NBC Might Scale Back Hours

[TexasTom]

I'm predicting that the number of OTA-exclusive HHs will be near zero within a decade and if that happens, all bets are off as to whether the broadcast nets are willing to stay with the current affiliate-based system of program distribution and what the OTA affiliates will do if the networks abandon them.

Depends on how you want to define "OTA-exclusive".  Specifically, how do you categorize someone who drops cable and satellite and maintains their TV viewing via a combination of OTA, Internet video, and DVDs?  Because I think that may be become increasingly common over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the effect of the digital transition is going to take years to sort out.  Some viewers gain by digital versus analog OTA (here in the Dallas area, I've got several friends who get far better digital reception than they ever got with analog), while others lose -- and the result is that some viewers who are currently OTA will end up switching to cable or satellite, but other viewers who are currently on cable or satellite may discover that their digital OTA reception is better than they got from analog and go back to OTA viewing. 

While I don't see OTA broadcasting disappearing and the FCC reallocating that spectrum to other services, one very real possibility is that the big media companies could abandon OTA in favor of the subscription services at some point, leaving the broadcast service as the playground of entrepreneurs and small business people.  The result from that sort of change could be very...interesting.

[Chad-Stevens]

While I don't see OTA broadcasting disappearing and the FCC reallocating that spectrum to other services, one very real possibility is that the big media companies could abandon OTA in favor of the subscription services at some point, leaving the broadcast service as the playground of entrepreneurs and small business people.  The result from that sort of change could be very...interesting.

I'm defining OTA-exclusive HHs as households that A) watch TV and B) have no subscription to an outside service.  I know lots of people who don't own/watch TV for various reasons but I'm not counting them as the DTV switchover means nothing to them.  I'm predicting that OTA HHs will be near zero within 10 years as it will require fidgeting with antennas, something that audiences have been conditioned not to do - just like getting up to change the channel.  You're right that the effects of the digital transition will take years to sort out and I think very few people will have the patience to wait and see if there's something they or the broadcasters can do to get their locals back OTA.  The loss of one station will probably be enough to get people to - maybe grudgingly - get a subscription.

If audiences can get ALL of the channels that they got before without having to do much more than nudge the rabbit ears, than OTA might survive.  In Dallas that might be feasible, but I doubt it is the case in very many cities, and certainly not in the exurbs and countryside.  Maybe the broadcasters might blanket the area with translators to fill in the gaps, but again, is it worth it at this point considering the demos of those most likely to be relying on OTA reception?  Read: elderly, inner city, ethnic, poor, rural, or just plain stubborn.

As for the greater picture quality of OTA HD, there's so much confusion among consumers on this point as to what is/is not HD that I think it hardly matters as a selling point for OTA.  People who can spend four-figures for a true HDTV set almost always have a subscription service hooked to it.  People who like a show or follow a sports team will continue to do so whether they're watching it in HD or not.

I don't necessarily see those remaining 300 MHz of TV spectrum being reallocated, though it becomes a very tempting target, but I definitely see the nets leaving the broadcast channels at some point.  Maybe in 5, 10, or 15 years but certainly at some point in the near future.

The broadcast channels will survive, but only because/if they have must-carry status on cable.  The transmitter becomes even more irrelevant.  Whether syndicated programming develops to fill the void or stations, having lost their network status, slide into a sort of half life with whatever niche/infomercial/quack/huckster programming is available (like most AM radio stations) remains to be seen. 

[jh]

If audiences can get ALL of the channels that they got before without having to do much more than nudge the rabbit ears, than OTA might survive.  In Dallas that might be feasible, but I doubt it is the case in very many cities, and certainly not in the exurbs and countryside. 

Maybe I'm an isolated case, but I'm getting much better digital reception than I ever got with analog.  I'm about 60 miles east of the Sioux City towers, and the attic antenna in my one-story house never got a clear analog picture.  Now, with the same antenna in the attic, I get reliable digital reception on all but one... which is running digital at lowered power and not from their 2000 foot tower.  Adding an antenna amp took care of that problem.

Previously, I got my locals from Dish Network.  But the digital reception is so good I dropped Dish Network and went to Direct TV, which doesn't offer the Sioux City locals.

[PTBoardOp94]

I'm about 60 miles east of the Sioux City towers, and the attic antenna in my one-story house never got a clear analog picture.  Now, with the same antenna in the attic, I get reliable digital reception on all but one... which is running digital at lowered power and not from their 2000 foot tower.  Adding an antenna amp took care of that problem.

I'm guessing the antenna amp would have significantly helped the analog reception as well from your distance. 

[tothedj]

If NBC was smart, they would cancel "NBC Nightly News", have Brian Williams
return to MSNBC where they could revive, "The News With Brian Williams" at
9pm Eastern, with a replay at Midnight, and as for their prime time, cut it to
8 to 10pm Eastern & Pacific, and 7 until 9pm in all other time zones, leave
a one hour block at 10pm & 9pm, especially for "local news" have Jay Leno
start at 11pm & 10pm, followed by Conan, and Jimmy Fallon.

