or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Stations don't want cable to downconvert HDTV to DTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stations don't want cable to downconvert HDTV to DTV - Page 6  

post #151 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
So it is perfectly OK for a company to pick the signal out of air FOR FREE just for the cost of the equipment just like anyone else and then turn around and charge others for this FREE signal for a profit? Don't know what you call it, but it smells a lot like stealing to me.

The broadcasters were completely happy with this for years, as it increased the number of eyeballs. Things began to change when MSOs got really heavy into local ad insertion that things began to swing the other way.

The national spots on CNN and ESPN weren't a big concern to the affiliates as they weren't competing for that money, but local, cheaper spots????
post #152 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson
I really tried to leave this alone, but it is so far from reality I cannot. Check out this Broadcasting and Cable article where the NAB says "It is NAB's longstanding position that DTV multicasting rules will result in an explosion in programming choices, including public-interest programming that has long been the hallmark of local broadcasting."

So, folks, we can believe the NAB or we can believe Foxeng. But of course I don't know what I am talking about....
Well Rich, the facts appear to be that WITHOUT cable must carry multicasting, the "explosion" that the NAB was talking about IS taking place now, NAB bedamned. (I offer the proof of not only the explosion of new programming channels that you see in the trades, but the increased complaints of AVSForum members and their documentation of more stations doing it.) Now, you can debate that one because it IS happening now. But debating IF it would happen IF must carry was law is, IMHO, closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. Believe what you want. I still respect your right to do that.
post #153 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfoster
The broadcasters were completely happy with this for years, as it increased the number of eyeballs. Things began to change when MSOs got really heavy into local ad insertion that things began to swing the other way.

The national spots on CNN and ESPN weren't a big concern to the affiliates as they weren't competing for that money, but local, cheaper spots????
Local ad insertion doesn't happen over the local stations by the way. And while NO ONE likes additional competition, it is a legal practice that has been going on longer than this issue has been on the table. Now if cable DID do local ad insertion over the locals, then yes, I would agree with your statement.
post #154 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
By the way, the sats are NOT charging an additional premium for the HD versions of the channels. Do we know if "you know who" expects additional retrans for his HD's?????
If what I understand is correct, the answer is yes, they expect it and do get it. There are LIL markets where sat has the SD version of a station but not the HD version of a particular station, so yes, it appears that it IS happening.

Again, if cable isn't careful, sat will eat their lunch again over "you know who" NOT being on cable. Of course, the "you know who's" are starting to grow in number, it isn't an isolated case of small time operators demanding compensation anymore. Before it was add my new channel or I pull my network. Now it is pay me compensation or I pull my station.

Personally, I like that way better because it effects one channel and not a whole stable of channels. You get everyone doing that and cable has a real problem. Sat (and now the telcos) have decided to not go down that road cable is treading and it could be the undoing of cable it they aren't careful.

Competition may not be wanted by the cable industry, but it is good for the consumer and why they complain LOUDLY about the cost of cable and why the whole a la carte issue is on the table in the first place. 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.
post #155 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
If what I understand is correct, the answer is yes, they expect it and do get it. There are LIL markets where sat has the SD version of a station but not the HD version of a particular station, so yes, it appears that it IS happening.

Again, if cable isn't careful, sat will eat their lunch again over "you know who" NOT being on cable. Of course, the "you know who's" are starting to grow in number, it isn't an isolated case of small time operators demanding compensation anymore. Before it was add my new channel or I pull my network. Now it is pay me compensation or I pull my station.

Personally, I like that way better because it effects one channel and not a whole stable of channels. You get everyone doing that and cable has a real problem. Sat (and now the telcos) have decided to not go down that road cable is treading and it could be the undoing of cable it they aren't careful.

Competition may not be wanted by the cable industry, but it is good for the consumer and why they complain LOUDLY about the cost of cable and why the whole a la carte issue is on the table in the first place. 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.
If the broadcasters aren't careful, the "you know who's" will force cable to adopt the satellite model, which in my opinion would harm broadcasters. I personally would not pay for WB or UPN or their replacements.

PS "You know who" is shooting itself in the foot if they drive viewers to satellite on the HD side. They've only got a handful of horses (big 4 affiliates) in their barnyard, and a whole lot of goats, which sat will not carry at all if ever.
post #156 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Local ad insertion doesn't happen over the local stations by the way. And while NO ONE likes additional competition, it is a legal practice that has been going on longer than this issue has been on the table. Now if cable DID do local ad insertion over the locals, then yes, I would agree with your statement.
Why must you change the meaning my posts when responding?

