# I don't watch much broadcast TV anymore



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I was just pruning my Season Pass Manager of canceled shows. Out of curosity I counted the ones on network stations and those on cable channels. I have 97 total Season Passes, only 37 of them are for shows on broadcast channels. So about 2/3 of what I watch is apparently from cable now, and that doesn't count the stuff I watch on Netflix, Amazon or Vudu. So apparently cutting the cord is not really an option for me.

Anyway just an observation.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I only watch antenna TV. 

I saw on TV yesterday that most people spend the majority of their watching time on broadcast shows, but I don't see more info on that when I search on the internet.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

For me, going Antenna was a combination of factors
1. Almost everything I watch is pretty mediocre, little sports, no must watch TV
2. Netflix having no commercials is So much better
3. Excellent antenna reception
4. Very high broadcast vs cable only ratio, especially high during the fall season
5. Sticking it to the man (cable provider) for commercials with introductory only prices
6. Annual cable cancellation and no tv during 2+ month RV/camping trip
7. When I came back, they charged me for 2 modems by mistake. That got the ball rolling.
8. When I came back, On Demand didn't have some shows I missed and others had episodes that were SD only
8. $15 Every Day Low Price internet became 3Mbps so bundling was less important
9. No big deal to change my mind and go back to cable. The cable TV office is 3 miles away, excellent service

Base Roamio was just what I needed. I am very happy.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

replaytv said:


> I only watch antenna TV.


Broadcast dramas are still fairly popular. If you look at viewership numbers for dramas, they are still overwhelmingly higher than cable except for some shows like "Walking Dead".

Sitcoms seem to be a dying form of entertainment (like vaudeville, variety shows, and cowboy melodramas). I think NBC had as many as 17 sitcoms on in one year in the mid 1990's, and now they have cancelled 24 sitcoms in a row before they generated enough episodes to go into syndication. Every single sitcom since Parks and Recreation and Community aired in 2009 has been cancelled (About a Boy has not been cancelled yet, but has very low ratings).

The top 25 (by total audience) for this year does include 4 sitcoms and 4 competition reality show (actually the Voice is two nights), but dramas dominate.

1	NCIS	CBS
2	*The Big Bang Theory* CBS
3	NCIS: New Orleans	CBS
4	60 Minutes	CBS
5	Dancing with the Stars	ABC
6	Madam Secretary	CBS
7	The Voice (Mon, Fall)	NBC
8	The Voice (Tues, Fall)	NBC
9	Blue Bloods	CBS
10	Scorpion	CBS
11	The Good Wife	CBS
12	Criminal Minds	CBS
13	How to Get Away with Murder	ABC
14	Scandal	ABC
15	The Blacklist	NBC
16	*Modern Family* ABC
17	*Mom* CBS
18	Person of Interest	CBS
19	Hawaii Five-0	CBS
20	Survivor (Fall)	CBS
21	The Mentalist *(ending)* CBS
22	Castle	ABC
23	NCIS: Los Angeles	CBS
24	*Two and a Half Men* *(ending)* CBS
25	The Mysteries of Laura	NBC

Castle is a drama with a lot of comic elements. This kind of television is also on the wane, and Castle's audience is fairly old.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

I find the quality of broadcast TV pretty good. Not all programs are great, but overall I think the dramas hold my interest. I agree that the sitcoms are pretty lame for the most part. I really enjoy PBS. Downton Abby, Masterpiece Theather, Nova, etc.... Just my two cents!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Over a 1/3 of what you watch is from only five channels of the couple hundred channels you receive. That seems significant to me.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

we use comcast for limited basic. Networks in HD for about $12 per month.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

scandia101 said:


> Over a 1/3 of what you watch is from only five channels of the couple hundred channels you receive. That seems significant to me.


I think you are right on target!! In my case, my wife and I watch mostly over the air and a few cable channels. That is why the limited economy package works out well for us. I got tired of wasting money every month on channels we never watched!


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I have 97 total Season Passes


The first step is admitting you have a problem.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> Sitcoms seem to be a dying form of entertainment (like vaudeville, variety shows, and cowboy melodramas). I think NBC had as many as 17 sitcoms on in one year in the mid 1990's, and now they have cancelled 24 sitcoms in a row before they generated enough episodes to go into syndication. Every single sitcom since Parks and Recreation and Community aired in 2009 has been cancelled (About a Boy has not been cancelled yet, but has very low ratings).


Sitcoms do seem to be dying off. Back in the 90s, I used to watch lots of sitcoms, but today the only true sitcom I still watch is The Big Bang Theory. If Charlie Sheen were still on Two and a Half Men, then I would probably still be watching that, but after he left it became garbage.

