The next big battle

[Mr Peabody]

15 or 20% of the population is a big number to cut programming to and I wonder how many of that percent could afford cable/satelite if they wanted it or was left with that as an only alternative.

This almost sounds like another housing melt down but for TV broadcasters. TV started with OTA it would be weird not to have it around and to fall back on.

[Woochifer]

15 or 20% of the population is a big number to cut programming to and I wonder how many of that percent could afford cable/satelite if they wanted it or was left with that as an only alternative.

Nearly every cable system has some sort of "lifeline" service that replicates the OTA channel selection for less than $20/month (my parents pay $13/month for their service). People who don't subscribe to cable or satellite generally do so because they choose to.

I still only use OTA but do not watch too many shows. Most of them I can watch over the internet the next day. Here is a website I just heard about yesterday on NPR which helps you find over the net alternatives for cable-sat.
http://www.cancelyourcable.com/

That puts you way in the minority. Internet TV viewing gets a lot of hype and a lot of hits, but it doesn't sustain long-term viewership. The average viewer will watch TV for multiple hours a day, but online video viewership averages only a few minutes a day. The simple reality is that most people don't like watching TV on computers and don't have or want their TV networked.

The OTA broadcast networks have been moving more towards live programming and unscripted programs because those show create instant demand and their shelf life has already expired by the next day when people talk about it over the water coolers. People who watch stuff like sports or reality TV or American Idol will not wait until the following day. Despite the advent of the internet and DVRs and VCRs and other time shifting devices, over 70% of TV viewing is still in real time. And it's that need for immediate gratification that will keep broadcasters viable at least for the near future.

This is seriously screwed up if they do push this through in the near future after making millions of people buy converter boxes while knowing all along they would be useless in a year or two for those using OTA.

I doubt that OTA signals will be going anywhere for at least a decade, certainly not "in a year or two."

[Hyfi]

Nearly every cable system has some sort of "lifeline" service that replicates the OTA channel selection for less than $20/month (my parents pay $13/month for their service). People who don't subscribe to cable or satellite generally do so because they choose to.



That puts you way in the minority. Internet TV viewing gets a lot of hype and a lot of hits, but it doesn't sustain long-term viewership. The average viewer will watch TV for multiple hours a day, but online video viewership averages only a few minutes a day. The simple reality is that most people don't like watching TV on computers and don't have or want their TV networked.

The OTA broadcast networks have been moving more towards live programming and unscripted programs because those show create instant demand and their shelf life has already expired by the next day when people talk about it over the water coolers. People who watch stuff like sports or reality TV or American Idol will not wait until the following day. Despite the advent of the internet and DVRs and VCRs and other time shifting devices, over 70% of TV viewing is still in real time. And it's that need for immediate gratification that will keep broadcasters viable at least for the near future.



I doubt that OTA signals will be going anywhere for at least a decade, certainly not "in a year or two."

Points taken. My personal opinion is that people who hang on every episode of American Idol or any other so called reality show should look into getting a life of their own. Sports on the other hand is a different story due to betting and all the people who live in Fantasy Land.