks however, their viewership has slipped quite alot. As opposed to 10 years ago, I think alot more people could live without the Networks, because of the better (in some cases) and more Cable programming. Keep giving the product for free via the internet as many Network programs are the next day, and why even bother with an OTA antenna...

Why bother with OTA? Maybe because not everyone has a good enough internet connection to stream the shows? Maybe because some viewers rely on their locals for things NOT provided by the Networks (ie: news & weather). Just because you don't think things are worth watching doesn't mean the entire public feels the same way.

If OTA wasn't such a big deal, why does Charlie (or D* or cable) not just say "screw you, we're not carrying you even if you gave it to us for free"? The bottom line is broadcasters & satcos/cablecos need each other. Neither one really has the upper hand. And no one on here can say who "caved" or "crawled back" after a disagreement.

 

[budda]

Why bother with OTA? Maybe because not everyone has a good enough internet connection to stream the shows? Maybe because some viewers rely on their locals for things NOT provided by the Networks (ie: news & weather). Just because you don't think things are worth watching doesn't mean the entire public feels the same way.

If OTA wasn't such a big deal, why does Charlie (or D* or cable) not just say "screw you, we're not carrying you even if you gave it to us for free"? The bottom line is broadcasters & satcos/cablecos need each other. Neither one really has the upper hand. And no one on here can say who "caved" or "crawled back" after a disagreement.[/QUOTE]

Direct and Dish can't say screw you they have to offer locals, it's a law. It has to be made available. Not sure of time tables for disputes. But just walking away, they can't and won't do that. Also I know we don't think of it this way. But it's not just a, good enough internet connection to stream. Believe it or not. A lot of people have no internet connection. JMO

 

[sam_gordon]

Direct and Dish can't say screw you they have to offer locals, it's a law. It has to be made available. Not sure of time tables for disputes. But just walking away, they can't and won't do that. Also I know we don't think of it this way. But it's not just a, good enough internet connection to stream. Believe it or not. A lot of people have no internet connection. JMO

I'm pretty sure the law says the LOCAL BROADCASTER chooses "Must Carry" (where the provider must carry them, but the broadcaster can't charge for being carried) or "Retransmission Agreement" (where the satco & broadcaster must reach an agreement before carriage). So if a station elects "Retrans", the satco can just say "we'll pay you .01/subscriber" and not budge. I don't believe there's a law that says an agreement has to be met within 'x' days.

And yes, I would consider "no internet connection" to be "not good enough". LOL.

 

[Scherrman]

Wanna bet?...Pull up a map of television transmitter locations. Tell me how convenient it looks.
In my DMA there are transmitters to the northeast, north. west and south west of here. The range is from 15 miles to 30 miles distant. Now, this is DMA covers over 15 counties stretching from Ashe County in the NC mountains to Chesterfield County, Sc in the coastal plain. To give you an idea how big this DMA is, to drive from Cheraw, SC up to Jefferson, NC you cover roughly 200 miles which according to mapquest will take about 4 hours.
Fully a third of the DMA has virtually no reception.

I would say it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people within a 60 mile radius of a transmitter are able to receive OTA with an antenna. The area I live in can receive plenty of OTA channels but I'd have to say only 20-30% of them have antennas. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are more people who have OTA available to them but do not take advantage of it compared to people who do not have it available to them.

 

[KAB]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are more people who have OTA available to them but do not take advantage of it compared to people who do not have it available to them.

That's not going out on a limb at all. It's a safe bet.

 

[mike123abc]

I'm pretty sure the law says the LOCAL BROADCASTER chooses "Must Carry" (where the provider must carry them, but the broadcaster can't charge for being carried) or "Retransmission Agreement" (where the satco & broadcaster must reach an agreement before carriage). So if a station elects "Retrans", the satco can just say "we'll pay you .01/subscriber" and not budge. I don't believe there's a law that says an agreement has to be met within 'x' days.

And yes, I would consider "no internet connection" to be "not good enough". LOL.

Which is why only the big 4 tend to demand money.

 

[sam_gordon]

Which is why only the big 4 tend to demand money.