I now get most of my comedy needs filled from the late night comedy shows or YouTube videos rather than from sitcoms. It also seems like a lot of dramas these days try to inject more comedy relief into them, so maybe there is just less need for a dedicated sitcom than there used to be.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Sitcoms do seem to be dying off. Back in the 90s,


Ranking of today's hits compared to 1994-95 season









Using the age 18-49 metric that advertisers care about a lot more than total ratings, TBBT would rank #58 in the season 20 years ago. That means Johnny Galecki was probably viewed more often on Roseanne as a teenager, then on TBBT. But he gets paid a lot better today.

It looks 8/10 of the top 10 are sitcoms.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> Over a 1/3 of what you watch is from only five channels of the couple hundred channels you receive. That seems significant to me.


The remaining shows are really only on a handful of stations too. Looking through the list I only have SPs for shows on 15 cable chnnels... TBS, ShowTime, HBO, Discovery, A&E, History, SyFy, USA, FX, AMC, Comedy Central, Starz, TNT, IFC and Cartoon Network.

I guess that still gives a slight edge to broadcast networks, but I can remember a time when 99% of what I watched was on broadcast TV so the tides are turning.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> Using the age 18-49 metric that advertisers care about a lot more than total ratings, TBBT would rank #58 in the season 20 years ago. That means Johnny Galecki was probably viewed more often on Roseanne as a teenager, then on TBBT. But he gets paid a lot better today.
> 
> It looks 8/10 of the top 10 are sitcoms.


Damn, sitcoms used to completely dominate TV, and not all that long ago. I guess tastes just change over time. I wonder if it will be cyclical and sitcom popularity will eventually come back around, or if it is a permanent trend.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I wonder what the last broadcast show that had a double digit share was? I know the NFL typically does, but I wonder if there is anything else? I read that The Walking Dead had like a 14 point share in the most recent episodes, beating out even the NFL in the 18-49 group. So by all important metrics the most popular show on TV is on basic cable. I bet no one saw that coming.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The remaining shows are really only on a handful of stations too. Looking through the list I only have SPs for shows on 15 cable chnnels... TBS, ShowTime, HBO, Discovery, A&E, History, SyFy, USA, FX, AMC, Comedy Central, Starz, TNT, IFC and Cartoon Network.
> 
> I guess that still gives a slight edge to broadcast networks, but I can remember a time when 99% of what I watched was on broadcast TV so the tides are turning.


I started looking at who actually owns the channels I watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...and_satellite_television_networks&redirect=no

About 90% of the content I watch comes from CBS Corp and Time Warner. I practically never watch Disney or Fox owned channels. Disney and Fox are the two most expensive content providers.
If this CBS and Time Warner (HBO) streaming idea works out I can save about $100/month by dumping cable and only have cable for internet and phone. Probably won't need TiVo anymore either.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The problem with streaming is that most of the streaming services force you to watch the commercials. Obviously HBO wouldn't have commercials, but CBS probably would. 

There are also weird limitations on which devices services support. For example I can access Showtime Anytime on my iPad via Charter, but I can't via my FireTV because Charter hasn't certified that device. There are similar issues with HBOGo on certain devices with certain cable providers. It's all a big cluster f*ck. But maybe if those services are offered standalone those issues would no longer exist?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

replaytv said:


> I only watch antenna TV.
> 
> I read where that is true of most people from what I heard on TV yesterday. But I don't see more info on that when I search on the internet.


Me too, for any type of broadcast TV since I cut the proverbial cord several years ago. And then augment the broadcast TV with a Netflix stream + 1 DVD at a time subscription.

And I still wind up falling behind in my shows...


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The problem with streaming is that most of the streaming services force you to watch the commercials. Obviously HBO wouldn't have commercials, but CBS probably would.
> 
> There are also weird limitations on which devices services support. For example I can access Showtime Anytime on my iPad via Charter, but I can't via my FireTV because Charter hasn't certified that device. There are similar issues with HBOGo on certain devices with certain cable providers. It's all a big cluster f*ck. But maybe if those services are offered standalone those issues would no longer exist?


Well doesn't CBS Corp now offer a stand alone service, even with Showtime?
I know HBO will be offering theirs in the springtime.

These TV Everywhere setups I do not understand. Why would I want to watch TV on such a small device while I got these expensive 50 inch Kuros in my living room and bedroom.
When I am not at home I never have the desire to watch TV as this is something I do when I am at home and relaxing. I think this is just another of those things that is done because it can be done but does not necessary need to be done. It basically just another way for people to waste their time and money.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I tend to let most shows build up and then watch them in blocks. Just this past week I watched the entire season of Homeland and Orphan Black over a few days each. I only have a few shows I have to watch every week. A couple of reality shows (Survivor, Big Brother, Biggest Loser) to avoid spoilers and a couple of shows I just really like. (Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory, The Walking Dead) Most everything else I let build up and watch when I'm in the mood. Some shows I've let build up 2-3 season worth before canceling and deleting because I realize I'm just never in the mood to watch them anymore. 

