The Long, Slow Demise Of Over-The-Air TV

LocalProximity
Written By Tim Hanlon

Krisna Azie / @krisnaazie via Unsplash

In an era of rising streaming costs and cable TV cord-cutting, over-the-air (OTA) television should be experiencing something like a renaissance. After all, it offers free access to major broadcast network fare and local programming without monthly fees. Yet for many viewers, accessing the full range of broadcast signals in their particular market remains frustratingly difficult. This disconnect between potential and reality stems from a complex interplay of technological, economic, and regulatory factors.

Technological and Logistical Challenges

On the surface, the problem appears to stem largely from issues related to logistics and technology. While broadcast TV is ostensibly accessible for free, the quality and reach of these signals varies widely, depending on where a viewer lives in relation to originating broadcaster signals. Topography, distance from transmission towers, and even the materials used in constructing homes can all affect reception quality. Signals can easily be obstructed by buildings, trees, or mountains, and viewers in rural or suburban areas often face even more challenges due to their distance from the nearest stations. 

Despite the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) efforts to promote and enhance universal access to free over-the-air TV — including through technological improvements like ATSC 3.0 (also known as NextGen TV) — the benefits have been unevenly distributed. While NextGen TV promises enhanced picture quality, better sound, and improved reception, adoption has been slow (for a variety of reasons), and many viewers still rely on the older ATSC 1.0 standard, which has more limited reach and performance. Additionally, many consumers are unaware that they may need to purchase a new antenna or even upgrade their TV equipment to take full advantage of these advancements.

Channel Repacking and Spectrum Auctions

Another obstacle to reliable reception is the recent FCC-led “repacking” of TV stations. Following the Commission’s 2017 broadcast spectrum auction, where wireless companies bought portions of broadcast spectrum for their own business pursuits, many TV stations were forced to move to new frequencies. While the repacking process aimed to free up valuable airwaves for mobile broadband use, it had unintended consequences for broadcast television viewers relying on antennas. Many stations were forced to move their signals to less-favorable channel positions, which are harder to receive, especially in geographically-challenged areas. As a result, viewers had to re-scan their TVs and adjust their antennas, often without realizing these steps were necessary.

Broadcasters themselves often did little to inform viewers about the changes, leaving them puzzled when familiar channels suddenly disappeared or degraded in quality — especially for those with older equipment or who live on the fringes of a market's broadcast range.

Broadcasters’ Mixed Signals on Antennas 

One of the more perplexing aspects of this problem is that broadcasters should theoretically have a vested interest in maximizing the number of viewers accessing their signals. After all, local stations benefit financially from a large, engaged audience, especially when political advertising and other revenue streams tied to local viewership are factored in. However, their behavior seems contradictory: rather than promoting the use of antennas, broadcasters instead actively focus on pushing viewers toward paid alternatives like cable, satellite, or streaming.

Clearly, the key reason for this is retransmission consent fees. These fees, which cable and satellite providers pay to broadcasters for the right to carry their signals, have become an essential and outsized revenue source for many network-affiliated local stations and the groups that own them. According to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, retransmission consent fees accounted for more than half of local TV station revenue in 2023. As a result, broadcasters have a strong incentive to maintain relationships with cable and satellite providers (including virtual streaming ones), and to promote those distribution methods over free antenna-based reception.

Moreover, broadcasters know less about viewers who access their channels over-the-air, which makes it harder to capture the full scope of their audience for selling advertising. By encouraging viewers to rely on paid services, stations can leverage more robust viewership data provided by those platforms to attract advertisers. In many ways, broadcasters are actually (and ironically) disincentivized to make antenna use more appealing because it complicates their financial and strategic models.

While there's no evidence of broadcasters deliberately weakening their signals to drive viewers back to pay TV environments, they also have little motivation to invest heavily in improving OTA reception. The focus instead has shifted to streaming platforms and partnerships with paid TV providers.

Shrinking Consumer Awareness

Many younger viewers are simply unaware that free broadcast television programming (whatever that is) is even available via an antenna (whatever that is). For decades, the dominant narrative has centered around the growth of cable, satellite, and more recently, streaming platforms — creating an assumption that “TV” must be paid for through a subscription. In an age of on-demand content and unlimited choice — fueled further by the ubiquity of broadband internet and mobile connectivity — many young consumers simply have no context of what broadcast TV even is, let alone understand the process of setting up an antenna, re-scanning channels, or troubleshooting poor reception to get it. 

Broadcasters themselves do little to address this knowledge gap. Education and promotion of antenna usage or over-the-air broadcasts is rare — and when stations experience reception issues, viewers are often left to figure out solutions for themselves. It’s far easier, the logic goes, to subscribe to a pay TV bundle or streaming service than to deal with the perceived hassle of adjusting antennas or deciphering why a signal is weak.

A Missed Opportunity?

For many American households, the difficulty of accessing free over-the-air TV signals represents both a technological challenge and a missed opportunity. As broadcasters continue to rely on retransmission fees and paid platforms, the audience for free antenna-based viewing has become almost an afterthought. While technological solutions like NextGen TV offer hope, widespread consumer education and transparent broadcaster support are sorely lacking.

Until broadcasters recognize the potential value of nurturing their free-to-air audience, the difficulties surrounding antenna use will likely persist, leaving many viewers without an accessible way to enjoy the local TV stations that were once a staple of American homes.

As such, OTA viewing will continue to remain a niche option rather than a mainstream alternative to paid services. While dedicated enthusiasts can achieve good results, the average viewer faces too many hurdles to make antenna TV a truly viable option in most markets.

Tim Hanlon

Tim Hanlon is the Founder & CEO of the Chicago-based Vertere Group, LLC – a boutique strategic consulting and advisory firm focused on helping today’s most forward-leaning media companies, brands, entrepreneurs, and investors benefit from rapidly changing technological advances in marketing, media and consumer communications.

Previous

Mr. Beast Goes Down On Amazon, New Data Illustrates The Streaming/Linear Disconnect
Next

From First-Season Glow To Follow-Up Fade: The Hidden Dynamics Of Streaming Hits