Media bigwigs declare that free TV "is broken"
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Aug 9th 2009 7:59PM
posted Aug 9th 2009 7:59PM
Welcome to the party friends! Not sure why it took you so long to realize that DVRs were going to break your model, but we're glad you finally made it. Both News Corp. COO Chase Carey and NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker have recently voiced their concerns about broadcast TV as we know it. The good news boys is that now that you have your head out of the sand, you can start looking at new ways to use technology to reach your real customers -- as opposed to selling content via a middle man. We don't see broadcast TV going away though, in fact we think we will actually see more live events make their way back to broadcast TV -- since live events are relatively DVR proof -- while at the same time, scripted content will find a new home. So do us a favor and start offering subscriptions directly to us and we'll help turn the cable companies into bit providers before they know what hit 'em.
So I have to pay for Satellite TV or Cable and then I'm in effect charged again, by having to put up with commercials... Sounds like DVRs have leveled the playing field a bit.
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the subscription pays for all the content in the subscription. It really only pays for the conduit, not so much the content unless you are subscribing to premium channels like HBO.
Not only that, this article is about OTA TV.
It may be a misnomer, but it was what we were told when cable TV first got off the ground. It didn't take long (nearly instant) before cable TV was full of commercials. Heck, we were quickly introduced to shopping channels.
Speaking of infomercials, that's probably my biggest problem with ota television. On the weekends, it hard to find an actual show with the infomercial saturation.
And let's not forget those scrolling adverts that obscure the lower half of the screen during the actual show. I love not being able to see what the hell I'm watching.
Replying to n_shakuras about the lower thirds..
I HATE those uber-animated lower third ads because they completely distract you from the show and typically cover up something that is important to the show you're watching. Freaking HATE IT.
And they do something about as bad on kids tv too. All the time on nick jr and others they have a channel bug so large that it covers over the object that the show is talking about. Where's the education level then? huh? HUH!?!
I wish there were an option to pay for commercial free - bug free tv.
Why should anyone trust someone with a mustache like that?
He was great in Deadwood...
These guys wonder why DVRs are popular, maybe because of all the stinkin commercials. Too bad the FCC can't regulate how many commercials could happen. I'd only allow two blocks a half hour 3 minutes maximum. You'd at least have 80% content 20% ads.
Yep, most 1 hour programs follow the 3/4 rule. 3/4 of the slot is the program while the other 1/4 is commercial time. It's totally friggin ridiculous.
How much are people willing to pay for content without commercials?
I think if you cut out the middle man, consumers could pay a little less than they do now and skip the commercials. It is all the layers in the middle that add all the costs. And no I don't feel bad for the cable operators, let them make money selling dumb pipes.
I think it could get frustrating to subscribe to individual networks. I don't need 10+ TV bills and customer service departments, 1 is plenty. What WOULD be nice is if the cable companies let you pick your lineup a la carte for every channel/network rather than having a required baseline (most of which is crap or available free OTA) plus premium packages each of which includes a ton of channels only one or two of which any given customer cares about. Paying for one's desired channels/networks would be paying for the content, not just the delivery, which in turn would mean that the content would be delivered commercial-free, and I still only have one bill that's merely itemized.
I guess for live events hitting pause for 5 minutes and then skipping the commercials doesn't count.
Did you all catch the TV Guide listing of what all the TV stars we know so well make? Or the kind of money thrown around at all the big media companies?
Do you REALLY want to pay for each episode so the actors can all make what you and I make in 20 years in 2 weeks? Or to insure some network big wig gets his 5 million dollar bonus on top of half a mil salary and about 2 million in expenses?
A lot of you guys don't understand how this works. Cable co.'s no longer make money off what you pay for the channels. Broadcasters realized cable and sat. companies need them and began charging more to let them carry their channels. They make their money on the dvr fee, service calls, pay per views, internet, phone, that stuff. If you're paying $80 for channels that goes to the broadcasters. They're not giving that up anytime soon.
Why do you think they're not jumping to get hulu on the tv? because they can't make enough on the adds to match what they get on TV adds and subscription fees.