I think one reason I prefer cable shows is because they tend to have short seasons that lend themselves better to binge watching like this. A show with 10-12 episode per season is much easier to digest like this then one with 22-24 episodes per season.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> Well doesn't CBS Corp now offer a stand alone service, even with Showtime?
> I know HBO will be offering theirs in the springtime.
> 
> These TV Everywhere setups I do not understand. Why would I want to watch TV on such a small device while I got these expensive 50 inch Kuros in my living room and bedroom.
> When I am not at home I never have the desire to watch TV as this is something I do when I am at home and relaxing. I think this is just another of those things that is done because it can be done but does not necessary need to be done. It basically just another way for people to waste their time and money.


According to what I read they're planning on launching a standalone service sometime in 2015.

If TiVo has an app for it and HBOGo I might consider dropping them from my cable lineup and getting a more basic plan. I think most of what me and my wife watch are either on basic channels or premiums. I don't think we really watch any of the extended basic channels, but we are required to have it to get the premiums.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> According to what I read they're planning on launching a standalone service sometime in 2015.
> 
> If TiVo has an app for it and HBOGo I might consider dropping them from my cable lineup and getting a more basic plan. I think most of what me and my wife watch are either on basic channels or premiums. I don't think we really watch any of the extended basic channels, but we are required to have it to get the premiums.


Same here. I have to have the expanded basic package just to have HD and the premiums.
If these services do take off and they are available on the Amazon or Roku box, I really won't need the TiVos anymore as I will not need to record linear TV channels.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I have 97 total Season Passes, only 37 of them are for shows on broadcast channels.


I'm probably somewhat similar, but a lot of those cable shows are very seasonal. At only 10-13 eps a year, I might have dozens of cable series as SPs, and still not equal the number of OTA episodes I record (in a year).

But it's an interesting observation. I'll have to count my active SPs, and see how it lays out.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Jed1 said:


> I started looking at who actually owns the channels I watch.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...and_satellite_television_networks&redirect=no
> 
> About 90% of the content I watch comes from CBS Corp and Time Warner. I practically never watch Disney or Fox owned channels. Disney and Fox are the two most expensive content providers.
> If this CBS and Time Warner (HBO) streaming idea works out I can save about $100/month by dumping cable and only have cable for internet and phone. Probably won't need TiVo anymore either.


If Disney is one of the most expensive, it's probably in large part because they own a big chunk of ESPN, and ESPN1 (just the one channel) is like $5-$7 per cable household per month (apparently it's going up again in 2015), with everything that's not like HBO or Showtime way less than that. And you pretty much can't get cable without paying for ESPN1, except maybe for even more basic than basic service which is pretty much just your local broadcasters. And the local broadcasters are trying to get bigger and bigger slices of the cable bill all the time. (They're free if you get them over the air, any other way, like having someone else get them over the air for you, they get to charge as much as they can negotiate, apparently, although it's still nothing like what ESPN1 gets)


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Jed1 said:


> I really won't need the TiVos anymore as I will not need to record linear TV channels.


Well, you don't know what things will cost. While Netflix at $8/month seems like a bargain, CBS All Access with no football at $6/month seems vastly overpriced.

It seems to me when I watch cable VOD with fast forward disabled, the networks have it all wrong. The shows should be released on cable VOD first night, then linear TV second night, then free web pages the next morning. That way they give cable a legitimate edge which justifies their request for fees. Advertisers get their commercials on a media where they can't be FF through the first day.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Damn, sitcoms used to completely dominate TV, and not all that long ago. I guess tastes just change over time. I wonder if it will be cyclical and sitcom popularity will eventually come back around, or if it is a permanent trend.


I don't think they will resurge. The big sitcom hit of the year is *Black-ish* which seems like a bit of a throwback to pre-Cosby days. It may last for five years.

TBBT and Modern Family have been on long enough that there has been several attempts to copy them (non successful). I think after ten years TBBT actors will be rich enough to want to try something different. The secondary actors may want to continue, but that could be hit or miss.

