Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 1340 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 688Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #40171 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bgooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yesterday when I scanned for OTA I received 80 channels. Granted many of these are foreign language. And in the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica where cable operators are required to offer a broadcast tier it includes some basic cable networks. For example in Los Angeles for about $13 per month Time Warner Cable includes about 60 channels including the big 4 in HD, 2 PBS, Discovery & CNN in HD.
bgooch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #40172 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 02:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomhunter8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Unfortunately I don't believe we will ever see an la carte option because networks and cable/satellite providers have political lobbyists and we viewers don't.

I would love to be able to pay for only the channels I want to watch. For a TV junkie like myself it would be a dream come true. I just don't think it will happen. I honestly believe I am the only one in the industry who cares what I want. DirecTV and ESPN could not care less what I want because the industry is not viewer driven, it is $$$ driven.

That is why I when I choose a carrier, I also have to help pay for channels I never watch and why there is more and more clutter on the screen of the channels I do watch.
tomhunter8 is offline  
post #40173 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 02:50 PM - 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 Notes
Premium Summer for Cable
Rivals HBO, Showtime see sunny skies

By Alex Weprin -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/24/2009

While much of the media business is in economic turmoil and ad-supported television is hurting, HBO and Showtime actually are thriving.

Both networks are up more than 20% in primetime ratings year-over-year, and a recent report from SNL Kagan pegged HBO's penetration at about 29.1 million homes and Showtime's at 17.1 million homes. Both figures are up from last summer, despite the lagging economy.

“As the advertising business has been tough in this recession, our model looks pretty good,” says Showtime chairman Matt Blank.

HBO has been stealing many of the headlines with its strong True Blood/Hung-induced Sunday night renaissance, but Showtime has been setting ratings records of its own with its summer lineup of Weeds, Nurse Jackie and Penn & Teller: ********!

“I don't think it is a zero-sum game,” says Dave Baldwin, HBO's head of program planning, of the HBO-Showtime rivalry. “In our history, we have seen phases of upward spirals and downward spirals in terms of audience. Right now we are in a nice, healthy upward spiral phase.”

“We both exist quite well in terms of critical acclaim and profitability in the same space,” echoes Showtime Entertainment President Bob Greenblatt.

So while HBO's turnaround has captured headlines, Showtime is happily capturing network records. Rookie Nurse Jackie was the highest-rated premiere in network history. Weeds is up 5% from last season and drew 1.68 million viewers for its season debut, the best for any program on the network this year.

And while the network has no new shows slated for the fall, Greenblatt expects to order one or two scripted series for 2010. Showtime passed on both of its pilots and two pilot presentations in the last development cycle. “None of those really were going to be the next great show for us,” he says.

But the network is also focusing on films. MGM, Paramount and Lionsgate are leaving Showtime to launch their own pay cable channel Epix in October, which has forced the network to ink movie deals with smaller outfits in an effort to keep the theatricals flowing after 2010. So far, the network has deals with The Weinstein Co. and Summit Entertainment, which produces the Twilight movie series, among other production companies.

The Weinstein Co. has been under particular scrutiny, with questions about its financial state and whether it can remain solvent. “We like their movies; if we don't get their movies, we will buy other movies,” Blank says. “But most of the speculation about them is probably premature. Let's see how they do with the films they have made.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._for_Cable.php
fredfa is offline  
post #40174 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cosmos2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Set your DVR for the sports reports tonight for replays:

Unassisted triple play ends Phils' win over Mets


Only the second time in history (for game ender). First time was May 31, 1927.
Cosmos2 is offline  
post #40175 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 03:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmos2 View Post

Set your DVR for the sports reports tonight for replays:

Unassisted triple play ends Phils' win over Mets


Only the second time in history (for game ender). First time was May 31, 1927.

That was very cool, video on the MLB.com homepage. A few of the Mets players acted as if they'd seen a UFO.
Keenan is online now  
post #40176 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 04:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cosmos2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All three batters hit the ball to Bruntlett: error, hit, triple play.
Cosmos2 is offline  
post #40177 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 04:29 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmos2 View Post

All three batters hit the ball to Bruntlett: error, hit, triple play.

Yes, I saw that, he redeemed himself quite nicely.
Keenan is online now  
post #40178 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Riverside_Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

That will probably mean higher fees for those who DO watch ESPN, but, if people spend $10-$12 a month for HBO or Showtime, $12-$15 a month for ESPN might not be all that unreasonable.

