Why Not Rebrand Broadcast TV "Wireless TV"


Staff member
From The Article:
Broadcasting needs to redefine itself. People know that cable TV is carried on wires. They know that satellite TV comes from birds, and adoption rates demonstrate people have no objection to antennas.

Most have no clue how broadcast signals travel. It would be nice to rebrand the platform “Cloud TV,” but that now denotes nonlinear delivery. “Atmospheric TV’s” sounds too much like a New Age music network. Following the satellite and cable logic, broadcast should call itself “wireless” TV.

The industry’s lobby should replace all forms of the term “broadcast” in the public lexicon with “wireless TV.” It should rename itself the “Wireless TV Association.” First of all, the reference is accurate. People would easily grasp the concept. Second of all, it would drive the wireless industry batty. This makes for excellent cat-fighting among Washington lobbyists, a truly underappreciated spectator sport if ever there was one...

...TV stations continue to conduct business as programmers, i.e., similar to a cable network. They certainly are, in part, but more prevalently, they are programming providers, like cable and satellite. TV stations unfortunately have become overly dependent on those competitors to distribute their signals, and they’re now paying the price. If over-the-air reliance were even in the 30 percent range, Fox wouldn’t be shaking down affiliates. But this is what retransmission hath wrought.

It’s time for TV stations should conduct business from a platform perspective, especially in markets with high reliance on over-the-air reception. Doing so means comparing broadcast as a platform to cable and satellite. Both have somewhat logical organization of content and premium offerings. TV stations don’t have that now, but they do have, a) the most popular programming, and b) the best value proposition...

...Broadcast engineers are now working on the next generation of technical standards for over-the-air TV. They’ll consider things like 3D transmission, advanced compression and interactivity. That’s all good, but what the industry needs more than follow-on features is a new way of thinking of itself. After all, that’s all innovation really is.
Read More: TVB | McAdams On: Rebranding Broadcast


Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
Broadcast TV has gotten a bad rap from analog broadcast TV problems (Poor picture quality, limited channels, huge rooftop antennas) that made cable TV such an attractive alternative to broadcast TV.

OTA also took a hit due to the digital transition itself - confusion, changing channels and reception, the recommending of inadequate "rabbit ears" instead of a real antenna, plus the half truths and outright lies from the pay TV operators.

This all has only caused confusion in the minds of consumers who think OTA TV is poor quality and limited choices, or worse yet, that you can't get FREE TV with an antenna anymore. Even the perception of rooftop antennas has to change - a 2 or 4 bay antenna bears less resemblance to the old channel 2-6 monsters and more resembles a modern small Satellite Dish.

Perhaps it's time to rip a page out of pay TV's playbook and re-brand OTA TV. "We're not Comcast. We're Xfinity"