My point was clear, locals were happy with the arrangement of being on cable, for free, as long as it was increasing their viewership. It was when they began to have to compete for local ad revenue during the wide spread use of local insertion on cable channels in the late 80s that they were able to sucessfully lobby for retrans consent.

On another note;

Regardless of who would lose the war, if broadcasters were to have to rely strictly on OTA transmission for viewers, they would have far less viewers. Nothing to do with who has the better or most compelling product, simply that Cable/DBS has increased the reach of the reliable OTA signal.
post #157 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson

So, folks, we can believe the NAB or we can believe Foxeng. But of course I don't know what I am talking about....
You believe the local Fox transmitter engineer that poses as an expert while denying any affiliations of course. That explosion he keeps babbling about continues to fail here, with only weather radars surviving. And of course PAX. These broadcasters seem to think they can create any worthless channel they can think of and it will survive. I dont see how anything is going to survuve unless people want to watch it. That must be the reason they want carriage on cable so bad. Its disgusting IMO. Create garbage and make cable pay them for it. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfoster
Why must you change the meaning my posts when responding?
Because he doesnt have a good answer.
post #158 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfoster
My point was clear, locals were happy with the arrangement of being on cable, for free, as long as it was increasing their viewership. It was when they began to have to compete for local ad revenue during the wide spread use of local insertion on cable channels in the late 80s that they were able to sucessfully lobby for retrans consent.
Now you sound like those who dis the broadcasters that times have changed and the broadcasters need to "get with it." All I can say to cable is "times have changed and you need to get with it."

Yes, in the beginning cable did help the reach of broadcasters in areas where their markets extended further than their coverage or topography was an issue. But now cable is not the only game in town and even with the recent rebound of subs, their total numbers are still way down and with more competition coming in the market place with the telcos and sat those numbers will erode even more, cable isn't that "must have" it used to be with broadcasters and it is good business for broadcasters to "shop" their service around. That is free enterprise. (the times have changed.)

Like I have said before, cable thinks they are an "utility" in the same class as electric and telephone when those rules helps keep competition out and when that label becomes a liability to their bottom line, oh no, their not a utility, they can do what they want. Their self rightousness to the consumer is unbelievable at times, as many on AVSForum have attested to. That is the main reason I left cable years ago and even though I am not 100% satisfied with my current provider, it is nowhere near my distain I have for my local cableco and their business practices that I endured for years prior to my departure. It is literally the better of two evils for me and my wallet.

Quote:
An another note;

Regardless of who would lose the war, if broadcasters were to have to rely strictly on OTA transmission for viewers, they would have far less viewers. Nothing to do with who has the better or most compelling product, simply that Cable/DBS has increased the reach of the reliable OTA signal.
As I said before, cable is not the only player in the market now to help the reach of stations. Cable hasn't figured that out yet and it appears the telcos and sats have and some broadcasters are using HD to prove the point.
post #159 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Yes, in the beginning cable did help the reach of broadcasters in areas where their markets extended further than their coverage or topography was an issue.

Laughable. Take your station off cable and see how long it takes before its boarded up :rolleyes:
post #160 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
Laughable. Take your station off cable and see how long it takes before its boarded up :rolleyes:
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.
post #161 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
If the broadcasters aren't careful, the "you know who's" will force cable to adopt the satellite model, which in my opinion would harm broadcasters. I personally would not pay for WB or UPN or their replacements.
History hasn't proven that to be true. Cable would love to think that though.

Quote:
PS "You know who" is shooting itself in the foot if they drive viewers to satellite on the HD side. They've only got a handful of horses (big 4 affiliates) in their barnyard, and a whole lot of goats, which sat will not carry at all if ever.
In the case of E* that appears to be true, but with D*, that doesn't seen to be so with all of the new bandwidth coming on line. But to be completely, honest, I expect E* to catch up with D* on the bandwidth issue in the next 5 years (they will have to or go out of business and I don't see Charlie out of business anytime soon) and that will become a non issue as well. And between them and the telcos, cable has a stiff fight ahead on its hands and they know it. Their market share has nowhere to go but down. How much is yet to be seen and no one can answer that one just yet.
post #162 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
You believe the local Fox transmitter engineer that poses as an expert while denying any affiliations of course.
If you just open your eyes instead of rolling them, you might be surprised what you see. It takes no genus or swami to make creditable educated guesses. Even you could do it.
post #163 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
Laughable. Take your station off cable and see how long it takes before its boarded up :rolleyes:
Huh? Cable could not be viable without broadcast. I know you probably don't believe that, but that's where the viewers are. Sure, cable is MUCH more capable of survival on its own now than it was even 10 years ago, but it took them 150 channels to get there. True, there are some "broadcast" channels that depend on cable (and in some cases exist ONLY on cable) but they are a distinct minority.

