HYPOTHETICAL SPECULATION: What if the major Networks left OTA and went to cable?

First, a disclaimer. We know that ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the other little networks aren't going to pull the plug totally on feeding their product through Over-The-Air broadcast stations, at least not any time soon. This is purely speculation about what might happen if they actually did do that.

The OTA broadcast stations would still be on the air, capable of transmitting signals. What would the stations do to find content to air? What would that impact the content production companies, like the various studios and production companies that product content for the networks?

Would OTA stations start broadcasting local content? Would there be an increase in the availability of syndicated programming? Would stations go dark? Would the FCC throw the broadcasters a bone to help them compete with cable by loosening up the content restrictions? Would local stations start looking like YouTube feeds, with semi-amateur local content like this?

What do you see the landscape of television looking like if the big networks (and maybe even the little ones) shift their content over to cable?

I think a few stations would survive and several would go dark in each market. And I don't think your speculation is all that far-fetched. The stations survived Aereo, but they're not going to survive the economics of network programming: It's more efficient for nets to take their programming straight to cable, where they can demand and get subscriber fees every month. It's hard to compete for programming with a cable network that can turn a profit with half the audience of what a broadcast network needs. It won't happen overnight, but I think it will start to happen.

Same goes for any syndicated programming: if you want a national audience, why do you want to deal with 200+ local stations and give up some of your ad time to the stations when you can go straight to cable/satellite and cut out the middle man?

The FCC's already encouraging stations to give up their licenses to make room for other services. If the FCC sweetens the pot a bit, we might start seeing some of the nets move to cable a little sooner.

I've written about what some local TV stations can do to survive.
http://localmediareboot.wordpress.com/

The other side of this discussion is what is the breaking point for consumer monthly bills? Because let's face it: Cable won't be getting cheaper. Content costs are rising, and those get passed on to the consumer. You have the FCC wanting to allow telecom/cable to charge more for faster broadband. And mucking up the landscape is the possibility of more mergers, with more consolidation, more debt, and increased fees. When the FCC and Congress approved digital TV, there was talk of local stations programming cable-like channels on their various sub-channels. Those channels exist right now, but the programming is fairly sub-par. NBC is offering some programming for its O&Os. There are some "digital networks." Perhaps that's the future: As cable becomes more expensive and more congested, up & coming digital TV companies create content for OTA. Then once again, it's up to consumers to decide how much is too much.

newsmark said:

The stations survived Aereo

Click to expand...

You mean the networks (not the stations) ganged up and took Aereo out like the mobsters they are.

The most likely scenario is that everything goes online. Transmitters get turned off, cable starts dying out in and of itself, and all the content producers turn their focus to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and/or start up new services. The fact that anyone still thinks cable is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow says more about the people thinking that and less about the medium itself. That's not where the future lies.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

You mean the networks (not the stations) ganged up and took Aereo out like the mobsters they are.

The most likely scenario is that everything goes online. Transmitters get turned off, cable starts dying out in and of itself, and all the content producers turn their focus to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and/or start up new services. The fact that anyone still thinks cable is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow says more about the people thinking that and less about the medium itself. That's not where the future lies.

Click to expand...

For the sake of this speculation, can we just accept that "cable" means "wire", and covers CATV as well as broadband internet and any other technology that isn't OTA broadcasting?

Avid Listener said:

For the sake of this speculation, can we just accept that "cable" means "wire", and covers CATV as well as broadband internet and any other technology that isn't OTA broadcasting?

Click to expand...

You could, but it would be short-lived. Fiber is the next wave, and unless the cable companies jump on it (and they're not, they've been trying to fight it), they're just as screwed as OTA television is.

TheBigA said:

The other side of this discussion is what is the breaking point for consumer monthly bills? Because let's face it: Cable won't be getting cheaper.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Isn't the pendulum swinging the other direction? After reading a lot of articles about how millenials are "cutting the cord" and going with over-the-air supplemented with Netflix, that's exactly what we did. I think a lot of older people still think of OTA as rabbit ears and fuzzy pictures. With digital TV, OTA offers a better picture than cable. We're saving $120/month and still have more video than we have time for. I had to convince my wife but now even she is completely on board.

SaltyDog said:

With digital TV, OTA offers a better picture than cable.

Click to expand...

That is only true if you live in an area where you can actually pull in a usable OTA signal. I know some older people who have tried to cut the cord but they can't because digital OTA does not have a strong enough signal where they live. In the "old days" you could pull in a weak analog signal and still be able to watch TV. With digital, the coverage areas for many TV stations have really shrunk because people in fringe areas can't get a strong enough signal to decode the digital picture, so they get nothing at all.

Avid Listener said:

For the sake of this speculation, can we just accept that "cable" means "wire", and covers CATV as well as broadband internet and any other technology that isn't OTA broadcasting?

Click to expand...

With one part of the government telling Aereo that it's a cable company and another part telling them that they aren't, I'd prefer to continue to be very precise and specific about exactly to what one refers.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

You could, but it would be short-lived. Fiber is the next wave, and unless the cable companies jump on it (and they're not, they've been trying to fight it), they're just as screwed as OTA television is.

Click to expand...

ARRRGGHHH!!!!!!!!

