or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 2110

post #63271 of 93674
NPD: People Want Internet-Connected TVs


by Aaron Baar, Marketing Daily - Jan 3

Despite all of the hype 3D television received over the past year, consumers are looking to a different technology to take their television viewing to a new level: Internet connectivity.

According to The NPD Group, sales of Internet-connected television sets increased 38% between January and November 2010, compared with the same period for the previous year. Such sets now account for 12% of all flat-panel sales. Furthermore, nearly half (45%) of consumers who have a connected television have used their sets to access the Internet. Of these, more than half (57%) say they are very satisfied with the features of their sets.

"What we've seen is a large array of content become available for connected television," Ross Rubin, director of industry analysis at NPD, tells Marketing Daily. "Even though more could be done to ease the set-up process, [Internet connected TV] isn't as big an ecosystem [challenge] as the one 3D TV faces."

Part of that may be because consumers have become accustomed to viewing and using Internet-available content on their computers. Of the consumers who have connected TV, more than half (57%) use it to access Netflix, while 47% are watching videos on YouTube. Other content sites -- such as Hulu Plus and Pandora -- are also gaining steam among consumers, Rubin says.

"A lot of these services were already available on PCs and the key was to create a TV experience to access," Rubin says. "It's not about the Internet, per se. It's about what the Internet can deliver. It has given rise to new entertainment and on-demand experience. Consumers are looking for that to supplement what they already have from cable and satellite providers."

Still, much of what consumers are looking for on the Internet is heavily dependent upon what the TV manufacturers are willing to include with their sets. Further development of open-source platforms such as GoogleTV and Boxee, however, should open up more of the Internet experience as viewed through a TV set.

"It really opens the door to the developer community and building applications that can work across devices," Rubin says. "What many [consumers] would like to see is to search across all that programming and aggregate it through a single user interface, to tie in that wealth of content."

\\http://www.mediapost.com/publication...art_aid=142202
post #63272 of 93674
Microsoft ready to take on Apple, Google with TV set top box


By Ed Oswald - Beta News - Jan 4

Reports indicate that Microsoft is prepared to show off a connected television solution of its own, and will demo a TV set top box this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The device will be similar to those already offered by competitors Apple and Google.

The Seattle Times reports that the device will come in at a price point below $200, and is expected to go on sale later in the year. In the simplest terms, it is an effort by Microsoft to bring its Windows Media Center concept to the masses.

It could be argued that the Redmond company was one of the first major companies to invest in the idea of a "connected TV" when it launched the Media Center platform back in 2002. However at the time, digital content had only begun to catch on, and the platform did not have broad-based appeal.

These days, it's certainly a different story. According to research firm DisplaySearch, the market for connected televisions is expected to triple to more than 124 million units by 2014.

Microsoft's entrant into the space will be built on Windows Embedded, with a UI similar to its Media Center platform. The company's plans are nothing new -- the devices made an appearance when Microsoft announced its plans for embedded software last year, and during an Intel conference last September.

The fact that the devices appeared at the chipmaker's gathering may give a strong indication that the devices themselves may use Intel chips.

If the Times reporting is true, it would mean a quicker timetable for Microsoft's connected TV plans than had earlier been reported. Reuters said in November that the company had been in talks to turn the Xbox 360 into a cable TV set top box for a monthly fee, although it was said at the time any service was a year away from becoming a reality.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...box/1294166253
post #63273 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred M View Post

Microsoft ready to take on Apple, Google with TV set top box


By Ed Oswald - Beta News - Jan 4

Reports indicate that Microsoft is prepared to show off a connected television solution of its own, and will demo a TV set top box this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The device will be similar to those already offered by competitors Apple and Google.

The Seattle Times reports that the device will come in at a price point below $200, and is expected to go on sale later in the year. In the simplest terms, it is an effort by Microsoft to bring its Windows Media Center concept to the masses.

It could be argued that the Redmond company was one of the first major companies to invest in the idea of a "connected TV" when it launched the Media Center platform back in 2002. However at the time, digital content had only begun to catch on, and the platform did not have broad-based appeal.


http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...box/1294166253

Or, it could be argued they were in it far earlier with WebTV (later called MSNTV).

