• 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

Cable A La Carte again

T

TheREALJM1

I used to have cable. Then when it became an obvious rip off switched over to the Dish on two TV’s. I had antennas on the rest. Then, their prices started to rise and wanted more $$ for channels I didn’t want. A cable guy came down my street and saw my dish and came in and made me a deal. Among other things, the analog channels would be on all my sets and I would have two digital receivers. Also, I would get Starz-Encore, HBO, & Showtime all at a lower price than I would be paying for the Dish. He, also, promised this was a fixed rate. I would never get a rate hike except for the percentage that everyone got yearly. Well, after the first year, we got a huge spike in our bill. When we called, cable told us that was a promotional package and it was now over and we had to pay what everyone else paid. We even tracked down the salesman and he said he never told me the rates wouldn’t rise (liar, liar, pants on fire). Stupid me I didn’t get it in writing. So every year they give us a healthy rate increase and we end up taking a service off the system to make up for it. I have tried to go back to the Dish but they will not offer us any of their promotional packages because we had them and dropped them. Also, I have Road Runner and don’t want to drop it.

So today in the paper and (and I have read it earlier on the Net) about the FCC now reversing its decision about a la carte pricing on cable and satellite. It has now been found that that consumers would actually pay less for the services if they were allowed to pick and choose the channels they want. The FCC said its earlier decision was based on the testimony from the cable industry. Isn’t that like the hens listening to the fox? I have said before on this forum that I would probably want ten channels, or less (other than local) and can’t possibly see how that can cost me more money than I am paying now.
As far as the unpopular channels going out of business, tough luck. This is a capitalistic society. For once I would like to see it work for my advantage. I don’t need to pay for channels in a language I don’t understand, a religion I don’t practice, or crap I don’t want to buy.

I remember having cable in the late 70’s. It was only 12 channels. There was a lot more on it I found informative and entertaining and it was a LOT cheaper. Sorry big wig corporate guys, a la carte program choices are for me! Maybe, just maybe, the consumer will win this time.
 
> I used to have cable. Then when it became an obvious rip
> off switched over to the Dish on two TV’s. I had antennas on
> the rest. Then, their prices started to rise and wanted
> more $$ for channels I didn’t want. A cable guy came down
> my street and saw my dish and came in and made me a deal.
> Among other things, the analog channels would be on all my
> sets and I would have two digital receivers. Also, I would
> get Starz-Encore, HBO, & Showtime all at a lower price than
> I would be paying for the Dish. He, also, promised this was
> a fixed rate. I would never get a rate hike except for the
> percentage that everyone got yearly. Well, after the first
> year, we got a huge spike in our bill. When we called,
> cable told us that was a promotional package and it was now
> over and we had to pay what everyone else paid. We even
> tracked down the salesman and he said he never told me the
> rates wouldn’t rise (liar, liar, pants on fire). Stupid me
> I didn’t get it in writing. So every year they give us a
> healthy rate increase and we end up taking a service off the
> system to make up for it. I have tried to go back to the
> Dish but they will not offer us any of their promotional
> packages because we had them and dropped them. Also, I have
> Road Runner and don’t want to drop it.
>
> So today in the paper and (and I have read it earlier on the
> Net) about the FCC now reversing its decision about a la
> carte pricing on cable and satellite. It has now been found
> that that consumers would actually pay less for the services
> if they were allowed to pick and choose the channels they
> want. The FCC said its earlier decision was based on the
> testimony from the cable industry. Isn’t that like the hens
> listening to the fox? I have said before on this forum that
> I would probably want ten channels, or less (other than
> local) and can’t possibly see how that can cost me more
> money than I am paying now.
> As far as the unpopular channels going out of business,
> tough luck. This is a capitalistic society. For once I
> would like to see it work for my advantage. I don’t need to
> pay for channels in a language I don’t understand, a
> religion I don’t practice, or crap I don’t want to buy.
>
> I remember having cable in the late 70’s. It was only 12
> channels. There was a lot more on it I found informative
> and entertaining and it was a LOT cheaper. Sorry big wig
> corporate guys, a la carte program choices are for me!
> Maybe, just maybe, the consumer will win this time.
>
Well said. Cable and satellite companies are hawking a bill of goods that's sheathed in numbers of channels offered. As consumers we tend to fall for the massive outlay of channels without looking at the actual content, and the cable/satellite providers realize that fact all too well. They capitalize on the fact that we are hooked on a 100 channel or more service menu and wouldn't think of reverting to OTA reception and having "only" 10 or 12 channel choices. So, knowing, this fact cable/sat companies offer up more tripe for more and more money while clients realize decreasingly useful or entertaining programming in return. It's a numbers game that obviously works in terms of supporting vendors' bottom line. Other posters have said we as buyers are partially to blame for keeping the inflow of money to programmers going. A sure way to respond is to boycott cable and satellite companies, but given our addiction to hundred plus program choices, that's not likely to happen. The game goes on.
 
