Stations don't want cable to downconvert HDTV to DTV - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 11:51 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
We've already seen them starting to withhold that "precious content" while negotiating cash for carriage from the MSOs. Nobody said they want to pull the programming to "kill off" cable, the debate was centered around how attractive cable would be without the broadcast networks.
CPanther95 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged
So if they are in the driver's seat why haven't they (as a group) withheld their precious "content" and killed off their 'evil, predatory cable' "competition?" :D
Who OWNS all those cable networks??? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
posg is offline  
post #183 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:01 PM
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 posg
Some pretty creative accounting, I'd say. I wonder if they accounted for all the "make goods" ???? ;) ;) ;)
Of course they did, and they also accounted for all the extra money for every NBC O&O for all of its avails during the Olympics. Many spots on those O&Os sold for double (and more) the usual rates.

I made sure to specify NBC/GE as a corporation, not just the NBC network. :)
fredfa is offline  
post #184 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:02 PM
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 posg
Who OWNS all those cable networks??? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

CBS, Disney, Fox, and NBC/Universal/GE own dozens between them.

Cable companies own many more.
fredfa is offline  
post #185 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
We've already seen them starting to withhold that "precious content" while negotiating cash for carriage from the MSOs. Nobody said they want to pull the programming to "kill off" cable, the debate was centered around how attractive cable would be without the broadcast networks.
Cable certainly has the pockets and the vertical integration to beat broadcasters at their own game.

Broadcasters buy most of their programming anyway. They're not the only guys with a checkbook. I'd love to see some high profile network program defect to cable. And cable gets the rest of the sports. You don't think that can happen ????

If HBO can produce a "Sopranos", while NBC produces a "Surface", you think the cable industry is gonna take this lying down. If broadcasters jump the cable ship, there's gonna be a lot of "Howard Stern" style defections, both in talent and production. THE MONEY'S THERE.
posg is offline  
post #186 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
CBS, Disney, Fox, and NBC/Universal/GE own dozens between them.

Cable companies own many more.
I think you got my point. Broadcasters have no interest in "killing cable", as was suggested. It's their wicked cousin.
posg is offline  
post #187 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:27 PM
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 posg
Cable certainly has the pockets and the vertical integration to beat broadcasters at their own game.

Broadcasters buy most of their programming anyway. They're not the only guys with a checkbook. I'd love to see some high profile network program defect to cable. And cable gets the rest of the sports. You don't think that can happen ????

If HBO can produce a "Sopranos", while NBC produces a "Surface", you think the cable industry is gonna take this lying down. If broadcasters jump the cable ship, there's gonna be a lot of "Howard Stern" style defections, both in talent and production. THE MONEY'S THERE.
It only works in the current model. A la carte would totally throw this business model on its ear.

To another of your points: You are aware, I am sure, that the networks tend to buy most of their programming from their own production studios -- or from studios owned by another network.

And HBO can produce a gritty, nudity and profanity-laden series (or several) while NBC can't. The obscenity rules are strict for OTA stations -- and, according to legislation near passage, about to get stricter.

I am not sure anyone has been saying the cable channels should go away. Just the opposite: much of this has been to counter the argument that the traditional stations have little -- or less -- value than cable.

Speaking of which, here are just some of the cable networks owned by conglomerates:

CBS:
Showtime

Viacom:
BET
Famous Music
MTV Networks – MTV
VH1
VH! Classic
Nickelodeon
Nick at Nite
Comedy Central
CMT: Country Music Television
Spike TV
TV Land

Disney:
ESPN
ESPN2
ESPN News
ESPNU
ESPN Classica
ESPN Desporte
Disney Channel
ABC Family
Toon Disney
SOAPNet

GE:
Bravo
CNBC
MSNBC
Sci Fi
Shop NBC
Slueth
USA Network
Universal HD

Fox:
FX
Fox Sports Net (14 owned and operated RSNs)
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Fox College Sports
FUEL TV
Fox Sports en Espanol
Fox Movie Channel
Fox Soccer Channel
Fox Reality

Time Warner
HBO
Adult Swim
Boomerang
Cartoon Network
CNN / U.S.
CNN Headline News
CNN International
TBS
TNT HD
TNT
Turner Classic Movies
Turner Network Television

Comcast
E! Entertainment Television
Style Network
The Golf Channel
OLN
G4
AZN Television
PBS KIDS Sprout
TV One and four regional Comcast SportsNets.

Cablevision

AMC
IFC
FSN Bay Area
FSN Chicago
FSN Boston
WE: Women’s Entertainment
VOOM
fredfa is offline  
post #188 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:46 PM
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 posg
Cable certainly has the pockets and the vertical integration to beat broadcasters at their own game.

