ARE SUB-CHANNELS FINALLY GETTING THEIR RECOGNITION

[gregg75]

In the past few months we've seen the start of Antenna TV and Me-TV has gone national.
Now CBS is wanting to get into the game also. I think this board has always seen the value
in these sub channels. "There could be some gold in them thar hills."

Finally, the stations seem to be realizing that they have them, might as well do something
with them. Why have a six room house with furniture only in two rooms? Although it seems
like it's been a long time, it's really only been about 21+ months since the digital transition.
So, in that short time, I'd say the importance and marketability of sub-channels has finally
hit home.

But, there are still plenty of hold-out stations in all cities. Will it be an embarrassment to be the
last station in town to use them or the only one left in town without any subs?

 

[KeithE4]

What value? Here in Phoenix, most of the subchannels are worthless. Weather, religion, and infomercials (English and Spanish) for the most part, including all the LPTV/Class A stations except for KAZT, which has RTV on 7.2. The only other subchannels worth watching are ThisTV on KTVK 3.2 and PBS World on KAET 8.3.

KSAZ/10 (Fox) and KASW/61 (CW) don't have any subchannels and no plans to start them - at least I haven't heard of any.

 

[landtuna]

What value? Here in Phoenix, most of the subchannels are worthless. Weather, religion, and infomercials (English and Spanish) for the most part, including all the LPTV/Class A stations except for KAZT, which has RTV on 7.2. The only other subchannels worth watching are ThisTV on KTVK 3.2 and PBS World on KAET 8.3.

KSAZ/10 (Fox) and KASW/61 (CW) don't have any subchannels and no plans to start them - at least I haven't heard of any.

What he said.

A technicality but channel 45 does have a sub which simulcasts KSAZ/10 as 10.2 because 10.1 has such a lousy signal. 61's signal is pretty bad as well.

And if you want to really strain your eyeballs tune in to 44.4 and watch an old fuzzy western movie in all it's minimum bit-rate glory. I swear Lash LaRue had two eyes but in this movie he had only one. ???

 

[imhomerjay]

Value takes time to build, and won't be the same in every location. No surprise things take time--you have to walk before you can run.

 

[Markxxx]

I think part of it is the fear they will lose part of the spectrum. If it's already in use, no matter how inane, it'd be harder for the FCC to justify taking it back

 

[landtuna]

My understanding is that 19.39 (or thereabouts) was the pre-DTV bandwidth for analog TV and it is unchanged today.

So what was all that BS about needing additional frequencies for emergency first responders et. al.?

 

[gregg75]

Yes there are some poor sub-channels out there, but there are some good ones also. Sub
channels are kinda like diamond mines..............you open 4 mines and hope to find diamonds
in one of them. I only see good times ahead for subs.

My advice for some of these below par subs.............the stations should get rid of them and
try something else (a new sub). Why hold on to a sinking ship? If Universal Sports isn't
working today it's probably not going to be working 3 years from now either.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

My understanding is that 19.39 (or thereabouts) was the pre-DTV bandwidth for analog TV and it is unchanged today.

So what was all that BS about needing additional frequencies for emergency first responders et. al.?

The 19.39 Mbps is more efficiently used under the DTV scheme, so fewer frequency blocks are needed for television stations.

 

[landtuna]

My understanding is that 19.39 (or thereabouts) was the pre-DTV bandwidth for analog TV and it is unchanged today.

So what was all that BS about needing additional frequencies for emergency first responders et. al.?

The 19.39 Mbps is more efficiently used under the DTV scheme, so fewer frequency blocks are needed for television stations.

"Frequency blocks"? Never mind. Got it. Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF, right? Except where it doesn't.

 

[arnoldevns]

I would like to see Fox do a headline news type of sub-channel for its affiliates. CNN Headline News isn't doing headline new anymore and there is a demand for that. If the local stations could share content with the channel, split ad time, and do cut-ins on the channel when they wanted, I think it could be a pretty decent service.

 

[Ultimajock]

I would like to see Fox do a headline news type of sub-channel for its affiliates.

...most Fox affiliates not owned by NewsCorp don't want to be associated with Fascist Noise Channel. I spoke to one of the anchors for the newscast at KMSB/v11, the Tucson Fox affiliate (owned by Belo), and he told me that whenever he covers a story he simply refers to "Channel 11 News" rather than "Fox 11," so that people don't assume he's working for Roger Ailes' propaganda machine. I've heard the same from news personnel from other affiliates (Raycom's WBRC/v6 Birmingham, Local's WITI/v6 Milwaukee, LIN's WLUK/11 Green Bay, Grant's WLAX/v25 La Crosse). Only Fox O&Os would carry the thing, I'm sure...

 

[dhett]

Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF

Which nobody wants. UHF is the gold mine now, due to the need for a much smaller antenna. That's why the FCC was proposing to take channels 32-51 from television use and give it to other services, and trying to find ways to get TV back into the VHF frequencies. As for the "use it or lose it" attitude, stations are scrambling to fill their "empty boxcars", lest they be forced into a "shared channel" scenario, which is one of the first solutions that the FCC always seems to bring up as a way to reduce TV's usage of bandwidth.