Rank 18-49 : Name : Network	: rating: YoY change%: Viewers (mil):YoY total
1	The Big Bang Theory	CBS	4.56	-9.79%	16.35	-7.34%
2	Modern Family	ABC	3.41	-3.64%	10.07	1.66%
10	Black-ish	ABC	2.58 7.93	
17	Mom	CBS	2.30	10.58%	9.98	31.86%
21	The Goldbergs	ABC	2.19	30.49%	7.14	41.20%
23	Two and a Half Men (ending)	CBS	2.05	-45.98%	8.74	-33.95%
24	2 Broke Girls	CBS	2.05	-19.46%	7.75	-3.17%
26	The Middle	ABC	1.99	-3.56%	7.57	-3.18%
27	Brooklyn Nine-Nine	FOX	1.92	10.50%	4.05	1.69%
29	Mike & Molly	CBS	1.84	-15.83%	7.95	-4.28%
...
33	The Millers (cancelled)	CBS	1.69	-35.98%	7.09	-34.97%
45	Marry Me	NBC	1.49 5.07	
46	The McCarthys	CBS	1.45 6.58	
51	New Girl	FOX	1.39	-33.32%	2.81	-34.80%
71	About a Boy	NBC	1.18	-36.22%	4.15	-40.08%
73	The Mindy Project	FOX	1.11	-12.74%	2.41	-5.42%
74	Selfie (cancelled)	ABC	1.07 3.78	
75	Bad Judge (cancelled)	NBC	1.05 4.30	
86	Mulaney	FOX	0.80 1.82

*Friday night sitcoms*
61	Last Man Standing	ABC	1.25	-5.67%	6.68	6.60%
76	Cristela	ABC	1.03 5.25


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

unitron said:


> (They're free if you get them over the air, any other way, like having someone else get them over the air for you, they get to charge as much as they can negotiate, apparently, although it's still nothing like what ESPN1 gets)


The ESPN group has more revenue than the combination of the top 10 broadcast station groups which own 542 stations.

29	Fox
30	CBS
162	Sinclair
38	Gannett
27	Comcast/NBCU
51	Tribune
8	ABC/Disney
100	Media General
36	Hearst
61	Univision
542

Because of the performance of ESPN, Disney has been pressured repeatedly by stockholders to sell their 8 broadcast stations. They should keep the ABC network, but sell the stations to affiliates. It is a big change since 4 of the stations have been owned since ABC went on the air in 1948-49, and the ABC station in NYC is the most watched broadcast station in the country.The Disney spin-off of ABC has never occurred, mainly due to insider trading allegations that scuttled the deal.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> I don't think they will resurge. The big sitcom hit of the year is *Black-ish* which seems like a bit of a throwback to pre-Cosby days. It may last for five years.
> 
> TBBT and Modern Family have been on long enough that there has been several attempts to copy them (non successful). I think after ten years TBBT actors will be rich enough to want to try something different. The secondary actors may want to continue, but that could be hit or miss.


I wonder just how bad it could get for network sitcoms. Could it get to the point where there are almost no network sitcoms left on the air? Are sitcoms really going the way of the western?


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I wonder just how bad it could get for network sitcoms. Could it get to the point where there are almost no network sitcoms left on the air? Are sitcoms really going the way of the western?


I think the best guess seems to be no, the will not vanish entirely (although I think NBC should give up the ghost and just program drama, reality and sports). The next stab was going to be a new Tina Fey comedy (but it went to Netflix instead), and to bring back Bill Cosby. Unless you live under a rock, you know what happened to the latter project.

The reason seems to be that sitcoms are perceived as having the potential to be hugely profitable. All the highest actor salaries you've ever heard of have gone to sitcom actors.

Fox used to love to program sitcoms across from other network channels 11PM news programs. Now they are showing TMZ and Inside Edition because there are no successful sitcoms on the market. But TBS still buys sitcoms at a high rate, as do multiple stations from MyNetworkTV and Ion.

Fox's sitcoms have some of the lowest ratings for shows to get renewed by the Big4. CW has even lower ratings, but they don't have sitcoms right now (mostly fantasy and sci-fi to appeal to age 35 and younger).

Churning through new shows is not a massive money losing operation. Of course it doesn't make a huge amount of money either. So I think they will keep trying for at least one night per week per network.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

unitron said:


> If Disney is one of the most expensive, it's probably in large part because they own a big chunk of ESPN, and ESPN1 (just the one channel) is like $5-$7 per cable household per month (apparently it's going up again in 2015), with everything that's not like HBO or Showtime way less than that. And you pretty much can't get cable without paying for ESPN1, except maybe for even more basic than basic service which is pretty much just your local broadcasters. And the local broadcasters are trying to get bigger and bigger slices of the cable bill all the time. (They're free if you get them over the air, any other way, like having someone else get them over the air for you, they get to charge as much as they can negotiate, apparently, although it's still nothing like what ESPN1 gets)


Absolutely yes indeed, sports is what is driving the rising cost of programming. My cable company just done a retransmission agreement with Disney. The estimated cost of ESPN is $5.54/month/subscriber. This does not include the cost of the ESPN TV Everywhere either.

The sad thing is a lot of the exclusive sports agreements Disney has for ESPN is set to expire in the next 3 or 4 years. This is why NBC, FOX, and CBS started their own sports network channels. There is going to be a major bidding war for these agreements and this means prices will sky rocket.

