Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info - Page 475 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #14221 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 06:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

At $2 billion apiece, they'd better be. But they do execute their primary mission of sports event flyovers with panache.

Pretty cheap shot.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14222 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 07:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
jerryez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pensacola,FL,USA
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 13
FALL 2006 TV GRID rev0525 - AVS Forum.zip (10.7 KB, 115 views)

Link does not work.

Jerry

Samsung PN63B550 HDTV
Dish HOPPER with Sling
Onkyo TX-NR636 with Polk 7.1 speakers
Samsung pn1600 Blu Ray Player
jerryez is online now  
post #14223 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 07:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

When cable wants something it is always for the "betterment of the their customers." When things don't go their way, they always shout "First Amendment" when this case clearly has NOTHING to do with First Amendment rights (wouldn't that mean they WANT to keep NFL Network and not get rid of it? Oh, I guess they mean their customers First Amendment right to NOT have NFL Network since no one wants THAT network . Oy Vay!!) but legal contracts and the law. If Time-Warner can't survive NFL Network for 30 days on a couple of systems, then maybe they need to close the doors, turn off the lights and go home.

Worst than spoiled children.


Isn't it fun to watch how TWC can fight a la carte with such vigor and use almost the same arguments in reverse to justify its NFL Network stance?
fredfa is offline  
post #14224 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryez View Post

FALL 2006 TV GRID rev0525 - AVS Forum.zip (10.7 KB, 115 views)

Link does not work.

jerryez-- I just tried it and it seems to work. But then I am the least knowlegeable person when it comes to such things.
It's a downloadable zip file which convferts to an Exclel spreadsheet.
Anyone else have problems with it?
(It is at the bottom of the prime time schedules listing in the seciond post of the thread.)
fredfa is offline  
post #14225 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 07:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Pretty cheap shot.

In all fairness, Dave, a pretty expensive shot

I figure these days about half the cost is the fuel to get the Stealths from Missouri to the Rose Bowl. But this is getting way OT, and dangerously close to political quicksand, so let's let me have the last word and drop it.
fredfa is offline  
post #14226 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
slocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: old bridge, nj
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How come Direct doesn't have this problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

TV Notebook
Another Court Loss for EchoStar
By Ted Hearn Multichannel News 8/7/2006

EchoStar Communications suffered a court loss Monday regarding its ability to provide out-of-market feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming to about 1.2 million customers around the country, an EchoStar official said Monday.

EchoStar asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to stay a key ruling while the case was on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court refused the request Monday. The case returns to federal district court in south Florida Aug. 15, an EchoStar official said.

The 11th Circuit instructed the lower court to issue an injunction to stop EchoStar's distant network service. The 11th Circuit found that EchoStar had been selling the programming to hundreds of thousands of customers who were legally ineligible to buy it.

Previously, EchoStar asked the lower court to postpone the injunction until Sept. 11, claiming that the time could be used to reach an out-of-court settlement with hundreds of network affiliates that accused EchoStar of copyright infringement. Broadcasters have agreed to the Sept. 11 postponement.

Satellite subscribers may buy distant network signals from EchoStar if poor antenna reception prevents seeing their local affiliates. Network affiliates demonstrated in court that EchoStar sold distant programming to hundreds of thousands of subscribers who had adequate antenna reception.

Under the 11th Circuit's ruling, EchoStar would need to cut off an estimated 600,000 subscribers who have been receiving the network programming legally. Some on Capitol Hill are concerned that legally served consumers are going to swamp them in angry mail if they lose their distant network signals.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.as...leid=CA6360281


rather be lucky than good.
slocko is offline  
post #14227 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:11 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
The Business of TV
The DIRECTV Group Announces 2Q Results

(DirecTV News Release)

EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 8, 2006--The DIRECTV Group, Inc U.S. Revenues Increase 12% to $3.3 Billion and Cash Flow before Interest and Taxes Nearly Triples to $450 Million

Results Bolstered by Lower Monthly Churn of 1.59% and Strong ARPU Growth of 5.6%

The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (NYSETV) today reported that second quarter revenues increased 10% to $3.52 billion and operating profit before depreciation and amortization(1) nearly doubled to $977 million compared to last year's second quarter. The DIRECTV Group reported second quarter 2006 operating profit and net income both more than doubled to $741 million and $459 million, respectively, when compared to the same period last year. Earnings per share were $0.36 compared with $0.12 in the same period last year. These operating results include the effect of $253 million of equipment that DIRECTV U.S. capitalized during the quarter under its lease program, which was implemented March 1, 2006.