Except, HBO is commercial free while ESPN is not.

I am sad because while I'm just about ready for social security, I may be alive to see that I'd have to pay $99 bucks to see the Super Bowl.

Time Warner NYC (Man North Head End) - 8742HD DVR ODN 5.2.0_9

Riverside_Guy is offline  
post #40179 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
URFloorMatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

And if mandatory basic contracts were made illegal, then the providers would have to come up with new ways to get folks to spend an ever escalating amount of $$$.

But the service provider is still holding all of the cards, and they want more channels to add value to their service. The more subscribers they can promise to a content provider, the lower the fee will be because the more total revenue they can guarantee. This will in turn drive growth, increasing its market position for the next negotiation. Thus, both service providers and content providers have a huge incentive to ensure that there are as many channels as possible.

So, what's to stop the service providers from raising the cost to a la carte subscribers? Subscribers who purchase bundled tiers of channels get their installation fee waved; a la carte subscribers have to pay. Subscribers who purchase bundled tiers get a free STB; a la carte subscribers have to pay. Subscribers who purchase tiers can also bundle telephone and internet service for a discount; a la carte subscribers will receive no offers to bundle services.

It seems like they'd have valid economic reasons for charging a la carte subscribers premium fees for all of these things we generally take for granted. A la carte subscribers will drive up a host of administrative costs, complicate carriage negotiations, and disproportionately tax technical staff whenever troubleshooting issues arise.
URFloorMatt is offline  
post #40180 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 05:18 PM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhunter8 View Post

Unfortunately I don't believe we will ever see an la carte option because networks and cable/satellite providers have political lobbyists and we viewers don't.

I would love to be able to pay for only the channels I want to watch. For a TV junkie like myself it would be a dream come true. I just don't think it will happen. I honestly believe I am the only one in the industry who cares what I want. DirecTV and ESPN could not care less what I want because the industry is not viewer driven, it is $$$ driven.

That is why I when I choose a carrier, I also have to help pay for channels I never watch and why there is more and more clutter on the screen of the channels I do watch.

This is what you are not considering. Maybe the channels YOU watch are not watched by many, so with ala carte channels that have few viewers are dropped from cable system and eventually go under. So I guess you wouldn't have to worry about a high cable bill because none of YOUR channels would exist anymore. Ala carte sounds nice until you realize there would be only a dozen channels to choose from now and most of those you don't care for.
BCF68 is offline  
post #40181 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 05:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

But the service provider is still holding all of the cards, and they want more channels to add value to their service. The more subscribers they can promise to a content provider, the lower the fee will be because the more total revenue they can guarantee. This will in turn drive growth, increasing its market position for the next negotiation. Thus, both service providers and content providers have a huge incentive to ensure that there are as many channels as possible.

So, what's to stop the service providers from raising the cost to a la carte subscribers? Subscribers who purchase bundled tiers of channels get their installation fee waved; a la carte subscribers have to pay. Subscribers who purchase bundled tiers get a free STB; a la carte subscribers have to pay. Subscribers who purchase tiers can also bundle telephone and internet service for a discount; a la carte subscribers will receive no offers to bundle services.

It seems like they'd have valid economic reasons for charging a la carte subscribers premium fees for all of these things we generally take for granted. A la carte subscribers will drive up a host of administrative costs, complicate carriage negotiations, and disproportionately tax technical staff whenever troubleshooting issues arise.

I've always considered the service provider as the root of the problem we have now, they created the tiers, the content providers just demanded being carried on certains tiers. The service providers holler and scream, but they always give in(how convenient) because it means more money on the bottom line for them.
rebkell is offline  
post #40182 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 05:58 PM - 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
I am opposed to having anyone pay to subsidize what someone else wants to watch.

If it isn't financially viable (under this system) figure out a way to make it so, or else it dies.

To hear cable companies piously speaking of protecting diversity is just the height of hypocrisy. As corporations they coulodn't care less what we are able to watch as long as they can charge us foir it -- and we have no control over it.

Enable a la carte (you don't necessarily have to mandate it) and someone will offer it. Then, if it works commercially, great. If it doesn't, OK too.

If people know they can go to Dish, for example, and get an ESPN and RSN-less experience, with their local channels and, say, 10 favorite entertainment channels for $35 a month, that might have a very beneficial effect on the bills of subscribers to many providers.

But the choice of what programming options to pay for should belong to the viewer.