When broadcasters threaten to take their channel away from cable, it is almost never about carrying the broadcast channel. It almost always has to do with them wanting cable to carry something else that the broadcaster has a financial interest in, but that's another topic.
post #164 of 287
foxeng,

One critical piece that you ignore is that broadcast and satellite are "one-way" paths in a world migrating away from one-way "linear" programming. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg with VOD, "start-over" has been hugely successful in markets it's been deployed, the telcos solutions are either too expensive, or too bandwidth limited.

Don't count cable down and out. The future is bi-directional. Cable is already there. Cable wins for several reasons. It can already do VOD, switched video which yields unlimited programming capacity, intergrated phone and internet, neighborhood and demographic targeted advertising insertion, and with VOD servers and OCAP, it gets the hardware out of the subscriber's house, and the list goes on.

Satellite is scrambling to address these issues with "forced downloads" and DSL return paths, but they know they've got tough going down the road. My "inside guy" admits it. They know they've got a year or two of growth momentum before the serious erosion begins. That's why satellite talks so much about HD. It's all they've got on the table.

Broadcast multicast is a joke....
USDTV is a joke....
Homezone and Project Lightspeed are technological Frankenstein's.
The future is two-way and cable delivers it, NOW....

My opinion's and I'm sticking with 'em.
post #165 of 287
Cable would not be viable without the networks. It probably would be viable without most of the non-net locals.

Right now people seem to equate the locals with the networks but this could change any time contracts come up for renegotiation. Meanwhile, the same companies that own the networks also own almost all cable channels. This means that non-local content can easily migrate away from the local stations. Some sports is doing this and there will be more.

It is very important to realize the OTA broadcasters have different strengths and different goals than the national networks and not to confuse the two groups as being one entity. Because of the interlocking ownership both groups are dealing with cable (and telcos, and sat) but with different purposes.

- Tom
post #166 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
They may not have a choice. But I think a "Local Broadcast" package at $5.95/month, a la DirecTV and DishNetwork is the perfect solution.
So do I - and so would my parents who have cable just because it's better than the signal they would get via an antenna. They seldom watch the cable nets. In fact, I spent a week visiting them at one point and the TV was tuned to the cable nets more in that week than it was for the 3 months prior.

This is the typical cable customer. The pretty much watch the locals, with a few ventures into cable land for the Weather Channel and a few occasional shows on various channels. It's all about the network shows like AI, Lost, DH, etc. and the local avail shows like Oprah, ET, Jeopardy, Wheel and the biggest draw of all: the local news. Despite how terrible the newscasts are in a lot of these smaller markets, that's what keeps people coming back to the locals. The want local sports and weather as well has hope to see coverage of the reason why the highway was all backed up today. They want school cancelations on snowy mornings, information on the big neighborhood fire in the evening and hope to see themselves on TV in coverage of the big concert at 11. These folks don't get their news and scores from the internet, they don't download their favorite shows from ABC.com and many of them still use a VCR to catch those shows they might miss when they're out. Even those folks with DVRs seldom scroll any further than the local listings in the guide.

Most viewers aren't like they people here: checking up on the latest HDNET offering, comparing picture quality on ESPNHD, or discussing how the industry is screwing us by requiring HDMI interfaces on equipment. For most, it's all about what happens at 6 and 11PM.
post #167 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry
Cable would not be viable without the networks. It probably would be viable without most of the non-net locals.
How quickly we forget that D* and E* DID NOT have locals or any network service for most of it's subscribers for the first several years of operation, and they seemed to do OK.

Cable (and Sat) would suffer some without networks, but "not viable" is a silly statement.

I've got cable and an antenna, I am not dependant on either one, and if my local cable operator dropped all the locals, tuning would be a little less convenient for me, the networks would probably miss some of my "opportunistic" viewing, and I'd probably land on a cable channel even more often.