What started out as a single purpose box, moved on to a multi-media device. My late 90's UltimateTV DVR through D* included the ability to connect to the internet via Web/MSNTV.

The problem is, dial-up internet was the only way to go back then and TVs simply didn't have the resolution to display a real web page. It was also slow and unpredictable. It never took off and was abandoned in favor of the Media Center project, which is still lagging in acceptance.

Now, many TVs (running at 1920x1080) have more resolution than the average laptop screen (many of which top out at 1280x768) and broadband is in a very large number of homes. You can actually surf the net realistically on something like that. A box that lets you split the screen to watch TV while checking out IMDB can be a reality - if anyone ever does it. Instead, what we get is a collection point, rather than a jumping off point. It's the gated community of AOL all over again.

Had Microsoft continued to develop the UTV project with an HD version that included broadband, they'd be ahead of the game now instead of playing catch up. This nonsense of restricting content would be nullified by a multimedia box that to the outside world is simply another computer.

Even arch-rival Google fumbled this play.

My opinion: Microsoft needs to capitalize on the X-Box install base as a jumping off point for further development among those that use the platform, then pursue contracts with TV manufacturers to integrate Media Center into them. The idea of the "boxless" TV is going to fly much further than all these silly devices companies seem to expect us to connect up.
post #63274 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I keep seeing this doom and gloom talk about 14% or 22% lower ratings.

This is also one of the few times I've seen the insight on why this is fantastic for ESPN.

Think about it: they lost less than 25% of the viewership verses an OTA network, which has at least twice the viewer reach. That means, they're losing far less than the number of people that could tune in before. They kept over 85% of the audience for the Rose Bowl and nearly 80% of last year's audience for the Fiesta Bowl. At lot of prime time shows on the big 4 lose more than that from season to season - and they're still on the same channel.

However, in return, they get roughly a 400 times increase in revenue when subscriber fees are taken into account. That more than pays for the extra dollars paid to get the contract, by a long shot.

I think that says more about how bad a thing is was that ABC was airing the event verses ESPN. Not only does ESPN make out better with it, but it shows most people that watched previously, were able to do so this year - and that doesn't take into account those that potentially could, but simply chose not to. Also, there may have been a small percentage that simply didn't know where to go for the game.

If every cable broadcast could see 75% of the viewers of equivalent broadcast network shows, cable channels would be jumping for joy over it.

I agree 100%. Which is why I was so critical of that BCS on ESPN article a week ago claiming these low ratings would be the end of the BCS and be a disaster for ESPN.
post #63275 of 93674
Watch List
Tuesday Watch List: Paula Abdul Returns
By Drew Magary

Welcome to Watch List, where we identify five things on TV to watch at home while you suffer through Day 5 of the Norwegian Death Flu that has infiltrated your household. Dear Lord, I feel like someone inflated a zeppelin inside my head. LET'S GO!

LIVE TO DANCE - 8:00PM (CBS)
If you spent all of 2010 pining for Paula's Abdul's patented brand of acetaminophen-induced nonsensical gurgling, fear not. The former American Idol judge and part-time speaker of the English language resurfaces tonight on this CBS reality dance competition featuring 18 dance teams vying for a half million dollar grand prize. And while this may seem like just another cheap Dancing With The Stars retread, you'd best not underestimate Abdul's canniness. After all, she was the one who managed to ditch Idol first, right before it really went into the gutter last year. Coincidence? Or has Abdul taken so much medication that she can see things before they happen? Don't bet against the latter. ANTICIPATION: FOREVER YOUR GIRL!

V - 9:00PM (ABC) Did you know they didn't cancel this show last year? It's true! They kept it, put on hiatus until now, and then will cancel it in three week's time. You know, for the fans. Anyway, the season premiere is tonight, and I was promised an alien baby in the print ads. I hope it fights a Predator baby. ANTICIPATION: ALIEN BABY!

MY BIG BREASTS AND ME - 10:00PM (BBC America)
Three women openly discuss the negative impact of being endowed with overly large mammaries. I guess appearing on international television is NOT one of the drawbacks, eh ladies? Seriously though, these women may have some pretty gnarly back problems. ANTICIPATION: EYES UP HERE!

