Are you suggesting that the article is "fake news?" There have been multiple articles posted to this forum over the past few months from various sources, and all indicate a trend upward in OTA usage. If Nielsen's study isn't conclusive enough for you, perhaps you could conduct your own?1.75% per year is hardly a firestorm of revitalization and it needs the data points to be filled in to establish how it is trending.
With stations carrying up to 16 streams on a single carrier, I can see more than a few losing interest in OTA due to insufferable quality. This is something that is relatively new that stands to get worse fast in some of the denser markets as the repack progresses and the broadcasters get serious about divvying up the spectrum for Next Gen.
I know of a couple of viewers who are throwing in the towel because they don't want some "huge-ass aeriel" on their property.
Not at all. It is simply that the information given is too sparse to tell what's been going on within the 8 years that the comparison contemplates.Are you suggesting that the article is "fake news?"
I'm not disputing that the usage may have increased over some interval of time, but most of these surveys have been noticeably lacking in numbers (I mean households or eyeballs, not some mysteriously derived percentages).There have been multiple articles posted to this forum over the past few months from various sources, and all indicate a trend upward in OTA usage.
The survey may be just what we need, but we need something more than the endpoints to see where it is heading. For all we know, it could have peaked in 2017 and has leveled out or is falling off and both of those outcomes are decidedly different from gaining momentum.If Nielsen's study isn't conclusive enough for you, perhaps you could conduct your own?
Steady is defined as a statistic that doesn't vary based on the interval chosen. In this case, it is assumed that steady applies to the rate of uptake. Your numbers suggest that the rate of uptake is slowing down:It's been a steady trend for a few years now and I do not understand some peoples reluctance to accept that fact.
I keep hearing this bleating about OTA TV needs to be able to air naughty content to compete. Yet, in the "Golden Age of Television", married couples slept in twin beds and networks practiced great restraint. Loosening standards hasn't led to better programming, and I can't help but to believe that loosening them further would result in fewer eyeballs watching network TV. Not everyone wants that content openly available.I would like to see high quality TV shows R rated shows like Games of Throne and the classic Soprano made into R ad supported competing against hard pay TV services. Off course we need to overhaul the FCC seven dirty word and nudity ban. If the free to air stations can able to compete against pay channels for the quality of the TV shows and of course made on the USA R rated classic movies and sadly all chopped up thanks to heavy handed censorship. All will be ad supported that for sure with no cut up or bleeping and blurred up images.
This isn't why you don't hear the words or see the skin. For that you can thank the nanny groups who threaten boycotts of the advertisers. Some people have absolutely no sense of context. Then again, some parents have no idea what their children are watching or aren't actively involved in helping them understand what they're seeing. Some of the Disney "soaps" would be considered scandalous by many but because it is Disney, the nannies aren't nannying as furiously.Off course we need to overhaul the FCC seven dirty word and nudity ban.
Literally no one said that and that you saw it is a symptom of a very real problem.If you define good programming by skin shown and foul language, you are truly mistaken.