Congressional Leaders Weigh In Against Multicast Must Carry - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 10:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Powerful congressional leaders on Wednesday weighed in against Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin’s plans to force cable operators to carry all digital broadcast channels.

the article is here.

Maybe there is hope.
TVOD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 10:56 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
The “Hot Off The Press†sticky has you covered on this topic -- as well as many others -- TVOD.

The specific Mediaweek article you refer to was posted yesterday at 3:30 PM Pacific time:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7790950

And asimilar article on the same topic was actually posted a little earlier (at 3:17 PM Pacific time) yesterday:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7790868

And then this clarification to the above story was posted today at 9:46 AM Pacific time:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7794999

(That final article, by the way, revises the position of Senator Stevens as Todd Shields reported it in the article you (and I!) posted from MediaWeek.)
fredfa is offline  
post #3 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 11:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 79
As this thread is superfluous, feel free to delete or close it. Thanks.
TVOD is offline  
 
post #4 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 11:05 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD
As this thread is superfluous, feel free to delete or close it. Thanks.
It isnot superfluous at all, TVOD.

It draws more attention to a very impirtant topic for all of us who care about HD PQ.

If I had been more diligent, I probably would have posted it as a separate thread.
fredfa is offline  
post #5 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 04:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
It isnot superfluous at all, TVOD.

It draws more attention to a very impirtant topic for all of us who care about HD PQ.

If I had been more diligent, I probably would have posted it as a separate thread.
This subject as well as the inevitable Foxeng vs Fredfa and the rest of the free world is always very entertaining. :)
vurbano is offline  
post #6 of 127 Old 06-08-2006, 04:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 586 Post(s)
Liked: 724
As always, thank you Fredfa.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is offline  
post #7 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 04:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
This subject as well as the inevitable Foxeng vs Fredfa and the rest of the free world is always very entertaining. :)
I have stated my opinion on this subject. I have nothing else to say so go troll for a fight somewhere else.

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. "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it"
foxeng is offline  
post #8 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 09:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 167
What we all need to be aware of is that some Congresspeople support the FCC revisiting this issue for the 3rd time and if the FCC does rule in favor of multicast must-carry this time, these lawmakers say an FCC ruling would be adequate (an actual law may not be necessary). We all should carefully watch how this plays out.

Remember, if a network affiliate reduces their HDTV quality so they can multicast, we viewers have no option to receive it in full HDTV quality (i.e. the best you can get within 19.3) from any other source due to broadcaster's exclusive content contracts. We certainly don't want cable or satellite to reduce the quality of their HDTV local channels, but it is even more important that we make sure broadcasters don't reduce it themselves first before cable and sat even get a hold of it.
Rich Peterson is offline  
post #9 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 10:18 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson
We certainly don't want cable or satellite to reduce the quality of their HDTV local channels, but it is even more important that we make sure broadcasters don't reduce it themselves first before cable and sat even get a hold of it.
I don't think this is what you mean, but this is what seems to be coming through. It is OK (well acceptable) for a station to multicast without must carry, but it is not OK (not acceptable) if must carry is a law.

The truth is, even if must carry doesn't pass, and to be honest I think it will if you read the tea leaves from yesterday and today from Capital Hill, HD stations WILL multicast and I am afraid that number will be increasing no matter what happens. You ask any station, at this point in the transition, to help pay for the cost of the transition and to find a model that works, stations that are doing HD and multicasting are going to do what it takes to stay in business whether must carry happens or not. I know that upsets you, but that is the reality that is shaping up. And that isn't just my opinion. You see it happening everywhere now. And the argument of "the broadcasters didn't ask for multicasting" may be a valid one, it is ancient history and unfortunaly has no baring on today. No one in Congress cares what was said in the late 80's and early 90's. They have said so.

All I am saying is at this point, even if must carry doesn't pass, or Congress codifies no must carry for multicasting, multicasting is here to stay and cablecos will carry many of those multicasted channels. Why? Because the cablecos can make money off of them too, they just don't want those added channels forced on them. Cable has their own interest in this and it has $$$$ written all over it.

If you need an example, the local Hearst-Argyle has NBC Weather Plus on the air. The local Gannett station also has a weather channel and it is basically a carbon copy of NBC Weather Plus. Both are carried by TWC. In the fall the Sinclair station will have The Tube on their ABC station. Chances are it will be carried on cable as well. All of this with no must carry in place. I am afraid it is pretty much a done deal now no matter what happens in DC.