Broadcasters buy most of their programming anyway. They're not the only guys with a checkbook. I'd love to see some high profile network program defect to cable. And cable gets the rest of the sports. You don't think that can happen ????

If HBO can produce a "Sopranos", while NBC produces a "Surface", you think the cable industry is gonna take this lying down. If broadcasters jump the cable ship, there's gonna be a lot of "Howard Stern" style defections, both in talent and production. THE MONEY'S THERE.
They're pretty far away from developing the numbers needed to finance (on their own merits) the real high production cost shows. Even HBO couldn't stomach the costs of Deadwood, and Rome probably has only 1 or 2 seasons more because of production costs.

But even now, I'd put Sopranos, Deadwood, Battlestar Gallactica, Nip/Tuck, The Shield, Over There (another victim of cable numbers), The Most Dangerous Catch, and a few others, right up there with the best the broadcast networks have to offer.

If a la carte ever comes to pass and 75% of the existing channels go away completely or through consolidation, I think you'll have enough quality programming condensed among a few networks to give those cablenets an opportunity to give the major nets a run for their money. As it is now, the quality cable programming is so spread out, that it is difficult for mass amounts of viewers to keep these channels on their radar because they may only have an appealing original offering 1 or 2 primetime hours a week per channel.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #189 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
fredfa,

First off, let me thank you for the excellent job you do with "Hot Off The Press". It's "must" reading for me on a daily basis.

Secondly, having spent much of my professional career in cable, I always tend to take the position of "cable defender" when these discussions merit. I'm more of a technology guy than a programming guy, and I see cable as the best overall delivery system. Broadcasters tend to see the advantages of a "wireless" system.

Regardless, be it broadcast or cable, 10% of what's on TV is brilliant, 40% is passible, and 50% is pure rubbish, no matter how it's delivered.
posg is offline  
post #190 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
They're pretty far away from developing the numbers needed to finance (on their own merits) the real high production cost shows. Even HBO couldn't stomach the costs of Deadwood, and Rome probably has only 1 or 2 seasons more because of production costs.

But even now, I'd put Sopranos, Deadwood, Battlestar Gallactica, Nip/Tuck, The Shield, Over There (another victim of cable numbers), The Most Dangerous Catch, and a few others, right up there with the best the broadcast networks have to offer.

If a la carte ever comes to pass and 75% of the existing channels go away completely or through consolidation, I think you'll have enough quality programming condensed among a few networks to give those cablenets an opportunity to give the major nets a run for their money. As it is now, the quality cable programming is so spread out, that it is difficult for mass amounts of viewers to keep these channels on their radar because they may only have an appealing original offering 1 or 2 primetime hours a week per channel.
You mean "less is more"???? Don't tell Charlie Ergen that. ;) ;) ;)
posg is offline  
post #191 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 01:07 PM
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 posg
fredfa,

First off, let me thank you for the excellent job you do with "Hot Off The Press". It's "must" reading for me on a daily basis.

Secondly, having spent much of my professional career in cable, I always tend to take the position of "cable defender" when these discussions merit. I'm more of a technology guy than a programming guy, and I see cable as the best overall delivery system. Broadcasters tend to see the advantages of a "wireless" system.

Regardless, be it broadcast or cable, 10% of what's on TV is brilliant, 40% is passible, and 50% is pure rubbish, no matter how it's delivered.

Thanks so much for the kind words!

But even more so, thanks for keeping a lively discussion going without having it degenerate into something mean, petty and personal. The free flow of ideas (and who knows which of us may be eventually proven "right"?) is what this forum should be about -- and what makes it useful. Not a continual repitition of slams or attacks.

I tend to agree that a small percentage of what it availabe -- OTA or cable -- is really worth watching. But with so many choices, even that small percentage seems to swamp my TiVos.
fredfa is offline  
post #192 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa (We'll be back)
Posts: 2,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
Cable certainly has the pockets and the vertical integration to beat broadcasters at their own game.

Broadcasters buy most of their programming anyway. They're not the only guys with a checkbook. I'd love to see some high profile network program defect to cable. And cable gets the rest of the sports. You don't think that can happen ????
It could happen. Why? Because subscriber fees provide networks like ESPN with a bottomless pit they can use. How do you think ESPN outbid ABC so they could bring Monday Night Football to a smaller audience? The answer: EVERY CABLE SUBSCRIBER PAYS, whether they give a hoot about pro football or not.