"Similar to recent quarters, DIRECTV U.S. generated excellent financial results highlighted by a 12% increase in revenues to $3.3 billion, a 93% increase in operating profit before depreciation and amortization to $977 million and a nearly tripling of cash flow before interest and taxes to $450 million," said Chase Carey, president and CEO of The DIRECTV Group, Inc.

Carey continued, "In many ways, the results in the quarter reflect our strategy to target higher quality subscribers. For example, although gross subscriber additions of 863,000 and net additions of 125,000 in the quarter were below expectations, it's important to note that we added 11% more higher quality gross subscribers in the quarter compared to last year. This trend -- which is driving both the top-line and bottom-line financial results -- is primarily due to the ongoing changes we're making to refine our credit policy and dealer network. These factors played an important role in reducing DIRECTV's monthly churn rate from 1.69% to 1.59% this quarter. In addition, customers are buying more premium services such as high definition programming and digital video recorders which is contributing to the strong ARPU growth of 5.6% in the quarter. The increase in operating profit -- excluding the accounting effect from the new lease program -- is also directly linked to the improved subscriber mix primarily due to the reduced acquisition costs associated with the significant reduction in lower quality customers attained and the related lower bad debt expense incurred. We are also pleased that our acquisition cost per subscriber, or SAC, declined both sequentially and compared to last year as our set-top box cost reductions offset the higher sales of advanced boxes."

Carey concluded, "With continued improvements in subscriber growth and the launch of several new products and services, we look forward to a strong second half of the year. For example, we are currently promoting our enhanced NFL SUNDAY TICKET(R) package that features new interactive services and more high definition games. In addition, we just launched 19 regional sports networks in high definition and we will continue to add new high definition local channel markets as we strive to reach approximately 75% of all U.S. television households by the end of the year. Finally, we're also very excited about the launch of our new HD-DVR which is scheduled to be introduced in Los Angeles later this month and nationwide in the following weeks."

Second Quarter Review

Lease Program. On March 1, 2006, DIRECTV U.S. introduced a set-top receiver lease program primarily to increase future profitability by providing DIRECTV U.S. with the opportunity to retrieve and reuse set-top receivers from deactivated customers. Under this new program, set-top receivers are capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives of three years. Prior to March 1, 2006, set-top receivers provided to new and existing DIRECTV U.S. subscribers were immediately expensed upon activation as a subscriber acquisition or upgrade and retention cost. The lease program is expected to result in a reduction in subscriber acquisition, and upgrade and retention costs. The amount of set-top receivers capitalized during the period is now reported in the DIRECTV U.S. Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows under the captions "Cash paid for subscriber leased equipment - subscriber acquisitions" and "Cash paid for subscriber leased equipment - upgrade and retention." The amount of cash DIRECTV U.S. paid during the quarter ended June 30, 2006 for leased set-top receivers totaled $253 million -- $153 million for subscriber acquisitions and $100 million for upgrade and retention.

Operational Review

In the second quarter of 2006, The DIRECTV Group's revenues of $3.52 billion increased 10% over the same period in the prior year principally due to the larger subscriber bases at DIRECTV U.S. and DIRECTV Latin America, as well as strong growth in average revenue per subscriber (ARPU) at DIRECTV U.S. These changes were partially offset by the exclusion of Hughes Network Systems (HNS) results in 2006 due to its sale.

The higher operating profit before depreciation and amortization of $977 million and operating profit of $741 million were mostly related to DIRECTV U.S. operations due to the capitalization of customer equipment under the lease program for both new and existing subscribers, the increase in gross profit generated from the higher revenues, and reduced subscriber acquisition costs resulting primarily from lower gross subscriber additions. Also impacting the comparison was a non-cash gain of $28 million in the second quarter of 2005 related to the successful migration and retention of a portion of the DIRECTV Latin America subscribers in Mexico to the Sky Mexico platform.

Net income increased to $459 million in the second quarter of 2006 primarily due to the changes in operating profit discussed above and a second quarter 2005 charge of $65 million related to the premium paid for the redemption of senior notes and the write-off of a portion of deferred debt issuance costs resulting from debt refinancing (recorded in "Other, net" in the Consolidated Statements of Operations). Partially offsetting these improvements was higher income tax expense in the most recent quarter associated with the higher pre-tax income and a $31 million credit in the second quarter of 2005 (recorded in "Income from discontinued operations, net of taxes" in the Consolidated Statements of Operations) related to the favorable settlement of a U.S. federal income tax dispute associated with a previously divested business.