If a channel can exist only because it gets sub fees -- and no one is willing to pay even a nominal amount for it -- why should it deserve to survive -- just so a provider can boast of 250 channels?
fredfa is offline  
post #40183 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 06:03 PM - 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
Actually, when it comes to the major conglomerate channels (Disney/ESPN, NBCU, Viacom, Newscorp and others), the providers hold very few cards.

They MUST put the channels on the "basic" tier and pay the networks the negotiated fee for every sub. Period. There is no bargaining about that, unless it is an independent channel (think HDNet and many others) with little power in the marketplace. Even a behemoth like the NFL can't get carriage on many systems.

MLB was able to overcome that only by giving the cable companies a piece of the action. Then, suddenly, space miraculously became available.
fredfa is offline  
post #40184 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 06:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Actually, when it comes to the major conglomerate channels (Disney/ESPN, NBCU, Viacom, Newscorp and others), the providers hold very few cards.

They MUST put the channels on the "basic" tier and pay the networks the negotiated fee for every sub. Period. There is no bargaining about that, unless it is an independent channel (think HDNet and many others) with little power in the marketplace. Even a behemoth like the NFL can't get carriage on many systems.

MLB was able to overcome that only by giving the cable companies a piece of the action. Then, suddenly, space miraculously became available.

The basic tier was the distributors creation. I really can't discuss this without going off on a rant.
rebkell is offline  
post #40185 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 07:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemyM View Post

Oh, alright, check's in the mail.
But you know with all these proposed post office closings they can't be trusted to deliver it.
No offense DoubleDAZ.

None taken, it was just a job (the Air Force was my "career") and, thank goodness, I'm now retired. I don't think anyone will complain about the post office more than I do. And don't get me started on using it to try to sell health care reform.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is online now  
post #40186 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by theratpatrol View Post

This is why content providers should not be allowed to own content networks, or professional teams, but I guess money talks.

This assumes programming, channels, teams, etc., would still exist if ownership rights were changed. Let's face it, stuff costs money and money does indeed talk.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is online now  
post #40187 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 08:18 PM - 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
'MNF' alum Gifford not a huge fan of modern NFL broadcasting

By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

Frank Gifford, when he joined Don Meredith and Howard Cosell in the booth of ABC's Monday Night Football in 1971, was in on the start of live TV games becoming show biz.

But Gifford, who replaced Keith Jackson on MNF, isn't completely thrilled with how that concept has evolved.

When it comes to announcers, he says, "it's hard for me to be critical of people doing what I used to do. … But I think they're being pushed too far to do too much. One thing we didn't do, we never hyped a game. Howard would rip it, Don might go to sleep. Now, they have to try to turn it into an exciting event. One problem now is producers trying to make things better than they really are."

Although that's understandable, given how much more networks pay today to carry NFL games and how much more competition they face from the ever-growing mobs of cable channels.

Long before MNF on ESPN figured NFL game coverage should include cameos by entertainers such as Jimmy Kimmel and Christian Slater, MNF on ABC puts lots of celebrities on-air, including having Ronald Reagan and John Lennon (separately) dropping in.

But what's changed on TV games generally, suggests Gifford, is the tone. "Today, there's so much screaming, talking over each other. I don't think we did that. People always tell me, 'I can't believe how many times Don put Howard down.' But it wasn't that way. It was just the contrast between the two of them. … We were not competing."

Gifford, 79, recently taped historical MNF vignettes that ESPN will sprinkle in this season's, uh, shows. Watching those old games reminded Gifford, retired in Connecticut, of the concurrent chapters in his own life. Which, he suggests, left him amused: "In 27 (MNF) years I never missed a game even though, God almighty, I had all kinds of things going on in my life."

Gifford says the technology deployed on today's TV sports doesn't "intrigue" him — "I just want a good game" — and in some ways suggests more-sophisticated coverage makes things harder for today's announcers: "We were teaching people how to watch TV. Now they're all critics." Even though, alarmingly, they haven't been officially licensed.

Job growth

The NFL Network Monday will formally announce that it will add ex-coach Mike Martz for a new Monday night NFL Head Coaches show as well as studio work, and ex-quarterback (and incoming Fox game analyst) Trent Green for studio work.

Which shows there's at least one occupation where jobs can't be outsourced overseas. NFLN, reaching about 48 million households heading into its sixth season, now employs 17 analysts — and hopes to soon sign Michael Irvin.