You've sparked an idea!

> ......A sure way to respond is to
> boycott cable and satellite companies, but given our
> addiction to hundred plus program choices, that's not likely
> to happen. The game goes on.

Probably impractical but perhaps not impossible:

Here are hundreds of stations across the country scrambling to line
up new programming in light of the WB/UPN matter. Wonder what would
happen if some of these were to whip up contracts with, for example,
Discovery, The History Channel, TLC or similar to carry those
"networks" OTA?

Of course it would really hit the fan if an OTA channel carrying one
of them were to demand "must carry" from the local cable company.
Also, would any of the programmers be willing to expose their entire
content to FCC "decency" scrutiny? No, they're not blatantly offensive
but do sometimes allow the explicit when it's appropriate to the overall
subject at hand.

Just where I live...and in the area to which I'll be moving...there
are presently at least five non-major network OTA's with really weak
programming. I'd love to see them cherry-pick the most popular "cable"
channels. Chances are pretty good I'd (in either place) be able to
drop DISH entirely without missing much, if anything!

Perhaps just the threat of something like this happening might be enough
to drag cable and satellite kicking and screaming to the river of a la
carte!


Now, excuse me, a flock of pigs just flew over. I gotta get the shotgun
'cause it's porker migration season and the freezer is a little low on
bacon.
<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>
 
Re: You've sparked an idea!

> >> Here are hundreds of stations across the country scrambling
> to line
> up new programming in light of the WB/UPN matter. Wonder
> what would
> happen if some of these were to whip up contracts with, for
> example,
> Discovery, The History Channel, TLC or similar to carry
> those
> "networks" OTA?

Actually don't be too surprised if in the future some cable channels are on broadcast TV. What would stop CBS from offering MTV, VH1, or Nick on the digital channels of their local affiliates? Or ABC offering ESPN to their affiliates to run on their sub channels. Could happen.
>
> >
>
> Now, excuse me, a flock of pigs just flew over. I gotta get
> the shotgun
> 'cause it's porker migration season and the freezer is a
> little low on
> bacon.

> Good huntin' and may the a la carte be with you.
 
A question on your philosophical comment, if I may

> As far as the unpopular channels going out of business,
> tough luck.

Would you feel the same way if one of the channels you wanted was attracting so few subscribers that it went out of business?

I also fear that some of the channels I would choose to "unsubscribe" from are ones that don't affect my bill. I already lock out the religious and shopping channels, but my understanding of the legal aspect of those channels' presence on DirecTV is that no part of my bill goes toward their carriage; I would receive them even if I hooked my receiver to the dish without having a subscription.

Other than those, pay-per-view/premium, Spanish language, and most of the XM channels, here are the channels I have "unsubscribed" from by programming the "favorite channels" feature on my receiver:
CNN
Headline News
ESPN
ESPNews
ESPN Classic
ESPN2
TV Guide Channel
HGTV
DIY
Fine Living
TV One
Fox Reality
Lifetime Movie Network
AMC
i
We
Lifetime Real Women
Discovery Home
Military Channel
Disney Channel
Toon Disney
Discovery Kids
PBS Kids
Noggin
Nickelodeon
Nicktoons
BET
MTV
MTV2
Fuse
Bloomberg
G4
CNBC World
Fox News
Current
Fit TV
PBS You
Speed Channel
OLN

