If you go to Europe, you probably won’t be spending a lot of time watching TV in the room. But if you do, you’ll probably notice that it’s a little bit different. Even today, you’ll see fewer over-the-air channels than we have in the US, and the ones that are there are more national than local. Of course most of those countries are smaller, so “national” and “local” are a little more similar anyway.
In most countries, free television isn’t free. It’s provided by government license. You pay a tax that gives you access to it, and in exchange you get some device that lets you actually watch. The stations, more often than not, are government owned too. It’s a very different take on television than the way it developed here.
Because of that system, it’s the government that’s required to make sure that you can get reception as long as you pay the tax. Until the 21st century, this meant a series of transmitters and repeaters that was expensive to erect and maintain.
In the 21st century, a lot of countries started to move their broadcast efforts to satellite. By renting a relatively small amount of space on a satellite, the entire country could be covered. Because there weren’t that many channels, the dishes could be small and simple enough for people to put up by themselves. Moving to satellite made it easier for countries to move to HD broadcasting, which is why there have been two different HD standards in Europe, both more advanced than what we have here.
While I think it would be great if it did, it probably wouldn’t. The US is a much larger country which means a network of local channels much bigger than those in Europe. That’s why DIRECTV and DISH need multiple satellites and larger dishes.
Plus, there’s the matter of ownership. In the US, all the TV stations are privately owned. Even PBS, the government-funded television service, is operated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a private nonprofit funded by the government. In order to replace today’s over-the-air system with satellite, you’d need to convince the top 50 owners to do it. The others would probably fall in line if you did.
Then of course there’s the matter of paying for it. Would station owners pay for it? This isn’t a political blog but I think I can safely say that a new tax on television wouldn’t be welcomed.
It’s very possible that someone could try to launch a private, paid satellite service like what DIRECTV and DISH already have. A company called Orby tried this out several years ago, offering a small selection of channels at a much lower price. It didn’t work. That’s the end of that.
Do I have to say anything more than “the internet?” Even today’s European satellite systems are expensive to maintain compared to streaming. A lot of folks say streaming is the next wave of free broadcasting. I don’t disagree, at least for Europe and other places where it’s government-controlled. Here in the US it could take 15 years or more to move all broadcasting away from the current system. By the time you were done, it would probably be time to start all over again.
That’s why in the end, I don’t think that US over-the-air broadcasting is going to change a lot. I think it’s good, it’s stable, and it works. It does what people want free broadcasting to do. I’m not sure how many people really want to replace every aspect of their TV system even if there are more features. What do you think?
If you’re looking for a TV antenna that’s future-proof and gets free TV, shop the great selection at Solid Signal. If you want a personalized recommendation, call us at 888-233-7563 or fill out the form below.
The post Could the US go to Freeview Satellite instead of local over-the-air TV? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
A little bit of how TV works over there
In most countries, free television isn’t free. It’s provided by government license. You pay a tax that gives you access to it, and in exchange you get some device that lets you actually watch. The stations, more often than not, are government owned too. It’s a very different take on television than the way it developed here.
Because of that system, it’s the government that’s required to make sure that you can get reception as long as you pay the tax. Until the 21st century, this meant a series of transmitters and repeaters that was expensive to erect and maintain.
In the 21st century, a lot of countries started to move their broadcast efforts to satellite. By renting a relatively small amount of space on a satellite, the entire country could be covered. Because there weren’t that many channels, the dishes could be small and simple enough for people to put up by themselves. Moving to satellite made it easier for countries to move to HD broadcasting, which is why there have been two different HD standards in Europe, both more advanced than what we have here.
Could that work for the US?
While I think it would be great if it did, it probably wouldn’t. The US is a much larger country which means a network of local channels much bigger than those in Europe. That’s why DIRECTV and DISH need multiple satellites and larger dishes.
Plus, there’s the matter of ownership. In the US, all the TV stations are privately owned. Even PBS, the government-funded television service, is operated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a private nonprofit funded by the government. In order to replace today’s over-the-air system with satellite, you’d need to convince the top 50 owners to do it. The others would probably fall in line if you did.
Then of course there’s the matter of paying for it. Would station owners pay for it? This isn’t a political blog but I think I can safely say that a new tax on television wouldn’t be welcomed.
It’s very possible that someone could try to launch a private, paid satellite service like what DIRECTV and DISH already have. A company called Orby tried this out several years ago, offering a small selection of channels at a much lower price. It didn’t work. That’s the end of that.
The internet
Do I have to say anything more than “the internet?” Even today’s European satellite systems are expensive to maintain compared to streaming. A lot of folks say streaming is the next wave of free broadcasting. I don’t disagree, at least for Europe and other places where it’s government-controlled. Here in the US it could take 15 years or more to move all broadcasting away from the current system. By the time you were done, it would probably be time to start all over again.
That’s why in the end, I don’t think that US over-the-air broadcasting is going to change a lot. I think it’s good, it’s stable, and it works. It does what people want free broadcasting to do. I’m not sure how many people really want to replace every aspect of their TV system even if there are more features. What do you think?
If you’re looking for a TV antenna that’s future-proof and gets free TV, shop the great selection at Solid Signal. If you want a personalized recommendation, call us at 888-233-7563 or fill out the form below.
The post Could the US go to Freeview Satellite instead of local over-the-air TV? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