Year-To-Date Review

The DIRECTV Group's revenues of $6.91 billion in the first half of 2006 increased 9% compared to the same period of 2005 driven principally by subscriber growth at DIRECTV U.S. and DIRECTV Latin America, as well as continued solid ARPU growth at DIRECTV U.S. These changes were partially offset by the exclusion of Hughes Network Systems (HNS) results in 2006 due to its sale.

In the first six months of 2006, operating profit before depreciation and amortization more than doubled to $1.58 billion and operating profit more than quadrupled to $1.13 billion driven primarily by DIRECTV U.S. due to the capitalization of $339 million of customer equipment under the lease program for both new and existing subscribers, the increase in gross profit generated from higher revenues, and reduced subscriber acquisition costs resulting from lower gross subscriber additions, partially offset by higher retention and upgrade spending at DIRECTV U.S. Also impacting the comparison was a $57 million non-cash gain recorded in the first quarter of 2006 resulting from the completion of DIRECTV Latin America's Sky Mexico transactions, a non-cash gain of $28 million in the second quarter of 2005 related to the migration and retention of a portion of the DIRECTV Latin America subscribers in Mexico to the Sky Mexico platform, and a loss in the first quarter of 2005 at HNS primarily related to charges associated with its sale.

The increase in first half 2006 net income to $694 million was due to the higher operating profit discussed above, a second quarter 2005 charge of $65 million related to the premium paid for the redemption of senior notes and the write-off of a portion of deferred debt issuance costs from debt refinancing, and higher interest income in 2006 resulting primarily from higher average interest rates. Partially offsetting these improvements were higher 2006 income tax expense resulting from an increase in pre-tax income and a $31 million credit in the second quarter of 2005 related to the favorable settlement of a U.S. federal income tax dispute associated with a previously divested business.
For complete financial details go here:


http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....498&highlight=
fredfa is offline  
post #14228 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
The headlines will probably be the very low (some may call it shockingly low) number of net additions to DirecTV, not the soaring profit margins.

HD News of note:

In the past, DirecTV had always said it planned to have about 65% of the nation covered with HD LIL by the end of 2006. Now Carey says it is striving to have 75% covered, an extra 10 million homes, by the end of the year.

He also specifically mentioned that the new NDS HD DVR will be released, starting in Los Angeles, later this month.

And he quietly, almost in passing, mentioned the HD addition of 19 RSNs.
fredfa is offline  
post #14229 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
RussTC3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok, I know the topic of out-of-market feeds has been discussed before, but could someone, quickly if possible, explain to me what the big deal is with Dish offering the networks?

If someone wants to pay extra money to pick up their locals thru Dish instead of with Cable or an antenna, what is the big deal?

Or am I completely missing the problem?
RussTC3 is offline  
post #14230 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
TV Notebook
NBC: No Plans to Expand Today Show
( Broadcasting & Cable)

NBC News has no plans to expand its top-rated morning show Today to a fourth hour, according to a network spokesperson.

A report in Tuesday's Variety said NBC is considering adding a (10-)11 a.m. ET hour to the three-hour program, which runs from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. While such an expansion is something that is discussed, NBC News spokesperson Lauren Kapp says there are "no plans at this point."

NBC is currently overhauling Today's studio in preparation for new anchor Meredith Vieira's arrival in September and a conversion to high definition. The new studio and work space will be larger and could accommodate more production, should Today ever opt for an added hour.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...=Breaking+News
fredfa is offline  
post #14231 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussTC3 View Post

Ok, I know the topic of out-of-market feeds has been discussed before, but could someone, quickly if possible, explain to me what the big deal is with Dish offering the networks?

If someone wants to pay extra money to pick up their locals thru Dish instead of with Cable or an antenna, what is the big deal?

Or am I completely missing the problem?

Simply put (not that I totally agree with it, by the way) is that Dish was selling beginning back in the late 1990s, DNS feeds to almost anyone who wanted them.
The problem is that those feeds belong to copyright holders.
Dish didn't have the right to sell Denver stations out of market. Or any other DNS feeds, either. Those feeds could impact the viewership of local stations in markets receiving the Dish DNS.
In addition to laws, there were also FCC regulations governing eligibility, and according to every court I know of, Dish either violated the rules or simply ignored them.

That being said, I believe the networks will soon figure out a way to deliver their programming, when we want it, to all of us -- for a fee, of course.