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. "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it"
foxeng is offline  
post #10 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 10:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
I have stated my opinion on this subject. I have nothing else to say ............
I knew it was too good to be true. LOL
vurbano is offline  
post #11 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
I knew it was too good to be true. LOL
When I need your approval to post. I will ask. Until then, if you can't contribute to the thread, PLEASE BUTT OUT.

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. "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it"
foxeng is offline  
post #12 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 10:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson
Remember, if a network affiliate reduces their HDTV quality so they can multicast, we viewers have no option to receive it in full HDTV quality (i.e. the best you can get within 19.3) from any other source due to broadcaster's exclusive content contracts. We certainly don't want cable or satellite to reduce the quality of their HDTV local channels, but it is even more important that we make sure broadcasters don't reduce it themselves first before cable and sat even get a hold of it.
The broadcasters pulled the old bait and switch before Congress showing them pretty HD pictures and once they got the bandwidth theyve gone multicast happy. That was obviously just step one in their scheme. Just listen to the propoganda that already exists coming from the broadcasters in the OTA broadcasting threads. There really is no hope if cable gives in. And, as you say, it will make the picture even worse than it already is on all delivery systems. Too bad, there really is no way to stop these broadcasters from multicasting. But stopping must carry might help. Without it, I cant believe that these multicast stations could generate enough revenue to survive. Can you imagine an advertiser actually paying to support a garbage station like Weather Plus if must carry if deated and no one is watching?


"Broadcasters say that without access to the majority of homes that take cable TV, their digital programming will wither without viewers. Cable operators say they will provide carriage – and thus an audience – for compelling programming.

Barton and Upton in their letter echoed cable’s arguments, saying, “We believe that consumer demand will sort out the right balance between broadcast and non-broadcast programming.â€




Thats the reason these broadcasters are hell bent on must carry for cable. They see it as a ticket to create whatever garbage sub channels they desire, reduce HD PQ and FORCE cable to carry it. WOW !!!!!! thats a heck of a business. I guess it infuriates them when early adopters try to foul up the bait and switch scam they are trying to get away with. They are dangerously close to step 2 of their plan and they need to be held back.
vurbano is offline  
post #13 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 11:28 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
....The truth is, even if must carry doesn't pass, and to be honest I think it will if you read the tea leaves from yesterday and today from Capital Hill,...
Did you mean THESE tea leaves?

“We are writing to express our opposition to … any order that would impose multicast must-carry obligations†on cable or satellite operators, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chair of the panel’s telecommunications subcommittee.
fredfa is offline  
post #14 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
Did you mean THESE tea leaves?

“We are writing to express our opposition to … any order that would impose multicast must-carry obligations†on cable or satellite operators, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chair of the panel’s telecommunications subcommittee.
Aren't you being selective in your hearing? Barton runs hot and cold on this subject, he has been for and against it so many times I have lost count. And now Stevens of AK has flip flopped AGAIN on this. Wednesday he was against it, now he is "not going to get in the way" if the FCC approves it.

Like I said, it is to the point now, it doesn't matter. Broadcasters will multicast and cable will carry them. It is happening now and that's with no assurance of must carry.

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. "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it"
foxeng is offline  
post #15 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 12:45 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
"...ike I said, it is to the point now, it doesn't matter. Broadcasters will multicast and cable will carry them. It is happening now and that's with no assurance of must carry."

Uh, no it isn't happening very often. Cable just isn't carrying multi-cast very much.

And the NCTA has clearly and definitively said it opposes must-carry. Statements from leaders of Comcast, Time-Warner, Cox, Adelphia, Cablevision, Cable One and many other MSOs have shown that antipathy to be hard line.

As to Barton, a politician you have scoffed at over the years, could you give me some examples of when he has supported must-carry? If he has been "...for and against it so many times I have lost count..." surely there are numerous examples on the record.

As to Steven flip-flopping, John Eggerton of Broadcasting and Cable said he had misunderstood Sen. Stevens' position and had written an incorrect story Wednesday.

It seems to me in this case that Senator Stevens was simply misinterpreted. It is easy to say someone flip flops. But do you have any evidence he has ever been against multi-casting? Or for it? Or switched his public position?