Meanwhile, just a couple of years ago, Comcast snagged the regional rights to a portion of the Chicago Cubs schedule from Fox Sports Net. Once again, every subscriber had to pay up in order to keep those few fans who weren't content with the WGN lineup from storming the cable company office in protest. Never mind that the channel doesn't appear to offer much outside of the Cubs and Bulls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
If HBO can produce a "Sopranos", while NBC produces a "Surface", you think the cable industry is gonna take this lying down. If broadcasters jump the cable ship, there's gonna be a lot of "Howard Stern" style defections, both in talent and production. THE MONEY'S THERE.
On the other hand, ABC produces a "Lost" and a "Desperate Housewives," and the creativity-challenged Howard Stern doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph with any of them.

Views are strictly my own unless otherwise noted.
"ItÂs looking more like Y2K than the Bay of Pigs." - FCC Commissioner Adelstein, 6-13-09, on the DTV switch
dline is offline  
post #193 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 01:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dline
It could happen. Why? Because subscriber fees provide networks like ESPN with a bottomless pit they can use. How do you think ESPN outbid ABC so they could bring Monday Night Football to a smaller audience? The answer: EVERY CABLE SUBSCRIBER PAYS, whether they give a hoot about pro football or not.

Meanwhile, just a couple of years ago, Comcast snagged the regional rights to a portion of the Chicago Cubs schedule from Fox Sports Net. Once again, every subscriber had to pay up in order to keep those few fans who weren't content with the WGN lineup from storming the cable company office in protest. Never mind that the channel doesn't appear to offer much outside of the Cubs and Bulls.
On the other hand, ABC produces a "Lost" and a "Desperate Housewives," and the creativity-challenged Howard Stern doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph with any of them.
Just to set the record straight, I'm a huge "Lost" fan, and I'm trying to give "DH" a chance to rekindle the strength of the first scene.

New paragraph, per your statement above: Howard Stern doesn't really deserve to be mentioned anywhere.

By the way, I'm not sure ESPN outbid ABC for MNF. Both are owned by Disney. Why would they bid against themself ???? ;) ;) ;)
posg is offline  
post #194 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 01:51 PM
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
Correct.

ABC walked away from the broadcast package.

ESPN simply switched its package from Sunday to Monday.
fredfa is offline  
post #195 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 02:22 PM
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
Yeah, ABC lost $150 million a year on the package. Then, the package was diminished by the NFL and given the same scheduling priority that SNF had - yet ESPN bid an extra $500 million a year, will generate far fewer ad dollars (with it's more limited reach and worse scheduling) and projects to generate a $200 million profit.

I wonder where that $850 million swing is coming from? :rolleyes:

But that's another rant for a different thread. ;)
CPanther95 is offline  
post #196 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 02:31 PM
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
That profit comes from all the people who don't care about ESPN and are forced to pay for it.

But as you say, that's another rant for a different thread.
fredfa is offline  
post #197 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
That profit comes from all the people who don't care about ESPN and are forced to pay for it.

But as you say, that's another rant for a different thread.
Touche !!!!!!
posg is offline  
post #198 of 287 Old 06-02-2006, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
How does MNF make a profit on ESPN? Did they raise the carriage fees to compensate? Are there systems that didn't carry ESPN before that are now?

BTW,the relationship between ESPN and ABC goes beyond common corporate ownership: ESPN runs ABC sports.
TVOD is offline  
post #199 of 287 Old 06-03-2006, 05:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD
How does MNF make a profit on ESPN? Did they raise the carriage fees to compensate? Are there systems that didn't carry ESPN before that are now?

BTW,the relationship between ESPN and ABC goes beyond common corporate ownership: ESPN runs ABC sports.
ESPN fees to cable operators are like gasoline prices. Sometimes there's a reason for the increase, sometime's there's an excuse for the increase, and sometimes there's just the increase.

ESPN is the most expensive basic programming service on cable by a landslide, and a long way from having the most viewers.

Now where's that ESPN rant thread ???
posg is offline  
post #200 of 287 Old 06-03-2006, 05:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Going back to the question "Is cable viable without broadcast stations", and based on the amount of sports programming listed in fredfa's top 100, I'd like to hear some feedback on this question:

Is broadcasting viable without news or sports ??? (A few local network affiliates have gotten totally out of the local news business, and some predict one of the big three networks will get out over the next few years)
posg is offline  
post #201 of 287 Old 06-03-2006, 06:12 AM
 
optivity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
All I can say is I'm glad that Verizon FiOS has been run down my street... because during the next year or two I'll actually have a choice other then just Time Warner for whom I've been coughing-up-the-dough to for nearly 30 years! :eek:

I'll bet TW loses customers in droves... ;)
optivity is offline  
post #202 of 287 Old 06-06-2006, 09:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Case in point, in 1996 we DID threaten to take our station off the local cableco. Within days the cableco caved and this was PRE American Idol, PRE-24, PRE-House, PRE-HD, when sat only had about 15 million subs nationally between D* and E* and NO telcos.

