# The future of TV?



## jamelar

My local TV station, WOOD-TV8 (actual ch7) Grand Rapids, MI has been running promos about how local TV is in jeopardy if we don't contact congress now. The website advertised is http://www.thefutureoftv.org
After visiting the website, supported by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), I still can't figure what the threat is. I've tried searching the internet for opposing views or independent discussion but have come up empty.
So what is this really about? Auctioning off spectrum? Allowing viewers access to out of market stations (GASP!, like they have in Canada)?


----------



## RasputinAXP

I think it's auctioning off spectrum.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/122508

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...incentive_auctions_would_raise_big_bucks.html


----------



## phrelin

My, what a potential loss ... not. But I guess my opinion is that local broadcast channels ought to be thrown to the wolves - make it or break it on local programming, not national broadcast network programming that could be offered as cable channels.


----------



## Taltizer

All most all of our local stations have been running these ads also for sometime.There starting to wear the message out they want to get out put out.


----------



## Nick

The NAB spot is totally misleading and self-serving.

After the FCC takes away the broadcasters' excess spectrum, let's eliminate the DMA barriers.

*"DMA-Free TV for Everyone, Everywhere!"*​


----------



## trh

I'm immediately suspicious of any thing if the NAB supports it.


----------



## Jon Ellis

The NAB's concern is basically this:
1) The FCC insists any stations giving up spectrum would do so voluntarily...
2) But, they've also talked about reclaiming a fixed amount of spectrum. That can't be done without guaranteeing that a certain number of stations go off the air because there wouldn't be enough spectrum left to hold all of the existing stations in many markets, especially on the east coast where stations are close together.

The NAB is also concerned that stations could be forced to move to VHF, which has proven to be a bad place for digital broadcasting. It would appear that there wouldn't be much, if any, interest in buying the VHF frequencies through an auction because all of the engineers know it's a bad place for digital, so the FCC may force TV stations to go there instead.


----------



## kenglish

Nick said:


> The NAB spot is totally misleading and self-serving.
> 
> After the FCC takes away the broadcasters' excess spectrum, let's eliminate the DMA barriers.
> 
> *"DMA-Free TV for Everyone, Everywhere!"*​


Easy enough to do....just have the Government create one "National Station" that broadcasts exactly the same programming in every nook and cranny of the country. Get your local news via the daily paper, and your advertising by those paper circulars that come in the mail.

We could even vote on programming changes every November.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

kenglish, sounds like you've been studying the British.


----------



## harsh

Unless the NAB can show that they have plans for upwards of 40 frequencies per market, their argument is specious. They think they own the airwaves and it galls them that they can't get some sort of compensation.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

In this I agree. The people own the spectrum, the broadcasters are licensed to use it to benefit the public.


----------



## kenglish

Stuart Sweet said:


> In this I agree. The people own the spectrum, the broadcasters are licensed to use it to benefit the public.


Broadcasters are about the only folks who still use spectrum to benefit the public. Everybody else, if they have deep enough pockets, just buys spectrum and makes the rest of us pay big money to use any of it.
Once it's all sold off, it ain't coming back.


----------



## Jon Ellis

harsh said:


> Unless the NAB can show that they have plans for upwards of 40 frequencies per market, their argument is specious. They think they own the airwaves and it galls them that they can't get some sort of compensation.


Broadcasters don't want a payment from the government, they just want to be allowed to continue offering the free service they've provided for decades. Some in Washington want to take some of the frequencies currently used for free services and sell them to companies that will use them to offer subscription-only services.

I don't have a problem with selling off spectrum that is already vacant. But the fact is, in order to reclaim 20 channels, they will need some stations to go off the air in many markets.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Jon Ellis said:


> Broadcasters don't want a payment from the government, they just want to be allowed to continue offering the free service they've provided for decades. Some in Washington want to take some of the frequencies currently used for free services and sell them to companies that will use them to offer subscription-only services.
> 
> I don't have a problem with selling off spectrum that is already vacant. But the fact is, in order to reclaim 20 channels, they will need some stations to go off the air in many markets.


