AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know I will get flamed for this but here goes:


Why not let HD NET try and make deal to simulcast the superbowl in HD with the same commercials as the SD fox transmission, so Fox loses nothing, advertisers lose nothing, and perhaps HD NET could charge a PPV fee for the HD transmission of the Superbowl, or perhaps a fee could be paid to HD NET by the HD manufacturers to sponsor the transmission.


By the consumer paying a PPV fee the consumer will be supporting the efforts of Mark Cuban and HD NET.


Of course the fee's could be split 50/50 between Fox and HD NET.


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
This was discussed very heavily a few weeks ago. You can find the link here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
The argument against providing Superbowl in HD PPV is not convincing. NFL games are already in PPV form called Sunday Ticket. If the objection is allowing FOX to do commercials and HDNet to charge a PPV fee at the same time, easy, no commercial inserted, just like how HDNet does most live sports event now. And we may finally see a good half time show, which is half of my household care about anyway :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
What is wrong with HD NET giving the public a choice, no one will be putting a gun to anyone's head to pay $9.95 or even $99.95 to view the Superbowl in HD, don't pay anything and watch Fox SD broadcast, the fact of the matter is I would be willing to pay and watch the commercials.


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
One problem I see is if HDNet offers the game in PPV, it will not be allowed in the stores. And they can not have a black screen during business hours. Otherwise it will be just FOX and NFL selling broadcast right to HDNet without commercials and HDNet charge a PPV fee to recoup some of the costs. Ok may be not as simple. Despite the fact FOX is "against HDTV", money will be the only objection I think, and without a large sum FOX and NFL will not bother with the hassle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Why wouldn't it be available in stores? Why would it have to be blacked out? The stores already have the game in SD on FOX why would NFL or Fox care if it is shown in HD in the stores? It will ONLY increase viewership good for NFL,Fox and advertisers.


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
If I pay a big sum for the right to broadcast an event on PPV basis, I sure would not let anyone legally display it to the public for free.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
It is already being displayed for nothing to public in SD, that is my point.


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
Then why have HD in the first place? It is already in SD. What a waste of time, expenses and effort.


I think this is why most people can't get over paying for a show. It is already in such such form "free", why do we have to pay for it in another form.


Once you start to think HDTV a whole different media, unique in a sense that it can not be compared to anything SD, then we will get over the paying part.


Otherwise HDTV is not worth it, at least not as much as you think. Then you can not blame FOX for not doing HD, their thought exactly. Then don't cry fault when there is no HD Superbowl. FOX does not have to do it in HD, not ever according to the law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
With all due respect SD and HD is NIGHT AND DAY- that is the whole point. The NTSC signal SUCKS. If you can't see that either get glasses or a new video display,


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
I am not worried about the slipppery slope of all HD becoming PPV. Give the consumer an option. I would pay the fee to watch the superbowl in PPV. Last years image from CBS was excellent,

SD from fox will not be comparable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by LJG
With all due respect SD and HD is NIGHT AND DAY- that is the whole point. The NTSC signal SUCKS. If you can't see that either get glasses or a new video display,


LJG
You are arguing against your point! If what you say is true, then people would want to pay to see it in HD. But why pay for it if you can go to your local store and watch it in HD for free? Don't you think that multitudes of people who didn't feel like paying would just go to the store? On the one hand you say it's worth paying for, and 2 posts later you say there is no problem with it being shown in a public place for free!


Of course, all of this could be solved by having a different channel for the special event, and running HDNet off tape during the event.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
HELLO!


It is Superbowl Sunday, If you have a HD compatable Video display and HD NET is showing the Superbowl PPV Why the hell would you run down to your corner store to watch it, If that's the case why purchase a HD Display?


Why not just go down to your local store to watch NYPD Blue and other HD shows instead of purchasing a HD display.


You made an absolutely ridiculous statement


"But why pay for it if you can go to your local store and watch it in HD for free?"


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
I wouldn't give FOX a single penny if they offer the Superbowl through HDNet! Why the hell would anyone want to support FOX's ban on HD by filling their pockets with money to have the "priviledge" to watch their Superbowl in HD! The Superbowl has been in HD (for free) for the last few years and I'll be damned if I am going to now start paying for what should be free! The Networks have in the past treated the Superbowl for what it is (the biggest sporting event in the world) and have offered it for free in HD! Now the lowlife network FOX feels the Superbowl does not deserve to be in HD and if they feel HD is a good pay-per-view money maker then those of you who would pay for it may be letting FOX know that HD in Pay-Per-View only is the way to go!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Franks:


True who wants to support low life Fox!


However by purchasing PPV HD from HD NET you are supporting HDNET which is a good thing, which hopefully offsets Fox support


LJG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
If one of those boxing PPV event which cost $49.99 was free in the stores, what do you think folks will go? Of course I am not even arguing with you on this point. It is simple, PPV will never be allowed in a public place for free, except some very restricted conditions such as a sports bar, which by the way pays dearly for the right to show a PPV event.


Frank, you are missing the point here. The question is not whether FOX want to do HD PPV, they don't. But for the advancement of HD, if HDNet can get it and people like us can prove to the world that HD does make business sense, why not?


We can not have it both ways, on one hand we accuse broadcasters dragging their feet, dismiss their arguement that HDTV does not bring enough profit to justify the expenses, on the other hand we refuse to admit HDTV does have added value compared to SD, or even such value exists, we refuse to pay extra for it.


In the business world, such attitude will be laughed at and yet some how we come to believe HDTV is a human right for a few of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
Quote:
Frank, you are missing the point here. The question is not whether FOX want to do HD PPV, they don't. But for the advancement of HD, if HDNet can get it and people like us can prove to the world that HD does make business sense, why not?
The problem is that if we set a precedence of paying for events we have always watched for free just because it is in HD then we will start giving all the networks the idea that HD is a pay-per-view only option! Is this what were are wanting is to be glad to pay for HD? Not at all what I want.

Quote:
We can not have it both ways, on one hand we accuse broadcasters dragging their feet, dismiss their argument that HDTV does not bring enough profit to justify the expenses, on the other hand we refuse to admit HDTV does have added value compared to SD, or even such value exists, we refuse to pay extra for it.
This type thinking starts getting us into dangerous waters! We already have companies charging people monthly fees for a hardware feature they already own (Tivo, ReplayTV). We need to nip this "pay for the pleasure of using the hardware you bought to it fullest" attitude or we will start paying for all kinds of things for which we already own!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
Quote:
some how we come to believe HDTV is a human right for a few of us
I believe we do have the right to at least some HDTV from every broadcaster in exchange for that broadcasters' use of a full 6 MHz of our spectrum. (That is why they were given 6MHz digital allocations given that a smaller slice is fine for 480P.)


The SuperBowl is the most compelling broadcast content available in the world and IMHO those who choose not to broadcast it in HDTV (such as Fox) should have their affiliates' spectrum allocation reduced.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top