Why are broadcasters so afraid of FTA?

[stanleyjohn]

Why are broadcasters so determined to keep us from watching the programming they provide? FTA is so small compared to cable and dish and even if FTA was to die 100%!i really dont think it would make hardly a dent in how many viewers they have.So we have to stay in the dark and hide and hope the big guys think we are not watching them.Maybe they think if they dont do what they do now to prevent us from watching!KU and C dishes will start growing at a alarming rate finally making a dent in the rateings game.

 

[Bill_KY]

FTA is is big in Europe...many stations are in the clear there.

 

[Cadsulfide]

The lawyers won't be happy until you have to subscribe to the air you breathe

 

[SATisfied]

If the air I breathe is on my property I consider it to be mine.

 

[LocutusOfBorg]

Why are broadcasters so determined to keep us from watching the programming they provide? FTA is so small compared to cable and dish and even if FTA was to die 100%!i really dont think it would make hardly a dent in how many viewers they have.So we have to stay in the dark and hide and hope the big guys think we are not watching them.Maybe they think if they dont do what they do now to prevent us from watching!KU and C dishes will start growing at a alarming rate finally making a dent in the rateings game.

The only reason I can think of is that if word gets out, people will stop subscribing and they'll lose money. Of course, the companies who make the antennas and hardware would rake in the dough. Maybe that's what these uplinkers should do, get their revenue by branching out into the hardware side of things. After all, it's capitalism that drives the American economy.

 

[guapoharry]

How do you figure they are 'afraid' of FTA?

Why give programming away when there are people paying for it? Power, salaries, capital equipment, everything costs plenty. This can't exist this unless you have the propaganda arm of some country financing it, or it's a non-profit religious based organization...

Broadcasters want you to watch their programming.... It's just they want you to watch it the way they want you to watch it.

Let's say your business wants to advertize on their station. They charge you by a bunch of factors that include, their viewership / audience size.

Until Nielsen / Arbitron / whatever ratings numbers indicate FTA viewership, (or there were some way to ennumerate FTA viewers) it could be argued that FTA viewers can not make the content providers any money. -- through advertizing, etc...

 

[signal.quest]

TV with commercials is driven by advertising. I am surprised that the ability to reach more people to see the commercials would not push the channels to be FTA. I can only think there is political agenda behind it. Most likely the same political reasons why we can't pick and choose which channels we want to subscribe to on cable and sat providers. We have pay more to get channels we don't care about just so we can see ESPN... The technology also exists to have IP television using the Internet and be able to subscribe to only the channels you would like --- but I don't see it offered any where.

 

[turbosat]

For some "broadcasters" , it is about control (over what you see and how you see it) and of course , power. Power to charge you money to watch anything produced for public viewing.
Mostly, though, its about money.

 

[stanleyjohn]

Why does FTA prosper in Europe so well! There was a time when advertisements footed the bill and no one else payed and broadcasters were making $$$.

 

[Mikey11]

they dont want us watching their FTA broadcasts for one reason...encryptions cost money!!

that is why its really not a good idea to talk about what you are receiving publicly....or on here....once they see people are watching their programming for free they encrypt it...

 

[guapoharry]

Why does FTA prosper in Europe so well! ...

As I understand it, there was governement legislation.

 

[FaT Air]

Yes, to get permitted to have a subscription service, they were required to carry so many channels free. And if I remember this right, they mostly resemble PBS programming, and Public Service. Might be, they did this, because they aren't legislating to promote the rush for the cash our back pockets.

 

[crackt]

i think the problem lies more with the agreements the content providers sign with the sat providers. they are really two entities. the content providers make money from advertisements and carriage fees. the fees the sat providers pay to the content providers ensure that the master uplinks are encrypted. why else, but a program guide, would anyone subscribe except the fact that most content is available only thru some form of redistribution. the big sat companies (and other companies in other industries) actually are the ones writing the laws thru their bs politics and lobbying. so the next time you sub to a sat provider, and you want to aim the blame for the lack of fta content, a mirror will show the way to point.

crackt out,.

 

[Krydor]

they dont want us watching their FTA broadcasts for one reason...encryptions cost money!!

that is why its really not a good idea to talk about what you are receiving publicly....or on here....once they see people are watching their programming for free they encrypt it...

While I may be new here, I'm not new to BUD's, I have to tell you that this argument is utterly wrong. Back when BUD's had a huge number of people, there were still plenty of free channels, including networks and sports backhauls. Watching series before they aired was always fun.

The same can be said for right now with DVB. A version of all the networks are ITC. They know that they are ITC. They don't care. RTV, for instance, is well aware that people can see their signal for free with the right equipment. I would have to say that the Carribean MUX knows as well. They chose to use C-Band as their primary distribution source and the extra added expense of encryption doesn't make sense to them.

Besides, not all of the European channels are ITC. Some are, some aren't. The real issue, in my opinion, is the inability to subscribe to some of the premium channels in North America. Beyond that, keeping things secret that are well known by all is an exercise in futility. We know, they know we know, and we know they know we know.

 

[Keith Brannen]

And if I remember this right, they mostly resemble PBS programming, and Public Service.

Eurobird 1 & Astra 2A/2B/2D at 28.2°E - LyngSat

is a good example of the type of FTA channels in Europe (definitely not just PBS/Public Service type). Note some of the FTA American based programming (CBS Action, CBS Reality, CBS Drama, etc.)

If we had that type of FTA here...

 

[stanleyjohn]

Great replies! I think cable and dish should keep up the way they package programming!Pay high $$$ for 90+ percent of programming your not going to watch.That makes us FTA people feel good on what we get and the best part!your not paying for what you dont want to watch.You can hear it in the winds that more and more subscribers of Dish and cable are getting pissed off at what they pay for.What broadcasters,cable and dish should really be worried about is not the few FTA people around but there own customers getting to a point of dumping them and going to OTA,Internet Streaming or FTA.

 

[guacharaca]

I suspect that we will see more FTA go to C-band because less people are willing, or permitted to put a BUD in their yard. While smaller dish signals will tend to get scrambled as the technology becomes cheaper and more realiable. The lesson of the vast number of people who installed pizza pans and received N2 signals in the past without subscription is very clear in the minds of the broadcasters.

 

[kingofku]

Most of you are missing the point. Nearly all television programming is licensed. Licensed to an individual station, licensed to a broadcast network, licensed to a cable/satellite network. The bottom line reason that most don't broadcast ITC is strictly because of licensing issues and market exclusivity. Realizing that FTA is such a minute blip of the tv radar screen, they just don't want to be bothered with policing this area.

 

[ynnedibanez]

Most of you are missing the point. Nearly all television programming is licensed. Licensed to an individual station, licensed to a broadcast network, licensed to a cable/satellite network. The bottom line reason that most don't broadcast ITC is strictly because of licensing issues and market exclusivity. Realizing that FTA is such a minute blip of the tv radar screen, they just don't want to be bothered with policing this area.

:up
it all falls back to the $$$

 

[crackt]

Most of you are missing the point. Nearly all television programming is licensed. Licensed to an individual station, licensed to a broadcast network, licensed to a cable/satellite network. The bottom line reason that most don't broadcast ITC is strictly because of licensing issues and market exclusivity. Realizing that FTA is such a minute blip of the tv radar screen, they just don't want to be bothered with policing this area.

you said it better than i could. i agree 100 percent.

add in the american capatalist mindset and you have dishnet / walmart / microsoft monopolies lobbying and campaign contributing their agendas into laws that short change the consumer.

crackt out,.