BIGGEST LOSER: COUPLES - 8:00PM (NBC)
In the season premiere, the fatty duos must choose between training with Bob and Jillian or training a mysterious pair of unknown trainers. Oooooh ahhhhh! What surprises await them? Well, not to spoil it, but I'm told the two new trainers are both Shake Weights. ANTICIPATION: SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE!

CHOPPED - 10:00PM (Food Network) Tonight the chefs must use brains in one of their dishes. I used to serve brains in a restaurant I worked at, and the reason no one ordered them is because no matter how you slice them or serve them, they still very much look like brains. Can't say the same about cow testicles. ANTICIPATION: BRAINS!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/p...112864369.html
post #63276 of 93674
Nielsen Overnights (Cable)
ABC Family's 'Pretty Little Liars' Hits Series Highs In Return
Lifetime's 'Craiglist Killer' Does Well
By Nellie Andreeva, Deadline.com - January 4th, 2011

ABC Family's drama Pretty Little Liars has moved from a 'promising newcomer' to 'bona fide hit' status. Last night's winter premiere of the show drew 4.2 million viewers, posting series highs in total viewers as well as all key demographics: adults 18-34 (1.4 million), adults 18-49 (1.9 million), women 18-49 (1.6 million) and people 12-34 (2.9 million). Vs. the series premiere last summer, last night's winter debut was up by almost 2 million viewers (4.2 million vs. 2.5 million), 67% in adults 18-34, 72% in adults 18-49 and 70% in people 12-34. It was ABC Family's No.2 telecast ever in women 18-34 (1.2 million) and females 12-34 (2.5 million). ABC Family's other premiere last night was of Greek, whose fourth season debut followed Liars and averaged 1.2 million viewers. That was on par with the show's winter Season 3 premiere last January but Greek squandered most of its lead-in, holding onto 28% of the Liars audience.

Meanwhile, Lifetime's original movie The Craiglist Killer drew 5.4 million viewers last night, 2.7 million of them in the 25-54 demographic. It was up triple digits from Lifetime's 2010 original movie average. The documentary Beyond the Headlines: Catching the Craiglist Killer, which following the movie, drew 3.7 million viewers.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/abc-...ghs-in-return/
post #63277 of 93674
Q&A
Southland's Tom Everett Scott on Poker, That Thing You Do!, and the Joy of Getting Shot
By Gwynne Watkins, The New York Times' 'Vulture' Blog - January 4th, 2011

In the final shot of Southland's first season SPOILER ALERT Tom Everett Scott's character, LAPD detective Russell Clarke, was shot in the chest by an irate neighbor. For months, fans weren't sure if he or the critically acclaimed NBC show would survive. Fortunately, TNT picked it up in fall 2009. In Southland's third season, premiering tonight, Scott returns as Detective Clarke, who is still recovering from the physical and emotional trauma of being shot. Vulture talked to Scott about Southland's guerrilla shooting style, his first job on the sitcom Grace Under Fire, and his distinguished poker career.

When your character was shot at the end of season one, did you have a period of time when you thought you were dead?
Yeah, it was like, Which writer did I say something inappropriate to? Whose parking space did I take? No, I didn't think that was the end for me. And I was reassured that it wasn't the end for that character. And it's fun to get shot. People were like, have you ever done this before? And I was like, not since I was a little kid diving into the pool, pretending to get blown away. It's a rite of passage.

Wikipedia says that NBC didn't like your character.
That could be. Yeah, I don't know I heard that as well. So NBC. Yeah, well you know, they were batting a thousand back then, right?

Southland is reminiscent of Law & Order, in that you seem to be shooting in the heart of a very active city. What's that like?
Yes. Like this season, I was shooting a scene with Regina King in the Farmers' Market, which is this kind of crowded indoor-outdoor space with restaurants and coffee shops and all these little businesses. So we just went in there with a small crew and shot the scene; we used the people who actually really work at that coffee shop to serve us our coffee. And we really don't tell any of the other people until it's over that we're shooting. And then I guess they get the proper releases from those people? I don't know. They don't fuzz out anybody's faces on these things, but that's not my job so I don't worry about it. And no one yells rolling we all just kind of know that we're shooting.

