Do local broadcasters care whether I watch their show OTA or on cable?

With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

On 10/29/10 PDT 7:12 PM, NadCixelsyd wrote:
With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

No. Quite the opposite.

NadCixelsyd wrote:

With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming.

Because they (Cablevision) make a profit re-selling it to the consumer.

In article [email protected]
26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...

With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

The broadcasters love it because it is GUARANTEED money. They get paid
even if NOBODY watches.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the broadcasters (probably Fox) ceases
OTA broadcasting of NETWORK programming. That doesn't mean shutting down
their O&O transmitters, just NOT airing network programming. Instead,
antenna users would get alternate programming. They would probably try
to push affiliates to do the same, except in remote areas.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.comcast.net/~andyross

Per NadCixelsyd:
Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

Being possibly the only person in Chester County (Penna, USA)
without cable, I sure hope not.

OTOH, I made a conscious decision not to include either MSNBC or
FOX in my information stream.

The rationale being that people only have so much capacity for
taking in information - and watching a channel that is basically
a 24-7 infomercial for one extreme or the other takes up so much
of that bandwidth that it excludes more balanced views.
--
PeteCresswell

John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/29/10 PDT 7:12 PM, NadCixelsyd wrote:
With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

No. Quite the opposite.



Why? I know at least one PBS station that has done that.

On 10/30/10 PDT 8:28 AM, RickMerrill wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
On 10/29/10 PDT 7:12 PM, NadCixelsyd wrote:
With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

No. Quite the opposite.


Why? I know at least one PBS station that has done that.

Where located? Is it in an area where most have cable? Did they formerly
broadcast via OTA?

As to why, stations with costly transmitters- an already embedded cost-
don't want to abandon them is that they bring eyeballs to their
programming, which brings more ad $ in.

--
john mcwilliams

On 10/30/2010 12:22 AM, UCLAN wrote:
NadCixelsyd wrote:

With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming.

Because they (Cablevision) make a profit re-selling it to the consumer.

Hmm. Following that logic, the Antenna Company, which made a profit by
selling you an antenna, should then also be required to pay for the FOX
programming you receive over the antenna!

On Oct 30, 8:36*am, Andrew Rossmann
wrote:
In article [email protected]
26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...



With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. *I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. *Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

The broadcasters love it because it is GUARANTEED money. They get paid
even if NOBODY watches.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the broadcasters (probably Fox) ceases
OTA broadcasting of NETWORK programming. That doesn't mean shutting down
their O&O transmitters, just NOT airing network programming. Instead,
antenna users would get alternate programming. They would probably try
to push affiliates to do the same, except in remote areas.

--
It has actually been some NBC mouths that have thought out loud on the
idea of not needing OTA.. 20 years ago OTA broadcasters were looking
at DTV as the edge they could get to stay competitive with cable, as
cable exclusive programing was taking off.. Now, it seems, most
broadcasters look to cable before any other consumer of their signal.
There has been more said about high speed internet lately as a player.
One cannot know how things will shake down, but, 60 years ago motion
pictures and TV and radio all were in competition, and, they are all
still around.

"robinlos" wrote in message
...
On Oct 30, 8:36 am, Andrew Rossmann
wrote:
In article [email protected]
26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...



With the recent Fox/Cablevision dispute in mind, why should
Cablevision have to pay for Fox programming. I have an antenna on my
roof and Fox sends me a signal for free. Do stations have a desire to
abandon all those costly transmitters/towers and only transmit their
signal via cable/satellite?

The broadcasters love it because it is GUARANTEED money. They get paid
even if NOBODY watches.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the broadcasters (probably Fox) ceases
OTA broadcasting of NETWORK programming. That doesn't mean shutting down
their O&O transmitters, just NOT airing network programming. Instead,
antenna users would get alternate programming. They would probably try
to push affiliates to do the same, except in remote areas.

--
It has actually been some NBC mouths that have thought out loud on the
idea of not needing OTA.. 20 years ago OTA broadcasters were looking
at DTV as the edge they could get to stay competitive with cable, as
cable exclusive programing was taking off.. Now, it seems, most
broadcasters look to cable before any other consumer of their signal.

* Likely because cable is reliable in most areas while OTA DTV still has
reliability issues in some areas due to weather, or dynamic multipath, etc.
Plus, it's the bundles man, the bundles. AT&T constantly sends me ads (that
get sent to the shredder for disposal) wanting me to sign up for $99 bundles
to "save me money". Cox seems to think I want their advanced cable package
starting at $29.99 for three months before it goes to regular price after
that, when basic cable is all I want (though I'm sort of waiting a bit
longer to transition to cable just in case they do send me an offer for
basic cable lower than the regular price) and I send those ads to the
shredder as well. Dish Network ads I get in the mail are advertising Free HD
for Life (with certain conditions in the fine print, of course) and they
have bundles too, those ads are dumped in the trash and forgotten until the
next time I get an ad in the mail. For me, the basic cable is all I want
until such time as I feel I really need the extra channels to go with it. It
could have been OTA DTV, but power levels, environmental factors, etc.
aren't cooperating so for now the networks get none of my viewership, none
whatsoever. So if they are losing more viewers than just me, it is wise for
them to abandon the OTA market and go cable/satellite only, even if it
subsequently upsets the OTA users that will also have to transition to cable
or satellite.

There has been more said about high speed internet lately as a player.
One cannot know how things will shake down, but, 60 years ago motion
pictures and TV and radio all were in competition, and, they are all
still around.

* If everyone goes to high speed Internet then the bandwidth will be most
certainly over-stressed for everyone wanting to view certain content. Load
delays, buffering delays, playback stalls, etc. will all start to occur just
as they did with the early video players over dial-up internet. They'll have
to seriously upgrade the infrastructure to have every OTA DTV viewer, every
cable viewer, every satellite TV viewer all switch to streaming content over
the Internet and viewing them for as long as they view the programs now.
I've noticed that HD programs, even when downsampled by a converter box, had
a hard time keeping stable in marginal reception conditions vs. the non-HD
programs, likely they'll have a hard time going over the internet and
keeping stable at a full 1080p with TrueHD quality surround sound when
everyone wants to watch that content.