why aren't broadcasters fighting back with advertising?

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#1
So, all the broadband pigs out there advertise heavily: AT&T, Apple, Verizon, etc. telling everyone they NEED the latest greatest bandwidth hog gizmo to facebook and twitter. Nobody is telling these consumers the downside of these devices. Nobody is telling them that the FCC wants everyone to pay for TV. Why isn't the NAB or other broadcasting organization fighting back with their own commercials and PSA's?

I think they could make some great commercials.. picture a pythonesque commercial where an old couple watching tv is visited by Julius Genachowski and his FCC "Goon Squad" (aka the broadband wireless bandits verizon, et al.) who rough them up and take their TV... and tell them they can instead pay the cable and satellite mobsters the so-called "protection money" to keep their TV.

Hell I'd produce that one for You Tube if only I had the time and resources!
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#3
Broadcasters only have a small voice in the battle !!

I think they could make some great commercials.. picture a pythonesque commercial where an old couple watching tv is visited by Julius Genachowski and his FCC "Goon Squad" (aka the broadband wireless bandits verizon, et al.) who rough them up and take their TV... and tell them they can instead pay the cable and satellite mobsters the so-called "protection money" to keep their TV.

Hell I'd produce that one for You Tube if only I had the time and resources
![/QUOTE]

Mr. Pogi, I couldn't agree more....

Verizon's new promotion named "Rule The Airwaves" seems to give a little hidden insight as to their agenda, and only those who care about DTV will really see the true message. Your Goon Squad idea is fantastic, and could have the same effect as the DTV Granny spot did in its day. Unfortunately, everything you say is true, and early on I was accused of resorting to extreme and radical rhetoric to get my point across, but it now looks like I was right, and that is hard for anyone to deny at this point.

There is only a small base of Full Power TV stations in this country and their voice is not very large at face value due to their small numbers. They do have the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and MSTV (Maximum Service Television) as their lobbying voice in Washington, but the greed factor, with it's under the table payoffs and the large and ridiculous amount of money they have to do these under the table deals and line the pockets of Genachowski and is cronies has a much louder voice than that of common sense or the broadcast organizations.

Genachowski is a "Rubber stamp along party lines PIG" who cares nothing about the emergency communications preparedness of this country, and he is more than willing to scrap it and threaten this nations safety and security for great amounts of the green stuff that will eventually find its way into his pockets and bank accounts via the under the table route that is so common in politics these days. I am certain that his net wealth will have increased greatly when this is all over.

All they can talk about when it comes to the publicly owned Radio Spectrum is its "Value", which equates to dollars in their pockets when the deal is finally done, and it will be the financially under unprivileged (The Poor) who will suffer the most at the loss of OTA TV, along with those like me who earn their living in the OTA Broadcast industry.

At the rate the broadband industry is consuming bandwidth, their never ending appetite can never be satisfied, and that is fact !! They are even asking the Pentagon to surrender spectrum that they keep in reserve for emergency communications. Now if that doesn't open some eyes to the truth, nothing will ever convince the "SHEEPLE" that this is real and true !!

Maybe I could get our Production Department manager to get involved in producing the Genachowski is a pig video, but our employer may not agree with our viewpoint, so it would have to be a SIDE PROJECT ON HIS OWN TIME !!

And I am sure I will again be accused of resorting to extreme radical rhetoric to get my point across, but I really don't care what those outside the industry who are devoid of real facts think about this, or any of my other "RADICAL" posts. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it is still the truth !!!!!!!!!! The goons would have to take their 'Magic Rabbit Ears" and their converter box to in order to make a maximum point !!
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#5
Genachowski, I picture, as Eric Idle in a Nazi uniform.... ;)

perhaps in bed with the "can you hear me now?" guys. Lots of 'em.

(pink ballerina TuTu optional )
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#7
Whiny "can you hear me now?" guy on an iPhone, eyeballing grandma's TV:
(to Genachowski)

"Julius, she's using all the bandwidth. Make her stop!"
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#8
I actually have seen some PSAs about which say "Keep Free TV Free" or something like this. I definitely saw one while watching House on Friday night.

- Trip
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#9
And I am sure I will again be accused of resorting to extreme radical rhetoric
Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Sometimes the truth hurts
Clearly your are hurt by the way things are. I'm sorry for that. I really wish you could appreciate the progress that shall be forth-coming, rather than investing so much railing against it, but I suppose you have your perspective and are going to doggedly hold to it, regardless.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#10
I actually have seen some PSAs about which say "Keep Free TV Free" or something like this. I definitely saw one while watching House on Friday night.