Aside from those points, I (mostly) agree with your post.
fredfa is offline  
post #16 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa (We'll be back)
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Aren't you being selective in your hearing? Barton runs hot and cold on this subject, he has been for and against it so many times I have lost count. And now Stevens of AK has flip flopped AGAIN on this. Wednesday he was against it, now he is "not going to get in the way" if the FCC approves it.

Like I said, it is to the point now, it doesn't matter. Broadcasters will multicast and cable will carry them. It is happening now and that's with no assurance of must carry.
It's happening here. Weather Plus and The Tube are both carried on digital cable here.

As you get into markets smaller than the one I live in (and even a few bigger ones), there are MANY places where there aren't enough stations for all the networks, allowing stations to choose smaller networks as subchannels rather than relegating them to cable-only. UPN has been that way for a while in much of the Midwest, and many formerly cable-only WB stations are expected to migrate to subchannels this fall as The CW takes over.

None of this really has much to do with must-carry, though. Weather Plus has the advantage of having the local NBC stations' weather teams behind it, The Tube is pretty much the only video music channel there is (MTV and VH1 have abdicated that role), and woe be the cable system which holds back The CW from its viewers. They'll have no trouble getting their subchannels on cable regardless of multicast must-carry.

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 #17 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 12:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rick_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Simi Valley, CA USA
Posts: 3,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have a somewhat different perspective.

If multicast must carry is enacted then I suspect every station will have many subchannels of infomercials. They will do this because putting them up will force cable and satellite to carry them. This will make the stations lots of money without having to pay the cable and satellite operators any money at all. Without multicast must carry they would be OTA only and no one would watch them. These OTA subchannels will gobble up bandwidth from cable and satellite providers and prevent the cable and satellite operators from putting up programming that I actually want to watch.

Rick R
Rick_R is offline  
post #18 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dline
It's happening here. Weather Plus and The Tube are both carried on digital cable here.

As you get into markets smaller than the one I live in, there are MANY places where there aren't enough stations for all the networks, allowing stations to choose smaller networks as subchannels rather than relegating them to cable-only. UPN has been that way for a while in much of the Midwest, and many formerly cable-only WB stations are expected to migrate to subchannels this fall as The CW takes over.

None of this really has much to do with must-carry, though. Weather Plus has the advantage of having the local NBC stations' weather teams behind it, The Tube is pretty much the only video music channel there is (MTV and VH1 have abdicated that role), and woe be the cable system which holds back The CW from its viewers. They'll have no trouble getting their subchannels on cable regardless of multicast must-carry.

Agreed. The smaller markets (Cedar Rapids is #88 this year, and may well slip to #90 or #91 in September) will sometimes find multi-carry works to fill out a cable lineup. The scenario you mention, where a CW Or MyNetworkTV is carried as a sub channel, might invite carriage.

But more than 67% of the nation's TV homes are in the top 50 markets, where multi-carry will be very scarce.
fredfa is offline  
post #19 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa (We'll be back)
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_R
I have a somewhat different perspective.

If multicast must carry is enacted then I suspect every station will have many subchannels of infomercials. They will do this because putting them up will force cable and satellite to carry them. This will make the stations lots of money without having to pay the cable and satellite operators any money at all. Without multicast must carry they would be OTA only and no one would watch them. These OTA subchannels will gobble up bandwidth from cable and satellite providers and prevent the cable and satellite operators from putting up programming that I actually want to watch.
One question is, will multicast must-carry force cablers to convert each subchannel to analog for their analog-only viewers? If that were the case, the NBC station here would take 24 MHz of cable space. That's about the only way it would waste bandwidth.

Of course, I'm inclined to believe cable will eventually have to go all-digital anyway. Since no broadcaster can use more than 6 MHz regardless of how many streams it puts out, the bandwidth issue becomes moot when cable goes completely digital.

As for info-subchannels: whether or not they're carried on cable, nothing will make viewers watch them, and nothing will stop viewers from deleting them from their channel memories. I've already taken the main Pax/"i" channel out of my memory for that reason, while keeping the subs which have actual programming during the day. Buyers of these half-hour programs should know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
... The smaller markets (Cedar Rapids is #88 this year, and may well slip to #90 or #91 in September) ...
Gee, thanks for the pick-me-up! :(

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 #20 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 01:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anybody see this scenerio coming ???