Was there any police skill that you had to be corrected on a lot?
I'm not very coordinated, so cuffing someone while talking was difficult for me. We did a lot of cheating where that was concerned.

At the start of this season, Russell is still behind a desk. Are we going to see him getting a little more engaged in field work than he has been since the shooting?
Well, I guess the key thing that happened to Russell is that he's no longer able to do the police work like he could before. So that's gonna create a dramatic shift in his character, and you'll just have to wait and see what happens after that.

What about Russell's relationship with Lydia? I know that a lot of fans are hoping it turns romantic; can you lay odds on that?
I don't know. I honestly don't. I have heard that people are interested in that idea; I think that's a great idea. It would be a really cool thing to see on television, because they seem to be such compatible characters. We'll see. Regina King and I get along great, and we're lucky that a lot of that comes through in the characters.

You had a lead in the Broadway show Little Dog Laughed in 2006, with Julie White...
One of my first jobs ever as an actor was working with Julie White on a sitcom called Grace Under Fire.

Have you two been in therapy together ever since?
We have definitely commiserated over the experience. She got the brunt of it. I only had to recur in a handful of episodes. But we would take our lunch breaks together and go hit golf balls and vent.

Your first high-profile role was in That Thing You Do! and everyone commented on how much you look like Tom Hanks. But you don't, so much, anymore.
I look totally different now, right? I look way better than Tom Hanks?

Please tell us people don't mistake you for him on the street...
No, no one ever really did. It was just that, at the time when we did all the press for the movie, all the things that were said were put down on paper and recorded on video and now have been cemented in my bio. It was Tom Hanks's directorial debut, so there was some focus on it, and he cast a guy who was similar to him. It was a thing he was concerned about in the beginning, but luckily, not really concerned.

You were the first celebrity to make the finals of the World Poker Tournament. Are actors better or worse poker players than non-actors?
Oh, because it's all about lying and doing a little performance? Actors should be better poker players. But I think there's actual skill and crazy guts that you need to play poker, this ability to put all this money on the line inside of that game of cards. There's this whole different set of skills that doesn't apply to acting whatsoever. Actors, we like our little cups of cappuccino and our personal umbrella-holders. Poker players, they've gotta be a little bit tougher.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...t_scott_o.html
post #63278 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm145 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

TV Notes
Gay and lesbian characters are popping up on shows for young people

Great
Wouldn't be that big of a deal if gays were protrayed normally instead of as over the top queens!

I think Brothers and Sisters does a pretty decent job.
post #63279 of 93674
Business Notes
Post-Bankruptcy, MGM Launches Classic TV Channel
By Brent Lang, TheWrap.com - January 4th, 2011

Fresh out of bankruptcy, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer announced Tuesday that it is partnering with Weigel Broadcasting to launch a new network devoted to vintage sitcoms. This TVLand challenger will be called Me-TV (Memorable Entertainment Television), and will be targeted for digital broadcast stations.

In launching the channel, MGM will raid its own vaults and dust off such television classics as "Cheers," "M*A*S*H," "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "The Bob Newhart Show."

This is the first significant deal MGM has announced since it emerged from Chapter 11 protections last month. The studio had been stuck in a holding pattern for much of the past year, while it struggled to attract a buyer and labored under some $5 billion in debt.

Last fall, MGM's creditors agreed to a prepackaged bankruptcy plan in which they exchanged their debt for equity. As part of that deal Spyglass chiefs Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum assumed control of the studio.

MGM and Weigel have previously worked together to launch broadcast movie service THIStv.

A local version of Me-TV has already been airing on Weigel Broadcasting's WWME in Chicago. WWME and WBME, the Weigel station covering the Milwaukee/Racine metro area, have become the first affiliates of Me-TV.

