Commentary

How Much Cheap TV Access Do U.S. Viewers Need?

by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, July 14, 2009

Local TV stations are in still in big danger -- possibly losing even more influence among TV viewers. Minority broadcasters say they are in trouble, and 14 group owners have co-signed a letter asking the federal government for help. These station owners -- perhaps lower on the pecking order versus other broadcasters when it comes to local advertiser dollars -- may be in financial trouble, with a chance of going out of business.

Not only that -- but Representative Mike Ross (D-Ark) wants to find ways of getting local station signals to those fringe, orphan communities that cable and satellite program distributors don't carry.

All this comes on the heels of the just-completed federal government's massive TV technological switch to digital from analog signals, with the ultimate intention of keeping the U.S. citizenry informed of national emergencies and other public events.

These moves would seem to add to the technological overkill in these modern times -- what with Internet and mobile phone usage continuing to climb.

Snickering critics might say all this shouldn't come at the public expense -- especially when many U.S. TV households, the ones with enough disposable income, already spend money on cable monthly subscriptions, broadband plans, and mobile phone packages.

Right now federal officials worry about losing U.S viewers. They want to protect a somewhat free communications system -- at the lowest possible cost.

It's no secret television hasn't been a true public service for some time. That aspect has been pushed aside by ratings, advertising, and other business concerns. But federal laws still hold whatever glue remains between the two.

The next generation of government officials might think differently. What happens then?

3 comments about "How Much Cheap TV Access Do U.S. Viewers Need? ".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

J S from Ideal Living Media, July 14, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.
I suspect part of the problems of local stations losing influence is the common focus on if-it-bleeds-it-leads news. News stories of traffic accidents, for instance, are generally isolated incidents with little or no relevance to most viewers. Most stations produce little or no local programming or local events, like KTLA's longtime coverage of the quaint, nighttime Hollywood Christmas parade. I suspect that the Obama administration will try to address the lack of public service by pushing through something similar to the leased access program introduced by the previous' administrations FCC -- allowing local folks to lease time/channels on cable systems at very low cost. Leased access stations, such as they are today, thrive on local events (e.g., high school basketball), bread & butter "news" stories (e.g., restaurant openings), and locally produced shows (think "Wayne's World" with your County officials). Such stations, while offering very low budget production quality, wield stronger influence on their communities than network affiliates simply because they are engaged with the day-by-day community events surrounding them. My $0.02 worth...
Reply

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, July 14, 2009 at 9:22 p.m.

It's all about the Benjamins. Donational vs investment. This is not going to be a balance a lot of people like.

David Parker from Parker Publishing, July 14, 2009 at 11:07 p.m.

Regarding Mr. Friedman's article "How Much Cheap TV Access Do U.S. Viewers Need? ", considering that a lot of people I know have now completley lost their free television access due to the so-called digital transition, maybe his article should have been titled "What Happened To Free TV Access?"

The switch-over has just put the VHF channels on UHF which offers a broadcast signal with far less reach, and the older analog system allowed someone in a fringe area to still be able to pull in a signal, even if it was poor in quality; however, the new digital system requires that the signal been sufficiently strong enough to break through the threshold level.

A lot of people have lost television, they're all consumers that advertisers would like to reach; and this switchover is a fiasco. I haven't heard anyone say that their picture is better now that it's digital. I also have yet to hear anyone say that the new digital channels are providing interesting programming choices that we hadn't had before. In New York, a couple of stations are using their digital channels for the running of tape loops of 24 hour weather forecasts. Wow! Isn't that clever!

If cable companies are concerned about being asked to provide free coverage for low income citizens, a perfect solution would be to pull the plug on digital and go back to analog.