An article in NYTimes on recent and ongoing consolidation in ownership of local TV stations. The article states in a fairly obscure way that TV stations are about to go the way of Newspapers, in that technology changes such as “the cloud” create a different landscape for “the masses” to access news and now also what local TV has to offer.
Most of the article says that consolidation is about scaling up what TV stations do, and that this investment process, and ownership change, is because some see opportunities, in remaking the status quo environment for local TV station ownership. But if local TV is about to go “over the tech change falls”, this might be a questionable undertaking? Can’t say I understand it.
One way this may be of interest to eLearning supporters is that local TV stations use a lot of “over the air” bandwidth which could potentially be used to provide wireless internet access, AFAIK. The FCC is working on promoting just such a use for the spectrum near, or overlapping, what local TV stations use, or used.
Since one of the most significant facts about “American Life” is the amount of time people spend “in front of the TV”…changes here could also open up more time for eLearning activities, or at least more “edutainment” involvement. Not to say people will necessarily transfer the time they used to spend watching local TV to eLearning activities, but even if a small portion of the time moved from the status quo to other choices, it would be a huge opportunity for eLearning.
In other words, if people turn to online and streaming activities instead of local TV, there’s an opportunity to engage those eyeballs and ears with involving and exciting DLE.
(Also linked to this because both Kris and Gary have past connections to some aspects of this story.)
I suspect its really all about cable carriage and oligopoly power.
There is bitter resentment from local OTA stations that they do not get paid by cable companies for their content anywhere near what the cable networks do – despite the FCC “must carry” rules.
The reason is because the oligopolitist cable giants have all the bargaining power over the poor mom & pop station. Imagine a quite different scenario where 3 or 4 companies control all the OTA stations; the potential arbitrage is compelling.
I think you are also right, in the long run, about the value of the “excess” OTA bandwidth that results from digital migration. What is absent yet is a compelling business model; unfortunately, I doubt it has much to do with “affordable” social-based services.
Interesting that broadband OTA was not mentioned in the article as a driver for consolidation. Compensation from cable is split with the network. So as an example, if local station gets $1.50 per sub a month, they split that with network.
Sitting out in here in the Nevada desert, impressed that I have cell service to do this post. OTA bandwidth goes to highest bidder.
impressive to post from the middle of nowhere… and that your iPad hasn’t melted…