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-reli...
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.
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-...
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/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-...
Only an anecdote, but when we vacationed in southern West Virginia, we relied on public radio. It's the only thing we could regularly get.
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.
If New Mexicans were truly going to turn en masse to PBS Passport streaming, why haven't they done so already?
– Nearly one in five households lacks any fixed home internet connection. Many of those rely on cellular data that’s unreliable or capped, i.e. not viable for high‑quality streaming. [1]
– Over 20% of residents, especially in rural and tribal areas, live in broadband deserts where wired speeds of 25/3 Mbps simply aren’t available. [2]
– Among tribal communities, up to 80% of individuals may lack internet access altogether. [3]
– Even for those who can stream, broadband plans often cost around $69/month, and Passport itself requires a donation of at least $60/year or $5/month. [1][4] That may not sound like a lot to us, but it’s a non-trivial monthly expense for a family living in the 6th-poorest state in the US. [5]
Public broadcasting remains vital for people without digital access, whether due to infrastructure shortages, affordability, or demographic factors like age and tech comfort. Streaming can complement, but cannot replace, over‑the‑air reach in New Mexico. The same is likely true for overlapping reasons in the other states that OP mentioned.
1. Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. Affordable Broadband for Every Household in New Mexico. https://www.benton.org/blog/affordable-broadband-every-house...
2. Viante New Mexico. Broadband Internet in New Mexico. https://viantenm.org/broadband-internet-in-new-mexico
3. Native American Budget and Policy Institute / UNM. Broadband Access on Tribal Lands in New Mexico. https://nabpi.unm.edu/assets/documents/covid-19-research/nab...
4. PBS Digital Support. What is PBS Passport? https://pbsdigital.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/folders/5...
5. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poorest-sta...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Streaming is not viable in the vast majority of the country. Just because it's available to the vast majority of the population doesn't mean that the minority who live in rural areas don't count.
I watch OTA television.
I listen to linear NPR. But I know what the statistics are. None of this is going to be here 20 years from now.
the important thing about 20 years from now is that it isn't now
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.
If I was in a place without internet streaming, I'd get Starlink.
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.
Starlink: $600 + $120/month
Radio: $20 + $0/month
My Comcast monthly cable bill is more than that.
And how much is your cell phone bill?
Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene.
Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.
500 Starlinks? https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elon-musk-sta...
As opposed to 95% of US homes that have at least one radio receiver? https://www.insideradio.com/inside-story-radios-in-more-u-s-...
Usable digital cell service still doesn’t reach a good chunk of rural Americans.
I’m not sure why an expensive, technically-complicated solution would be an alternative to a free, simple, widely-deployed one.
> Usable digital cell service still doesn’t reach a good chunk of rural Americans.
What's the percent of that?
And what's the percent of people that leave their radio on 24/7?
"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-hele...
> if you want those fees waived, you’ll have to file a waiver and then wait for it to be approved.
Oh, the horror! Do you know that to get government services, you also have to file a form and wait for it to be approved?
Nice cherry-picking. Your post framed it like Musk was Father Christmas, handing out gifts to needy kids. It’s more like Columbia House [1] for internet access, and targeting hurricane victims to boot.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_House
FEMA failed, and Musk stepped in to help.
If people didn't like Musk, nobody made them do business with him.
Complaining that someone would have to fill out a form to get free money is not a compelling argument.
So “help” and “buyer beware” are now synonyms. Got it.
> Complaining that someone would have to fill out a form to get free money is not a compelling argument.
Again, A+ effort on the cherry-picking. I call BS on the expectation that hurricane victims will read the fine print about a $120/month rate increase after they’ve just lost their homes. If Musk’s goal is to “help” hurricane victims, maybe he can offer them something better than a bait-and-switch.