Some, such as Deion Sanders and Sterling Sharpe, were picked up after being dropped by other networks. But most of these former players and coaches are getting a sort of on-air vocational training at the league's own channel. NFLN executive producer Eric Weinberger says it's okay if some of its analysts get exposure on the network and move on, such as new NBC analyst Rodney Harrison and Fox analyst John Lynch — who were each guest analysts last season. "It's a neat thing, which might be a different philosophy than at the other networks. … This is almost like an extension of the NFL's broadcasting boot camp."

Sort of like an NFL combine, except it's fine to wear (TV) makeup.

Video board's a hit

Two punts hit the giant video screen hanging over the field in the Dallas Cowboys' preseason opener in the team's opulent new stadium Friday, including one during the game. In response, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says he sees no need to raise it.

The No Fun League presumably will insist it be moved for the mundane reason it could affect play. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Saturday the league is deciding if it needs to take action.

But Jones' reasoning offers so many consumer-friendly possibilities. How about strapping cameramen — for interesting new shots — onto goalposts? They probably wouldn't divert all that many field goals.

Reality TV that might be interesting

John Madden, on Sirius Satellite Radio, explains how he'll be spending Sundays now that he's retired from calling TV football: "I have nine 63-inch monitors and I'm going to stack 'em and put all the NFL games on. … I think I'm going to be able to watch every NFL game every Sunday."

So why not just set up cameras to show Madden reacting to live games and turn that into a TV show? While there might be issues involving NFL TV rights and conflicts with Madden's old NBC contract, it might be pretty good TV.

There'd be no travel for Madden. Potential sponsors could find lots of possibilities for product placements in Madden's TV room. And viewers who like Madden could still hear him without having to sit through any games that had turned into blowouts.

Spice rack

Always nice when sportscasters avoid clichés. Like CBS' Mary Carillo Sunday as she summed up Roger Federer's win over Novak Djokovic in a U.S. Open Series tournament in Cincinnati. "This has really been the year of Federer as the Godfather, a year of reckoning, an evening of the score, like the Five Families. This (win) is like finally knocking off the Tattaglias." Huh? Shouldn't Carillo be worried Federer will skip CBS' upcoming U.S. Open because he's gone to the mattresses?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colum...roadcast_N.htm
fredfa is offline  
post #40188 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 08:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cosmos2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Police Say Reality TV Star Found Dead


VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) -- Canadian police say fugitive murder suspect and reality show contestant Ryan Jenkins was found dead Sunday of an apparent suicide in a motel in British Columbia.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...t-Slaying.html
Cosmos2 is offline  
post #40189 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 08:29 PM - 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 Notes
'VH1 Killer' Jenkins Dead in Canada: Reports

By Josef Adalian, Thewrap.com

Ryan Jenkins, the former VH1 reality show contestant suspected in the murder of model Jasmine Fiore, has been found dead in Canada, CNN and ABCNews.com reported Sunday evening.

Jenkins was found dead in a hotel in British Columbia, the news network said, citing Canadian police sources.

The death of Jenkins comes just days after he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Fiore. Her body was found stuffed in a suitcase, her fingers and teeth removed.

Jenkins was a contestant on the VH1 dating reality show "Megan Wants a Millionaire." There's been no demonstrated link between his appearance on that show and his relationship with Fiore.

VH1 stopped airing "Megan" last week. Over the weekend, the network said it had canceled the series, the Associated Press reported

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/vh...a-reports_5446
fredfa is offline  
post #40190 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 09:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 9,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Cosmos2 should know better, Dave.

I know, I deleted my comment.

BTW, we had thunderstorms yesterday and the wife and I were up north and missed it all, darn.....

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is online now  
post #40191 of 98695 Old 08-23-2009, 10:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cosmos2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

I know, I deleted my comment.

Me too. Since you quoted my comment, I had to wait for you to delete your post first.
Cosmos2 is offline  
post #40192 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 05:05 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 Notes
On The Air Tonight
Monday Network Prime-Time Programming Options

(All shows are in unless noted as being in Standard Definition: SD)

(Reminder: If you are recording these programs, check your network listings for precise start/end times. For PBS, please double check your local listings.)