- Trip
Trip,

If the PSA's you have seen are 'generic' and not specifically promoting one particular station, it would be terrific if they were shared with all of the OTA Broadcasters. Concidering the enormous amount of money Broadcasters have spent updating their transmitters, antennas and more to bring digital OTA to us, and the 'hit' our Treasury (taxpayers) took to make the Converter Box coupon program happen, I am stunned the individual stations are barely promoting FREE OTA at all.

Locally, we see 5 second spots saying "K*** can be seen on these local translators" with a list and that's it. I doubt the majority of the general public/viewing audience have a clue what a translator is and the terms 'over the air' and 'free' are not said.

Jim
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#11
[video=youtube;riC3HLdt6gk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riC3HLdt6gk[/video]

This was all I could find in an extensive online search. Pretty lame, and very tame.
 
Last edited:

cclc

DTVUSA Member
#12
Broadcasters have to answer to networks, which get there money from cable and satellite companys paying them to have them on there channel line-up. I see it all the time here in Central Ohio networks like Fox, Big Ten, Etc..... asking for more money from Time Warner Cable and they usually get it. Gets everyone all up in the air for awhile then back to normal. If Fox was to tell people they will stop broadcasting free OTA in this area I think there would be little opposition or interest, but pull them from your cable line-up and you'll have a battle! They get there big bucks from cable and sattelite.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#13
Well answering to multiple masters is one answer but I think it's simply a matter of dollars and sense. Airtime costs money. If you were a TV station owner would you rather air a PSA or earn revenue from an advertiser?

My personal opinion is that broadcasters are probably going to fight this on the back end with the FCC directly and failing that then resort to engaging the public to call their reps.

Believe it or not I don't think it has reached a critical tipping point yet. Right now it's more of a "let's nip it in the bud" stage.

You will probably hear more if/when the FCC issues the R&O for reclaiming the TV spectrum.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#14
Concidering the enormous amount of money Broadcasters have spent updating their transmitters, antennas and more to bring digital OTA to us, and the 'hit' our Treasury (taxpayers) took to make the Converter Box coupon program happen, I am stunned the individual stations are barely promoting FREE OTA at all.
They do! Well, whenever there is a dispute with a cable company over carriage fees!

Fox O&O stations did it when they were in dispute with Time Warner, and if you listen carefully they were giving people a subtle and not so subtle hint to switch to FiOS, even playing the FiOS music in the background. They were also telling people they could use an antenna.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#15
Why broadcasters are not fighting back ?

Broadcasters have to answer to networks, which get there money from cable and satellite companys paying them to have them on there channel line-up. I see it all the time here in Central Ohio networks like Fox, Big Ten, Etc..... asking for more money from Time Warner Cable and they usually get it. Gets everyone all up in the air for awhile then back to normal. If Fox was to tell people they will stop broadcasting free OTA in this area I think there would be little opposition or interest, but pull them from your cable line-up and you'll have a battle! They get there big bucks from cable and sattelite.
No one on here can really grasp the costs involved in providing programming to the public for free unless you work inside the industry. if you choose to get programming from sat or cable, you should have to pay for it, and the local stations also deserve a slice of those dollars too. If OTA goes away, then the relevance of local affiliates also goes away with it. Why should local programmers provide their product to Sat and Cable for free, when they turn around and charge their customers for it. their business model is no more important or better than that of OTA programmers. Local affiliates deserve a chunk of the dollars paid for programming if viewers decide to go wired or via satellite.

Broadcasters are free to program most anything they like during the non prime time schedule. it is a local decision to run PSA'S in their own interest promoting OTA TV, but other types of PSA'S are mandatory, and a certain amount of air time MUST be devoted to them by FCC rules. I agree that the broadcast industry has dropped the ball on promoting OTA TV as the wonderful product that it is, and it may be to their own detriment that this is the case.

One problem related to this is the confusion generated in the minds of non OTA viewers when OTA is promoted on local stations. A lot of them think it pertains to them, or they ask the question, why do I have to pay, if someone else does not have to, and they don't understand the concept of that metallic object they see on some chimneys known as a TV antenna. We are several generations into the "Pay for TV" frame of mind, and the majority of younger people think that the only way to get TV is to pay for it.