Me-TV's national distribution will be handled by MGM's domestic television sales force.

http://www.thewrap.com/television/ar...-channel-23614
post #63280 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred M View Post

Rose Bowl draws 20.6 million as ESPN rolls out BCS premiere


Los Angeles Times' Show Tracker - Jan 3

The move seems to be translating into notably lower ratings. The Rose Bowl was followed by the Fiesta Bowl, a blowout in which Oklahoma stomped Connecticut, 48-20. The game drew 10.8 million viewers, down 22% from last year's Fiesta game on Fox.

However, the BCS deal is likely still a winner for ESPN. Unlike broadcasters, the network can recoup its costs not just through advertising but also from subscriber fees it collects from cable operators. And the more big events it telecasts, the easier it is to charge those high fees.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/show...premiere-.html

In other words, ratings aren't real important to them. They get their money from the cable/DBS companies who get it from their subscribers whether or not they even watched. What a racket! They can bid as high as they want for these sporting events, with very little risk of losing money.
post #63281 of 93674
Business Notes
Facebook vs. Time Warner: A Not-So-Rigorous Financial Evaluation
By David Carr, The New York Times' 'Media Decoder' Blog - January 4th, 2011

Word arrived Monday that Facebook, the burgeoning social media company that surpassed Google last year as the most visited Web site, was worth $50 billion dollars based on a deal done by Goldman Sachs. By way of comparison, our colleagues Andrew Ross Sorkin and Evelyn M. Rusli pointed out that the company was worth more than Time Warner, the large U.S.-based media company, which closed the day with a market cap of about $37 billion.

That contrast got those of us at Decoder headquarters thinking: How can Facebook, a company that was cooked up by Mark Zuckerberg, give or take, in his dorm room at Harvard seven years ago be worth more than the world's largest media conglomerate, which owns HBO, Warner Brothers movie studio, and Time Inc, the big magazine publisher?

We thought a little comparison chart might help:

Revenues

Time Warner: about $26 billion.

Facebook: approaching $2 billion according to analysts.

Franchises

Time Warner has the Harry Potter franchise with over $6 billion in box office revenues.

Facebook has a Duct Tape page with over 3.3 million fans.

Relationship Status

Time Warner ended a bad marriage with AOL in 2009, closing the book on what has been billed as the worst business merger in history.

Facebook, which prefers the role of matchmaker for others, has refused countless marriage proposals, including one from Google, and remained independent.

Gimmick

Time Warner is pushing TV Everywhere so customers can see subscription content on any device at any time.

Facebook has like button.

Whodunit Movie

Time Warner made half-a-billion dollars last year on a remake of Sherlock Holmes.

Facebook is the unauthorized star of Social Network, a movie last year about the fight for control of the site and its half-a-billion friends.

Okay, okay, we get it. Almost anyone could tell you that Time Warner is a legacy media business with big numbers that is stuck in slow-moving sectors that Wall Street finds uninspiring.

It's a tragedy that large organizations so often come merely to perpetuate themselves, said David Kirkpatrick, the author of The Facebook Effect and a former Time Warner employee at Fortune Magazine. The risk for Facebook is that it may soon come to be so big it faces the same problem.

Indeed, if Facebook continues to grow, it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe as much as $350 billion which is what a rising digital superstar called AOL-Time Warner was worth 11 years ago at the height of the bubble.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...ref=television
post #63282 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

Nielsen Overnights (Cable)
ABC Family's 'Pretty Little Liars' Hits Series Highs In Return
Lifetime's 'Craiglist Killer' Does Well
By Nellie Andreeva, Deadline.com - January 4th, 2011

ABC Family's drama Pretty Little Liars has moved from a 'promising newcomer' to 'bona fide hit' status. Last night's winter premiere of the show drew 4.2 million viewers, posting series highs in total viewers as well as all key demographics: adults 18-34 (1.4 million), adults 18-49 (1.9 million), women 18-49 (1.6 million) and people 12-34 (2.9 million). Vs. the series premiere last summer, last night's winter debut was up by almost 2 million viewers (4.2 million vs. 2.5 million), 67% in adults 18-34, 72% in adults 18-49 and 70% in people 12-34. It was ABC Family's No.2 telecast ever in women 18-34 (1.2 million) and females 12-34 (2.5 million). ABC Family's other premiere last night was of Greek, whose fourth season debut followed Liars and averaged 1.2 million viewers. That was on par with the show's winter Season 3 premiere last January but Greek squandered most of its lead-in, holding onto 28% of the Liars audience.