My cable company had a long term agreement to carry the YES network. They negotiated this back when the channels was basically run by the Yankees. It cost about .15/month. Unfortunately Rupert Murdock got 80% control of the YES network in January of 2014 and the agreement my cable company had expired on the last day of March, the day before opening season. Fox wanted $4.50/month/subscriber and also have the channel in the basic lineup. Well the channel got removed which caused the Yankee fans to go nuclear. The sad thing is I still got a $11.54/month rate hike this year.
Oh I forgot that they negotiated a new agreement with Comcast for Comcast Sports Net out of Philly which included the Comcast Network. I understand that this is costing about $4.00+/month now.
The worse thing for me is I do not even watch any sports so I am really getting shellacked. I watch a lot of movies but I have to pay extra for that privilege while I subsidize sports fans.

On the local broadcast side my cable company found themselves at logger heads with Oak Hill Capital Partners over the retransmission agreement for WNEP, our ABC affiliate. We were paying about .15/month/subscriber under the old agreement. This time they were demanding $1.30/month/subscriber and they got it because they were running a banner on their channel that my cable company was going to remove it. They got swamped with calls so they gave in but when it showed up on the bill they got swamped with calls because of the rate hike.
After this was done Oak Hill Capital Partners sold WNEP to Tribune.
My NBC affiliate, WBRE, and CBS affiliate, WYOU, are owned by Nexstar Corporation and we are paying them about $1.25/month/subscriber for these two channels. Nexstar even went as far as to remove all the translators in my area so you could not receive the channel with an antenna. They even got FCC approval to do this as they claimed that their high band FM signal was strong enough for this region. This area is nothing but mountains and valleys, with most communities being located in the valleys.
Our Fox affiliate, WOLF, costs about .85/month/subscriber. It is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting. They also control My Network and the CW.
Sinclair went as far to hit my cable company with Syndex Rights because they carry WWOR and WPIX out of New York. Fox has certain broadcast rights to shows like Seinfeld so nobody else can not show these programs on their channels. WPIX has Seinfeld on at 11:00 PM and 11:30 PM but it is blacked out. The ridiculous thing is WOLF does not even have Seinfeld on their channel.
Just recently, Tribune also enforced Syndex Rights on my cable company because they have WPVI on our system. So now most of the shows on that channel are blacked out. Basically the only thing you can watch is the local news from Philly as everything else is blacked out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndication_exclusivity

And just when you think you can catch a break and try streaming, my cable company changed over to full time rate caps in August so now I have to watch I do not blow through my 450GB monthly cap. Oh yes I also got a rate hike on my internet service this year. That was rolled into my $11.54/month rate hike. DSL is really no longer an option here as Verizon has abandoned the old POTS system here. They are not replacing it with FIOS either.

The sad thing is my cable company is the first cable company in the nation. Service Electric started in 1948. My elderly mother never viewed TV without cable. I also have never seen TV without cable in my half century of existence. Service Electric was the first to carry HBO. I remember watching it for free in the early seventies as they did not know how to scramble the signal. The old microwave towers are still standing here today. There is one on top of the hill from my house. 
Read the history section of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO
WE then got Cinemax and a premium sports channel from Philadelphia called PRISM. The infrastructure of PRISM is still used today for Comcast Sports Network Philadelphia.
About ten years ago Service Electric was the 12th largest MSO in the US. Today they have slipped to 16th place because of population loss and subscriber loss. About a third of the homes here have satellite TV service now.
On the plus side Service Electric has absolutely no issues with CableCards. I have been using them for ten years now and never had an issue with them. I was actually their guinea pig as I was the first person to use them.
There is absolutely no reason the big boys can not get CableCards right.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Pacomartin said:


> Well, you don't know what things will cost. While Netflix at $8/month seems like a bargain, CBS All Access with no football at $6/month seems vastly overpriced.
> 
> It seems to me when I watch cable VOD with fast forward disabled, the networks have it all wrong. The shows should be released on cable VOD first night, then linear TV second night, then free web pages the next morning. That way they give cable a legitimate edge which justifies their request for fees. Advertisers get their commercials on a media where they can't be FF through the first day.


In my case I do not use Netflix as I prefer Amazon Prime. I also do not watch any sports at all so the CBS All Access is a good deal for me. I actually want to free myself from subsidizing sports viewers and let them realize the full cost for their habit.

Actually your cable company has to negotiate with the content owners what will be on VOD and when. The content on VOD is provided by the content owners and your cable operator has no control if and when programs will be offered. The same with TV Anywhere. The cost for retransmission incudes all three of these services. This is rolled into your programming/channel packages.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I just got a notice on my bill that as of 2/1 all bills would be increasing by $5/mo for a "local broadcast transmission fee". So I'm assuming my local affiliate just got squeezed by one, or more, of the local stations and they're passing that on to us.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Jed1 said:


> Actually your cable company has to negotiate with the content owners what will be on VOD and when. The content on VOD is provided by the content owners and your cable operator has no control if and when programs will be offered. The same with TV Anywhere. The cost for retransmission incudes all three of these services. This is rolled into your programming/channel packages.


