Is there a future for subchannels? What do you think the future of diginets will be in 5/10 years? How do you think they will adapt? Will there be a reduction in number? Will they acquire more current programming/ original programming as they cant really keep showing reruns forever can they? Will they change much? Will they be on satellite/cable?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Future of subchannels?
- Thread starter zeebre12
- Start date
Reruns? Sure they can. I think it might mirror what's happening to Oldies on radio. The 50's and 60's have made way for the 70's, 80's and in some cases the 90's as the desired demo ages in and the older demo ages out. Same thing with digisubs. There will always be enough rerun material. Right now we are seeing programs from the 50's, 60's and 70's and this will gradually morph into later decades. Plus digisubs give a space for all those crappy senior themed products to go so they don't have to take up expensive first line time.
As far as being on sat/cable who knows? I suspect if the costs are not too high and the bandwidth exists they might locate there.
Except for live sports programming virtually all of my TV watching is done on a subchannel. They just cancelled my favorite first run program so there is nothing left for me on the networks except sports (and not much of that).
As far as being on sat/cable who knows? I suspect if the costs are not too high and the bandwidth exists they might locate there.
Except for live sports programming virtually all of my TV watching is done on a subchannel. They just cancelled my favorite first run program so there is nothing left for me on the networks except sports (and not much of that).
A
Aquarius
Guest
They will just change programming with the demographics, I think in the next 10 years we'll see more shows from the 80's and 90's being added, opposed to 60's and 70's. Just like what happened with the transition of oldies into classic hits. I would personally love to see a network that airs 70's-90's TV shows.
We've already seen this with channels like TV Land, Nick at Nite, and Boomerang. Those started off as nostalgia based channels like a lot of sub channels, and have evolved with the times.
We've already seen this with channels like TV Land, Nick at Nite, and Boomerang. Those started off as nostalgia based channels like a lot of sub channels, and have evolved with the times.
Or maybe because of these corporate mergers happening, we might see the Big 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) networks in subchannels in some medium markets or worst case scenario, in the big 25, because of divestures of stations making them disaffiliate from their Big 4 network.
In this situation, I am traditionally against this, because it takes the traditional flair out of the station by moving it's viritual channel number, and it's more reasonable to move any Big 4 network to a main .1 channel. It's almost understandable and acceptable in small markets, but debatable in medium markets and senseless in large markets (The CW included).
I've seen this done with Sinclair and Howard Stirk (with the ABC 33/40 duo in Birmingham (33 didn't get back ABC, but 40 did, but on 40.2) and WCIV in Charleston), and I worry that HSH will get Tribune stations in conflicting markets and disaffiliate them from their Big 4 affiliation and bringing a subchannel network on the main channel, which results in them, in my opinion, being a waste of spectrum, unless they affiliate with another Big 4 network on their main channel.
In this situation, I am traditionally against this, because it takes the traditional flair out of the station by moving it's viritual channel number, and it's more reasonable to move any Big 4 network to a main .1 channel. It's almost understandable and acceptable in small markets, but debatable in medium markets and senseless in large markets (The CW included).
I've seen this done with Sinclair and Howard Stirk (with the ABC 33/40 duo in Birmingham (33 didn't get back ABC, but 40 did, but on 40.2) and WCIV in Charleston), and I worry that HSH will get Tribune stations in conflicting markets and disaffiliate them from their Big 4 affiliation and bringing a subchannel network on the main channel, which results in them, in my opinion, being a waste of spectrum, unless they affiliate with another Big 4 network on their main channel.
Last edited:
Unless you are OTA does it really matter if a station is on 3.1 or 6.2 (as example)?? This happened in Duluth, MN when Quincy bought Granite. KDLH 3-1 was CBS 3-2 CW SD and owned by Malara Broadcasting but was run by Granite for 10 years. KBJR 6-1 NBC 6-2 My SD was a Granite station. SagamoreHill owns KDLH and Quincy now owns KBJR. KDLH 3-1 CW HD, KBJR 6-1 NBC HD, 6-2 CBS HD, 6-3 MY SD. So in this case we GAINED a HD station (CW) while both CBS & NBC are in HD.
As long as its still in HD I dont care what the PSIP number is. We've had 3 examples where 2 stations owned by same folks combined PSIP in recent years.
RF34 2-1 KTCA PBS
RF23 2-2 KTCI MN Channel
RF23 2-3 KTCI TPT LIFE (combo of reruns, new stuff, kids, create)
RF34 2-4 PBS KIDS
RF34 2-5 TPT WX
All are in HD except weather
RF29 9-1 WFTC FOX HD
RF29 9-2 WFTC MY HD
RF29 9-3 Movies!
RF9 9-4 Buzzzr
RF9 9-5 Light
RF9 9-9 KMSP FOX HD
Yes FOX is in HD on 2 different stations
RF35 5-1 KSTP ABC 5
RF45 5-2 KSTC IND 45TV
RF45 5-3 Me
RF45 5-4 Antenna
RF45 5-6 This
RF35 5-7 H&I
The thing is both WFTC MY29 and KSTC 45TV are still called that even though neither have a PSIP of that number.
As long as its still in HD I dont care what the PSIP number is. We've had 3 examples where 2 stations owned by same folks combined PSIP in recent years.
RF34 2-1 KTCA PBS
RF23 2-2 KTCI MN Channel
RF23 2-3 KTCI TPT LIFE (combo of reruns, new stuff, kids, create)
RF34 2-4 PBS KIDS
RF34 2-5 TPT WX
All are in HD except weather
RF29 9-1 WFTC FOX HD
RF29 9-2 WFTC MY HD
RF29 9-3 Movies!