How much of my monthly $45 do you think they'd give me back for formally unsubscribing to those?<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> I used to have cable. Then when it became an obvious rip
> off switched over to the Dish on two TV’s. I had antennas on
> the rest. Then, their prices started to rise and wanted
> more $$ for channels I didn’t want. A cable guy came down
> my street and saw my dish and came in and made me a deal.
> Among other things, the analog channels would be on all my
> sets and I would have two digital receivers. Also, I would
> get Starz-Encore, HBO, & Showtime all at a lower price than
> I would be paying for the Dish. He, also, promised this was
> a fixed rate. I would never get a rate hike except for the
> percentage that everyone got yearly. Well, after the first
> year, we got a huge spike in our bill. When we called,
> cable told us that was a promotional package and it was now
> over and we had to pay what everyone else paid. We even
> tracked down the salesman and he said he never told me the
> rates wouldn’t rise (liar, liar, pants on fire). Stupid me
> I didn’t get it in writing. So every year they give us a
> healthy rate increase and we end up taking a service off the
> system to make up for it. I have tried to go back to the
> Dish but they will not offer us any of their promotional
> packages because we had them and dropped them. Also, I have
> Road Runner and don’t want to drop it.
>
> So today in the paper and (and I have read it earlier on the
> Net) about the FCC now reversing its decision about a la
> carte pricing on cable and satellite. It has now been found
> that that consumers would actually pay less for the services
> if they were allowed to pick and choose the channels they
> want. The FCC said its earlier decision was based on the
> testimony from the cable industry. Isn’t that like the hens
> listening to the fox? I have said before on this forum that
> I would probably want ten channels, or less (other than
> local) and can’t possibly see how that can cost me more
> money than I am paying now.
> As far as the unpopular channels going out of business,
> tough luck. This is a capitalistic society. For once I
> would like to see it work for my advantage. I don’t need to
> pay for channels in a language I don’t understand, a
> religion I don’t practice, or crap I don’t want to buy.
>
> I remember having cable in the late 70’s. It was only 12
> channels. There was a lot more on it I found informative
> and entertaining and it was a LOT cheaper. Sorry big wig
> corporate guys, a la carte program choices are for me!
> Maybe, just maybe, the consumer will win this time.
>
How about OTA cable? With only 12 station slots available they could play the best of cable. This group has started:

http://www.usdtv.com/

(Thanks to ChrisPC)

The line-up needs work but at least it is a start. I'd get it if I was in the right town. With the multicasting that many networks will take up I doubt anyone will care to have a news station in the future, so I wouldn't pay exorbinant prices for a cable news network. No reason for Disney toons or LMN. Hispanic channels already over the air so no reason to repeat. Same with weather. VH1 and E! would be good ideas. Once it is scrambled, the FCC won't touch it. HBO started out this way IIRC.

The best solution is cable competition- satellite seems to have dropped the ball so we need another option IMHO. At least this seems a way forward for those of us who would like a "cable-lite".

If I guess correctly the cable companies will do everything in their power to screw those who try to save a buck by going a la carte.
 
Re: You've sparked an idea!

> > >> Here are hundreds of stations across the country
> scrambling
> > to line
> > up new programming in light of the WB/UPN matter. Wonder
> > what would
> > happen if some of these were to whip up contracts with,
> for
> > example,
> > Discovery, The History Channel, TLC or similar to carry
> > those
> > "networks" OTA?
>
> Actually don't be too surprised if in the future some cable
> channels are on broadcast TV. What would stop CBS from
> offering MTV, VH1, or Nick on the digital channels of their
> local affiliates? Or ABC offering ESPN to their affiliates
> to run on their sub channels. Could happen.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Now, excuse me, a flock of pigs just flew over. I gotta
> get
> > the shotgun
> > 'cause it's porker migration season and the freezer is a
> > little low on
> > bacon.
>
> > Good huntin' and may the a la carte be with you.
>
Two excellent observarions. We wish for a la carte (among other things) while the cartel tightens its firm grasp.
 
Re: You've sparked an idea!

> Actually don't be too surprised if in the future some cable
> channels are on broadcast TV. What would stop CBS from
> offering MTV, VH1, or Nick on the digital channels of their
> local affiliates?

Spltting CBS and its stations from Viacom, which is keeping the MTV family of channels. This is the reason why CBS is switching from Nick Jr. to DIC this fall for their kiddie shows.
 
Re: A question on your philosophical comment, if I may

> Would you feel the same way if one of the channels you
> wanted was attracting so few subscribers that it went out of
> business?