By the way, cable offers "life-line" service packages which provide basically only local reception. The percentage of cable subscribers that elect that option can be tallied on one hand.
post #168 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV
So do I - and so would my parents who have cable just because it's better than the signal they would get via an antenna. They seldom watch the cable nets. In fact, I spent a week visiting them at one point and the TV was tuned to the cable nets more in that week than it was for the 3 months prior.
My eighty-five year old father does not watch American Idol or Desperate Housewifes or any of the rest of the crap on broadcast TV. He flips between CNN and Fox News and the Weather Channel and ESPN. I watch "Lost" and "The Office" on network TV and that's about it.

Not that anybody cares about what he or I watch, we're both too old, we don't matter. Those who do matter, the young tech savvy gen X'ers, or what ever they're called, are not gonna settle for four or five channels on the 25" RCA console. They want 500 channels on a huge screen whether they watch them or not because their attention spans are in nanoseconds. All they want to do is "flip" or "surf"
post #169 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
How quickly we forget that D* and E* DID NOT have locals or any network service for most of it's subscribers for the first several years of operation, and they seemed to do OK.

Cable (and Sat) would suffer some without networks, but "not viable" is a silly statement.
DBS had network service early on, and when that went away, they were forced to start adding locals. Cable, like satellite, may survive the loss of network programming - but if they did, they would survive only as a complementary or supplementary service.

Some of you guys seem to be letting the sheer volume of channels available via cable under-value the power of broadcast network programming. The highest rated cable program would likely be cancelled by 3 of the 4 major nets in 75% of the primetime timeslots if it drew the same number of viewers.

And while the cablenets have made substantial cumulative gains against broadcast television over the past 20 years - given a choice between the block of network programming and the block of cablenet programming, I'd wager that the cablenet support is much softer. Meaning, the vast majority of viewers will first acquire network programming, then add a source for the cablenets as a supplement. Cable may, or may not, be viable - but there's absolutely no question that the broadcast networks will remain viable with, or without, cable's cooperation.
post #170 of 287
Routinely, in weekly numbers put out by the TVBureau, cable networks place only a couple or three programs in the top 100 of total viewers.

Here are the household ratings for the 2005-2006 Season (just completed last week)

Top-rated programs of 2005-06 in Households
Broadcast not only grabbed 100 of the top 100 programs in the 2005-06 broadcast season, it took the next 100, and the next 35. Subscription TV's top-rated program of 2003-04, "NFL Regular Season" on ESPN, came in at No. 236. In fact, broadcast was responsible for 576 of the top 586 programs for the season. The table below shows the top 100 programs; subscription TV's top 10 programs are shown in bold at the bottom.