They have no idea of the quality and availability of OTA TV, because they have been coddled by their parents who could afford to pay for TV all those years, so why bother with an old fashioned antenna that only gets "a few channels". Obviously in larger markets, that issue is now a moot point with all of the sub channels available in some markets. This area is a rather small market, but it went from 6 analog channels to approximately 13 "Channels" or program streams as I like to refer to them as, providing you have adequate antennas to pick them all up.

Recent industry estimates seem to believe that the theft of the airwaves will take up to 10 years or more to complete, and that still gives the industry a little time to fight this battle, and to save our nations only Emergency Communications network, which to me is much more important than entertainment. The industry rolls on, and is still proceeding to upgrade with the next big issue that pertains to emergency communications in relation to the digital era.

A new digital Emergency Communications medium is about to become law, and it is known as CAP, which stands for Common Alerting Protocol, even when the medium used to broadcast it is under siege. CAP will replace the EAS ( Emergency Alert System) that we currently use, and that upgrade alone at its lowest cost estimate will most likely be around $ 30,000 to 40,000 per station. Broadcast equipment is not cheap due to the limited market for the equipment itself. Equipment vendors will not sell one million units because the demand is not there. This is part of the reason that networks and local stations alike are clamoring for higher subscription fee increases, as the cost of anything broadcast related is so expensive, and no one is going to lower equipment prices in a time when the industry is being threatened on many fronts and it has a natural low demand factor built into it anyway.

Affiliates do not get revenue from the networks, it is actually the other way around. They have to pay affiliate fees to be associated with a major network such as FOX. Local and national advertisers comprise a good majority of a stations revenue, and the loss of automotive advertising early last year hurt a lot of local stations deeply, and some of them have not recovered financially as of yet.

My employer is still finalizing the digital transition with transmitter site improvements, and that is most likely the case with a lot of broadcasters still to this day. Antenna issues, power levels, antenna placement and directional antennas due to analog and digital sharing the airwaves and many other problems are still being addressed by many stations around the country, and if they truly believed that the industry is doomed, I don't think they would be investing all of this money, just to have it thrown away in a few years, so this is at least one ray of hope for me personally.

Broadcasters are not the only losers in this game, but most people don't realize how many lives the Emergency Communications system has saved over the years it has been used, and that to me should be a crime to dismantle it for extreme profits for private companies for fads like Face book, Twitter, ( That sounds so Juvenile to be funny), texting and mobile internet. Do we really need all of this fad technology at the extreme detriment to the general publics safety? In my opinion, the answer is a big fat NO,

I won't even begin to address all of the anti social effects that all of this convenient technology will have on future generations, as one could likely write a book on the future generations lack of social skills, and we are already seeing the repercussions of this even today. Change is not always for the better, as past history has shown us many times over if we would just learn the lessons from the past !This is so much like being the parent of a teenager who knows it all. Even when you give them advice from real world experience, they have to learn life's hard lessons on their own.
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#16
Why should local programmers provide their product to Sat and Cable for free, when they turn around and charge their customers for it. their business model is no more important or better than that of OTA programmers. Local affiliates deserve a chunk of the dollars paid for programming if viewers decide to go wired or via satellite.
Indeed, and so ideally it would work both ways: content providers (whether they are OTA stations or cable networks) deserve a cut of the subscription fees charged by cable and satellite services, and cable and satellite services deserve to be able to pick-and-choose between the OTA stations or cable networks that they wish to offer their subscribers.

A lot of them think it pertains to them, or they ask the question, why do I have to pay, if someone else does not have to, and they don't understand the concept of that metallic object they see on some chimneys known as a TV antenna. We are several generations into the "Pay for TV" frame of mind, and the majority of younger people think that the only way to get TV is to pay for it.
By the same token, folks who pay for television shouldn't really be subsidizing those who get television for free. So an argument can be made that the amount of money an OTA station deserves from cable and satellite services is how much it costs them to transmit the signal to the cable or satellite company - not the cost of the content itself, since the OTA station gives that away.

It is an argument I consider bogus. However, keep that in mind when we're discuss cable and satellite services, etc., because the same thing applies: Only suckers price things based on cost. Responsible for-profit companies price things based on value - what the market will bear. As such, OTA stations should get whatever they can get the cable and satellite services to pay.