Meanwhile, Lifetime's original movie The Craiglist Killer drew 5.4 million viewers last night, 2.7 million of them in the 25-54 demographic. It was up triple digits from Lifetime's 2010 original movie average. The documentary Beyond the Headlines: Catching the Craiglist Killer, which following the movie, drew 3.7 million viewers.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/abc-...ghs-in-return/

what a great FAMILY show
post #63283 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I think they were just thrown into the lump of multi-channel providers generically referred to as "cable".

Probably so, but it always galls me that "cable" gets the attention and bad rap when every other provider and station is out for the same thing, easy money.

Oh, OT, but I'm watching DirecTV upgrade my neighbor to HD. Now he has not only a Cox box (for internet and previous cable TV) hanging on his house, he also has a DirecTV box with painted wiring hanging off it and now 2 new white wires hanging off it. There are also 2 old wires coming off the new dish and now 2 new white wires. He also has a new white wire running from the box to a room in the back, but I didn't stick around to see how that was going to be run. Hopefully, the majority will go under the eave, but who knows? Not sure why they didn't just tap into the Cox box and use the existing cable wiring, unless Cox won't let them.
post #63284 of 93674
FCC Notes
Court tosses indecency case against ABC's 'NYPD Blue'
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times' 'Company Town' Blog - January 4th, 2011

There is nothing indecent about actress Charlotte Ross' rear end. That's the word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which tossed a roughly $1.4 million fine that the Federal Communications Commission had slapped on ABC and some of its affilaites in 2008 for a 2003 episode of the police drama "NYPD Blue" in which Ross' buttocks were visible to viewers.

Last July, a three-judge panel from this same court ruled that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules was "unconstitutionally vague and chilling." That decision was in response to a fight between the FCC and Fox Broadcasting over so-called fleeting obscenities. The FCC decided in 2004 that TV stations could be fined for indecency violations in cases when, during a live broadcast, an obscenity went out over the air.

That decision came after Fox aired awards shows in 2002 and 2003 in which swearing by Cher and Nicole Richie was not bleeped in time.

The court said its July ruling applied to this case as well even though the circumstances were different.

"Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that Fox found 'impermissibly vague,' " the ruling said.

In the episode at hand, Ross, who played Andy Sipowicz's (Dennis Franz) love interest, is caught in a state of undress by his son. When the FCC first made a stink about the scene, ABC and its affiliates said, according to the court, that it was included to "portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner and their difficulities in adjusting to life together."

Not all ABC stations were fined because the FCC only went after stations in markets where the show show aired at 9 p.m. On the East and West Coasts, "NYPD Blue" ran at 10 p.m. but in central time zones, it aired earlier.

Maybe the FCC would have had a stronger case if it went after ABC for showing Dennis Franz's rear end for all those years.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...nypd-blue.html
post #63285 of 93674
TV Notes
24-Year-Old Chicago Reader Contributor to Co-Host 'At the Movies'
By Tim Molloy, TheWrap.com - January 4th, 2011

Twenty-four-year-old Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, a contributor to The Chicago Weekly and Mubi.com, will share the balcony with longtime AP critic Christy Lemire on "Ebert Presents at the Movies," Roger Ebert announced.

He replaces former New York Times critic Elvis Mitchell, host of "The Treatment" on Santa Monica's KCRW, who taped a pilot with previously announced host Lemire. Ebert has denied reports that the two lacked chemistry.

The choice of the youthful Vishnevetsky reflects Ebert's longtime fondness for surprising and dark horse picks: Just last week he said that an online video recorded during the East Coast blizarrd, "Idiot With a Tripod," deserved an Oscar.

The new weekly program debuts Jan. 21 on public television stations in 48 of the top 50 markets. It will be produced in Chicago at WTTW, where Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert began taping "Sneak Previews" some 35 years ago.