RANK PROGRAM NETWORK US AA %
1 SUPER BOWL XL (6:26P) ABC 41.62
2 ACADEMY AWARDS ABC 23.08
3 ROSE BOWL ABC 21.71
4 FOX NFC CHAMPIONSHIP (6:47P) FOX 20.77
5 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX 17.72
6 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX 17.24
7 AFC DIVISIONAL PLAYOFF-SA CBS 16.14
8 DANCING W/THE STARS-2/26 ABC 16.02
9 WNTR OLYM THU PRIME 2 NBC 15.77
10 CSI CBS 15.68
11 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-3/9 FOX 15.52
12 WNTR OLYM TUE PRIME 2 NBC 15.48
13 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-3/2 FOX 15.29
14 CSI - THANKSGIVING CBS 14.62
15 GREY'S ANATOMY SP 2-5/15 ABC 14.23
16 AFC/NFC PLAYOFF GM2 ABC 13.95
17 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC 13.86
18 WNTR OLYM MON PRIME 2 NBC 13.59
19 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 1 NBC 13.46
20 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-2/23 FOX 13.38
21 WNTR OLYM SUN PRIME 1 NBC 13.30
22 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 4 FOX 12.96
23 WNTR OLYM MON PRIME 1 NBC 12.86
24 WNTR OLYM OPEN CEREM NBC 12.81
25 GREY'S ANATOMY ABC 12.58
26 CRIMINAL MINDS PREVIEW SP CBS 12.48
27 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS NBC 12.46
28 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 12.38
29 ORANGE BOWL ABC 12.25
30 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC 11.98
31 WITHOUT A TRACE-THNKS CBS 11.93
32 WNTR OLYM THU PRIME 1 NBC 11.92
33 CSI: MIAMI CBS 11.88
34 SURVIVOR:GUATEMALA FINALE CBS 11.85
35 WNTR OLYM SUN PRIME 2 NBC 11.60
36 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 2 NBC 11.33
37 WNTR OLYM WED PRIME 1 NBC 11.27
37 WNTR OLYM FRI PRIME 1 NBC 11.27
39 WNTR OLYM TUE PRIME 1 NBC 11.26
40 CBS NCAA BSKBL CHAMPSHIPS CBS 11.17
41 CMA AWARDS CBS 11.08
42 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 2 FOX 11.06
43 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 3 FOX 11.01
44 GRAMMY AWARDS CBS 10.95
45 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA CBS 10.87
46 OSCAR COUNTDOWN 2006 PT 2 ABC 10.86
47 HOUSE SP-5/3 8P FOX 10.60
47 HOUSE FOX 10.60
49 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA THNKS CBS 10.59
49 NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ABC 10.59
51 24 PRVW SP-1/15 8P FOX 10.16
52 WNTR OLYM WED PRIME 2 NBC 9.99
53 NCIS CBS 9.79
54 UNIT, THE CBS 9.77
55 SURVIVOR:PANAMA-EXILE IS. CBS 9.76
56 WNTR OLYM FRI PRIME 2 NBC 9.75
57 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS 9.74
58 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 3 NBC 9.73
59 FOX NFC CHAMPIONSHIP-POST FOX 9.68
60 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC 9.64
61 DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC 9.57
62 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 1 FOX 9.48
63 CSI: THU 8P SPECIAL CBS 9.47
63 CSI: MIAMI SPECIAL CBS 9.47
65 FOX MLB NLCS GAME 6 FOX 9.41
66 COLD CASE CBS 9.36
67 LOST ABC 9.29
68 BARBARA WALTERS PRESENTS: ABC 9.28
69 CSI - THU 8P SPECIAL CBS 9.26
70 CSI: MIAMI - SPCL CBS 9.25
71 CSI: NY CBS 9.24
71 LAW AND ORDER:SVU NBC 9.24
73 DESTINATION LOST ABC 9.22
74 SURVIVOR:PANAMA-EX FINALE CBS 9.21
75 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA RNION CBS 9.18
76 FOX MLB LCS: GMS 1&2 FOX 9.10
77 DEAL OR NO DEAL-WED NBC 9.04
78 SUGAR BOWL ABC 8.99
79 60 MINUTES CBS 8.97
80 BARBARA WALTERS PRESENTS ABC 8.96
81 FOX MLB DIV: AL GM 5 FOX 8.95
82 24 PRVW SP-1/15 9P FOX 8.94
83 WNTR OLYM CLOSE CEREM NBC 8.88
84 HOUSE SP-2/20 8P FOX 8.83
85 CSI THU 8P-SPECIAL CBS 8.75
86 TWO AND A HALF MEN SPL CBS 8.74
87 ABC PREMIERE EVENT-4/10 ABC 8.68
88 WILL &GRACE CLIPSHOW SPCL NBC 8.57
88 RUDOLPH-RED-NOSE-REINDEER CBS 8.57
90 NCIS 9P SPECIAL CBS 8.56
90 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. ABC 8.56
92 CSI: MIAMI - SPECIAL CBS 8.55
93 LOST SP-1/11 ABC 8.53
93 COLD CASE-SPECIAL CBS 8.53
95 CHARLIE BRWN CHRISTMAS ABC 8.51
96 24 PRVW SP-1/16 8P FOX 8.49
97 CROSSING JORDAN 4/16 NBC 8.45
98 DEAL OR NO DEAL 12/21 NBC 8.40
99 TWO AND A HALF MEN-SPCL CBS 8.39
99 COMMANDER IN CHIEF ABC 8.39
236 NFL REGULAR SEASON L ESPN 5.66
389 MLB DIVISIONAL SERIES L ESPN 4.43
419 2006 NBA ALLSTAR GAME TNT 4.26
476 STATE OF THE UNION 2006 FXNC 3.80
487 S JIMMY TIMMY POWERHOUR2 NICK 3.73
495 NBA PLAYOFFS-CONF FNLS L ESPN 3.68
526 S KIDS CHOICE 06 NICK 3.51
562 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 3.28
569 FOP MOVIE FAIRY IDOL NICK 3.21
586 NBA ALLSTAR SAT NIGHT TNT 2.94
post #171 of 287
Ah, you say, but cable gets a much better numbers in “the demo†(the advertiser-coveted 18-49 age group).