7.1 WABC-HD
7.2 Disney Channel
7.3 ESPN
7.4 Soapnet

Broadcaster to Cable Operator:
"You either pay us ridiculous retransmission, or we yank our most valuable product"
posg is offline  
post #21 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 02:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
Agreed. The smaller markets (Cedar Rapids is #88 this year, and may well slip to #90 or #91 in September) will sometimes find multi-carry works to fill out a cable lineup. The scenario you mention, where a CW Or MyNetworkTV is carried as a sub channel, might invite carriage.

But more than 67% of the nation's TV homes are in the top 50 markets, where multi-carry will be very scarce.
Raleigh and some of the Charlotte cablecos are doing it and so is the Greeneville/Spartanburg market. All three Top 30. Most are either NBC Weather Plus or weather radars or home grown news channels/weather channels. It may not have hit the west coast yet, but it is here on the east coast including my market, number 47.

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. "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it"
foxeng is offline  
post #22 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 03:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Raleigh and some of the Charlotte cablecos are doing it and so is the Greeneville/Spartanburg market. All three Top 30. Most are either NBC Weather Plus or weather radars or home grown news channels/weather channels. It may not have hit the west coast yet, but it is here on the east coast including my market, number 47.
Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather.

At the end of the day, that's the best the broadcaster's have come up with for multicasting. And I say "best" because it's the only thing they've come up with. :mad:
posg is offline  
post #23 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 04:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 586 Post(s)
Liked: 724
Broadcasters will eventually multi-cast themselves right out of business with poor looking pictures and lame programming. The real business model is VOD and downloads like i-tunes which is just in its infancy along with IPTV. Network affiliates are already on the endangered species list because of this business model now. Multicasting will be of no long term benefit to broadcasters. More choice in programming? Geez, there are WAY too many channels now. We do not need more channels of CRAP, there are far too many now. Does every city really need 6 to 10 channels devoted to a weather loop or worse, a static weather map and should cable and DBS be ordered to carry them all by the government? I guess when used car salesmen get fired they go to work as programming genuses at local broadcasters!

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is offline  
post #24 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 04:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 94
If it is a done deal and they are getting carriage anyway, then there's absolutely no reason to make a law forcing the issue.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #25 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 05:01 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
By the time all local broadcasters get their multi-cast plans together, their networks will have found a way to deliver those programs directly to consumers who want them.

Local TV executives should focus on providing compelling programming, not on compelling providers to carry junk which few will want to see -- even if local salespeople think they can sell commercials on it. But then how many local TV GMs are actually programmers?

It seems to me that if cable ends up being forced to carry multi-cast channels, the satellite providers will be helped immensely. Many people simply won't want to fight through the clutter.

On the other hand, the NCTA agreed early last year to provide carriage of PBS stations side channels. That does seem to make some sense from both a business and a PR perpsective.
fredfa is offline  
post #26 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 48,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
If it is a done deal and they are getting carriage anyway, then there's absolutely no reason to make a law forcing the issue.
The real reason for the law, as I understand it, is that mandatory carriage would substantially boost the value of local stations (though for the life of me I can't understand why).

Then when the owners sell, they'll make more of a profit.
fredfa is offline  
post #27 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 05:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 586 Post(s)
Liked: 724
That's the whole point Fredfa. It has nothing at all to do with giving viewers a choice in programming. If I were a broadcaster now that is not an O & O, I would be selling now while the selling is good.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is offline  
post #28 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 06:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JoeInNVa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Limington, Maine
Posts: 2,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The weather now and such channels are just big ole ads with a few snippits of weather. I dont watch it and dont know why people would. What do I care about the weather in Montana? Do I care about an ad for a TV show or some entertainment news? It's Weather and hopefully it is local weather, anything else is just the stupid stations pushing out more crap.

Arrive
Raise Hell
Leave
JoeInNVa is offline  
post #29 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 06:55 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa

Uh, no it isn't happening very often. Cable just isn't carrying multi-cast very much.
In Detroit, we have 7 digital stations carrying HDTV. Of those, 2 do not multicast, 5 do. Of the 5, two have subchannels on Comcast, in addition to the main HD channel.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #30 of 127 Old 06-09-2006, 06:56 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
Anybody see this scenerio coming ???

7.1 WABC-HD
7.2 Disney Channel
7.3 ESPN
7.4 Soapnet

Broadcaster to Cable Operator:
"You either pay us ridiculous retransmission, or we yank our most valuable product"
No.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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