USA Today in November tackled the Disney-YouTube TV standoff that at the time prevented subscribers from enjoying ESPN and other Disney-owned media, including ABC stations, via the subscription streaming service.
The opinion piece by Chris Bumbaca did a nice job of laying out the conflict between the corporate behemoths and its implications going forward.
“The bigger picture is that the blackout is a harbinger of the future of how we watch sports and the rivalries that define where we consume the content,“ he wrote. “Because caught in the middle of the boardroom back-and-forth are the fans.”
True, they will always be caught in the middle, but that doesn’t mean they are powerless. Fans can simply sidestep a lot of the pain by installing an antenna.
Granted, relying solely on antennas won’t give fans all of the sports they would have otherwise. But the simulcast of ESPN’s “Monday Night Football” coverage is certainly available over the air on ABC O&Os and affiliates, as are many other games. Ditto the other broadcast networks and their affiliates with their sports coverage.
True, they will always be caught in the middle, but that doesn’t mean they are powerless. Fans can simply sidestep a lot of the pain by installing an antenna.”
But who can blame Bumbaca for not mentioning TV antennas? Not only is he of a generation largely unaware that TV is the O.G. of wireless video delivery, but also the television industry has done a poor job of informing viewers about OTA transmission and reception.
Consider the NAB’s “Keep Football Free” ad. The 30-second spot takes direct aim at YouTube TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. “Cha-Ching! You might shell out 50 bucks a month and that’s just the beginning. Good thing we have local TV stations bringing us games for free,” the NAB spot says.
The ad concludes by urging viewers to text TV to 39197, saying “And let’s keep football free.” So far, so good. But when the public goes to the site, it’s asked to sign a letter that goes to Congress urging reform of existing broadcast ownership caps. There’s not a hint of antenna reception as it relates to keeping football free.
As this issue goes to press, NAB launched its new “Game On” website, complete with a holiday themed video. The website includes a link to the same letter to Congress. What is missing everywhere is the word “antenna.”
None of this is surprising. Years ago, I recall being at a conference jointly put on by Broadcast Engineering and B+C magazines. At the time, Sinclair’s Del Parks offered the broadcasters there a promo it had produced to tell the public that HDTV programming was available for free over the air.
But there were few, if any, takers. Why? There was little desire to rock the retrans-fee boat by being seen as aggressively competing with MVPD partners for viewers.
All true, but how are ownership rules and retrans fees linked? Look no further than the International Center of Law & Economics, which released a white paper in November.
It says in part: “The ideal deregulatory solution would eliminate outdated ownership restrictions and the retransmission-consent framework.” As the Federal Communications Commission continues reviewing broadcast ownership rules and is expected to move forward on that agenda, don’t be surprised to see the agency seek comments on the retrans issue and a host of commenters arguing to end the fees.
Regardless of how all this plays out, can’t an industry required to serve the public interest do a better job of informing viewers that they can receive television programming—including sports—over the air?