No one wants to see their own favorite channel disappear...but, if that channel lacks the support to stay on the air, is it really fair and appropriate to force the people watching other channels to pick up the bill to keep it afloat and profitable. Aside from that, I tend to suspect that the channels that would go away are the multitude of "me too" channels that seem to exist for little other reason than the programmer could extort the capacity from cable and satellite companies. Look at it this way: I doubt that flagship channels like Discovery would go away -- but the multitude of digital "Discovery-lite" channels would probably get pared down as it turns out that viewers weren't inclined to pay for all twelve (or whatever the current number is) of them when given the choice.

As for the ones that do end up disappearing: how many of us have mourned the loss of a favorite radio station over the years? Why should cable/satellite TV networks be any different? For that matter, why is it okay for the marketplace to say that broadcast networks (UPN and the WB) can be consolidated if the market won't support them...but allowing the same thing to happen to cable/satellite networks would be a problem. If a few cable channels go away, I don't see that as being a bigger loss than the sixth broadcast network.

> How much of my monthly $45 do you think they'd give me back
> for formally unsubscribing to those?

Probably quite a bit, since you'd be unsubscribing to some of the most expensive "basic" cable channels available...notably the ESPN suite.
 
> How about OTA cable? With only 12 station slots available
> they could play the best of cable. This group has started:
>
> http://www.usdtv.com/

How about no? This nonsense robs bandwidth from HD programming when it is shown on network stations. It's annoying that the spectrum that has been granted to these stations to provide a public service is shut off and encrypted for a private service that isn't that good.

If it's shown on Infomercial stations, great, but when it's showing up on KOAT in Albuquerque and people are complaining about how bad the HD looks because of it, then it's a problem.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
 
Re: A question on your philosophical comment, if I may

> Look at it this way: I
> doubt that flagship channels like Discovery would go away --
> but the multitude of digital "Discovery-lite" channels would
> probably get pared down as it turns out that viewers weren't
> inclined to pay for all twelve (or whatever the current
> number is) of them when given the choice.

My bet is that a la carte would end up being "suites", just as a subscription to HBO includes HBO Family, HBO Signature, etc.

Discovery might be the main channel, Science Channel, Discovery Times, Military Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Health, Travel Channel. Discovery Kids, and Discovery Home. You get all the "Discovery-lite" channels free because you subscribe to Discovery.

Similarly, A&E might well include History Channel, History International, and Biography Channel.

TBS might be bundled with TNT and Turner Classic Movies.

Etc., etc., etc.

> > How much of my monthly $45 do you think they'd give me
> back
> > for formally unsubscribing to those?
>
> Probably quite a bit, since you'd be unsubscribing to some
> of the most expensive "basic" cable channels
> available...notably the ESPN suite.

Of course, I still pay less for satellite than I would for cable where I live, so it isn't critical to me.

It will be interesting to watch what the impact is, won't it, though? <P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
At what point?

> Of course, I still pay less for satellite than I would for
> cable where I live, so it isn't critical to me.

Recent mega-hikes in cable pricing have provided "protection" for
DISH and DirectTV in that they can kick up their prices without
risk defections to cable. But is the see-saw a perpetual motion
machine?

For me the breaking point came at $50/month for basic cable and I
went over to DISH even though, where I lived at the time, I had to
mount a 1-meter dish at a 3-degree look angle and lost signal every
time a seagull shat between 100 and 150 miles southeast. It was
still a better value.

Certainly not everyone has a breaking point; they'll just buy a
new jar of vaseline and....

How about a little informal poll here? For those among us who have
off-air signals available (that rules out most apartment dwellers
who would need a prohibited antenna and are hostage), what's the
breaking point? How expensive can satellite become before you
simply bag it? I realize that some of us enjoy our favorites; I'd
imagine movies and sports are high on the list, sufficiently that
there is NO upper limit even if it means losing the house to late
mortgage payments. But for many folks....

As I may have mentioned earlier, of DISH's "America's Top 60", I
actually use only eleven...and some of those rarely. With the
extra fee for local channels, most of which are available OTA but
with a marginal signal for some, the tab is now $34.95 a month.
Were I to stay here I'd drop the local channels at the next price
increase and just push the A/B switch (old antenna is still standing).
That pretty well means that $35.00 is MY breaking point. What's
yours????

Does anyone think the cable giants, DISH and DirectTV haven't done
extensive research to define how much they can get away with?<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>
 
Re: At what point?

