I think these cable deals are at the leagues' own peril. A lot of people will just stop watching. It's going to be a big moneymaker for sports bars though.
Other than sporting events that people already know that they want to watch, does anyone actually care about live anymore?
The generic answer is "event television" (verbized as "eventize"), which includes live sports, and breaking news, award presentations, and a few very specific showings (such as "The Day of the Doctor", simulcast across much of the world).
I think there's more to the appeal of linear channels than just the tentpole live sports content. Some folks simply like flipping through pre-programmed content streams, i.e. "Play something for me." It's a different way to access content versus scrolling through long grids of on-demand content posters. Linear channels get you into content quickly and with zero "commitment." It's a good way for programmers to advertise their stuff and a convenient way for viewers to sample it. So even after Boomers and Xers are gone, I'm not sure that linear channels will be. I just think that, for the most part, their future lies inside FAST apps like Pluto TV, Tubi, Xumo, etc. As I've said before, I believe that by the end of this decade, the major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox -- will exist as free live stream linear channels inside those companies' FAST apps (but with most of their live sports blacked out from those free streams).
I don't see that being successful at large scale outside of sports and news, the two remaining pillars of live TV.
I think Netflix has basically overcome the desire to have something on, and there's no reason that they couldn't make it even easier with a customized feed that starts automatically based on your recommendations, making the concept of live TV outside of live events totally obsolete.
That's me. Since back in the 80s I've been time shifting my TV watching. There is nothing I want to watch live. At least not if there are any commercials included.
Maybe. Although I think there's a social aspect (whether conscious or unconscious) about linear channels too, in knowing that you're watching the same thing at the same time as many others across the land. But yeah, we might also see customized auto-playing feeds that mimic linear channels. I believe Netflix experimented with such a feature in France, although I don't think they stuck with it.
I think there is a social aspect with live events, but not with re-runs or something. If it were a scheduled premiere that's appointment viewing with the streaming available afterwards, sure, but that sorts of upends the whole Netflix model.
All new Sony's TVs do.
I wouldn't be so sure. Poorer markets may have higher OTA adoption. Around here, the rich exurbs seem to get technology last.
WXII is the NBC affiliate for Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem, NC market.
For most stations, ATSC 3.0 is still considered in the "testing" phases of deployment, and I expected more stations to have experimented with various content protection flagging to understand how it will all work than we have seen to this point.
This is mostly consistent with the known fact that SiliconDust's ATSC 3.0 tuner has been stated by SiliconDust to not support A3SA content protection at this time (so decoding of the stream is not possible).
The major networks contracts with the NFL continue through the 2033 season, which I would not consider to be "within a few years".
Well that shouldn't exist. I thought we defeated that crap back in the dawn of ATSC 1.0?
Yes, the "primary" sub-channel on a station must be FTA (per the FCC's requirements for a broadcast license). Beyond that, there are no requirements (just like the primary sub-channel must be MPEG-2, but the other sub-channels can be something else, even if some TV's cannot decode it). And with ATSC 3.0, not only can there be multiple sub-channels, there can also be multiple PLPs carrying the same channel (in various formats), so a station that might eventually choose to offer the 4K variant with a requirement for a subscription license could do so, as long as the "primary" version (let us say the sub-HD version) was not protected. And if they offered "HBO" on a different sub-channel which required a license, they could also do so (and such concepts were strongly considered as a viable plan during the initial design phases). Of course, that was before the US government decided to spend your tax dollars to deploy high speed Internet everywhere where it had previously been unavailable and where some OTA stations saw a viable business opportunity. So much for that business plan. And, of course, with most ATSC 3.0 transmitters currently being lighthouses (shared by many different stations for testing/development), the "primary" sub-channel is mostly irrelevant.Well that shouldn't exist. I thought we defeated that crap back in the dawn of ATSC 1.0?