It does do a little better, but….

Top-rated programs of 2005-06 in A18-49

Broadcast not only grabbed 100 of the top 100 programs in the 2005-06 broadcast season in the all-important A18-49 demographic, it took the next 84 as well.

Subscription TV's top-rated program of 2005-06, "NFL Regular Season" on ESPN, came in at No. 185.

In fact, broadcast was responsible for 512 of the top 522 programs for the season among A18-49.

The table below shows the top 100 programs; subscription TV's top 10 programs are shown in bold at the bottom.

RANK---PROGRAM---NETWORK---18-49 RATING
1 SUPER BOWL XL (6:26P) ABC 34.63
2 ACADEMY AWARDS ABC 13.94
3 FOX NFC CHAMPIONSHIP (6:47P) FOX 13.80
4 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX 12.88
5 ROSE BOWL ABC 12.76
6 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX 12.28
7 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-3/2 FOX 10.91
8 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-3/9 FOX 10.85
9 AMERICAN IDOL THU SP-2/23 FOX 9.96
10 GREY'S ANATOMY SP 2-5/15 ABC 9.90
11 AFC DIVISIONAL PLAYOFF-SA CBS 9.78
12 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC 9.31
13 GREY'S ANATOMY ABC 8.88
14 DANCING W/THE STARS-2/26 ABC 8.67
15 AFC/NFC PLAYOFF GM2 ABC 8.60
16 CSI - THANKSGIVING CBS 8.38
17 CSI CBS 8.35
18 WNTR OLYM THU PRIME 2 NBC 8.09
19 SURVIVOR:GUATEMALA FINALE CBS 7.70
20 WNTR OLYM TUE PRIME 2 NBC 7.53
21 WNTR OLYM SUN PRIME 1 NBC 7.46
22 24 PRVW SP-1/15 8P FOX 7.37
23 GRAMMY AWARDS CBS 7.13
24 WNTR OLYM MON PRIME 2 NBC 6.81
25 24 PRVW SP-1/15 9P FOX 6.77
26 HOUSE FOX 6.75
27 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 1 NBC 6.72
28 WNTR OLYM MON PRIME 1 NBC 6.60
29 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA THNKS CBS 6.56
29 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 4 FOX 6.56
31 HOUSE SP-5/3 8P FOX 6.55
31 WNTR OLYM OPEN CEREM NBC 6.55
33 CRIMINAL MINDS PREVIEW SP CBS 6.54
34 LOOP, THE PRVW-3/15 9:30P FOX 6.47
35 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA CBS 6.46
36 LOST ABC 6.42
37 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS NBC 6.35
38 FOX NFC CHAMPIONSHIP-POST FOX 6.31
39 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 2 NBC 6.29
40 ORANGE BOWL ABC 6.27
41 CBS NCAA BSKBL CHAMPSHIPS CBS 6.24
42 SURVIVOR:PANAMA-EX FINALE CBS 6.21
43 NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ABC 6.20
44 WNTR OLYM THU PRIME 1 NBC 6.11
45 UNAN1MOUS FOX 6.03
45 CSI: MIAMI CBS 6.03
47 WNTR OLYM WED PRIME 1 NBC 5.96
48 SURVIVOR:PANAMA-EXILE IS. CBS 5.94
49 WITHOUT A TRACE-THNKS CBS 5.90
50 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. ABC 5.87
51 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 5.80
51 DESTINATION LOST ABC 5.80
53 RUDOLPH-RED-NOSE-REINDEER CBS 5.76
54 OSCAR COUNTDOWN 2006 PT 2 ABC 5.75
55 SURVIVOR: GUATEMALA RNION CBS 5.67
55 24 FOX 5.67
55 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 3 FOX 5.67
58 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 2 FOX 5.66
59 WAR AT HOME SP-2/28 9:30P FOX 5.65
60 24 PRVW SP-1/16 8P FOX 5.62
61 WNTR OLYM TUE PRIME 1 NBC 5.60
62 WNTR OLYM FRI PRIME 1 NBC 5.56
63 CHARLIE BRWN CHRISTMAS ABC 5.50
64 WNTR OLYM SUN PRIME 2 NBC 5.47
65 WHAT ABOUT BRIAN SP-4/16 ABC 5.45
66 HOUSE SP-2/20 8P FOX 5.41
67 CMA AWARDS CBS 5.40
68 E.R. NBC 5.31
69 WILL &GRACE CLIPSHOW SPCL NBC 5.25
70 WNTR OLYM SAT PRIME 3 NBC 5.12
71 LOST SP-1/11 ABC 5.06
72 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC 5.04
73 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS 4.98
73 DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC 4.98
75 LAW AND ORDER:SVU NBC 4.96
75 APPRENTICE 4 NBC 4.96
77 MY NAME IS EARL NBC 4.93
78 FOX MLB DIV: AL GM 5 FOX 4.92
79 24 SP-MON 3/6 8P FOX 4.86
79 DEAL OR NO DEAL 12/21 NBC 4.86
81 WNTR OLYM WED PRIME 2 NBC 4.80
82 SUGAR BOWL ABC 4.79
83 TWO AND A HALF MEN-SPCL CBS 4.78
84 CSI: MIAMI SPECIAL CBS 4.74
85 TWO AND A HALF MEN SPL CBS 4.68
86 SURVIVOR:PANAMA-EX RNION CBS 4.64
86 ABC PREMIERE EVENT-4/10 ABC 4.64
88 DEAL OR NO DEAL 12/22 NBC 4.63
88 DEAL OR NO DEAL-WED NBC 4.63
90 FOX WORLD SERIES GAME 1 FOX 4.62
91 CSI: NY CBS 4.61
92 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES SPL. ABC 4.60
92 FOX MLB NLCS GAME 6 FOX 4.60
94 DEAL OR NO DEAL 12/20 NBC 4.59
95 CSI: MIAMI - SPCL CBS 4.54
96 CBS NCAA BSKBL CHAMP SA-2 CBS 4.48
96 FOX MLB DIV: AL GM 4 FOX 4.48
98 SURVIVOR:EXLE-LOOK CLOSER CBS 4.47
99 CSI: THU 8P SPECIAL CBS 4.46
100 WNTR OLYM FRI PRIME 2 NBC 4.42
185 NFL REGULAR SEASON L ESPN 3.44
225 2006 NBA ALLSTAR GAME TNT 3.08
398 MLB DIVISIONAL SERIES L ESPN 2.31
426 NBA ALLSTAR SAT NIGHT TNT 2.18
432 NBA PLAYOFFS-CONF FNLS L ESPN 2.15
481 NBA ALLSTAR TIP OFF TNT 2.01
483 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 2.00
519 NFL REGULAR SEASON SPCL L ESPN 1.88
547 WWE ENTERTAINMENT SPIKE 1.77
522 24 HOURS OF A XMAS STORY TBSC 1.74