The problem is that Dish figured out how to do that almost a decade ago, and has been making money off DNS all that time. That money, according to law, the FCC, the stations, the networks and the courts doesn't rightly belong to Dish.
fredfa is offline  
post #14232 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 08:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Simply put (not that I totally agree with it, by the way) is that Dish was selling beginning back in the late 1990s, DNS feeds to almost anyone who wanted them.
The problem is that those feeds belong to copyright holders.
Dish didn't have the right to sell Denver stations out of market. Or any other DNS feeds, either. Those feeds could impact the viewership of local stations in markets receiving the Dish DNS.
In addition to laws, there were also FCC regulations governing eligibility, and according to every court I know of, Dish either violated the rules or simply ignored them.

That being said, I believe the networks will soon figure out a way to deliver their programming, when we want it, to all of us -- for a fee, of course.

The problem is that Dish figured out how to do that almost a decade ago, and has been making money off DNS all that time. That money, according to law, the FCC, the stations, the networks and the courts doesn't rightly belong to Dish.

Additionally, Dish took issue with the FCC methods for determining eligibility as well. It's common knowledge that the FCC standards for determining coverage, the Grade A, Grade B etc, are woefully inadequate when it comes to real life, in the field, conditions. Many folks are deemed ineligible simply because they were on one side of an imaginary line or the other, with no regard for whether there was a mountain in their way or not.

This does not excuse Dish providing the feeds, as they were certainly in it for the money, what they should have done was lobby to have the ridiculous regs changed and then they could have made even more money, legally.
Keenan is offline  
post #14233 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:00 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

jerryez-- I just tried it and it seems to work. But then I am the least knowlegeable person when it comes to such things.
It's a downloadable zip file which convferts to an Exclel spreadsheet.
Anyone else have problems with it?
(It is at the bottom of the prime time schedules listing in the seciond post of the thread.)

Getting close to when that CP guy needs to have that sked updated.
Keenan is offline  
post #14234 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
TV Sports
NFL Network Gains Ground in Cable Battle
( Broadcasting & Cable)
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times August 8, 2006

The NFL Network figured that it went big time earlier this year when it added eight regular-season games to its schedule, a sweet benefit of being owned by the league of all leagues. Carrying games made the network more expensive to carry, but this was the N.F.L.'s channel, and what cable or satellite operator would dare resist the allure of those games?

Time Warner, that's who. It has, for nearly three years, refused the NFL Network's demand that it be carried only as an expanded basic channel, where most channels reside, and insisted that it would place the network on its sports tier, along with channels like NBA TV, for $1.95 to $4.95 a month.

In that way, Time Warner said, only those who wanted it would pay for it, rather than forcing everyone, sports fan or not, to pay. It's an argument Cablevision pursued but lost during its epic battle with the YES Network.

For those who have not seen the NFL Network, some explanation is required. It is football, ad infinitum, a channel packed with studio programs and NFL Films productions; news conferences and replays of old games; preseason and N.F.L. Europe games; a few college bowl games; and the new Thursday and Saturday slate of games, which start Nov. 23. Bryant Gumbel will call all eight games, with Cris Collinsworth as the analyst on six, and Dick Vermeil on the others.

Sounds good, but not good enough for Time Warner, or other cable operators not yet among the channel's 41 million subscribers, 27 million of whom come from the satellite services DirecTV and Dish Network.

Time Warner, which has 14.5 million subscribers, contends that for the sake of eight games (pruned from CBS, Fox and ESPN's schedules) the NFL Network is gouging fans and that the value of those games is diminished by their availability to the participating teams' markets on local broadcast stations, a practice that has not reduced the value of N.F.L. games on ESPN.

Time Warner created a Web site, nflgetreal.com, to tell consumers why a sports tier is a better option than forcing all subscribers to pay 70 cents a month (up from about 20 cents).

Now, the NFL Network adds a mere eight games out of a 267-game schedule and asks for a 350 percent rate increase! the Web site said. That's like paying an unproven rookie an All-Pro salary. (Actually, it is 250 percent.) The price is too high, it adds, the value too low.

Last Tuesday, Time Warner demonstrated the ardor of its position. Having failed to reach a deal to carry the network, Time Warner removed it from the homes of 1.3 million customers recently added through the acquisition (with Comcast) of the bankrupt Adelphia Communications.

Time Warner quickly received 7,843 consumer complaints and 88 requests to be disconnected. The N.F.L. fielded another 22,000 complaints. Team owners must view the response as a dandy plebiscite on their channel.