ABC:
8
Dating In The Dark (R) SD
9 Dating In The Dark SD
10 Castle (R, April 20)

CBS:
8
How I Met Your Mother (R, March 9)
8:30 How I Met Your Mother (R, March 16)
9 Two and a Half Men (R, March 4)
9:30 The Big Bang Theory (R, Nov. 17, 2008)
10 CSI: Miami (R, April 27)

NBC:
8
Great American Road Trip: End of the Road SD
9 Law & Order: Criminal Intent (R, July 12)
10 Dateline NBC: Fatal love triangle

Fox:
8
House (R, April 6)
9 Lie To Me (R, April 29)

PBS
8 Antiques Roadshow: Los Angeles (R, March 27, 2006) SD
9 History Detectives: WPA Mural Studies; George Washington Miniature; Japanese Balloon Bomb
10 American Masters: The World of Nat King Cole (R, May 17, 2006) SD

The CW:
8
One Tree Hill (R, May 4)
9 Gossip Girl (R, May 4)
fredfa is offline  
post #40193 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 08:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,034
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 40
DTV Notes
FCC Sued Over DTV Transition Info
Conservative group claims FCC violates FOIA

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/24/2009 2:00:00 AM EDT

An FCC that prides itself on transparency and openness is under fire from a conservative group that sees it quite differently. A suit in federal court has been filed over documents that the agency has been hesitant to provide, according to the group, Judicial Watch.

The commission counters that it was within its rights to do so. It is also awaiting White House input on other documents.

The group has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an attempt to compel the FCC to turn over documents related to the DTV transition.

Judicial Watch filed its first FOIA request in February. This followed a press report claiming a telecom adviser to President Obama's transition team stood to benefit from the delay of the transition; the delay, it was stated, would slow up Verizon's rollout of a new broadband network that would compete with existing service Clearwire.

Clearwire is backed by strategic investors that include Intel Capital, Comcast, Sprint, Google, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The story was referenced by Republicans in Congress during a brief debate over the bill that succeeded in moving the DTV date from Feb. 17 to June 12.

In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch says the FCC provided highly redacted documents related to the decision to delay the transition (essentially comprising a series of status reports), withheld other documents and provided no communications with the White House concerning the delay.

While the FCC did not commenta spokesman said the commission does not comment on ongoing litigationa copy of the commission's May 8 response to Judicial Watch does indicate the FCC's justification for the timing and nature of the material it did release. The document also includes a promise to supplement the response after it had checked with the White House about what privileges, if any, it would assert.

The White House did not return a request for comment on the suit or the timing of its own response to the FCC.

There is no provision of FOIA law that allows the White House to screen requests for potentially damaging information, says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in announcing the suit. The FCC has an obligation to abide by the law and either release the documents or provide a justification for withholding them.

But in the May 8 letter, FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman points out that Justice Department guidelines on FOIA requests involving the White House and the Executive Office of the President have to be vetted there first, in case the White House plans to assert any privileges regarding their handling.

Kaufman also says that the FCC would not release some of the records discussing Congress' decision to delay the DTV date because they are deliberative materials that can be withheld under an existing FOIA exemption. The same exemption applies to some draft memos the FCC located, which according to Kaufman do not represent final views of the agency.

Judicial Watch was not satisfied. In its suit, the group said that the documents it eventually received (on June 16) were heavily revised without sufficient explanation of the deletionsthe group wanted specific citations to FOIA exemptionsand did not include the White House-related material. Now the issue moves from a series of letters to the letter of the law.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...ition_Info.php

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 online now  
post #40194 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
harley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

The latest estimate from SNL Kagasn Research was that Versus was getting about 29 cents per sub per month. I understand the channel is trying to raise that to something more than 50 cents per month with its proposed new DirecTV deal. I have no direct knowledge of how much DirecTV is now paying. I would assume it is around 29 cents per month per subscriber,

Generally RSNs get upwards of $2 per month per sub.

Here are some other current estimates of average monthly per sub payments from providers to sports content networks (all from Kagan) :

ESPN: $4.09 (2010: $4.58, 2011: $5.08)
RSNs: $0.20 to $2.15
TNT: $0.96
NFL Network: $0.56
NHL Network: $0.54
Big Ten Network: $0.40
Golf Channel: $0.26
MLB Network: $0.24
Speed: $0.19
ESPN Classic: $0.17
ESPN News: $0.16

Some other general interest channel sub fees:

TNT: $0.96
USA: $0.55
TBS: $0.47
Discovery: $0.35
A&E: $0.25


Thanks fred.

I can understand D* problem with paying VS around the same amount /fee as TBS and USA. I'm a NHL hockey fan, but I hope D* holds the line and doesn't give VS that huge increase.
harley1 is offline  
post #40195 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 09:32 AM
Member
 
TMilner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Woodlands, Tx
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With regard to the monopolistic activities of cable/sat and nets, (ESPN, etc), my wife and I have been finding our viewing habits moving to watching more and more television series via Netflix on either DVD or ROKU. Except for the occasional local sporting event or weather channel on cable, we find ourselves perfectly happy with watching British series, PBS documentaries or relatively unpopular movies via Netflix. We have even supplanted that with watching a few episodes via websites.

