Do we even need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore?

[RobbieL2415]

Think about it.  There's a lot of overhead associated with maintaining a broadcast license.  The FCC obviously regulates the physical infrastructure and imposes some content restrictions for broadcast TV. The airwaves are considered to be property of the public and thus broadcasters must operate, to some degree, in the public interest.  TV markets, advertising rules, educational programming, product placement in kids programming, are all rigidly structured.  They also regulate the copper and fibre infrastructure of the Internet but they cannot legally control the content.  There is no licensing requirement for video content creators that operate as an Internet service.  There are no competition rules, no market saturation rules, no scheduling rules, etc.  There wouldn't be a need for the major networks to negotiate affiliation agreements with the broadcast stations.  They could operate online without restriction and with no need to set aside timeslots for local broadcasts they could air more content.  I think we've essentially reached a turning point in the broadcast industry.  Why would a network need to provide service to traditional broadcast stations when broadband QoS is very high and highly accessible, even in remote areas?

[Scott5114]

During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.

Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.

[vdeane]

I still watch over the air, and local news is the majority of what I watch.  I even watch local broadcasts when traveling - they're a great way to get to know an area.

[Beltway]

I have a portable TV that is about the size of a smart phone, and I occasionally use it, most recently for the last 3 games of the World Series.  It has HD and provides a better picture than my old and defunct Sony Trinitron TV that has a 19 inch screen.

This uses terrestrial broadcast TV over the air, and I find I useful.

[Max Rockatansky]

The majority of TV I want is mostly local news and the traditional network stations for sports.  Much like AM radio there will probably always be a market for more traditional means of TV.  Some of us (myself for sure) really don't want to learn how to use streaming services or lug a portable device around with them.  I've spent 7 of my 19 years in adult life with just network TV (which was easier to get when rabbit ears were a thing) and AM/FM radio, I could see going back to something more simple like that again the future. 

[GCrites]

10TV WBNS in Columbus (CBS) and its Indianapolis counterpart just sold for $550 million so the business community must feel there is some future value in midsize market local affiliates.

[rlb2024]

We were at a tailgate in Columbia, SC this past weekend and could watch the LSU-Alabama game on the local CBS affiliate using a HD digital TV antenna.  No satellite dish or subscription required.  (Oh, and Geaux Tigers!!!)

[hbelkins]

There are a whole lot of people who do just fine with free over-the-air broadcasts and don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.

If I could get any OTA stations outside the local religious TV station, and if so many of the sports events I watch (Kentucky football and basketball and NASCAR) weren't shown on non-OTA outlets, I could be content dropping a paid service.

[KeithE4Phx]

Why would a network need to provide service to traditional broadcast stations when broadband QoS is very high and highly accessible, even in remote areas?

Because many rural areas still don't have reliable and/or cost-effective internet that's fast enough to handle video 24/7/365.  Hughesnet is now where cable internet was 15 years ago.  Watch more than a few movies or ballgames, and you're throttled back, at least as of the last time I read their terms of service a couple months ago.

I just signed up with YouTube TV, which will replace DirecTV when Sunday Ticket ends.  It works 90% of the time, but there are still buffering issues.  And I have an 80 Mb internet connection with my local phone company. 

But most of the time (other than sports), I'm watching TV via an antenna.  I'm in metro Phoenix, 25 miles from the transmitters on South Mountain.  Because of the construction of my house (stucco/lath, which is what 3/4 of the houses are built of in this metro), an indoor antenna is problematic at best.  I have an outdoor antenna connected to some of my sets, and it works great, but most people aren't allowed to put one up due to HOAs (the OTARD law is completely unenforceable).

[nexus73]

In the "Star Trek:The Next Generation" episode called "The Neutral Zone". Data says that TV as a form of entertainment died out in the 2040's.  Considering the script was written before broadband communications was around and the presence of the net fractured mass media, that decade might just be about spot on when seen from 2019's perspective.

Rick

[jp the roadgeek]

When I switched to streaming from cable last year, I found getting an antenna and watching the local stations with it is a great alternative.  The streaming feed of locals is 30-45 seconds delayed, plus it saves data if you have a data cap with your internet service.  I can watch local news and  Sunday football without it counting against the cap, plus some of the stations and subchannels aren't available on streaming, as well as the NFL preseason games on local stations.

[SP Cook]

- There are people who just get TV OTA.  There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters"  (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.

- Local news has no interest to me.  It really is not that "local"  and mostly consists of murder statistics and local politicians claiming they are not what they are.  Only watch it when the weather is bad.

- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs.  Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming.  I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.

[3467]

The networks would mind if like to get rid of their locals. It's sort of like the hostility between oil companies and car dealers with the car manufacturers when they go all electric.
But the locals are really good a DC and regs. I am grandfathered in DISH to the superstations. They get exclusive cable and satellite and are trying to do the same with streaming. All this while the FCC  let's them sell them signal.
I used to enjoy Dx  on TV. It was still possible to do it with digital. But now with these singularities a lot of them are cutting power.
As to news coverage you don't want to be at the edge of their exclusive viewing areas you won't get much.

[kphoger]

There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.

This is the answer.

No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?

[RobbieL2415]

During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.

Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.

The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV.  I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.

If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.  But the cell towers, copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups.  The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it.  So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.

There are a whole lot of people who do just fine with free over-the-air broadcasts and don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.

If I could get any OTA stations outside the local religious TV station, and if so many of the sports events I watch (Kentucky football and basketball and NASCAR) weren't shown on non-OTA outlets, I could be content dropping a paid service.

I would bet that a lot of OTA viewers are low-income or over the age of 65.

[RobbieL2415]

There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.

This is the answer.

