The NAB continues its correspondence with the Federal Communications Commission's Blair Levin -- this time addressing the notion that consumers benefit from the competitive pressure placed on MVPDs by over-the-air broadcast. To be clear, the basic concept here is that given the existence of a free alternative to paid programming, at least some consumers would choose not to pay unlimited MVPD prices. Although it is difficult to empirically determine the precise extent to which the presence of free alternative programming constrains MVPD prices, the fact that it is widely considered a participant in the same product market as MVPD service strongly supports a view that it serves this function. As broadcasters add additional streams of programming, their ability to respond to consumer needs will only increase, thus making the free option even more attractive. As the FCC has stated, "[c]onsumers are the direct beneficiaries of head-to-head competition in the market for video programming."
Okay on supporting free Over The Air/OTA TV, but in the U.S. the usage is very small. Why not jump into this century, use the "new" public medium, and require free TV over the Internet? Imagine the huge worldwide audiences that TV stations, channels, and networks could have! Unfortunately, in the U.S. the cable companies are powerful and will block this, even though they provide most of the Internet connections and would still get revenue from this.
Okay on supporting free Over The Air/OTA TV, but in the U.S. the usage is very small. Why not jump into this century, use the "new" public medium, and require free TV over the Internet? Imagine the huge worldwide audiences that TV stations, channels, and networks could have! Unfortunately, in the U.S. the cable companies are powerful and will block this, even though they provide most of the Internet connections and would still get revenue from this.