In May of 1984 ABC paid $188 million in cash for the 85 percent interest in ESPN (it already owned 15%), plus $14 million for the sports network's satellite broadcasting facilities. It may have been the smartest media investment of all time.

Many people don't realize that OTA networks had the right to request retransmission consent from cable companies as early as the September 1993 season. At the time cable companies refused to pay money under the argument that they shouldn't have to pay to retransmit signals which are free over the air. In September 1993 ABC created ESPN2 and refused to allow ABC to be retransmitted unless the cable companies also accepted ESPN2. As probably all the cable companies would have gladly accepted ESPN2 anyway, the gesture was largely token.

So what you see happening now is simply OTA networks playing hardball with an old legal capability. As both Disney's revenue and profits from their cable companies dwarfs that of broadcasting, Disney cannot be too demanding for ABC. They reserve their 800 lb gorilla act for ESPN negotiations. To a lessor extent that is true for NBC/Comcast and FOX.

But CBS has no cable network properties except Showtime and Smithsonian Channel. As a result they negotiate for the highest retransmission fee for their broadcast.

While CBS is way below ESPN, my understanding is that CBS now asks for more than TNT or FOXnews.

But if some of these networks made their most popular shows available on cable VOD the night before, they would be giving cable subscribers something besides retransmission. I don't see the downside to CBS except for spoilers, and they would have a better argument for their negotiations.



Dan203 said:


> I just got a notice on my bill that as of 2/1 all bills would be increasing by $5/mo for a "local broadcast transmission fee". So I'm assuming my local affiliate just got squeezed by one, or more, of the local stations and they're passing that on to us.


The cable companies got permission from the Fcc to impose a "local broadcast fee" and a "sports fee" over and above their advertised price. I don't think it is a result of any particular negotiation.

While businesses have always had the right not to include taxes in their advertised rate, government is getting more and more liberal about what they can call "fees". Fees are not taxes, but part of the cost of doing business that they are allowed to itemize as a pass through and omit from advertised rates. Sometimes this technique is referred to as "drip picing".

As an experiment, my cable company imposes $13 in taxes and fees for the phone service. I called them and asked if I drop the phone service would they keep my package price the same and simply drop the "taxes and fees" for the phone? They said the whole contract would be invalid.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah I don't watch much network tv either. 60 minutes, Dateline, 48 hrs, ...sports and sometimes Modern Family. Hate network dramas and most comedies.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Yeah, that angers me. I added Charter in Oct. at an advertised triple play price and found that $5 among the fee adders even though I also get OTA for free with or without Charter. Then I got a notice that it's going up to $5.25 in January. I wouldn't mind if you could opt out of it by not receiving the local channels from them but I don't think they'll let you do that.

I don't think it has anything to do with individual retransmission negotiations; just an excuse for stealth across-the-board subscription rate increases. They should have to prove how much they're paying to local affiliates or include the fee in the advertised subscription rates like they did before.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

series5orpremier said:


> They should have to prove how much they're paying to local affiliates or include the fee in the advertised subscription rates like they did before.


Regulators are too blame. And this applies to the entire service industry. No fee should be permitted to be a line-item unless it is (1) a tax or (2) optional.

But I hold no anger at individual companies. Once the ball gets rolling, if the company is straightforward they lose a great deal of their ability to compete in the marketplace. The lawyer that got regulators to agree to a "sports fee" which doesn't have to be included in advertised price deserves his Tesla.

It would be OK if the company itemizes some of their cost and expenses. I have maintained that nearly everyone knows that only half their movie ticket goes to the provider of the movie, and the other half goes to the theater company and that overpriced candy is all that keeps the business operational. People go to movies anyway. I don't know why cable companies can't be honest about the fees they pay. I think they are afraid of a riot.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Well, I'm one of the (perhaps minority of) consumers who punishes companies who behave like that by making sure in the long run they receive less revenue from me than they otherwise would have.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

series5orpremier said:


> Well, I'm one of the (perhaps minority of) consumers who punishes companies who behave like that by making sure in the long run they receive less revenue from me than they otherwise would have.


Steve Wynn tells the story of when he took over the Golden Nugget casino in Las Vegas he had to fire a quarter of the staff who were stealing. They had been stealing so long, that many thought they were entitled.

Access charges are fees charged subscribers or other telephone companies by a local telephone company for the use of its local network.The FCC allows local telephone companies to bill customers for a portion of the costs of providing access. These charges are not a government charge or tax. The maximum allowable access charges per telephone line are set by the FCC, but local telephone companies are free to charge less or nothing at all.

These charges are called *Federal Subscriber Line Charge* on my cable bill. Emphasize that the FCC says this is an optional charge. Combine that with the "Federal Universal Service Fund" which is also not a tax.