http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_framese...=2005-2006.asp
post #172 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
Routinely, in weekly numbers put out by the TVBureau, cable networks place only a couple or three programs in the top 100 of total viewers.

Here are the household ratings for the 2005-2006 Season (just completed last week)

Top-rated programs of 2005-06 in Households
Broadcast not only grabbed 100 of the top 100 programs in the 2005-06 broadcast season, it took the next 100, and the next 35. Subscription TV's top-rated program of 2003-04, "NFL Regular Season" on ESPN, came in at No. 236. In fact, broadcast was responsible for 576 of the top 586 programs for the season. The table below shows the top 100 programs; subscription TV's top 10 programs are shown in bold at the bottom.
Half of these numbers come from "loss leader" live sporting events. At the end of the day all these viewer numbers are meaningless if they do not bring profitability. ;) ;) ;)
post #173 of 287
OK, I give up. Cable sucks. I'm disconneting and going back five versions of CSI and six versions of Law & Order and five night in a row of "Ted Mack's Original Amatuer Hour Redux" with no HD in the daytime and local Viper Super Doppler Radar wall to wall coverage of mild thundershowers and car wrecks and murders and local car dealers screaming at me 24 hours a day.

I'm convinced. Judge Judy, Judge Alex, Judge Oprah, Monty, and Maury, and Jerry Springer. Quality programming!!! Who needs cable ????
post #174 of 287
No one is saying cable sucks.

But without broadcast stations, the value of cable's offerings does seem to diminish drastically.