So could we just accept that "cable" refers to all cord-like physical transmission media other than radio waves sent over the air?

unitron said:

With one part of the government telling Aereo that it's a cable company and another part telling them that they aren't, I'd prefer to continue to be very precise and specific about exactly to what one refers.

Click to expand...

I'm referring to ALL TRANSMISSION MEDIA OTHER THAN TRADITIONAL OVER THE AIR BROADCASTING.

Could you two possibly be a bigger pedantic nit-pickers?

The real issue is not "wired" (cable, fibre, satellite or Internet) vs. "wireless" (OTA). It's broadcast vs. on-demand. Will "networks" (traditional terrestrial networks - even if they move exclusively to cable - or cable networks) continue to "program" fixed schedules - or will they become like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu (among others) and offer a menu of shows on-demand?

Time shifting on VCRs and then DVRs was beginning of the end of the broadcast model. Now with on-demand, the decline is accelerating. We are nearing the end of gate-keepers and their traditional role. And of programmers who pick programs and set schedules and have their jobs based on their ability to guess what will attract viewers.

We are also into the area of long-tail video - more and more shows, each watched by fewer and fewer viewers. Amazon has already done this with publishing. It will happen to "TV," as well. The era of the great national campfire has already ended.

The means of distribution is a secondary issue. OTA is already obsolete and there are far better ways to use the spectrum.

PS: "Hypothetical speculation" is redundant. All speculation is hypothetical. All hypotheses are speculative.

ansky212 said:

That is only true if you live in an area where you can actually pull in a usable OTA signal. I know some older people who have tried to cut the cord but they can't because digital OTA does not have a strong enough signal where they live. In the "old days" you could pull in a weak analog signal and still be able to watch TV. With digital, the coverage areas for many TV stations have really shrunk because people in fringe areas can't get a strong enough signal to decode the digital picture, so they get nothing at all.

Click to expand...

Well, sure you have to be able to get a signal, but that would be what percent of the population? 80? I don't know but I do know most of the U.S. population is clustered in large MSA's. I live almost 60 miles from the ABC affiliate and with a good antenna, I am able to get it beautifully. I didn't even have to take the step of putting it outside. It's in my attic. I plugged it into an amped splitter and it is pushed out to all 4 of our TV's. I definitely qualify as "older" and I'm no engineer. It just took a little reading (TVFool.com is an excellent resource) and a little money. $150 at list price (I paid $100) for the antenna, I used the existing cable in my house and the distribution amp and coax extension was another $60.

The idea that "older" people don't understand technology is overdone in my experience. It seems more a function of education. Everyone I know is reasonably technically adept and not one of my neighbors is under 50, but they're all smart and educated in some field, not necessarily technical.

Avid Listener said:

So could we just accept that "cable" refers to all cord-like physical transmission media other than radio waves sent over the air?

Click to expand...

Fred summed it up perfectly: it's not truly about transmission method, it's about the way one accesses the content. On-demand, online viewing will continue to gain the upper hand as programmed broadcasts lose viewership. That relates directly to the method of transmission. OTA television is not capable of on-demand programming, so it will quickly become obsolete. Cable television offers on-demand through digital methods, but only select movies and programming. That could hypothetically change, but even if it did, the Internet would still offer far more choices for much less money. Fiber-optic broadband is the next major connection method. It will soon supplant cable broadband as the standard. That has to be taken into account, you can't just lump all transmission other than over-the-air broadcasting together and claim that it's going to survive as a whole, because they're not at all the same thing.

Besides, we were challenged to present our hypothetical scenarios. I'm presenting mine, based on the realities of the situation. If you don't like the way I'm presenting it, that's fine, but there's no need to get all aggravated about it.

Avid Listener said:

Could you two possibly be a bigger pedantic nit-pickers?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure we could be

OTA broadcasters are going to wind up being datacasters, sending TV programs, the most popular movies and other popular content to DVR subscribers without limitations or costs that may be imposed by a connected network. And I don't know if there's enough common, popular content to haul OTA to ensure the survival of all of the current TV stations.

I am genuinely amazed that all comment so far are about the technology of content transmission, with not a single word about content.

Most people I know are more interested in which shows they can see than they are with what technology gets them the shows. I don't much care how the content gets onto my screen. I care a great deal about what content there is.

I wouldn't spend a dime to watch Big Brother, or The Bachelor. I would pay extra for a filter that would keep everything about the Kardashian sluts off of my TV and computer screen.

Regardless of what technologies might come to dominate the distribution of content, what impact would there be on the actual content of OTA broadcast stations? What would they put on the air?

Avid Listener said:

Regardless of what technologies might come to dominate the distribution of content, what impact would there be on the actual content of OTA broadcast stations? What would they put on the air?

Click to expand...

That's the point. OTA stations are tied to fixed-schedule broadcasting. When it becomes obsolete, they are obsolete. On demand content is whatever the viewer wants.

Scripted comedies, dramas, and action-adventure shows don't just spring forth fully formed. It takes some concerted effort to produce even a half-hour sitcom. If the paradigm shifts to "on demand" programming, how will that impact the business of producing top-notch content? Currently, there are a few TV series created specifically for on demand programming. Some are reputed to be very good. Others, not so much. Where will new content come from if the major OTA networks switch their distribution over to on demand? How will the new content be funded?