The Russian-born, Chicago-based Vishnevetsky is a critic and essayist for Mubi.com, an online magazine focused on independent, foreign, and classic cinema.

His insightful, in-depth approach may win him more audience respect than the last twentysomething host of "At the Movies." Ben Lyons, who took over at 26, was often criticized as lacking any depth of film knowledge.

http://www.thewrap.com/television/co...t-movies-23603
post #63286 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

* Or the damn station says we'll LET you carry our channel at a price we think is fair.

That would probably fall under:

* Don't carry (retransmission fee not agreed upon.)

Doncha think so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Why do some of you always make cable the bad guy in these disputes and give the station a complete pass as if they aren't in it for the money too?

If only because the cable company has had it handed to them since day one. The broadcasters had to threaten a lawsuit to get cable/DBS to stop "stealing" their signals until Congress intervened by codifying retransmission consent. If cable doesn't want to pay for the signals, they don't have to carry them.
post #63287 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

FCC Notes
Court tosses indecency case against ABC's 'NYPD Blue'
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times' 'Company Town' Blog - January 4th, 2011

Maybe the FCC would have had a stronger case if it went after ABC for showing Dennis Franz's rear end for all those years.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...nypd-blue.html

or maybe the FCC should be disbanded and people should police their own children. Seriously, who keeps these clowns around?
post #63288 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The point here is, those stations want the FCC to step in and do something about being dropped.

The only cases of such I've heard about is where a local station was dropped in favor of a distant signal. If it was just a matter of being dropped after failing to reach an agreement (with no distant signal replacement) then yes, I agree that the station's solution is to lower it's demands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

That also makes this battle all the more ridiculous. D* has always paid to retransmit local stations - something the cable companies lobbied for and won, hoping to protect their business model of providing local channels via cable.

What? The cable companies wanted retransmission consent? Nah, it was Congress intervening after lawsuits were threatened. [BTW, D* added it's local carriage after retransmission consent was codified.]
post #63289 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

That would probably fall under:

* Don't carry (retransmission fee not agreed upon.)

Doncha think so?

If you want to define it that way, they both fall under that, so your separate category was still just a needless bash against cable.

Quote:
If only because the cable company has had it handed to them since day one. The broadcasters had to threaten a lawsuit to get cable/DBS to stop "stealing" their signals until Congress intervened by codifying retransmission consent. If cable doesn't want to pay for the signals, they don't have to carry them.

Look, they did what every other company does, lobbied to get things to go their way. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want to blame someone, blame the government, almost everything they touch turns to garbage at some point.

And, DBS had a self-interest in paying for locals, they wanted to get rid of antennas, mostly because of customer complaints, and to offer locals to customers who were out of OTA range. Payiijng for locals got them a lot more customers, and profit.

Also, cable didn't have it handed to them either. In the early days, locals couldn't do enough to get carried by cable. Now that so many people are hooked on cable/dbs, they're playing the "poor little me" card, you're making too much money and we want a bigger piece of it. It's all a bunch of garbage and neither side it right.

Anyway, that's my $.02 and I'm moving on to other topics. This has all been discussed ad nauseum.
post #63290 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post

or maybe the FCC should be disbanded and people should police their own children. Seriously, who keeps these clowns around?

Here, here! How much money has the government wasted on this issue?
post #63291 of 93674
News I just saw...

ESPN has fired long time football/basketball announcer Ron Franklin for remarks between him and female sideline reporter Jeannine Edwards.

Link here: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...cerdisciplined
post #63292 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post

what a great FAMILY show

ABC Family should just change its name to 'ABC-F' (more catchy and representative of what their most popular shows are like).
post #63293 of 93674
Nielsen Overnights (Cable)
'Hawaii Five-0' to get football boost
CBS to air new episode following AFC Championship
By Stuart Levine, Variety - January 4th, 2011

"Hawaii Five-0" is about to benefit from the power of pro football.

CBS will air a new episode of the island-based drama immediately following the Jan. 23 AFC Championship game. Skein averages 13.2 million viewers and is the most-watched new program of the TV season.

Last year's AFC Championship between the Indianapolis Colts and New York Jets drew 46.9 million viewers, and was the second-highest rated show of the year on the network besides the Super Bowl.