Last Thursday, the media bureau of the Federal Communications Commission told Time Warner to restore what it had taken away.

Time Warner then asked the bureau to reconsider the ruling, but in its response yesterday, the F.C.C. division provided the NFL Network with everything it wanted. The bureau rejected all of the cable operator's arguments, including one that being forced to carry a network abridges its First Amendment rights, calling it force speech, plain and simple.

More to the point, the bureau chided Time Warner for stripping the NFL Network from the menus of those 1.3 million subscribers without providing 30-day notice of such a change as required by federal cable law.

If Time Warner believed that carrying the NFL Network or any other programming service for 30 days placed too onerous a burden on its First Amendment rights, then it should have sought a waiver of the commission's rules or provided subscribers with 30 days' notice, the bureau ruled.

The two sides retreated to their corners yesterday.

We commend the F.C.C.'s latest swift and thorough action, the network said in a statement, and it praised the agency's efforts to protect its fans.

Time Warner, also in a statement, said it still believed the F.C.C. had ordered a remedy that is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

The cable operator is contemplating its next move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/sp...gewanted=print
fredfa is offline  
post #14235 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Monday's network prime-time ratings are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS (the first post in this thread).
fredfa is offline  
post #14236 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
TV Notebook: Commentary
It's Time For Ellen Burstyn To Step Up and Step Down
By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog Past Deadline August 8, 2006

I open here with the caveat that I swear I have nothing at all personally against Ellen Burstyn. Loved her in "The Exorcist." She was amazing in "Requiem For a Dream." She's a six-time Oscar nominee, and the Film Academy doesn't just hand those things out like car wash discount coupons. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said lately for the TV Academy. It seems that I've been leading the parade in expressing shock and indignation at the fact Burstyn received a Primetime Emmy nomination for supporting actress in a movie/miniseries for her "role" in the HBO docudrama "Mrs. Harris" -- this, despite the fact she was in the film for all of 14 seconds. That's right: 14. Seconds. She uttered 38 words in a weird accent. Hello, Emmy nomination!

What has been perhaps equally perplexing is the reaction of the television community to this -- that is, pretty much no reaction at all. I feel essentially like a lone voice of sanity screaming into a barren abyss. Where is the outrage? Where is the fury over the fact this charade that makes a mockery of television's primary awards showcase has been allowed to stand? Where is the humiliation at the idea that Burstyn's nomination represents foolproof evidence that no one who voted for her inclusion on the ballot actually saw the film? Where, too, is the acrimony over a Hollywood icon's decision to allow this sham to go forward? Instead of speaking up, all appear to be burying their collective head in the sands of denial.

I reiterate that I do not have it in for Burstyn. I am not an enemy of the TV Academy. I have great respect for Burstyn. I love television. I understand that the academy does its best to be fair and inclusive and just. Yet as long as Burstyn is in the audience as one of the category nominees on Aug. 27, then as far as I'm concerned the Emmys are bereft of validity and significance. They're Star Jones to me.

What disappoints me most about this is Burstyn's lack of action. She could have made a noble, benevolent (and proper) gesture by immediately withdrawing her name from contention -- not only out of fairness to the event and to those potential nominees who deserved an honest shot at her spot but out of simple respect for the acting profession. Burstyn's going along with this (if she is indeed fully aware of it) tells me that she cares less about her craft than she does empty personal acclaim, as if a nomination honoring a mere cameo wannabe means squat.

Burstyn is better than this, or at least ought to be. But if we go back some 30 years, we see a few disturbing clues as to the actress's sometimes paradoxical mindset.

Consider that Burstyn didn't attend the 1974 Academy Awards ceremony at which she landed her lone win, as lead actress for "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore." Her director, Martin Scorsese, accepted on her behalf. She later reportedly admitted she stayed home because she was certain she would win and couldn't handle the pressure and attention. Huh?

As if that weren't strange enough, the following year (1975) Burstyn took to TV to call for a voting boycott of that year's lead actress category to protest the lack of good roles for women. This did not sit terribly well with Louise Fletcher, who was up that year (and would go on to win) for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Fletcher took it as a personal slap in the face. Burstyn said she meant nothing against Fletcher. But it was also known that Burstyn had been forced to turn down the "Cuckoo's Nest" role that went to Fletcher due, it was said at the time, to her then-husband's illness.

As Fletcher told the New York Times, "(Burstyn) hadn't even seen 'Cuckoo's Nest' because she felt it would be too painful an experience. I told her on the phone that I thought it would have been nicer if she had said what she said in a year when she had been nominated." Touche'.