(And I would quarrel with your contentions that "Half of these numbers come from "loss leader" live sporting events. At the end of the day all these viewer numbers are meaningless if they do not bring profitability."

NBC/GE told analysts the Winter Olympics actually made money for the corporation.

Now when talking about the NFL or MLB, you do have a point. And clearly most sports have been and continue to be headed to cable, where the business model includes advertising revenue and subscriber fees.
post #175 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
No one is saying cable sucks.

But without broadcast stations, the value of cable's offerings does seem to diminish drastically.

(And I would quarrel with your contentions that "Half of these numbers come from "loss leader" live sporting events. At the end of the day all these viewer numbers are meaningless if they do not bring profitability."

NBC/GE told analysts the Winter Olympics actually made money for the corporation.

Now when talking about the NFL or MLB, you do have a point. And clearly most sports have been and continue to be headed to cable, where the business model includes advertising revenue and subscriber fees.
One thing that always gets me is people make the assumption that if something is popular in our culture, it's because it's good.

I've generally found the opposite to be true. :D
post #176 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
NBC/GE told analysts the Winter Olympics actually made money for the corporation.
Some pretty creative accounting, I'd say. I wonder if they accounted for all the "make goods" ???? ;) ;) ;)
post #177 of 287
In the back of my simple mind I have always figured the 'extra' channels on cable and sat were more important than the broadcast stuff. When I saw the numbers posted above I figured they must be BS...

But after reading this and thinking about what our viewing habits are... Maybe we don't need Cable or Satellite!

About 98% of what we watch is coming in over the air. I suppose that's the only reason I can even begin to tolerate DirecTV and their half-assed picture quality.

When we are not watching something from OTA it is mostly something from HBO, Showtime or Sci-Fi. Occasionally something from Discovery Channel (Not Discovery HD because I can't stand the sync problems) CNN or The Weather Channel (My son is a weather freak!).

I think the cable co's better listen to the broadcasters.... If most people are like us (and for everyone's sake I hope not) the OTA broadcasters are in the drivers seat. At least the big 4 are anyway.

I hate multicasting and want it to die as soon as possible.... Please!

My hope is that multicasting will fail on its own. I just don't see why viewers need or want this. PBS has been multicasting for years - I still don't watch it - They aren't showing anything that I care about. On the rare occasion that they do have something I would like to see I still don't watch because streaming video on the Internet has better picture quality.
post #178 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
Some pretty creative accounting, I'd say. I wonder if they accounted for all the "make goods" ???? ;) ;) ;)
First, they lowballed delivery. I believe they only guaranteed a 12.5 which made the rating pretty easy to hit with minimum make goods. If you know what make goods mean, you know what that means.

Secondly, I assume you know what network avails looked like in 1st quarter. If you don't, go ask how soft the market was.

NBC had plenty of swiss cheese in their avail to fill holes.

So, actually, it probably did make money for them as the ad market was so soft and they had guaranteed buys at high rates over that time.

And don't say I am biased and using clever accounting, as this is probably the only post in 12-18 months where I have defended NBC or anything associated with the Olympics on NBC, :D.
post #179 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike greer
In the back of my simple mind I have always figured the 'extra' channels on cable and sat were more important than the broadcast stuff. When I saw the numbers posted above I figured they must be BS...

But after reading this and thinking about what our viewing habits are... Maybe we don't need Cable or Satellite!

About 98% of what we watch is coming in over the air. I suppose that's the only reason I can even begin to tolerate DirecTV and their half-assed picture quality.
I'm the opposite. I have one of the cable news channels on in my office all day. At 6:30 we watch network news, at 7:00 we watch Hardball on MSNBC (rather than Wheel Of Fortune). At 8:00 I'll pick the lesser of evils on an HD channel, more often a cable channel rather than broadcast, or a HD movie on my DVR.

Having HD is kind of like having color back in the sixties. It changes your viewing habits. I definitely watch a lot more cable than broadcast.
post #180 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike greer
I think the cable co's better listen to the broadcasters.... If most people are like us (and for everyone's sake I hope not) the OTA broadcasters are in the drivers seat. At least the big 4 are anyway..
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

Answer .... no more viewers and it's all about the eyeball count. :)

Plus congress keeps giving them really sweet deals codified into numerous anti-consumer/viewer laws. ;)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Stations don't want cable to downconvert HDTV to DTV