5 ms·

PBS stations in major markets will likely be able to carry on due to donations and corporate underwriting, but stations in rural areas (the types of places wher

by ndiddy 1y ago

PBS stations in major markets will likely be able to carry on due to donations and corporate underwriting, but stations in rural areas (the types of places where Internet streaming is less viable due to poor infrastructure) will be heavily affected. Some rural stations get up to half their budgets from the CPB, and these cuts will likely make them have to shut down. In heavily rural states like West Virginia, Alaska, New Mexico, and Montana, the average public media station relies on CPB funding for over 30% of its budget. All of those stations are now at risk. More information: https://current.org/2025/04/heres-how-much-public-media-relies-on-federal-funding-and-what-could-happen-next/ https://current.org/2025/04/heres-how-much-public-media-reli...

tptacek 1y ago
I think the idea that people in rural markets are watching PBS OTA linear content is a claim that will need to be supported with evidence. Linear television is dead, pretty much everywhere.
- potatocoffee 1y ago
  I watch OTA television.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I listen to linear NPR. But I know what the statistics are. None of this is going to be here 20 years from now.
    - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
      the important thing about 20 years from now is that it isn't now
- ndiddy 1y ago
  Sure! I'd love to provide you with evidence. In West Virginia, a state with a population of 1.8 million, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported 193,687 weekly TV viewers and 85,933 weekly radio listeners in FY 2023. https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-Report-2023.pdf https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-... In New Mexico, a state with a population of 1.8 million, New Mexico PBS reported 720,000 weekly TV viewers in 2024. https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPBS-047-A-NMPBS-LCSR-2024-final.pdf https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPB... In Montana, a state with a population of 1.1 million, Montana PBS estimated around 250,000 weekly TV viewers and Montana Public Radio estimated 70-80 thousand weekly radio listeners as of a couple weeks ago. https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-pbs-faces-cut-in-federal-funding https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-...
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I looked only at the New Mexico numbers, and they seem to be dwarfed by their own streaming numbers through Passport. Those OTA viewers are just going to switch to streaming.
    - ndiddy 1y ago
      The NM report says that there were 900,000 total Passport streams in 2024. Because there are 52 weeks in a year, that's an average of only about 17,300 streams per week.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Have you looked any closer at these numbers? This is something like 90% of the entire New Mexico household audience. Does that sound plausible to you?
        ndiddy 1y ago
        If you're accusing them of lying on their report because it disagrees with the off-the-cuff remark you made about OTA TV being dead everywhere, then I'm not sure what I can do. I'm not a journalist. Personally I find it inspiring that New Mexico PBS has managed to become one of the most watched PBS stations in the country (often in the top 10 for prime-time viewership) when it serves the 37th most populous state, and feel that it's a great example of how public broadcasting is able to reach underserved communities.
        tptacek 1y ago
        No, I don't think New Mexico PBS is lying. I think it's much more likely that we don't understand the stat we're arguing about. Uh, I'm just going to come out and say it: even in 1995, at the height of linear television, 80+% of the NM market was not watching PBS. Sorry, this doesn't pencil out.
    - torstenvl 1y ago
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  A valid point. Plain old tv is the past. For the small number of people using it, it’s better to spend the money on internet infrastructure to bring them into the current century. Broadcast tv is one step up from old time radio.
WalterBright 1y ago
If I was in a place without internet streaming, I'd get Starlink.
- toomanyrichies 1y ago
  This sounds awfully close to "If I were poor, I would simply choose not to be poor." If you were in a place without internet streaming, consider whether you’d have the economic means to pay for Starlink. Not everyone is earning the median Hacker News contributor’s income.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Starlink: $600 + $120/month Radio: $20 + $0/month
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene. Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.
    - toomanyrichies 1y ago
      "Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene." Did he? > As it turns out, the offer wasn’t as generous as it seemed, it’s really more of a new customer promotion. > The Register pointed out that if anyone goes to sign up for the “free” service, there’re hit with a harsh reality: you have to pay for the equipment. > But try to sign up for the ostensibly “free” service in an area Starlink has designated as a Helene disaster zone, and surprise: You still have to pay for the terminal (normally $350, but reportedly discounted to $299 for disaster relief, though that’s not reflected in Starlink’s signup page), plus shipping and tax, bringing the grand total to just shy of $400... > According to the Starlink Helene page, new customers who qualify for free access will be automatically moved to a paid $120-a-month residential subscription tied to the location the terminal was set up for after 30 days. > Even if you’re a victim that happens to be an existing Starlink customer, if you want those fees waived, you’ll have to file a waiver and then wait for it to be approved. [1] Not sure why you're taking the world's richest sociopath at his word. And even if he were as charitable as you say (which I obviously don’t stipulate), that would mean... what? We wait for another Hurricane Helene to hit every person without internet access? Then wait even longer for a billionaire to bail them out? 1. https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-helene-victims-1851669780 https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-hele...