The strategy has worked before for the net. "Numbers" premiered in January 2005 right behind the AFC title game and the Rob Morrow series went on to run six seasons.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029706
post #63294 of 93674
[quote=dad1153;19762642]FCC Notes
Court tosses indecency case against ABC's 'NYPD Blue'
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times' 'Company Town' Blog - January 4th, 2011

Having seen both rear ends, I vote for - wait for it - Ross' rear end.
post #63295 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

As was pointed out by NetworkTV, the clause you so love to quote doesn't apply to cable. Only OTA. And that is the only rule that matters in this. Something cable conveniently forgets to mention when they throw up this strawman argument. Based on that, your argument falls into a heap..

Except the problem now is that there's a lot of people who are relying upon cable a/o satellite to convert and deliver OTA stations to their outdated analog TV's. Remember all those "little old ladies" that broadcasters were so concerned about "disenfranchising" back in 2008 .... Remember when you told them they wouldn't need to do anything if they got their signal from cable or satellite. Guess what? They are still there: No digital tuners ... no converter boxes ... no more coupons.

In any case, I've been ruminating on a better way to handle all of this "retransmission" foolishness ... I have a plan ... will post to a new thread for further comments, discussion and spin doctoring.

Let's face it, it's long past time for a "viewer's bill of rights" and there are plenty of razzies to throw at *both* cable/DBS and broadcasters.
post #63296 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post

what a great FAMILY show

So parents and teens aren't part of the family?

Why should it be assumed that "family" just applies to the kids?
post #63297 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Except the problem now is that there's a lot of people who are relying upon cable a/o satellite to convert and deliver OTA stations to their outdated analog TV's. Remember all those "little old ladies" that broadcasters were so concerned about "disenfranchising" back in 2008 .... Remember when you told them they wouldn't need to do anything if they got their signal from cable or satellite. Guess what? They are still there: No digital tuners ... no converter boxes ... no more coupons.

Exactly how is this anyone's problem but those that failed to get a converter box?

They could have applied for coupons but didn't. The opted to go all in with paying for TV instead. Now the odds of them being able to get a box is pretty slim considering few of those folks are likely to be buying online.

If the stations really cared about the viewers, they'd provide boxes for anyone who gets shafted by their desire for more money. But it's really about the money, though, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong: the cable and satellite companies make money by getting subs they wouldn't get without the local channels. The problem is, there's "reasonable compensation" and outright lunacy.

D* compensates hundreds of stations around the country already. Why should those few stations holding out get any more than the others? Are they trying to say a station in Binghamton, NY (roughly market 160) is worth more than Syracuse, Buffalo, Scranton or other higher market areas around?
post #63298 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

ABC Family should just change its name to 'ABC-F' (more catchy and representative of what their most popular shows are like).

If they could, they would.
post #63299 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Except the problem now is that there's a lot of people who are relying upon cable a/o satellite to convert and deliver OTA stations to their outdated analog TV's. Remember all those "little old ladies" that broadcasters were so concerned about "disenfranchising" back in 2008 .... Remember when you told them they wouldn't need to do anything if they got their signal from cable or satellite. Guess what? They are still there: No digital tuners ... no converter boxes ... no more coupons.

That still doesn't change anything. OTA is still free for those who put just a little effort into. For the overwhelming majority, cable is a choice, usually because they don't want to put up the antenna. OK. Fine. You get what you get. Pay for your TV through a provider or you can get it free by pulling it out of the air. And the number of "little old ladies" and "little old men" with converter boxes and rabbit ears blows younger viewers away. I know. I deal with them all the time.

Quote:


Let's face it, it's long past time for a "viewer's bill of rights" and there are plenty of razzies to throw at *both* cable/DBS and broadcasters.

Whatever?!
post #63300 of 93674
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

D* compensates hundreds of stations around the country already. Why should those few stations holding out get any more than the others? Are they trying to say a station in Binghamton, NY (roughly market 160) is worth more than Syracuse, Buffalo, Scranton or other higher market areas around?

Especially when that compensation is based on total number of subscribers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information