> > Of course, I still pay less for satellite than I would for
>
> > cable where I live, so it isn't critical to me.
>
> Recent mega-hikes in cable pricing have provided
> "protection" for
> DISH and DirectTV in that they can kick up their prices
> without
> risk defections to cable. But is the see-saw a perpetual
> motion
> machine?
>
> For me the breaking point came at $50/month for basic cable
> and I
> went over to DISH even though, where I lived at the time, I
> had to
> mount a 1-meter dish at a 3-degree look angle and lost
> signal every
> time a seagull shat between 100 and 150 miles southeast. It
> was
> still a better value.
>
> Certainly not everyone has a breaking point; they'll just
> buy a
> new jar of vaseline and....
>
> How about a little informal poll here? For those among us
> who have
> off-air signals available (that rules out most apartment
> dwellers
> who would need a prohibited antenna and are hostage), what's
> the
> breaking point? How expensive can satellite become before
> you
> simply bag it? I realize that some of us enjoy our
> favorites; I'd
> imagine movies and sports are high on the list, sufficiently
> that
> there is NO upper limit even if it means losing the house to
> late
> mortgage payments. But for many folks....
>
> As I may have mentioned earlier, of DISH's "America's Top
> 60", I
> actually use only eleven...and some of those rarely. With
> the
> extra fee for local channels, most of which are available
> OTA but
> with a marginal signal for some, the tab is now $34.95 a
> month.
> Were I to stay here I'd drop the local channels at the next
> price
> increase and just push the A/B switch (old antenna is still
> standing).
> That pretty well means that $35.00 is MY breaking point.
> What's
> yours????
>
> Does anyone think the cable giants, DISH and DirectTV
> haven't done
> extensive research to define how much they can get away
> with?


Doesn't appear that they have, nor does it look as if they even care. Your point is interesting, though, since there's obviously a rate past which the traffic won't bear any more cost increases. DirectTV's just-announced 14 percent increase effective March 1 puts me right at the departure point since there no doubt will be another hefty increase in another year. Cable and satellite are feeding on each other's rate structures, in effect saying "either pay THEIR high prices or pay OUR high prices. Take your pick."
>
 
Re: At what point?

This isn't about losing a favourite channel. It's about promoting competition.

The cable companies know they have you hostage. If I can say "Look I'm going with another provider that will give me EQUAL or NEAR EQUAL product." They will keep on their toes

Remember when I drop cable I the cable company doesn't lose me to another company. It simply loses me and thinks "Well this guy will soon tire of his snowy picture and come back"

Cable Networks fail in their programming because of lack of competition. Take Discovery. Their shows rerun ad nauseum. I bet you could take all the Discovery Nets and make two channels from them that DON'T rerun programs ad nauseum

As for the use of OTA signal. Better idea. The biggest hinderence to HDTV is it isn't needed. Outside of sports and maybe a few nature shows, HDTV offers no improvement at a HUGE price.

Does seeing Ryan Seacrest in HDTV make the program better? Does seeing the pores on the guy doing the NBC Nightly News make it any more informative. Or does HDTV simply jack up the cost of broadcasting.

Again for sports or nature shows it does have a place. And while you certainly can turn old reruns into HDTV (35mm filmed shows are better than HDTV quality so they can be converted) but outside of Hogan's Heroes I can't think of one that has gone that route.

We need REAL competition. Just as AT&T gave up their phone lines for use by other companies to open up the competition we need that to happen to cable.

DISH and DIRECT TV are NOT cable. And though they provide an alternative they are not direct competition. When I say competition I mean say how K-Mart is to Wal Mart is to Target. Or Macy's is to Saks is to Nordstorms.

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong!

> DirectTV's just-announced 14 percent
> increase effective March 1 puts me right at the departure
> point since there no doubt will be another hefty increase in
> another year.

All it took was one person quoting the percentage wrong on this board and now everyone misquotes it.