Same situation happened here over a channel number on cable I believe, but threatening it isnt the same thing as doing it. take it off and you will die or have to slash your operating expenses back to pre cable days. My guess is many affiliates are in debt up to their eyeballs in equipment costs and salaries and wouldnt be able to do it. You are in the business of airing commercials to make money plain and simple. The less people you reach the less you will make. You cant live without cable. This generation of viewers is not going to start erecting antennas all over the place just to pick up one station.
vurbano is offline  
post #203 of 287 Old 06-06-2006, 09:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Many consumers feel cables pricing is out of line. You hear that same rhetoric here by AVSForum members so there must be some truth in it.
Satellite is just as bad. I think their equivalent package to cable here is about the same price. Lets forget this fairy tale about satellite rates being cheaper. That doesnt even consider the hundreds of dollars an HDDVR will cost you upfront with a 2 yr commitment for the honor of renting it PLUS a monthly rental fee vs a FREE cable HD DVR at no upfront costs with only rental fees. :rolleyes:
vurbano is offline  
post #204 of 287 Old 06-06-2006, 11:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
This generation of viewers is not going to start erecting antennas all over the place just to pick up one station.
Depends on the station. For example if (hypothetical) CW affiliate X is carried on cable but originates as a bitstarved 480i subchannel on a (hypothetical) CBS affiliate's DT, and another nearby CW affiliate Y provides full 1080i HD but is only available OTA, antennas will go up. :)

I think many broadcasters are underestimating the ultimate drawing power of HD vs. multicasted SD. Afterall, the DVD market exploded for a reason. ;)
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #205 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 05:08 AM
 
optivity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Will the emergence of Verizon FiOS TV have any affect regarding the way cable providers operate?

I’ve been a Time Warner subscriber for nearly 30 years and if Verizon’s package is any where near equivalent to TW in terms of price and content I’ll be giving their service a whirl. I anticipate most subscribers who have a choice will do the same.
optivity is offline  
post #206 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 06:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by optivity
Will the emergence of Verizon FiOS TV have any affect regarding the way cable providers operate?

I’ve been a Time Warner subscriber for nearly 30 years and if Verizon’s package is any where near equivalent to TW in terms of price and content I’ll be giving their service a whirl. I anticipate most subscribers who have a choice will do the same.
About the same TWC subscription time here in their largest market. Also have used RCN Cable alone, or shared with TWC for short periods. If Verizon can also squeeze a third cable run into our hallway molding covers, I'd likely switch to FIOS immediately, given Verizon's excellent HD channel lineup. NYC's TWC has been crying lack of bandwidth for years now, making new HD adds too slow, and RCN hasn't kept up with TWC. Reportedly, TWC nationwide is beginning to convert to switched video (SV) within the next 3 years, which can put ~41 channels in 256-QAM 6-MHz slots, versus ~12 SD channels (2-3 HDs) with constantly delivered (non-switched) programming in standard 256-QAM slots. Came across a USA Today article summarizing this topic, including SV and HD programming, nicely IMO--and all relating to cable bandwidth, like the thread topic. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #207 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged
Depends on the station. For example if (hypothetical) CW affiliate X is carried on cable but originates as a bitstarved 480i subchannel on a (hypothetical) CBS affiliate's DT, and another nearby CW affiliate Y provides full 1080i HD but is only available OTA, antennas will go up. :)

I think many broadcasters are underestimating the ultimate drawing power of HD vs. multicasted SD. Afterall, the DVD market exploded for a reason. ;)
Some stations already deliver HD versions of their programming via fiber link to the local cable company that is not transmitted over the air. I would suspect that the sidecar affiliates and low power affiliates will do the same before they allow significant canabalization of their audience.

Besides, typically only viewer near market borders have the option of duplicative network affiliates.
posg is offline  
post #208 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 09:20 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 smack in the middle of the Charlotte DMA and can pick up 3 markets. I'd think most of the population would have access to an alternate market if they chose to.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #209 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 09:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 442
In the eastern part of the country maybe, not so much in the west though, the wide open spaces, etc. :)
Keenan is online now  
post #210 of 287 Old 06-07-2006, 09:24 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
We don't need to consider anything beyond the East Coast when discussing "most" of the population. ;)
CPanther95 is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

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