So if Burstyn acted back in 1975 with a certain jealousy and bitterness, which isn't so massively far-fetched, then it's probably also not such a stretch that she could demonstrate some selfishness/nonchalance now with regard to her meritless Emmy honor. Once again assuming this is anywhere on Burstyn's radar -- impossible to confirm since her publicist refuses to return multiple phone calls seeking comment -- it's the equivalent of spotting a wallet on the street filled with $500 in cash and picture ID and figuring, "Oh well, finder's keepers." The Emmy nomination found her, and she's keeping it, righteousness be damned.

Maybe Burstyn just hasn't bothered to give this any thought. To be sure, Burstyn, at 73, isn't having a lot of trouble finding work. This is not about an aging performer's need to cling tightly to faded glory. Her acting career is thriving. She has 20 credits just since the turn of the millennium, including five in 2006 alone (four of them features). Of those 20, the smallest by far is Burstyn's part in "Mrs. Harris," which again wasn't so much a role as a disappearing act.

I would expect more of an actress who was the first female president of The Actor's Equity (1982-85) and a co-president of The Actor's Studio. But then, maybe Burstyn sees this as a matter of having to hoard every under-ripe orange that drops from the tree, uncertain as to when it will stop bearing fruit. On her IMDB.com biography, this quote is attributed to her: "It's unfortunate, but our society is such that, for women in Hollywood, you get to a certain age and just fall of a cliff. But in my case, I refuse to die. I will hang on, by a little finger if necessary."

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be Burstyn's little finger that's in play here but her upraised middle one.

http://www.pastdeadline.com/
fredfa is offline  
post #14237 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Getting close to when that CP guy needs to have that sked updated.

did it download and work for you, jim?

(I suspect that CP guy has been swamped with work on his DMA updates -- what a project!)
fredfa is offline  
post #14238 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
GREAT news for those opposed to multicasting:
Washington Notebook:
New Commissioner McDowell: FCC Lacks Multicast Muscle
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 8/8/2006

New FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell put something of an exclamation point on his regulatory independence in a briefing with reporters Tuesday, including making it clear he does not think the FCC has the authority to mandate multicast must-carry without clearer direction from Congress.

McDowell, who was sworn in June 1, said he was open to separating the omnibus FCC ownership review into smaller bites rather than "one big kidney stone to pass." He also said he wanted to take a wait-and-see approach to the issue of cable a la carte, saying consumer demand may force a private sector solution.

As to multicast must-carry, which like a la carte has been pushed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, an engaging and at-ease McDowell said he did not believe Congress had given the FCC authority to mandate it, saying if Congress wanted to give it that express authority it could.

In late May, Martin circulated a proposal to grant multicast must carry, but could not get the McDowell vote to approve it.

McDowell also said the FCC was just doing what Congress told them to do by regulating indecenct content, saying the Congress had recently put additional wind in the commissions sails, referring to the bill to boost fines to a maximium $325,000 per incident.

McDowell called "network neutrality" a Rrorschach term (those ink blotches psychologist ask patients to interpret), that depends on where you stand. Where he stands, he said, is in support of the FCC's four neutrality principles and concerned with balancing the need for network management with the threat of abuse.

He said it would be tough for the government to apply a prophylactic for a problem that does not yet exist, suggesting that the FCC did not want to be the French goalie, referring to a World Cup soccer shootout in which that goalie, as with most goalies in such shootouts, kept guessing left when the ball went right, or vice versa.

He defended the MASN settlement, in which Comcast and the Mid Atlantic Sports Network agreed to terms on carriage of Washington Nationals baseball games. McDowell had been instrumental in a condition on the Comcast/Time Warner Adelphia merger that put that carriage complaint by MASN on a shot clock.

He said it was good for consumers and didn't see forcing the hand of private negotiations as being in conflict with his philosophy of letting the market find its own solutions. He pointed out that when there is market failure, the FCC can step in, pointed out the utlimate deal was a private one.

While he did recognize the FCC's role in addressing marketplace failures, he said he preferred sunsets on such actions, putting the market on a "glide path" back to nongovernmental solutions.

McDowell said he saw two principle issues on the FCC agenda, "threading the needle" of the third circuit remand of media ownership rules, and revamping the universal service fund, which underwrites telecommunications deployment to rural and underserved areas via contributions from industry.