The DirecTV (no double "t") increase is <u>6.5%</u> ($3 per month) for existing subscribers. New subscribers will see a 7.1% to 8.7% increase if they sign up after March 1. The increase is nowhere near 14%.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6301692.html?title=Article&spacedesc=news>http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6301692.html?title=Article&spacedesc=news</a><P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: A question on your philosophical comment, if I may

Lots of channels will go out of business, and subscribing to some (particularly the sports channels,) will have to go up in price significantly. Forget about starting any new channels. With the model we have now, if I tune into a show, even for a few minutes, those advertisers have my eyes for that amount of time. I have occasionally watched a concert on BET, a rerun of Nat King Cole on BET Jazz, or..heaven forbid..even part of a Lifetime movie occasionally (latter VERY occasionally). Am I going to choose BET, BET Jazz or Lifetime as my Ala Carte choice? No! So those nets lose me forever. As for religious right folks who want to pick only "family" proramming..there will definately be less. I might watch something occasionally on ABC Family but probably won't pick it. Definately won't take TBN.
 
Re: At what point?

> This isn't about losing a favourite channel. It's about
> promoting competition.
>
> The cable companies know they have you hostage.

That's a bit melodramatic. It's a luxury service; how does anyone, satellite or cable, hold someone hostage for something optional?

>If I can say
> "Look I'm going with another provider that will give me
> EQUAL or NEAR EQUAL product." They will keep on their toes

You can--multichannel video service comes from at least three, sometimes four and soon five or more sources.


>
> Cable Networks fail in their programming because of lack of
> competition. Take Discovery. Their shows rerun ad nauseum. I
> bet you could take all the Discovery Nets and make two
> channels from them that DON'T rerun programs ad nauseum

Lack of competition? The number of networks grows every year.


> Does seeing Ryan Seacrest in HDTV make the program better?
> Does seeing the pores on the guy doing the NBC Nightly News
> make it any more informative. Or does HDTV simply jack up
> the cost of broadcasting.

Agreed; and makes a lucrative market for the makers of the digital-to-analog converters that will be needed to keep old sets running.


>
> We need REAL competition. Just as AT&T gave up their phone
> lines for use by other companies to open up the competition
> we need that to happen to cable.
>
> DISH and DIRECT TV are NOT cable.

So what? They offer television services. Whether the signals come in via a dish or a cable system, HBO is HBO. Discovery is Discovery.

> And though they provide an
> alternative they are not direct competition.

They most certainly are competition--they provide the same services, i.e. television signals--directly to customer homes.
 
Re: At what point?

> Outside of sports and
> maybe a few nature shows, HDTV offers no improvement at a
> HUGE price.

Have you seen "Lost" or "Smallville" in HD? Definitely a huge improvement or the standard definition broadcasts...

> Again for sports or nature shows it does have a place. And
> while you certainly can turn old reruns into HDTV (35mm
> filmed shows are better than HDTV quality so they can be
> converted) but outside of Hogan's Heroes I can't think of
> one that has gone that route.

"Charlie's Angels" has also run on HDNet in HDTV. It has also been widely reported that Paramount has remastered both "I Love Lucy" and "Cheers" into HDTV. Although less widely noted, it seems likely that at least some episodes of other series ("The Brady Bunch" and "Bewitched" come to mind) have been remastered. What's lacking right now is the distribution to get these programs to the home viewer in HD...but that will come.
 
> > How about OTA cable? With only 12 station slots available
> > they could play the best of cable. This group has started:
>
> >
> > http://www.usdtv.com/
>
> How about no? This nonsense robs bandwidth from HD
> programming when it is shown on network stations. It's
> annoying that the spectrum that has been granted to these
> stations to provide a public service is shut off and
> encrypted for a private service that isn't that good.
>
> If it's shown on Infomercial stations, great, but when it's
> showing up on KOAT in Albuquerque and people are complaining
> about how bad the HD looks because of it, then it's a
> problem.
>
> - Trip
>
Well, my understanding must be wrong. If I get what happened right, the FCC has made two VHF channels available for pay tv service for years- with digital compression you can put 12 480p digital stations on in place of those two analog slots. I think that is all they are doing. No loss from traditional broadcasters who could never use those slots anyway. The rest of the stations are broadcast on their regular frequencies (in HD if applicable). The website should be more transparent about this. All these people are getting is 2 channels of OTA pay tv, compressed to 12 channels, which has been around for a long time but has rarely been used, and the rest is just what they would pick up for free with an antenna.

What is this concern about space on the dial anyway. Once the digital revolution is over (I bet 2009) the big broadcasters will have to drop their simulcast stations and suddenly everything opens up big time. TV does not have a lack of channels problem.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom