CBS: We Must Be Paid For HDTV! - Page 2

Exactly. It may not be the better way (although with HDTV it is), but if it's the only way - people will just suck it up.

WRT E*, I don't know for sure, but there have been "ominous rumblings" of late. As for D*, it appears to be historical RSN.

Nope, I want my naughty bits and curse words far more than I want anything on network TV. Between 1998 and fall of 2002, network TV did not exist for me ... didn't miss it one bit. HDTV brought me back (at least temporarily) but only because of HD, not because of programming content, and frankly I'm getting a bit fed up with the multicast effect of late. There's nothing on network TV that I couldn't learn to live without ... the "good stuff" winds up on cable eventually.

That having been said, my current frustration level with all things TV related far exceeds the level I had before I cut the cable line. DirecTV better hit a grandslam this summer, or things are going to be getting really ugly by fall.

How much for that bridge? Since to do what you say is happening, that would be against the law. I just LOVE your "thinking." NOT!

Not so long ago there was a furor over "must carry". Now there's one over "must not carry"! From a logical standpoint, why would a station want less market penetration? This is so warped. The airwaves used to belong to the public, but since the corporations took over, it's just weird. Oh well, Greed is Good, right?

It is still free over those same airwaves. And it isn't "must not carry", it's "must pay us for our programming if you want to carry". You don't see People Magazine giving away their magazine to Barnes & Noble for free just to increase penetration. That's the same with the local stations - why increase your penetration by giving away the product for free to the cablecos when it can only hurt the sales of your product to DBS companies where you are making real money?

If I were an MSO, I'd simply add an antenna to the roof of each customer where applicable. Screw 'em.

I know what you're saying...but still, I've gotta comment.

How are the alternatives more convenient than the antenna? My antenna sits on the roof of my house bringing me consistent, reliable reception without any billing hassles, customer service issues, rain fade, or service outages. I had the thing installed in 2000, and haven't had any issues with it since. I wonder how many cable/satellite subscribers can say the same about their service?

Not going to happen. The MSOs should be very afraid that if they tried that, a fair number of their subscribers would like the antenna so much that they'd choose to keep the antenna and dump the MSO...

When has the law meant anything among the rich and powerful ... wake up and smell the coffee.

Don't be so sure about that ... Dish installers were doing a brisk business doing just during the pre-LiL days around here.

And let me guess, we are being watched by UFO's as well?

Sat is an alternative to cable and if you wanted locals you had to have an antenna with sat. That was one of the limiting factors sat had against cable. LIL's coming on board for sat and the penetration for sat dramatically jumped in the markets that had it. Sat was taking over. The only thing that has slowed that down was cable bundling but other issues are once again slowly starting the churn away from cable, everything from rates to content availablily. That is why D* has been pushing HD LIL so hard over the national HD channels. LIL drives the service, SD or HD. Not UHD or NGC-HD or HGTV-HD. That is historical fact tht goes back to the SD LIL days and the same is being seen in the HD LIL markets. Even E* realizes this and is trying as best it can to get into the HD LIL business as well.

The demise of the local stations are a little premature.

I get all the free OTA stations in HD free using a 20 dollar Walmart Antenna with 40db gain. Heroes looked great on it the other day and CSI Miami looks as oversaturated as it gets but I like it (thier FL turnpike shot in yesterdays episode was beachfront..lol..obvious mistake).

You're preaching to the choir. My $26 antenna gets all my locals flawlessly, the $99 rotor added two additional DMA's affiliates. All free of monthly charges.

The convenience factor I'm talking about is more a matter of perception now that people have transitioned to another source for their non-broadcast programming. There is some degree inconvenience to the antenna from the standpoint of needing to switch sources, possible additional cable runs, etc. But looking strictly at your local affiliates, the antenna is no less convenient than cable or DBS.

Oh contrare monfrar (sp) (I don't know French, I took Spanish!! ). That is why God created Harmony Smart Remote Controls!!

But God also created Eve and she'll insist that the Harmony is not smart enough.

I don't understand the concept of "Free Installation". What's "free" about it? Isn't it all figured in over the next 4800 or so monthly payments?

Whether or not antennas are considered ugly is a matter of opinion.

I knew it was true! It's just DRM of OTA over sat and cable.

I saw it on FOX, so it must be true .... ooh, snap ... VeeDub in da house.

Actually a better example would be if People Magazine was free on the street corner and they charged Barnes and Nobel to let them distribute them.

Rick R

I was responding to the assertion that the broadcast networks should give their product away just for the increased penetration. So your example doesn't really apply to that point.

I live in an apartment, I get *nothing* for free, just an intermittent signal from an independant TV station relatively nearby. Even with an amplifier. Plenty of places have little or no TV reception.

For those that can't get a free signal, that still doesn't give a 3rd party the right to distribute and profit from a station's signal without getting permission from the owner.

The free OTA programming is an option for the vast majority of consumers, but not everybody.

I agree, just wanted to point out that not all of us lucky enough to live near TV station. On a side note, I'm sure these damn tv stations are not putting out the power they did back in the 1970s. Back then a set of rabbit ears got you the Big Three networks.

I can assure you that if a station has been on the air for 40 years, they have been at full power most if not all of that time. With OTA, the name of the game is MORE coverage, not less.

Then why not put it on cable, where you would be hardwired into not only Grade A and Grade B contours, but also fringe areas where reception could never happen?

Sorry foxeng, I couldn't resist!

Because the carriage fee will blow away any advertising increase that comes from increased coverage. Why give it to cable when it will only hurt your DBS sales for which you do get cash money?

YEAH! What HE said!!