McDowell would not handicap the ownership issue beyond saying he was eager to look at the "refreshed" record, but he did say that he was not opposed to dividing up the numerous issues involved, which include newspaper-broadcast crossownership, multiple station ownership and radio ownership caps.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...leID=CA6360473
fredfa is offline  
post #14239 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
'Hell's Kitchen' puts on steam for Fox
Reaches a season high of 3.8 in 18-49s
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Aug 8, 2006

Hell's Kitchen's ratings are heating up right along with Gordon Ramsay's temper.

The Fox reality show averaged a season-high 3.8 adults 18-49 overnight rating last night, 0.1 ahead of last week and 6 percent above its season average of 3.6.

In the penultimate episode, Virginia and Heather made it through to next week's two-hour Kitchen finale, in which they'll compete to become the new head chef at Red Rock Casino Resort & Spa in Las Vegas. Keith was eliminated.

Last year Kitchen averaged a 3.4 rating. This year, the show's second, is up 6 percent over that and is also up 7 percent among total viewers, from 7 million to 7.5 million.

It's one of summer's very few hit shows, along with Fox's So You Think You Can Dance, NBC's America's Got Talent and perhaps NBC's Last Comic Standing, the only new shows averaging above a 3.0.

But Kitchen is unique among them in that it's still growing. The others have seen their ratings falter or even out over recent weeks.

Kitchen likely succeeds in part because of the potential for pepper in each week's episode. The unpredictable Ramsay, a British chef known as much for his mouth as for what he puts in others', remains a big draw, and Fox's messageboards are full of posts about him.

Meanwhile, Fox edged CBS for the nightly lead among 18-49s with a 2.9 rating and 9 share to the latter's 2.9/8. ABC took the No. 3 slot at a 1.9/6, ahead of NBC at 1.7/5, Univision at 1.5/4, UPN at 0.8/2 and WB at 0.6/2.

At 8 p.m., CBS was No. 1 at a 2.5 for reruns of "Two and a Half Men" and "How I Met Your Mother," followed by ABC at 2.4 for a "Wife Swap" repeat, Fox's "Kitchen" repeat at 2.0, Univision's "La Fea Mas Bella" at 1.9, NBC's "Psych" (a USA show) at 1.3, and the WB's "7th Heaven" rerun and UPN's reruns of "One on One" and "All of Us" each at 0.7.

At 9 p.m., Fox took the lead at the 3.8 for "Kitchen," followed by CBS at 2.9 for reruns of "Men" and "New Adventures of Old Christine," ABC's "Supernanny" repeat at 2.3, NBC's "Treasure Hunters" at 1.9, Univision's "Barrera de Amor" at 1.4, UPN's 0.8 for reruns of "Girlfriends" and "Half & Half" and WB's 0.6 for a "Heaven" rerun.

At 10 p.m., CBS was No. 1 again at 3.4 for a "CSI: Miami" rerun, trailed by NBC at 1.7 for a "Medium" rerun, Univision at 1.3 for "Cristina" and ABC at 1.2 for "One Ocean View," down 20 percent from last week's 1.5.

Among households, CBS took the lead for the night at a 6.4 rating and 11 share, ahead of Fox at 3.9/7, ABC at 3.6/6, NBC at 3.1/5, Univision at 2.1/3, UPN at 1.3/2 and WB at 0.6/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...ticle_6524.asp
fredfa is offline  
post #14240 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by slocko View Post

How come Direct doesn't have this problem?

Because after being chastised, they started playing by the "rules" ... and cut deals with the networks and their O&O stations *before* they started offering HD-DNS service.

Always pays to ask first.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #14241 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
HD Sports
HD Sports Roundup

The Bridge has put together an excellent overview of what sports means to the growth and success of HDTV.

The charts and stats make it impossible for me to post clearly. But I highly recommend it.

To access it go here:

 

Sports_BR081106.pdf 497.4111328125k . file
fredfa is offline  
post #14242 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by slocko View Post

How come Direct doesn't have this problem?

Maybe because D* plays closer to the rules than E*? When was the last time you heard an outcry from E* subs about their DNS being cut off or denied verses D*? IMO the facts support the decision.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is offline  
post #14243 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 09:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by slocko View Post

How come Direct doesn't have this problem?

As usual, HDTVC and foxeng are correct.

DirecTV carefully negotiated its deals with broadcasters and stuck to a narrow interpretation of the FCC rules and various versions of what is now called SHVERA.

For example, it is voluntarily cutting off west coast HD DNS feeds to eastern and central time zone viewers. The law doesn't call for it, but the broadcasters are very happy with the policy.

DirecTV has long had a far more harmonious relationship with local (and network) broadcasters than Dish.