by ndiddy 1y ago

tptacek 1y ago

I think the idea that people in rural markets are watching PBS OTA linear content is a claim that will need to be supported with evidence. Linear television is dead, pretty much everywhere.

potatocoffee 1y ago
I watch OTA television.
- tptacek 1y ago
  I listen to linear NPR. But I know what the statistics are. None of this is going to be here 20 years from now.
  - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    the important thing about 20 years from now is that it isn't now
ndiddy 1y ago
Sure! I'd love to provide you with evidence. In West Virginia, a state with a population of 1.8 million, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported 193,687 weekly TV viewers and 85,933 weekly radio listeners in FY 2023. https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-Report-2023.pdf https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-... In New Mexico, a state with a population of 1.8 million, New Mexico PBS reported 720,000 weekly TV viewers in 2024. https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPBS-047-A-NMPBS-LCSR-2024-final.pdf https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPB... In Montana, a state with a population of 1.1 million, Montana PBS estimated around 250,000 weekly TV viewers and Montana Public Radio estimated 70-80 thousand weekly radio listeners as of a couple weeks ago. https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-pbs-faces-cut-in-federal-funding https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-...
- tptacek 1y ago
  I looked only at the New Mexico numbers, and they seem to be dwarfed by their own streaming numbers through Passport. Those OTA viewers are just going to switch to streaming.
  - ndiddy 1y ago
    The NM report says that there were 900,000 total Passport streams in 2024. Because there are 52 weeks in a year, that's an average of only about 17,300 streams per week.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Have you looked any closer at these numbers? This is something like 90% of the entire New Mexico household audience. Does that sound plausible to you?
      - ndiddy 1y ago
        If you're accusing them of lying on their report because it disagrees with the off-the-cuff remark you made about OTA TV being dead everywhere, then I'm not sure what I can do. I'm not a journalist. Personally I find it inspiring that New Mexico PBS has managed to become one of the most watched PBS stations in the country (often in the top 10 for prime-time viewership) when it serves the 37th most populous state, and feel that it's a great example of how public broadcasting is able to reach underserved communities.
        tptacek 1y ago
        No, I don't think New Mexico PBS is lying. I think it's much more likely that we don't understand the stat we're arguing about. Uh, I'm just going to come out and say it: even in 1995, at the height of linear television, 80+% of the NM market was not watching PBS. Sorry, this doesn't pencil out.
  - torstenvl 1y ago
RickJWagner 1y ago
A valid point. Plain old tv is the past. For the small number of people using it, it’s better to spend the money on internet infrastructure to bring them into the current century. Broadcast tv is one step up from old time radio.

WalterBright 1y ago

If I was in a place without internet streaming, I'd get Starlink.

toomanyrichies 1y ago
This sounds awfully close to "If I were poor, I would simply choose not to be poor." If you were in a place without internet streaming, consider whether you’d have the economic means to pay for Starlink. Not everyone is earning the median Hacker News contributor’s income.
ethbr1 1y ago
Starlink: $600 + $120/month Radio: $20 + $0/month
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene. Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.
  - toomanyrichies 1y ago
    "Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene." Did he? > As it turns out, the offer wasn’t as generous as it seemed, it’s really more of a new customer promotion. > The Register pointed out that if anyone goes to sign up for the “free” service, there’re hit with a harsh reality: you have to pay for the equipment. > But try to sign up for the ostensibly “free” service in an area Starlink has designated as a Helene disaster zone, and surprise: You still have to pay for the terminal (normally $350, but reportedly discounted to $299 for disaster relief, though that’s not reflected in Starlink’s signup page), plus shipping and tax, bringing the grand total to just shy of $400... > According to the Starlink Helene page, new customers who qualify for free access will be automatically moved to a paid $120-a-month residential subscription tied to the location the terminal was set up for after 30 days. > Even if you’re a victim that happens to be an existing Starlink customer, if you want those fees waived, you’ll have to file a waiver and then wait for it to be approved. [1] Not sure why you're taking the world's richest sociopath at his word. And even if he were as charitable as you say (which I obviously don’t stipulate), that would mean... what? We wait for another Hurricane Helene to hit every person without internet access? Then wait even longer for a billionaire to bail them out? 1. https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-helene-victims-1851669780 https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-hele...