No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?

If it become a no-longer-viable business venture, then stations will start going off-the-air.

[dcharlie]

I need it. I only subscribe to local channel cable on 1 TV.  I have 2 more up in the bedrooms, where signal strength is much better due to elevation.  Don't want to pay for a lot of stuff I'm not going to watch anyway.  Don't mean to offend, but guessing my cable bill is much smaller than a lot of your's! 

[SectorZ]

I think we do, but I'd love to see retrans fees go away under our must-carry rules. My cable bill shouldn't have to subsidize them if I am watching the ads anyways (my argument can be extended to any cable stations that run ads, too).

[bandit957]

I still watch local over-the-air stations, since I don't have cable. A couple months ago, I buyed a new TV, which has much better reception than the piece of junk I had before. It's still nothing compared to what it was in the analog era though.

Why pay for cable when you can get over-the-air TV for free?

[kphoger]

There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.

This is the answer.

No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?

If it become a no-longer-viable business venture, then stations will start going off-the-air.

If there are still stations on the air, then it must be a viable business venture.  Or, to argue in different way:  if it was viable before, then it's still viable today.

If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.

No he won't.  He specifically mentioned a battery-operated TV set in the post you quoted.

copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups.  The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it.  So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.

I can only speak for Cox Communications, as that's the only MSO I'm intimately familiar with.  But Cox provides both internet and phone service through cable modems.  Older models (Specifically Motorola SB5220 and SB5222) of these eMTAs had two slots for backup batteries.  Ten years ago, the norm used to be to provide one backup battery per installation, two upon customer request.  As each battery had an eight-hour life, that meant nobody would ever have more than 16 hours of battery backup, and most people would only get eight.  Eventually, Cox transitioned to only putting backup batteries in at the customer's request, and getting one incurred an additional installation charge.  Later and even contemporary eMTA models (specifically various Arris models) had only one slot for a backup battery, so nobody with those would ever get more than eight hours.

However, this is all specific to eMTAs with phone service, and it is provided as an option out of concern for customers' safety:  in the case of a power outage, someone might need to place an emergency call.  I'm not aware of any internet-only modems that have battery backup.  So, for most current customers, unless they have landline phone AND that same modem is running their internet AND they specifically requested to have a battery installed –their internet will drop as soon as the power goes out.

[hbelkins]

If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.

No he won't.  He specifically mentioned a battery-operated TV set in the post you quoted.

Somewhere, I still have a couple of small hand-held TVs from the analog era. They worked fine to pick up the Lexington stations when I lived in Winchester. Great for when the power was off and I still wanted to catch local stations for storm warnings. This was long before the days of smartphones.

[US 89]

During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.

Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.

The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV.  I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.

Not quite - while the WEA (Wireless Emergency Alerts) system does relay certain warning types such as tornado and flash flood warnings, amber alerts, and national emergencies to cell phones, it is generally less versatile than the EAS is. And participation in the program is completely voluntary, so some cell networks may not even offer it.

In my experience, it's also slow. I know I've received amber alerts on my phone only around 30 minutes after hearing it first from a weather radio.

edit: fixed quote tags

[vdeane]

- There are people who just get TV OTA.  There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters"  (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.

The phrase came about when Hulu was free, Netflix had virtually everything that Hulu didn't, and their DVD by mail service was included with the service and had the few things that weren't on the streaming service.  The cost comparison was very different back then.  Compare to now, where getting the same amount of content would require two Netflix subscriptions (both streaming and DVD), a subscription for Hulu, as well as ones for Amazon Prime, Disney+, and soon Peacock and HBO Max too.  Cord cutting used to be cheap, even with paid streaming, but now it's approaching the price of the cable bundles it was meant to replace.

- Local news has no interest to me.  It really is not that "local"  and mostly consists of murder statistics and local politicians claiming they are not what they are.  Only watch it when the weather is bad.

How local local news is depends on the station, the media market, the company that owns the station, and where in the media market you live.  Sinclair stations in particular are known to be focused more on national news than others.  When I'm traveling, I definitely have stations I like more than others (although my favorite is WTEN right here in Albany, and my second favorite is WROC over in Rochester).  And, of course, the further you live from the metro area the station is based in, fewer stories will be "local" to where you specifically live.  Speaking from someone who lives in a suburb of the main city in my media market watching from a Nextar station, most coverage I watch is local, and most of the rest is state.  National news only makes it past a level of detail that on ABC World News Tonight would be part of the Index if it's really major.  Also, the weather is more accurate than what I could get from sites like Weather Underground or especially the Weather Channel or AccuWeather.

- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs.  Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming.  I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.

If you want that, move to NYC.  Almost all their local stations are owned and operated directly by the networks.

[KeithE4Phx]

- There are people who just get TV OTA.  There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters"  (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.

There's no such thing as a "cord cutter" unless you get 100% of your TV from broadcast stations.  By definition, all internet connections are corded, from the backbone to the connection to your modem.  Even when you watch on your cellphone via the cellphone company, only the connection to the cell site is wireless.  The term "cord cutter" needs to go away.

- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs.  Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming.  I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.

The broadcast networks have lost money or broke even for most of their existence, going back to the late 1940s.  The networks make most of their money from their O&O stations and from a cut of the subscriber fees from their affiliates.  Besides, the NBC network only broadcasts for part of the day, and that percentage has been shrinking for 50 years.

[MNHighwayMan]

Also, the weather is more accurate than what I could get from sites like Weather Underground or especially the Weather Channel or AccuWeather.

I don't understand why people don't just get their weather forecasts straight from the horse's mouth. A NWS weather radio is, like, twenty dollars, if you can't just get it from their website.