Unless the feds put a halt to inflation none of this will matter. No company in their right mind will invest when they aren't sure they can sell the product.
1 Like
I wonder where Locast pulls there streams from? Or are they just setting up antennas in each city?
This. That is exactly what Locast does. They rebroadcast over-the-air broadcasts on the internet. That is the whole purpose of their organization, and why they remain legal. It is also why their internet streams are geo-restricted to the original broadcast markets of the OTA feeds they rebroadcast, as per FCC regulations.
Interesting enough, a new local channel Twist started broadcasting a few weeks ago in my market. The signal is mostly good, but has issues. I contacted Locast and asked if they could carry the channel. The response I got back was that they were working with the station, but their antenna (Locast) couldn't get a good signal. Made me curious what "working with the station" actually means.
Twist is owned by TEGNA which broadcasts into a number of markets with a number of stations, including some CBS and ABC affiliates. It seems unlikely that they would work with Locast. Maybe they meant "working on" -- but who knows...
1 Like
The point you're missing is the industry didn't get DRM included in the ATSC 3.0 spec for nothing. You might ask yourself why industry insiders seem to like to avoid talking about that elephant in the room.
Personally, I'm of the opinion ATSC 3.0 is a Hail Mary on the part of the broadcast TV industry. Their viewership declining and the advent of commskip-capable recording devices has killed their advert revenue. They've been propping themselves up with increased retrans fees, but that was obviously only a band aid. So: "NextGen TV." But, while DRM will enable them to kill commskip, it won't bring back the viewers they've lost. (In fact, ironically, killing commercial skip may have the opposite effect when viewers' only choice is to sit through interminable annoying commercial breaks.) Only attractive programming might bring viewers back, and they don't seem to know how to do that anymore.
I believe broadcast TV's days may be numbered. I won't be awfully surprised to see its demise in my lifetime--short of federal intervention in the form of massive handouts.
It's straight-forward: You have X number of tuners. Either two (DUO) or four (QUATRO). That means you can tune up to two or four separate channels simultaneously--whether for watching live or recording. You can, of course, have more than one HDHR device. Two QUATRO's and you have eight channels simultaneously. A QUATRO plus a DUO and you get a max of 6.
If you have a Channels DVR you can have multiple clients (phones, tablets, streamers) viewing the same channel at the same time sharing the same tuner.
If broadcast TV is dying, and I don't agree with you there, what do expect to take it's place? I don't thing that the streamers can keep up with the pace of needing new shows and I never think the NCAA will let college sports go behind a pay wall. In fact I think pro sports going behind a pay wall may have the opposite effect for them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the ratings for non-broadcast games start tanking.
It's already dying. Broadcast TV viewership is declining and has been for years. If they can't staunch the hemorrhaging they won't remain economically viable.
People used to talk about the latest episode of <whatever> series on a major network. When's the last time you heard anybody doing that? Most of the talk I see, and what I see reviewers on, ironically, TV "news" talk about is cable and streaming shows and movies. People used to go to their TVs for news. Now its widely-regarded as a bad joke.
Broadcast TV thinks it's going to save itself by emulating some of streaming's technology. What they don't seem to get is it isn't all about not needing antennas, signal quality, on-demand, and so-on. It's also, probably mainly, about content. The streaming services offer content people want to watch, they do it for a reasonable fee, and they don't annoy their customers with endless, annoying adverts.
Have you seen broadcast TV's lineups, lately? They're a mere shadow of what they once were, and the seasons are half the length they used to be. Adding insult to injury: Much of what they do have is so "woke" or watered-down in fear of offending somebody (can you imagine anybody doing All In The Family today?) it's become mind-numbingly boring.
By all accounts, TV sports viewership is in an even more precipitous decline than overall TV viewership. So I'm not certain their wants will much matter.
They're already tanking. All of the major pro sports viewership numbers are way down and, last I looked, continuing to decline. Those of us with a handle on reality know the main reason why, though the sports franchises and broadcasters refuse to admit it.
One exception, interestingly: Golf. Golf, including TV viewership numbers, is exploding. I think I know one reason why, and it's the same reason the other sports' numbers are plunging.
1 Like
Broadcast TV would be dead already if it were if it were not for their artificial rebroadcast fee carve out. I guess it pays to know people in high places. Anybody know somebody I can talk to about propping up my business if people no longer want to buy my stuff?
1 Like
Up from $17? It just seems they try to see what they can get away with. ATT tv only charges a Regional Sports fee if you do contract pricing.
How about the fact that I don't want my TV sending data about me to the TV station?
A couple of things.
College sports viewership is way up with non-revenue sports (soccer, lacrosse, softball, etc) leading the way.
Pro sports are in the tank because of politics. I was a MAJOR MLB and NFL fan. Now I don't watch either. I won't go back till they repudiate their wokeness. I think if that happens you will see pro sports driving TV numbers way up.
I agree about network news. It's worthless.
As for content, the networks have the problem pro sports have. I watch lots of UK TV. The content is much better, much higher IQ. And no politics! In other words, I agree with you.
I see this as just another cycle that will be gone through. If you are right and it's doomed, I still have several thousand books in my library!
1 Like
Things aren't dying, they're changing. I'm not watching less TV, I'm watching different TV. There's plenty of decent content out there. The major networks just aren't carrying it. It's gotten to the point that I'm starting to seriously contemplate canceling my cable subscription. Not because I want save money; I just don't want to waste money on something I really don't use. I currently have six sources sent up in Channels. Cable is by far the most expensive -- and the one I watch the least. I wish Channels had some sort of analytics for each source to make this sort of decision easier but I pretty much know what the data would show -- I'm paying a lot for basically the Food network and AMC.
At any rate, network television had better wake up if they want to survive -- if it isn't too late. A lot of us have already moved on and probably aren't coming back regardless of what they do.
What I dont understand is why the local channels care one bit about this - I would think that they would like to BRAG to advertisers that their viewer numbers are up because of locast, and they should LOVE that people are finding creative ways to extend the reach of FREE broadcast stations.
advertising is not the most significant way the broadcast stations make money. Allowing some companies to retransmit free-of-charge could end the ability of the stations to charge other carriers for the same content.
I can't find a way to quote. But I think ATSC 3.0 and it's ability to use DRM will mean that the era of free TV will end. At the very least it will be limited free. The good stuff will be behind a paywall with 3.0. For Locast. I hope they're able to continue. For folks like me, I can't get all my network channels, even with a fair/good OTA setup. But time will tell.
That is already happening as the Disney's CBS all Access Paramont etc... are continuing series on their streaming apps and cancelling them from free tv.
There’s plenty of ad supported free tv online — Pluto, Plex, IMDb, etc. But I agree, traditional OTA free tv has been on a death march for some time. They would have gone extinct long ago without the meddling from external forces. Need to enforce the prime directive.
I use Philo to get Food Network, AMC and many others (plus Hallmark, my wife insisted we have that when I decided to cut the cord). Philo satisfies almost all of our normal "cable" shows. I went from paying $135/month through Dish for a bunch of crap that I don't watch anyway to $20/month and integrates perfectly with Channels
1 Like
It's up to $25 a month