[jh]

I'm guessing the antenna amp would have significantly helped the analog reception as well from your distance. 

Maybe for the 2 VHF stations, I don't know as I only have the UHF antenna hooked up now.  But for the 3 UHF analog signals, one is pretty good, two are quite snowy with the antenna amp. 

I'm using a nearly 10 year old Channel Master 4221 4-bay UHF if that makes any difference.

[TexasTom]

I'm defining OTA-exclusive HHs as households that A) watch TV and B) have no subscription to an outside service.  I know lots of people who don't own/watch TV for various reasons but I'm not counting them as the DTV switchover means nothing to them.  I'm predicting that OTA HHs will be near zero within 10 years as it will require fidgeting with antennas, something that audiences have been conditioned not to do - just like getting up to change the channel.  You're right that the effects of the digital transition will take years to sort out and I think very few people will have the patience to wait and see if there's something they or the broadcasters can do to get their locals back OTA.  The loss of one station will probably be enough to get people to - maybe grudgingly - get a subscription.

By your definition, I'd qualify as being in an OTA-exclusive household -- I do watch TV, and have no subscription TV services, whatsoever.  I watch digital broadcast TV (usually delayed, using a DVR) and supplement what is available off-air with what I can get via the Internet.  What I am doing makes a great deal of sense for a certain type of TV viewer -- one who isn't a sports fan, and who is a moderate viewer that is interested in following specific programs.  For that kind of TV viewer, the combination of OTA and Internet is an extremely viable option, and one that I believe will become more popular in coming years.
 

If audiences can get ALL of the channels that they got before without having to do much more than nudge the rabbit ears, than OTA might survive.  In Dallas that might be feasible, but I doubt it is the case in very many cities, and certainly not in the exurbs and countryside.  Maybe the broadcasters might blanket the area with translators to fill in the gaps, but again, is it worth it at this point considering the demos of those most likely to be relying on OTA reception?  Read: elderly, inner city, ethnic, poor, rural, or just plain stubborn.

Another forum that I frequent is dedicated to high definition and home theater buffs -- and you might be surprised to find that the percentage of individuals in that forum who rely on off-air reception for HDTV is approximately 15%.  That mirrors the oft-quoted percentage of OTA-only viewers amongst the broader public, which suggests that the stereotype of OTA viewers as being ethnic and poor may not always be accurate.

OTA-only viewership tends to be higher in areas that are relatively flat (like Dallas/Fort Worth or Minneapolis/Saint Paul), and those are also going to be the areas where OTA digital tends to work well.  As for whether viewers will be willing to fiddle with an antenna -- the answer is going to be that some will, and many won't.  It's like computers -- some folks are willing to go through a lot of hassle to configure their computer exactly the way they want it, while others just want to be able to turn the thing on and send an e-mail.  Folks in the former category may be quite willing to fiddle with an attic or rooftop antenna in order to save $50 per month, whereas the folks in the latter group will keep on paying up.

People who can spend four-figures for a true HDTV set almost always have a subscription service hooked to it. 

And on this point, I definitely disagree -- there are a significant number of HD viewers who have their televisions hooked to an antenna.  In some instances, this is because they bought the set before signficant HD content was available on cable, but in other cases it is because we see the OTA signal as being a better value and/or of better quality.

[Chad-Stevens]

I guess we'll begin to know in the first few months after D-Day. 

I know a lot of people who bought the converters but haven't hooked them up or haven't started using them yet since most are not analog-pass-thru and in some instances, stations will be flash cutting.  My father-in-law didn't use his until WAKA-8 cut off analog on Dec. 1.  To him, at age 75, the converter was another confusing box with another confusing remote.

WBRC-6 did a piece last night that urged people who bought the converters to hook them up now and familiarize themselves with the operations and added that many people who could get the analog signal may be unable to receive the digital without an outdoor antenna.  My money is still on OTA reception becoming an anachronism very quickly and almost unheard of in 10 years.  It's not like it wasn't headed that way anyhow in a 500+ channel world, and that the American DTV transition should serve as a lesson to the rest of the world how not to do a DTV transition.

[KTN Corp]

Unfortunately, the FCC picked ATSC as our digital standard.  It was a poor choice that we now have to live with.  I've seen plenty of cases of it working poorly; just as many as cases of it working well.  I do think that if this economic downturn is as severe as it could be, we'll see OTA numbers grow somewhat at least in the short term as people attempt to cut costs.  I know my roommate's mom is planning to cut the satellite and get an antenna; I'm supposed to go do signal tests over the Winter break for him.  I think he'll have good luck with it.

Can you explain to your congressman and others about how bad ATSC is? If you can get others to do the same thing, Analog might still work on February 17 while a more suitable digital standard is found (DVB-T, ISDB, etc.). Just mention "luxury television" in this economy and a picture of an unaffordable wall-mounted flat-panel widescreen TV costing thousands of dollars should pop up in mind.