That is also why it has been able to offer HD DNS for years now, until its local HD LIL coverage began to kick in earlier this year.
fredfa is offline  
post #14244 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:07 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 73
I'm embarrased to say that I love "Hell's Kitchen".
CPanther95 is offline  
post #14245 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Monday's prime-time ratings - and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman's view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.
fredfa is offline  
post #14246 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

I'm embarrased to say that I love "Hell's Kitchen".

With all the work you've done on that local market update, how do you have time to watch anything?
fredfa is offline  
post #14247 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:23 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
TV Notebook
Exercise: When TV Watching Affects Walking
By Eric Nagourney The New York Times August 8, 2006

Many studies have suggested that there is a connection between watching television and physical inactivity. Now, researchers have tried to prove this is the case by asking volunteers to wear pedometers to see if there was a link between how much television they watched and how much they walked.

There was.

The study, published in July in The American Journal of Public Health, found that for each hour of television, participants took an average of 144 fewer steps.

They were also less likely to walk 10,000 steps a day the level some argue is desirable for fitness.

The researchers, led by Gary G. Bennett of Harvard and the Dana-Farber Center for Community-Based Research, asked almost 500 people to wear the pedometers for five days and keep track of how much TV they watched.

The instruments were masked, so the subjects could not see how well they had done.

The volunteers, all residents of low-income housing projects and many of them overweight, were asked to wear the pedometers from the time they woke up till bedtime.

On average, the participants reported watching about four hours of television a day. Those who did so were much less likely to reach the 10,000-step-a-day mark.

Still, the researchers said they would have expected to see a greater effect if it had been true that too much television played a role in the obesity of the subjects.

They also said it was not just enough to encourage people not to watch television if it meant they would replace it with other sedentary behaviors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/he...gewanted=print
fredfa is offline  
post #14248 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:30 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

With all the work you've done on that local market update, how do you have time to watch anything?

Wikipedia's CW and MNTV lists in DMA order made it a lot easier than I was expecting.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #14249 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 10:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
TV Sports
'Monday Night Football': My Good Snooze Spoiled
By Tony Kornheiser Washington Post Sports Columnist Tuesday, August 8, 2006

(As he embarks on a new adventure as the third man (with Mike Tirico and Joe Theismann) in the "Monday Night Football" booth, Tony Kornheiser is taking his readers along for the ride. It's going to get awfully crowded on his bus and, for heaven's sake, don't ask if we're there yet.)

Inevitably over the last few months, when anybody has engaged me about "Monday Night Football," they have asked this question: "So, are you busy getting prepared for the season?" and I always say, "Yeah, I am. Thanks for asking." But the truth is, I'm not.

The truth is, I haven't prepared at all . If there are 1,500 players in the NFL, outside of quarterbacks I know the names of maybe eight. Or 10. I know the names of all the head coaches, but with some of them, like Rod Marinelli, Brad Childress, Sean Payton and Mike McCarthy, I'm not exactly sure which teams they coach.

I figure it's Tirico's job to call the game and Theismann's job to analyze it. I can't believe anybody wants to hear my analysis of the play that just took place, especially in the third and fourth quarters when I won't even be awake. And if I am, chances are I'll have missed the big play because I was watching the Weather Channel on one of the other monitors.

I figure my job is to try to be entertaining and, frankly, how much better am I going to be at that because I know the name of the second-string left tackle? But I don't tell people that because then they would realize that they know more about football than I do and that I'm going to be a complete bomb.

Ultimately, it has to come down to roles. Whenever I ask what mine is, the suits say, "Just be yourself." Well, this is who myself is: I'm sarcastic. I'm subversive. And I haven't watched the end of one of these games in 30 years. Remember the breathtaking Redskins-Cowboys finish last year, when Mark Brunell (a player I can name) threw two TD passes in the last three minutes?

Didn't see it. Totally asleep. REM sleep, I believe.

Even my editor, Cindy, says: "You should just wing it. Wing it and fling it, baby." So that's what I've decided to do. I figure that'll get me through three or four games, until Cindy thinks of something else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701099_pf.html
fredfa is offline  
post #14250 of 25503 Old 08-08-2006, 11:46 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

HD Sports
HD Sports Roundup

The Bridge has put together an excellent overview of what sports means to the growth and success of HDTV.

The charts and stats make it impossible for me to post clearly. But I highly recommend it.

To access it go here:

One of the charts from the above report.


P.S. Fred, I see you got your own subscription, good stuff isn't it?
Keenan is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off