Really? Only the "Big 4" tend to demand money? What about ESPN? USA? MTV?

I'm guessing none of the Big 4 are demanding as much money as ESPN charges. There used to be a rate chart somewhere... I'll see if I can find it.

 

[mike123abc]

Really? Only the "Big 4" tend to demand money? What about ESPN? USA? MTV?

I'm guessing none of the Big 4 are demanding as much money as ESPN charges. There used to be a rate chart somewhere... I'll see if I can find it.

Those are not local stations. The discussion was about local channels.

 

[Teehar]

I would say it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people within a 60 mile radius of a transmitter are able to receive OTA with an antenna. The area I live in can receive plenty of OTA channels but I'd have to say only 20-30% of them have antennas. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are more people who have OTA available to them but do not take advantage of it compared to people who do not have it available to them.

While I don't have a clue on the percentages,I do know from experience,living in mountainous terrain can make getting ota next to impossible.The only exceptions are if you live on the tops of the mountains.We're fortunate where we live,drive down the road 1/4 mile and there is no signal to be had.

 

[budda]

I had to look this up. There is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda! So here ya go. Long read but it spells it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

 

[stardust3]

OTA is much bigger than anyone gives credit for. According to the NAB http://www.nab.org/television/ there are more than 1700 local tv stations in this country.

Many here can attest to the fact the only tv they had at some point was ota. It's been here longer than cable or satellite.

Another interesting point is:

In fact, during the 2011-12 television season, broadcast programming dominated the primetime program rankings, accounting for 96 of the top 100 programs

http://www.nab.org/advocacy/issue.asp?id=1891&issueid=1008

To add to that we all remember the digital transition & all the hype. There had to be more ota users than meets the eye.

Another fact:

More than 60 million converter box coupons were requested from the government and 30 million digital television sets were purchased in 2008 alone.

http://www.nab.org/television/innovation.asp

 

[sam_gordon]

Those are not local stations. The discussion was about local channels.

OK. Then my guess on why "non Big 4" locals don't demand money (and do we know they don't?) is because they need the coverage more than sat & cablecos need them.

 

[sam_gordon]

While I don't have a clue on the percentages,I do know from experience,living in mountainous terrain can make getting ota next to impossible.The only exceptions are if you live on the tops of the mountains.We're fortunate where we live,drive down the road 1/4 mile and there is no signal to be had.

I don't think anyone doubts there are people who can't get OTA. The question (at least what I've been discussing) is whether those who CAN'T get OTA outnumber those who CAN (whether they do or not). Just because someone elects not to receive OTA (no matter what antenna it requires) doesn't mean they can't get it.

 

[Tampa8]

Well said.

 

[Teehar]

I don't think anyone doubts there are people who can't get OTA. The question (at least what I've been discussing) is whether those who CAN'T get OTA outnumber those who CAN (whether they do or not). Just because someone elects not to receive OTA (no matter what antenna it requires) doesn't mean they can't get it.

I would think that those who could,outnumber those who couldn't.That said,with the digital transition,the gap would almost certainly have narrowed.

 

[mike123abc]

I don't think anyone doubts there are people who can't get OTA. The question (at least what I've been discussing) is whether those who CAN'T get OTA outnumber those who CAN (whether they do or not). Just because someone elects not to receive OTA (no matter what antenna it requires) doesn't mean they can't get it.

Considering most people live in cities, most people probably could get OTA. But, these people probably also have the luxury of several providers (like FIOS/Uverse/Cable/Sattellite/etc) to choose from. The rural homes with just satellite are probably limited on OTA. The people that have the least choice are probably the ones with out OTA.

 

[sam_gordon]

Considering most people live in cities, most people probably could get OTA. But, these people probably also have the luxury of several providers (like FIOS/Uverse/Cable/Sattellite/etc) to choose from. The rural homes with just satellite are probably limited on OTA. The people that have the least choice are probably the ones with out OTA.

Agree. And while satcos do help local broadcasters get into homes they wouldn't normally be able to get to, I feel that's a small percentage of a local broadcasters audience/ratings. People comment on here all the time when the subject comes up how the ratings will drop like a stone if the local station isn't carried. I'm not buying it.