[opendtv] Re: Blog: We've Only Just Begun
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:16:36 -0400
At 4:45 PM -0500 5/10/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
That aside, the radio I listen to broadcasts some local content, as
most of the TV stations do, but mostly non-local content. Whether
it's the likes of NPR or C-SPAN radio, or whether it's music
stations, it would be stretch to claim that the content from these
is mostly local, even if the DJ might be local.
HMMMMM...
The radio I listen to is often a platform for local issues and
information. In fact, talk radio is an interactive platform serving
communities. But music stations also do their part - they run many
announcements about local events and bring in guests to promote major
events.
And when there are emergencies, like a hurricane, our local radio
broadcasters are where I turn for information. During our hurricanes
in 2004 several local stations went 24/7 covering everything. The
local TV stations ran occasional short blurbs, but stayed with their
normal commercial broadcast schedule.
But an even more important issue in this discussion is how technology is
affecting local communities, businesses and organizations. For example,
via the Internet, a local newspaper can deliver ANYTHING that a local TV
broadcaster can offer via the Internet. A local organization can reach
the public directly without needing to rely on a middleman. And via
social networks it is now easy and commonplace to promote events and
causes.
And none of these examples would fill a 24-hour schedule, or keep
anyone interested more than a few minutes at a time. Maybe an hour
now and again, for some exceptional local event. Or even an hour on
the outside, for a daily local news broadcast. I just don't see how
these are the activities that TV broadcasters could survive on, 24
hours a day, except perhaps in that one SD multicast. Do any cable
channels, I mean those that people actually watch for extended
periods of time, do this? No? Then why try to burden OTA TV with
that sort of niche activity?
This WAS a discussion of the role that broadcasters play in our
communities - specifically about the fact that some of them have
boots on the ground and that they support local organizations.
It's not about filling a schedule. In fact, most consumers could care
less about filling a schedule - they want access to entertainment and
information THEY WANT, when they need it, or have time to vegetate.
Here's a quote from Gordon Smith, the President/CEO of the NAB, at an
ATSC conference yesterday:
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2011/05/10/51135/nabs-smith-spectrum-crucial-to-nextgen
"We are fast moving past the age of linear television-only, though,
into a new world that is on-demand, interactive, Internet-enabled and
three-dimensional, with a public that has an insatiable need for more
high quality content. So, finding a way for broadcasters to take part
in that new world isn't optional, it's a necessity in order to stay
competitive with other media in this complex and unpredictable
digital world."
It's not a question of niche activities Bert. It is a core part of
the rationale behind giving broadcasters free spectrum. Whenever
anyone challenges the economic viability of broadcasting, versus
alternative uses of "Their" spectrum, the first response is to point
to all of the community services they do for their communities.
Clearly this is important stuff, but it has almost NOTHING to do with
the reasons people watch local stations.
They watch local stations because these stations have a monopoly on
content they DO want to watch. Now that that monopoly is being
challenged by new forms of distribution - including VOD and on demand
access to the same programs, the broadcasters have little left to
support their claims on the spectrum.
The better question to ask, is:
If we continue to provide broadcasters with spectrum, what should the
business model look like so that it actually benefits the public and
justifies the allocation of this spectrum. Even the NAB understands
that the current model for broadcast TV is dying, as they scramble to
protect their most valuable asset- spectrum - without a plan.
I think you have it entirely backwards. The "scarce resource" has to
be used to provide what the masses actually watch "en masse," and
the less scarce resource can be used for niche products or
information items of interest to a small minority of the population.
It should be no surprise that TV thrives on content that the masses
want, rather than purely "local."
Thanks for making my case!
Over the air television is now viewed by a small minority of the population.
Broadcasting is the niche service; and cable is not far behind,
although it still serves the masses today.
As I recall, Bert wants to get rid of local TV and replace it with a
national service...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