RF9 9-4 Buzzzr
RF9 9-5 Light
RF9 9-9 KMSP FOX HD
Yes FOX is in HD on 2 different stations
RF35 5-1 KSTP ABC 5
RF45 5-2 KSTC IND 45TV
RF45 5-3 Me
RF45 5-4 Antenna
RF45 5-6 This
RF35 5-7 H&I
The thing is both WFTC MY29 and KSTC 45TV are still called that even though neither have a PSIP of that number.
If ATSC 3.0 is developed there could be room for even more subchannels. Is it possible that the big 4 networks could take advantage of this and develop multiple feeds? Or could it be possible that major cable channels could become available on OTA subchannels?
I wouldn't be shocked if the FCC told the duopolies to consolidate onto one transmitter, if more subchannels per transmitter became possible. With PSIP, nobody could tell the difference anyway.
RSNs over the air tried and failed in the 1980s (for example, Sportsvision in Chicago on WPWR/WBBS Channel 60). Without a way to charge and unscramble (read: a separate box), it's not practical.
This is 2017, not 1967, or even 1987. How many stations can survive on ad revenue alone? I'll say None -- they've become dependent on cable/satellite carriage fees for at least 15 or 20 years. Those who watch their local channels via antenna are now considered freeloaders.
How about a Zombie Channel, Star Trek Channel, or a channel about super heroes like Wonder Woman or Superman since that is what is hot right now. Star Trek alone you could show only 20 shows and people would watch over and over and over again. Perhaps a 420 channel in states that has legal marijuana.
Sinclair could easily have their own news channel and FOX could start up a channel that shows nothing but the Simpsons. I do doubt very much that Antenna TV, MeTV, Buzzr, Cozi and the like will be around 10 years from now.
Sinclair could easily have their own news channel and FOX could start up a channel that shows nothing but the Simpsons. I do doubt very much that Antenna TV, MeTV, Buzzr, Cozi and the like will be around 10 years from now.
Last edited:
Heroes & Icons is basically your Star Trek Channel, as they show every TV show from that franchise.
By who(m)? The broadcasters? The cable/sat purveyors? I am certainly not a freeloader. I still watch via antenna and sit through endless stupid commercials so that the broadcaster can turn my viewing into their revenue. If I was a freeloader I would skip by every single promo and commercial and just watch the program......oh, wait, that is exactly what I do. Never mind.........
Yeah - me too. I can't see much future for sub-channels, with so much now available on the internet. As people "cut the cord," and streaming becomes even bigger than it is now, it will be hard for them to survive. Would you rather watch...say...Bewitched with more commercials that ran on the original show, and content edited to fit the half-hour, or sped-up, which I hear they do now - or- would you rather stream it, and have to suffer through a few seconds of internet advertising?
Unless those subchannels are affiliated with a Big 4 network, then they're useful. Examples would be the Sinclair-owned ABC affiliates in Birmingham (except for WBMA-LD) and Charleston, South Carolina. In this case, these stations were what I like to call "Howard Stirk'd". I wonder if any Tribune or Bonten stations will become "Howard Stirk'd". Minneapolis, is another story (with KMSP/WFTC & KSTP/KSTC; same virtual channel, different digital channels).
Sinclair, however, is not alone, Quincy also did this with WSJV-TV when they switched it to a subchannel network, H&I on it's main .1 channel. However, I wonder if WSJV-TV will once again, affiliate with ABC and WBND-LD gets H&I, and in essence, reversing South Bend's 1995 affiliation switch. In some markets, there is high cable penentration, but I don't know, considering that the rate may be decreasing from people that "cut the cord".
Top 50 Markets with subchannels having Big 4 networks:
9. Boston - WNEU & WMFP (excluding WBTS-LD) (NBC O&O).
15. Minneapolis* - WFTC/KMSP (MyTV/Fox).
45. Birmingham - WDBB, WABM, & WGWW (formerly WJSU-TV) (excluding WBMA-LD) (ABC).
48. Albuquerque - KRQE.2 (Fox, main .1 channel is CBS)
Last edited:
And from what I can see those stations are relying on their primary channel affiliations to pay the bill (ABC, NBC, etc.) and not the subchannel. Relatively few of the available subchannels in this market can be seen on cable. I have DirecTV and can get none of them via the dish.
On the other hand these are not TV stations as would have existed in the 1960's or 70's. No stagehands, camera crew, directors, writers, etc. We're talking basically a computer hooked to a transmitter. I have even seen a couple of local OTA subchannels where the programming stream crashed and a Roku screen appeared!
Sure they were. Back then they were called UHF stations.
Can't remember the trade publication I was reading recently (maybe Broadcasting and Cable?), but there was data that showed over the past 48 months, "dot two" channels were showing significant growth in viewership. Much of that growth was attributed to the increasing interest in OTA viewing. Channels like Bounce, Grit, and other classic movie networks, have replaced subscription and cable channels for the frugal, true cord-cutters. Consumer electronic stores like Best Buy and Amazon, aren't able to keep DTV antennas in stock.
incorrect. FOX is on the -1 and My is on the -2 on RF29. FOX is also on 9-9 on RF9 (KMSP). The reason they do this is two fold
-VHF doesnt work well with indoor antennas so allows folks with the UHF only antennas to get FOX
-Allows KMSP/WFTC to bring both FOX & MY to the outer parts of the market and not have to choose. There are translators around MN that carry the Minneapolis stations (due to it being so large). The translators can now have FOX, My and Movies! which is nice
- Status