The reason I list this activity is to point out that a mere <$20 subscription to netflix plus a $100 investment in ROKU brings 95% of our viewing satisfaction, while Comcast charges us >#80 for wide gamut of uninteresting programming filled with commercials. I used to grasp for anything HDTV, but the bloom is falling off that rose.

Maybe, cable cos will begin seeing a falloff in consumer demand due to these other entertainment avenues, and will be forced to find ways of lowering there package costs by grouping them by interest.

I recommend each of you to give it a try.
TMilner is offline  
post #40196 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
steverobertson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: E. Walpole, MA USA
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley1 View Post

Thanks fred.

I can understand D* problem with paying VS around the same amount /fee as TBS and USA. I'm a NHL hockey fan, but I hope D* holds the line and doesn't give VS that huge increase.

I agree it will suck if we don't have it but it is not a must for me however come playoff time I might be singing a different tune
steverobertson is offline  
post #40197 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lvthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMilner View Post

With regard to the monopolistic activities of cable/sat and nets, (ESPN, etc), my wife and I have been finding our viewing habits moving to watching more and more television series via Netflix on either DVD or ROKU. Except for the occasional local sporting event or weather channel on cable, we find ourselves perfectly happy with watching British series, PBS documentaries or relatively unpopular movies via Netflix. We have even supplanted that with watching a few episodes via websites.

The reason I list this activity is to point out that a mere <$20 subscription to netflix plus a $100 investment in ROKU brings 95% of our viewing satisfaction, while Comcast charges us >#80 for wide gamut of uninteresting programming filled with commercials. I used to grasp for anything HDTV, but the bloom is falling off that rose.

Maybe, cable cos will begin seeing a falloff in consumer demand due to these other entertainment avenues, and will be forced to find ways of lowering there package costs by grouping them by interest.

I recommend each of you to give it a try.

If too many people do that they will jack up the cost of internet access.
lvthunder is offline  
post #40198 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 09:54 AM
 
Skipdrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder View Post

If too many people do that they will jack up the cost of internet access.

They're doing that anyway. As revenue from one stream falls, they're going to increase it from another. The cable companies' local monopolies also give them exclusive provider status for high-speed broadband. They've already dialed my speed back. The "turbo" option is the speed I used to have, but now it costs more. This is euphemistically called "giving the customer more choice". (DSL from the phone company is usually significantly slower, and typically the only other broadband option in areas without FIOS.) That's why I'm still married to TWC, in spite of how often they kick me in the teeth.
Skipdrive is offline  
post #40199 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 10:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipdrive View Post

They're doing that anyway. As revenue from one stream falls, they're going to increase it from another. The cable companies' local monopolies also give them exclusive provider status for high-speed broadband. They've already dialed my speed back. The "turbo" option is the speed I used to have, but now it costs more. This is euphemistically called "giving the customer more choice". (DSL from the phone company is usually significantly slower, and typically the only other broadband option in areas without FIOS.) That's why I'm still married to TWC, in spite of how often they kick me in the teeth.

Yep, same here, DSL just can't hold a candle to cable on the internet, but so far Comcast hasn't raised rates on internet. Funny how more choice seems to result in higher prices for what a lot of the time is even less product.

I still think think the whole monopoly should be broken up, local community governments are as big a problem as anybody, they make it hard for other providers to enter in the local markets. AT&T UVerse wanted to come into our area, but the local government imposed so many conditions that they just opted out and didn't bother.
rebkell is offline  
post #40200 of 98695 Old 08-24-2009, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Riverside_Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In light of the current discussions I'd like to remind everyone that many people have virtually no choice in MSO. I can not do OTA, couldn't do Dish (can't see bird at all), Direct is problematic as we do have a "no mounting of dishes on building common property"), so it's TWC or watch DVDs.

Yes, we do now sort of have FiOS. However, at this point they are given until 2017 or so to make it accessible to everyone in the city. Their pattern so far is to only go into buildings with a LOT of apartments, or developments with thousands of apartments. Heaven help you if you live in a brownstone or building under 100 units.

Time Warner NYC (Man North Head End) - 8742HD DVR ODN 5.2.0_9

Riverside_Guy is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming



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