Statement from FCC chief Julius Genachowski: http://www.cavellmertz.com/uploads/N_285_fcc-10-196a2.pdf

Stations such as Phoenix locals KVPA-LD and KDPH-LD, which only broadcast one SD stream, use less than half of their allocated bandwidth.

 

[flashback]

4.2 here is THIS-TV and ANTENNA-TV is on 59.2.so it is available on over the air tv here.

 

[imhomerjay]

most Fox affiliates not owned by NewsCorp don't want to be associated with Fascist Noise Channel. I spoke to one of the anchors for the newscast at KMSB/v11, the Tucson Fox affiliate (owned by Belo), and he told me that whenever he covers a story he simply refers to "Channel 11 News" rather than "Fox 11," so that people don't assume he's working for Roger Ailes' propaganda machine. I've heard the same from news personnel from other affiliates (Raycom's WBRC/v6 Birmingham, Local's WITI/v6 Milwaukee, LIN's WLUK/11 Green Bay, Grant's WLAX/v25 La Crosse). Only Fox O&Os would carry the thing, I'm sure...

So a few opinions of staffers at a handful of stations means "most" would have a certain corporate perspective? Sure.

 

[Bill_W]

I would like to see Fox do a headline news type of sub-channel for its affiliates.

...most Fox affiliates not owned by NewsCorp don't want to be associated with Fascist Noise Channel. I spoke to one of the anchors for the newscast at KMSB/v11, the Tucson Fox affiliate (owned by Belo), and he told me that whenever he covers a story he simply refers to "Channel 11 News" rather than "Fox 11," so that people don't assume he's working for Roger Ailes' propaganda machine. I've heard the same from news personnel from other affiliates (Raycom's WBRC/v6 Birmingham, Local's WITI/v6 Milwaukee, LIN's WLUK/11 Green Bay, Grant's WLAX/v25 La Crosse). Only Fox O&Os would carry the thing, I'm sure...

Glad I'm in Philly where WTXF is Fox O&O! By the way, FNC stands for Fox News Channel. Look @ their ratings compared to MSNBC and CNN. FNC usually beats both put together!

 

[landtuna]

Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF

Which nobody wants.

Maybe it would make more sense for the feds to subsidize the 15% of us who still view OTA so we'll sign up for cable. The FCC can then reclaim the entire TV spectrum and the individual TV stations can save tons of money on equipment and power bills.

 

[BMR]

Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF

Which nobody wants.

Maybe it would make more sense for the feds to subsidize the 15% of us who still view OTA so we'll sign up for cable. The FCC can then reclaim the entire TV spectrum and the individual TV stations can save tons of money on equipment and power bills.

(my usual 'ignorant Brit' disclaimer here)

Surely that 15% is for main sets? Certainly in the UK most 2nd/3rd sets are still using over the air? Or is it different in the US?

 

[landtuna]

Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF

Which nobody wants.

Maybe it would make more sense for the feds to subsidize the 15% of us who still view OTA so we'll sign up for cable. The FCC can then reclaim the entire TV spectrum and the individual TV stations can save tons of money on equipment and power bills.

(my usual 'ignorant Brit' disclaimer here)

Surely that 15% is for main sets? Certainly in the UK most 2nd/3rd sets are still using over the air? Or is it different in the US?

I think the 15% is by household, not individual sets.

In my personal experience subscribing to cable/sat is a household thing. If there is a main cable/sat feed it is available on all sets. Both cable/sat providers tend to make it more or less economical to add 2nd/3rd sets to your main subscription (usually something like $5/box or so but may not be HD).

There is no tax "penalty" in the US for 2nd/3rd set top boxes (other than a small amount of sales tax). There is no licensing per set as there is in the UK.

 

[BMR]

Basically DTV free's up the lo-band VHF

Which nobody wants.

Maybe it would make more sense for the feds to subsidize the 15% of us who still view OTA so we'll sign up for cable. The FCC can then reclaim the entire TV spectrum and the individual TV stations can save tons of money on equipment and power bills.

(my usual 'ignorant Brit' disclaimer here)

Surely that 15% is for main sets? Certainly in the UK most 2nd/3rd sets are still using over the air? Or is it different in the US?

I think the 15% is by household, not individual sets.

In my personal experience subscribing to cable/sat is a household thing. If there is a main cable/sat feed it is available on all sets. Both cable/sat providers tend to make it more or less economical to add 2nd/3rd sets to your main subscription (usually something like $5/box or so but may not be HD).

There is no tax "penalty" in the US for 2nd/3rd set top boxes (other than a small amount of sales tax). There is no licensing per set as there is in the UK.

No licence per set in the UK either. It's a flat rate per household.

With many people in the UK holding on to their CRT sets when they brought new flat panels and moving them to bedrooms, conservatories etc, 3 or 4 TVs in a house is quite common.

 

[quadraphonic]

Man it says something good for the power of Fox News Channel's marketing when someone can refer to it as "Fascist Noise Channel" and (most) people are still pretty sure that guy's referring to Fox News Channel. That is some branding right there!