[opendtv] The Future for Broadcast
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:43:14 -0600
Don Moore wrote:
> Look at the "Talent Costs". Cable shows rarely pay their stars
> $1 Million an episode.
>
> What we have is a system that allowed salaries to get out of
> order and as result, it's financially impossible to justify
> local programming and local news. We pay our school teachers a
> fraction of our "celebrities". As a result, we have leveraged
> OTA TV into near bankruptcy.
I am outside the TV industry, looking in. And it seems to me, some OTA TV has
already moved beyond that. Examples like CW, MNT, Ion, MHz Networks, Univision,
and add NBC to the mix, tell me that OTA is not how many articles seem to
describe it. It's not all overpaid, super glitzy talent and Hollywood shows.
And ask us, the audience, whether we care?
From what Craig says, cable works because it transmits a plethora of low-cost
programming or reruns of high quality network shows. And presumably, cable also
works because it transmits a few high cost shows, like CBS and Fox prime time.
Seems to me, cable TV works because it's 24/7 variety and quantity and just a
little bit of quality in the mix. (Plus broadband, telephone, etc.)
Now that OTA TV can provide the much greater program variety than in analog
times, and now that the networks have sold off most of their OTA stations, now
that nationwide station GROUPS own so many of the OTA stations, now that
station groups pay for the content they air, isn't OTA TV becoming more like
cable already?
And OTA TV stations can support multiple 24 hour program streams, in addition
to their "main channel." I don't see any OTA stations stopping its multicasts
during a 24 hour period.
Why should OTA talent cost $1M per episode? There have been some Canadian
shows, like Flash Point and The Listener, that seemed to have done reasonably
well. Aired OTA. If cable nets can survive without overpaid talent, why can't
OTA? Does the audience need $1M talent? Does the audience need overpriced LOCAL
talent? Not at all. Just ask them.
Why should we assume that OTA TV stations are "local"? A station group should
be able to air whatever it wants on any number of OTA transmitters. I see the
combination of local OTA transmitters as being like a cable headend. Not all
need to transmit local content. Maybe a couple can, a couple of hours per day
max, if they can make the numbers work.
To me, OTA TV now is a lower-overhead-cost medium over which to transmit
multiple TV programs, and by the way, it can also provide portable/mobile
service. Just like cable systems, very little local content and a variety of
so-so quaity program streams with their niche audience.
Whether or not overpriced "network" TV can survive should be a completely
orthogonal discussion to whether or not OTA TV can survive, especially as the
networks have sold off most of their OTA assets.
I know that Craig refuses to believe this, but in the DC market alone, today,
without Baltimore assist, there are 32 OTA program streams, 9 of which are (or
can be) HDTV all day long, and there's still plenty of spare capacity. None of
these are repeats. As far as capacity goes, DC OTA could easily support at
least another 8 programs, without encroaching on HD streams. So, *at least* 40
program streams, of which 9 are HD, with no extra RF channel assignments. *And*
this includes additional X streams of M/H service too.
Why isn't that enough for the station groups to provide a perfectly viable OTA
service? And be able to afford to, just like cable can?
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