And in any commercial situation, the way fair market value is arrived at requires that some of the transactions not be completed. If every customer buys what you're offering, then that's a clear indicator that you have undersold yourself. However, that translates into this situation as the case where, in some place, some OTA stations - some ABC stations, for example - are simply not available to one cable or satellite services' customers or the other, and that is an intolerable situation in the minds of some customers who think that the world exists to serve their desires. Their attitude in this regard corrupts the marketplace's ability to arrive at fair market value, since their mob action tends to drive resolution of carriage disputes that perhaps are just natural reactions to the normal conduct of commerce. Instead of just letting things be - agreeing to disagree about the value of the specific station's content - the two sides know that they must arrive at an "agreement", and so both try to use the media to manipulate public opinion to have that "agreement" be to their own benefit. It is an imperfect situation, made so by how viewers act.

How this would translate onto non-commercial stations is a bit cloudy. Ostensibly, the "profit" for non-commercial stations rightfully belongs to the people they're aiming to serve, and so that could actually go either way, given the circumstances: Higher retransmission fees, to provide more and better programming, or lower retransmission fees, to reduce upward pressure on rates and increase the likelihood of carriage.

Recent industry estimates seem to believe that the theft of the airwaves will take up to 10 years or more to complete, and that still gives the industry a little time to fight this battle, and to save our nations only Emergency Communications network, which to me is much more important than entertainment.
There is no evidence that the eventual reclamation of a portion of the airwaves for other uses will eliminate the emergency alert system. That's just FUD (unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt) being spread by an industry trying to retain more of the public airwaves than it may be in the public's best interest to allow them to keep. The industry likes to foster FUD, insinuating slippery slopes and such, but there is no reason to believe that anyone intends to push for elimination of all current channels, so that there is inadequate bandwidth to still provide sufficient emergency service.

I won't even begin to address all of the anti social effects that all of this convenient technology will have on future generations, as one could likely write a book on the future generations lack of social skills, and we are already seeing the repercussions of this even today.
Darn; I won't have an opportunity to highlight how such arguments are simply Luddite in nature.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#17
Indeed, and so ideally it would work both ways: content providers (whether they are OTA stations or cable networks) deserve a cut of the subscription fees charged by cable and satellite services, and cable and satellite services deserve to be able to pick-and-choose between the OTA stations or cable networks that they wish to offer their subscribers.
They actually can.

No cable company is forced to pay for and carry any station. If they are forced to carry a station then the station cannot demand payment.

You have to remember though that the current incarnation of must carry was in fact brought upon the cable industry by itself, when a lawsuit was filed against the FCC for the old must carry rules, where they had to carry everything but the cable companies were not obligated to pay.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#18
They actually can.
Absolutely, they legally can. I was speaking more broadly, i.e., people should view a service provider picking-and-choosing between NBC, CBS and ABC (for example), in the interest of keeping costs down, more acceptable than I believe most people would, today. The presumption that every service provider must provide every local channel, regardless of how much the channel wants in retransmission fees, unfairly colors the negotiations in the local channel's favor imho.
 
Last edited:

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#19
Absolutely, they legally can. I was speaking more broadly, i.e., people should view a service provider picking-and-choosing between NBC, CBS and ABC (for example), in the interest of keeping costs down, more acceptable than I believe most people would, today. The presumption that every service provider must provide every local channel, regardless of how much the channel wants in retransmission fees, unfairly colors the negotiations in the local channel's favor imho.
I don't see anything wrong with subscribers telling cable companies that they want certain networks and the cable companies obliging. This is a far cry from the old must carry system where every cable company HAD to carry EVERY station, but they could do it for free.

It is up to the cable company to decide what it wants to carry, EXCEPT for must carry obligations. If Comcast (for example) wanted to drop local ABC, they damn well could. Only one problem, customers would switch to alternate providers such as FiOS or satellite or simply dump their cable subscription entirely.

So it is essentially the free market at work here.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#20
I don't see anything wrong with subscribers telling cable companies that they want certain networks and the cable companies obliging.
Neither do I, with regard to each subscriber expressing to their selected service provider what they want. What I was pointing out was how the collective mentality of viewers, overall, results in a situation where OTA channels essentially are able to command more than they're worth, and we all end up paying for that group-think.

So it is essentially the free market at work here.
Yup it is and this is a good example of where consumer behaviors can work to defeat the benefits of the free market.
 
Top