Now the advertised rate from my cable company is $20/month, but the above two charges are $10/month. It isn't that I think $30/month is too much for a phone, but it bugs me that they can advertise it this way.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

At the time the 1992 Cable Act went into effect, most of the local broadcast stations were locally owned. It was believed by those owners at that time that the cable operators would remove the local stations in order to provide more room for the growing number of cable/sat channels,
They lobbied congress to ensure that their stations do not get dropped from cable lineups under the guise of providing information in case of local emergencies. The congress agreed but also provided the option to waive "must carry" for retransmission.
This article explains the Act and its consequences in detail.
http://www.htcinc.net/media/images/2014_Retransmission_Consent_Information.pdf
The effect on small cable operators is the problem magnifies as they do not have the resources to fight the increases.
http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...oviders-decry-rate-hikes/stories/201407100266

What happened after the Act was passed was the local owners started to sell off to small corporations and so began the consolidation of the local broadcast stations.
In 2005 one of these corporations, Nexstar, decided to waive "must carry" and go for retransmission. This played out here in my local market, Wilkes Barre, as Nexstar had control of two stations, Wyou and Wbre. My cable company tried to negotiate in fair terms as they have done for carriage of cable/sat channels. Perry Sook played hard ball and started running crawls on both stations stating Service Electric will lose these stations at midnight of the new year. He also ran the telephone numbers for Direct TV and Dish. My cable company eventually caved because the winter Olympics was going to start in 2 weeks.
http://www.bcfm.com/docs/JF06Nexstarsnewestrevenue .pdf
http://02e1390.netsolhost.com/images/Retransmission_Fees_Pay_TV_Provider_to_Broadcaster.pdf

This was so effective that now everybody uses these tactics.
Ironically the Broadcast Networks themselves are demanding a piece of these local retransmission agreements as a fee for providing the content to the local broadcasters. 
http://flowtv.org/2011/10/retransmission/

Of course the biggest driver in these fee fights is the cost of sports.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/mad-about-the-cost-of-tv-blame-sports/274575/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/b...s-pay-to-keep-tv-sports-fans-happy.html?_r=2&
The one beauty about sports that the sports leagues and broadcasters like is it doesn't work very well with streaming so they do not worry that they will lose the amount of revenue they get from the non sports viewers.

The main issue here is that about 8 corporations control 90% of the channels on TV and 60% of total film production in the US. Even switching to streaming will not get you away from this. The only group streaming is beneficial for is non sports viewers like myself.
http://deadline.com/2013/09/tv-producers-networks-dictate-consumer-costs-583378/


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

What the NAB tried to get passed originally was nicknamed "Must Carry, Must Pay", which meant any broadcaster in the market served by a cable company had to be carried by that cable company and every broadcaster carried by that cable company had to be paid re-transmisson fees by the cable company.

Rent seeking much?


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Jed1 said:


> In 2005 one of these corporations, Nexstar, decided to waive "must carry" and go for retransmission.


*Minor correction*
The stations probably all went for "retransmission consent" right from the very beginning in 1992. But for many years the stations settled for small scale concessions (like don't compress the signal ). ABC's initial requirement for consent was that the cable companies carry ESPN2. It probably wasn't much of a fight, since in 1993 most cable companies were on the lookout for as many high quality channels as they could get. The fees were not a major part of cost overhead.

*Emphasize spirit of your point*
Mission Broadcasting, Inc. is a television station group that owns 20 television stations in 17 markets in the United States. All of Mission's stations are located in markets where the Nexstar Broadcasting Group also owns a station, and all of Mission's stations are managed by Nexstar through shared services and local marketing agreementsallowing duopolies between the top two stations in a market or in markets with too few stations to allow duopolies.

So in a small DMA like Wilkes-Barre Scranton, all stations are operated by the large station groups that own scores or hundreds of stations.
WBRE-NBC owned by Nexstar Broadcasting Group
WYOU-CBS owned by Mission (operated by Nextar0
WNEP-ABC owned by Dreamcatcher Broadcasting (operated by Tribune Broadcasting)
WOLF-FOX owned by New Age (operated by Sinclair)

So a small cable compay like SECTV with quarter million homes doesn't have much negotiating clout.


----------



## DawnW (Nov 28, 2008)

Most of what I watch IS on Network TV, or is available on Netflix or Hulu+.

When we got rid of DirecTV over 3 years ago the only thing I really missed was the ability to pause Live TV and record shows. That is what lead to my first Tivo purchase. We got a 2nd for another TV about a year later. Both were S3s with Lifetime. 

However, with cable offering a special deal we are going to try it again.

I will see what my TV watching changes might be with having cable TV available again.

I do like a good sitcom, although there are so few these days. Most resort to crude humor, putting others down as humor, or making fun of things.

I was happy to see Carol Burnett coming to MeTV. I was too young when it was actually on TV to have watched, but I enjoy it. 

I have also started watching a British sitcom called Miranda. 

Dawn


----------



## DawnW (Nov 28, 2008)

Aren't those the same channels you could get for free with an antenna?



jlb said:


> we use comcast for limited basic. Networks in HD for about $12 per month.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

DawnW said:


> Aren't those the same channels you could get for free with an antenna?


Yep. I can't speak for jlb, but in my corner of MA having both Comcast HSI and Limited Basic TV is cheaper than having just Comcast HSI.


----------



## DawnW (Nov 28, 2008)

Ah, I see.

That isn't the case here in NC as far as I can see.



sbourgeo said:


> Yep. I can't speak for jlb, but in my corner of MA having both Comcast HSI and Limited Basic TV is cheaper than having just Comcast HSI.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Pacomartin said:


> *Minor correction*
> The stations probably all went for "retransmission consent" right from the very beginning in 1992. But for many years the stations settled for small scale concessions (like don't compress the signal ). ABC's initial requirement for consent was that the cable companies carry ESPN2. It probably wasn't much of a fight, since in 1993 most cable companies were on the lookout for as many high quality channels as they could get. The fees were not a major part of cost overhead.
> 
> *Emphasize spirit of your point*
> ...


From my understanding, Sinclair bought New Age and is using a shell corporation called Cunningham Broadcasting to assume ownership.
http://www.sbgi.net/site_mgr/temp/New Age - Press Release.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/25/sinclair-new-age-deal/2873077/
http://www.americancable.org/node/4474

With WNEP, Tribune did buy them but since WNEP has a translator in the Allentown area and Tribune owns the Morning Call newspaper, they also have a shell partnership with DreamCatcher. DreamCatcher is owned by a former Tribune executive Ed Wilson, who also is a consultant for Tribune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNEP-TV
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...als-wnep-wtkr-wgnt-ed-wilson/44164?nopaging=1

From what I can remember none of the Wilkes Barre stations required retransmission with Service Electric until Perry Sook, CEO of Nexstar, demanded it from them in the end of 2005. Not long after that New Age Media then waived Must Carry for Retransmission, and then Oak Hill Capital Partners demand retransmission. Oak Hill creamed Service Electric in the most recent retransmission as they got $1.25/month/sub. Right after that they sold WNEP to Tribune.
Since some of Service Electric is in the Philadelphia DMA, they just settled a retransmission deal with Disney Corp for WPVI. I think RCN was involved in this retransmission deal. 
As I mentioned before, Sinclair and Tribune have enforced Syndex Rights on the Service Electrics in the Wilkes Barre DMA because they have WWOR,WPIX, and WPVI on my system. Most of the time the programming is blacked out on these stations.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Jed1 said:


> From what I can remember none of the Wilkes Barre stations required retransmission with Service Electric until Perry Sook, CEO of Nexstar, demanded it from them in the end of 2005.


Like I said earlier perhaps we are talking semantics. The decision to select "must carry" or "consent required" is according to government guidelines. You are required to notify the Fcc and the affected cable companies.But it is possible to require consent, and then give it away for free.



techdaily said:


> CBS invoked retransmission consent with regard to the seven stations that it owned and operated in 1992, but the cable companies refused to pay, so ultimately CBS authorized retransmission consent at no charge. The other networks fared somewhat better. They, too, received no cash for retransmission consent, but they did receive additional capacity with which they launched additional programming. NBC used its new channel to launch a long-forgotten cable channel called Americas Talking. More memorably, ABC used its new channel to launch ESPN2, while Fox used its to launch the FX network. - See more at: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/comm...onsent-must-carry-rules/#sthash.LlRbZXlO.dpuf


So I think what happened in 2005 was they started asking for significant money from SECTV. That would be consistent with a general movement in the country.

While broadcast is never going to recover the audience of even a decade ago, it could easily stabilize. Many people are viewing live TV as a way to supplement their online viewing instead of the other way around. Devices like SimpleTV, Tivo's Roamio OTA, and Tablo are making it easy to time shift over the air broadcasts. Unfortunately they make it easier to skip commercials as well.

But NBC launched the Fall Season with 6 hours of drama, and 1 hour of sitcoms (although it launched another hour of sitcoms a month later). that is the same amount of time the CW devotes to scripted drama (8 hours week).

So I think one consequence of the COMCAST / TW merger will be that NBC will almost entirely give up on scripted television. It's been talked about for years, but with cable reaching 30 million households, he corporation would do better airing scripted TV on USA network and SyFy, and using broadcast for talent shows, sports, and news.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah, I find I watch HBO, PBS, sports, and not a whole lot else. If I had to pick one favorite channel, definitely PBS.


----------