"-- as [b]apposed[/b] to selling content via a middle man"
WTF is "apposed"? Did you mean [b]opposed[/b]?
Seriously, you don't support codes?
Wait! Live and scripted TV was REAL?! They're not just fantastic stories passed down through the ages by our ancestors? There were other shows besides American Idol, American Idol Results Show, American Idol Rewind, America's Got Talent, Deal or No Deal, and infomercials? That must have been a wonderful time to be alive!
Wait! Live and scripted TV was REAL?! They're not just fantastic stories passed down through the ages by our ancestors? There were other shows besides American Idol, American Idol Results Show, American Idol Rewind, America's Got Talent, Deal or No Deal, and infomercials? That must have been a wonderful time to be alive!
DVR's have ruin TV. I love recording shows but since no one is watching TV live a lot of good shows like Dirty, Sexy, Money were canceled.
Live sporting events are going to have to return to broadcast TV before any sizable quantity of sports fans will drop pay TV. I remember when the bulk of the games for my local baseball team were broadcast OTA. Now, all but 27 games this season are on Fox Sports. Next year that number goes down to 25. The MLB.tv integration with Boxee and Roku might move some out of market fans but in-market viewers are stuck with the current arrangement. Frankly, for the amount of money I spend on pay TV, I could build an amazing whole house entertainment system on top of nothing but streaming or downloaded/rented content if not for the lack of one particular team's baseball games.
Of course, there's still the simplicity of it all. I pay one flat rate per month and get as much television as I can stand going into my TiVo HD. This setup Just Works(tm). I'm not doing software updates, hoping a rigged system doesn't break or having my Internet connection throttled. Maybe the fee is worth it for a reliable system supported by someone that's not me?
Ahhh, Americans needs less TV and need to read more books.
Over-The-Air, Free Broadcast DTV is GOOD
Here in Spokane, Wa, I receive a lot of FREE OTA, including 8 PBS stations.
I use an outdoor antenna, mounted on a rotator which is controlled by a box next to my chair.
The cost of the entire antenna setup, sourced via salvage and Craigslist, was about $50.
I have an older Phillips CRT 'HD Ready' TV, 32", which I feed by either my Panasonic DVD recorder (with ATSC tuner, HDMI and Component-out) or, a Philco 'set-top box' DTV converter (stereo audio/composite out).
I can watch all of the OTA networks, esp PBS, and record to VHS or DVD as I choose.
I also have a 'mute' button.
I eschew 'corporate sports' and so I do not miss that coverage. I also do not pay any fees or charges for cable, satellite, etc.
It took me about 6 mos of casual shopping and 'labor' to assemble the above system, which BTW feeds its audio to a powerful 'home theater' system for my listening pleasure.
I read the parent article here, and immediately, this (imperfect analogy) came to mind; the fatcats of the Ag industries, sitting around discussing the 'hazards and impracticality' of home or community gardening. I have already seen evidence of this truly bad sort of thinking, which is designed to scoot all of us along to the exclusive use of GMO seeds, toxic pesticides, etc.
If there is a money-stream, those clever types will find a way to interpose themselves into it in order to capture a 'share' of it. I am surprised that we do not already have 'commercials-in-commercials'. If the fatcats want to propagate the idea that somehow, free OTA broadcast TV is 'bad' or 'inefficient', they will feel my wrath.
Think of the mighty rivers here in North America; each has been dammed so many times that the inherent energy of 'falling water' has been effectively extracted in total, at the loss of bio habitat, etc. Any time there is a good, free thing, the fatcats will try to capture profits from it, in the name of (insert 'cause' here).
I am surprised that we have not yet been saddled with a 'breathing tax', or 'warm living body tax' or fee. I am not against 'taxes' but I am very much against 'middlemen' exploiting and wringing out every last possible penny from every single downstream 'user', be it by TV distros or ISP 'charging what the market will bear'.
To make something expensive, make it scarce; make it scarce, by making it expensive.
THAT is the 'secret formula' for media/internet signal distribution.
End of rant.
==GP==