Community Discussions
Explore the latest discussions and community conversations related to this domain.
Update on the future of live video broadcasting on Reddit
Main Post: Update on the future of live video broadcasting on Reddit
Do you guys think this is worth majoring in
Main Post:
I’m a freshman in college majoring in broadcast production. I seriously have no idea if this is a good option long term. I loved being on the news team all throughout high school, but will this actually be a paying job?
Top Comment: Change majors while you can still do it without incurring a 5th year to graduate. This business is getting progressively worse.
Is working a night shift worth a start in broadcast?
Main Post:
I just had my first interview for an AP position that would work on a morning show. They informed me the hours would be 12-8 or 1-9 usually. Is it worth the lack of social life and the health detriments to get a start in broadcast or should I wait to try and find something more amenable to a normal schedule?
Top Comment: This industry is weird hours, weekends, and holidays. Newest people will always get the odd shifts. If that’s a problem, you might want to do something else.
Folks that left broadcasting, what do you do now?
Main Post:
I've been a Director (OverDrive) for over 10 years now and I think I'm hitting my limit on the low pay and weird hours. The problem is I don't know what else to do, or what else my skills are good for. Folks that left the business, what did you go do instead. Thanks!
Top Comment:
I left 15 years ago, after 3.5 years of producing TV news, following several years in radio as a DJ.
I took a civil service exam about a year and a half before I left. Got hired by the government, and that's why I left TV. Immediate pay increase, better benefits, regular hours, holidays off. It's a total 180 from what I used to do, but my work-life balance is much better now.
Why is Broadcast TV on Life Support?
Main Post:
I’ve been in the industry long enough to see the ripple effects of major FCC decisions, particularly the reallocation of broadcast spectrum for cell phone companies. While the FCC mandated frequency changes and pushed ATSC 3.0 as the “future of broadcasting,” it feels like the promise of a robust OTA (over-the-air) ecosystem has faded. At the same time, this move has forced stations to throw away expensive wireless mic packs and adapt to new challenges with seemingly little reward.
What’s more concerning is how OTA viewing has dwindled, especially among those younger than millennials. Even with free access to OTA TV, it’s now a hassle for consumers to set up antennas, scan for channels, or rely on clunky ad-driven streaming apps. The result? OTA TV, once a cornerstone of accessibility, feels like it’s been slowly pushed into obsolescence.
Meanwhile, marketing content and news coverage have become ephemeral—produced rapidly on smartphones, consumed, and forgotten just as fast. The institutional value of broadcast journalism feels undermined, not just by external factors like COVID and political attacks on “fake news,” but also by internal shifts in priorities.
This begs the question: What is the real future of broadcasting under ATSC 3.0? Will we be able to avoid the decline we’ve seen in newspapers and radio, which now operate as shells of their former selves? Are the “fat cats” at the top just milking what’s left of the industry without a vision for its long-term survival?
Finally, what happens to the infrastructure—those multimillion-dollar investments in broadcast towers and satellites? Surely these aren’t destined to just become relics of the past, right? After all, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and even cell phone signals still rely on radio waves. Are we overlooking the potential of broadcasting as a platform in the broader communications ecosystem?
I’d love to hear from others in the industry: Is there a path forward for OTA TV, or have we already passed the point of no return?
Top Comment: Two words: retransmission fees. I've commented in this sub more than once, how major companies like Nexstar are now making more money from retransmission fees than they do from selling ads. They've publicly announced this in shareholder calls. This has turned the entire business model upside down. Since ad sales aren't the bread and butter anymore, owners are no longer concerned about chasing down every last tenth of a ratings point they can. As long as the station stays on the cable/dish/streaming channel lineups, and people keep subscribing, they just collect those fat retrans checks. When there's no motivation to get ratings, there's no motivation to bother having a powerful OTA signal. In this business model, cord-cutters who watch OTA are seen as freeloaders, since they aren't paying retrans fees. I can't help but wonder if some stations could be purposely hindering their own OTA signal in an attempt to get more viewers to give up on OTA and get back on a subscription service, so the station can collect more retrans fees. All the impressive stuff promised with ATSC 3.0 would only serve to make OTA look more attractive. But more cord-cutters means less retrans revenue. Stations don't want that. They want people to keep their cable/dish subscription so they keep paying that local retrans fee. The only thing local broadcast TV still has going for it are major live events like sports, the Oscars and the Emmys. But even then, look at where most of the Emmys go now -- streaming services. What needs to change? Congress and the FCC need to overhaul the must-carry rules get rid of retrans fees. If these signals are available over-the-air for free, they should be available to cable/dish/streaming subscribers for free as well. Especially when the law says EVERY cable subscriber MUST have the local channels -- there's no way for customers to opt-out of local channels or their retrans fees. I get why retrans fees were allowed in the first place: local stations rightfully argued that it's tough to compete with the many cable channels that get to collect subscription fees regardless of viewership. There are quite a few cable channels that likely would be toast tomorrow, if they had to rely solely on ratings and ad revenue. They only stay alive because they get to collect subscription fees based on a cable system's number of subscribers, not based on how many actually watch the channel. Well, if this is is what it takes to level the playing field, so be it: No more retrans fees for local broadcast stations. They're on the lineup for free, end of story. Cable channels have to choose between two business models: Subscription only: no advertising at all. Promos for other shows on the same channel are OK, Nothing else. Advertising only: channel makes itself available to cable companies and viewers for free, and lives or dies based on ratings and ad revenue alone. For channels that choose to rely on subscription fees, cable companies have to disclose how much of the monthly bill is going to each channel, and viewers get to opt-out of any channel(s) they like. This will never happen because lobbyists would never allow it. The government has already allowed the likes of Disney and Comcast to get where they are today, with tons of cable channels, not to mention the ABC and NBC networks, and their respective portfolios of O&O local affiliates. These companies would never let lawmakers introduce legislation that threatens the media empires they've built. Long-term, as soon as enough of the country is properly wired with high-speed internet, get ready for the networks to completely bypass the affiliates, by streaming directly to viewers, more than they already do now. NBC has already been testing the waters, putting select sporting events exclusively on Peacock. It's a dream come true: NBC gets to collect monthly subscriptions AND they get to cash-in on every single ad avail during the game, rather than sharing the inventory with local stations.