Well In Chicago WGN and WCIU will need both stay on air cover the wgn sports games. They may be able to pick the slack by dumping all CW shows on WGN.

CSN will hard pressed to pick up the slack with out ending useing cltv for the / CSN + slot and then they will need to add CSN + 2 HD and CSN + 3 sd / HD.

Or WGN can put some games on CLTV as wgn games but will force CSN + to stop useing the CLTV slot and force RCN and comcast to add CLTV HD and force dish , directv, wow!, att-uverse to add CLTV SD / HD. In past they tried putting some wgn cubs games on cltv in the past when it was cable only and not on all area systems and that failed big time and the game ended up on FSN Chicago / FSN Chicago + that was on CLTV (as cables systems used CLTV for the FSN + slot) but being FSN + it was on many more systems.


----------



## Terry K

Jon Ellis said:


> Broadcasters don't want a payment from the government, they just want to be allowed to continue offering the free service they've provided for decades. Some in Washington want to take some of the frequencies currently used for free services and sell them to companies that will use them to offer subscription-only services.
> 
> I don't have a problem with selling off spectrum that is already vacant. But the fact is, in order to reclaim 20 channels, they will need some stations to go off the air in many markets.


They no longer offer a 'free' service when they extort cable operators for money and do not bother to go on useful frequencies. I have a rather worthless CBS affiliate in my market on VHF and they REFUSED to go on UHF where people could get them, instead opting for 'get cable or satellite'.


----------



## kenglish

Why can Cable Networks "extort" money from Cable operators, but broadcasters can't.
(Oh, yeah, "They get free spectrum"...in exchange for tons of payments to the government, free public service, etc excuse.... )
But, besides that, the Cable companies use the locals to make money. The top rated Cable network show in a given week will often not have the same rating as the #10 show on the commercial nets.
So, Cable needs broadcasters just as much as broadcasters need Cable.


----------



## Jon Ellis

Terry K said:


> They no longer offer a 'free' service when they extort cable operators for money and do not bother to go on useful frequencies. I have a rather worthless CBS affiliate in my market on VHF and they REFUSED to go on UHF where people could get them, instead opting for 'get cable or satellite'.


Well, the FCC might force some stations to go on those "useless" VHF low frequencies because no one else wants them. They can't auction them off because they're no good for anything digital, so they'll force TV stations to go there instead with the idea that at least they'll maintain their must-carry rights and theoretically, someone might be able to pick them up.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

The NAB received a HUGE Christmas present over the last two weeks, as PayTv providers reported dismal subscriber counts.

The NAB will argue, correctly, that for the first time ever, there was a Y/Y decrease in households subscribing to PayTv, and more are depending on OTA.

Personally, I'm with the NAB. The government is trying to secure the OTA frequencies and repurpose them for mobile broadband. I believe that there are too many families who would be completely screwed if this happened, as they depend on OTA tv, and moreso today, as families pull the PayTv plug.


----------



## Terry K

Jon Ellis said:


> Well, the FCC might force some stations to go on those "useless" VHF low frequencies because no one else wants them. They can't auction them off because they're no good for anything digital, so they'll force TV stations to go there instead with the idea that at least they'll maintain their must-carry rights and theoretically, someone might be able to pick them up.


In my market, FOX is on a station that HAS NO TRANSMITTER and has NO intention of getting one. When asked about this, they tell their viewers to get cable or satellite. They got FOX from a station people could actually get and the owners wouldn't share their retrans money, so FOX *chose* to go to a station that does retrans extortion. Screw 'em. I have alternatives to KRBK, and I will use 'em.

CBS is the same way. They're on a worthless VHF that NO ONE can get. And its on Channel 10, a HIGH VHF. They did so because they wanted to get those retrans dollars, and little else.

Must-Carry? No station with a network affiliation goes for must-carry, they go for retrans. Only religious stations and PBS go for must-carry.


----------



## kenglish

Terry K said:


> In my market, FOX is on a station that HAS NO TRANSMITTER and has NO intention of getting one. When asked about this, they tell their viewers to get cable or satellite. They got FOX from a station people could actually get and the owners wouldn't share their retrans money, so FOX *chose* to go to a station that does retrans extortion. Screw 'em. I have alternatives to KRBK, and I will use 'em.
> 
> CBS is the same way. They're on a worthless VHF that NO ONE can get. And its on Channel 10, a HIGH VHF. They did so because they wanted to get those retrans dollars, and little else.
> 
> Must-Carry? No station with a network affiliation goes for must-carry, they go for retrans. Only religious stations and PBS go for must-carry.


I don't know where you're getting your info, but it looks like KRBK is working on a complete re-build, including a new, high-power transmitter site, new studio facilities, HDTV and the whole bit. They plan to be on the air September 1, according to their website. Those kinds of things are possible when a station goes from MyTV to a (major) FOX affiliation.

As for CBS on Channel 10...how do you know that a High VHF channel is "worthless" and that "no one" can get it? What antennas have you tried? Is it indoors, or rooftop? Are you using an amplifier? How close are you to the transmitter, or to any TV or FM transmitters of other stations?
It takes a little effort to get VHF, thanks to the interference problems caused by modern day electronic devices. But, stations do not choose VHF channels to spite their viewers, or to "extort" money.


----------



## harsh

kenglish said:


> As for CBS on Channel 10...how do you know that a High VHF channel is "worthless" and that "no one" can get it?


Where I'm located, there are stations within 60 miles digitally broadcasting (successfully) on channels 5,7, 9 and 10.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> Where I'm located, there are stations within 60 miles digitally broadcasting (successfully) on channels 5,7, 9 and 10.


Where you are located, you dont have major lightning storms that totally f*ck up the signal and cause all sorts of problems, nor do you have tropospheric skip that totally wipes out any signal on channels 2-6 every evening.

I am sure those channels are fine if you are in an area without major electrical storms, or other stations within 250 miles on the same channel. If not, they are pretty worthless.


----------



## brant

phrelin said:


> My, what a potential loss ... not. But I guess my opinion is that local broadcast channels ought to be thrown to the wolves - make it or break it on local programming, not national broadcast network programming that could be offered as cable channels.


don't forget about the rest of us who don't have cable or satellite.

we rely on our antenna for programming at my house. i may have been inclined to agree with you a few years ago, but since cutting the cord i would hate to lose my OTA stations.

to me, cable tv is no longer worth the cost. using windows media center as a dvr, we find plenty of free programming to watch from our local stations.


----------



## harsh

brant said:


> using windows media center as a dvr, we find plenty of free programming to watch from our local stations.


Isn't the point finding worthwhile programming? For the last three months, that's been relatively rare on OTA in my DMA.


----------



## brant

harsh said:


> Isn't the point finding worthwhile programming? For the last three months, that's been relatively rare on OTA in my DMA.


but not on mine. we have lots of good programming.

and for those without cable/sat, it really doesn't matter. its antenna or nothing.


----------



## Glen_D

harsh said:


> Isn't the point finding worthwhile programming? For the last three months, that's been relatively rare on OTA in my DMA.





brant said:


> but not on mine. we have lots of good programming.
> 
> and for those without cable/sat, it really doesn't matter. its antenna or nothing.


I'm guessing there is a greater market-to-market variance in what is offered OTA since the digital switchover vs. before.

In the analog days, most markets, even small markets, had the major alphabet network affiliates. Larger markets usually added affiliates like ION, CW, MYN, Univision, Telemundo, etc. Now, with the introduction of digital subchannels, offerings can vary quite a bit from one market to another. Some markets have lots of subchannels. Others, only a few. Some local full-power digital network affilates may not offer any subchannels, others may offer several.


----------

