Cable Television Networks

[e-dawg]

Cable during the hay days of the 80's and 90's before digital cable took over was meant for specific types of genre and specific types of programs. For example,

MTV: Was a 24Hour music network, now it's reality tv crap such as Teen Mom, Real World, Teen Wolf.
VH1: Same as MTV, but more reality crap dramas that deals with the surreal actors/actress
CMT: Same as MTV, but more reality tv crap that is base on Rural life.
TLC: Was supposed to be (The Learning Channel), but I don't learn anything by watching Here comes Honey Boo Boo, or Medium, or Funeral Planner
BRAVO: Was supposed to be arts and high brow programs, now is Tabitha takes over, or some reality fashion crap.
A&E: Same thing with bravo, but more reality tv crap.
National Geographic: Was supposed to be a Science/Nature TV program, now it shows reality tv crap such as Gypies.
HistoryTV Was supposed to be History things, now shows crap.
TV LAND Was supposed to be classic tv, now it shows some modern sitcom tv such as "Hot in Cleveland"
Gameshow Network Was supposed to show classic game shows, now it shows obscure game shows, and repeatedly same game shows.
LOGO Was supposed to show LGBT programs or themes, now it shows craps shows that the other cable channel networks are showing.
HLN Was supposed to show 24 Hrs non-stop news, now it showing non news and talk shows.
Weather ChannelWas supposed to be 24 Hrs non-stop weather, now it showing some documentries of Storm Chasers, and Storm Stories.

Any others?

 

[mgsports]

ESPNNEWS was Sports News 24/7 know has like SVP Show,repeats of Sports Nation and so on replacing Highlight Express,some Sportscenters
We have other MTV'S and CMT'S/CH1'S for Music.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yes, but what has this to do with digital as opposed to analog cable?

This is about cable programmers not being satisfied with the audience reach of their basic format. So, they water it down thinking they will get more people to watch (and the people they've got don't have any place else to go).

The more channels you add, the tougher it gets to find something you want to watch. Welcome to the come-back of LOP (least objectionable program).

AMC was supposed to be American Movie Classics, now it shows semi-recent movie crap plus original TV series never shown in a theater.

 

[FightingIrish]

Yes, but what has this to do with digital as opposed to analog cable?

This is about cable programmers not being satisfied with the audience reach of their basic format. So, they water it down thinking they will get more people to watch (and the people they've got don't have any place else to go).

The more channels you add, the tougher it gets to find something you want to watch. Welcome to the come-back of LOP (least objectionable program).

AMC was supposed to be American Movie Classics, now it shows semi-recent movie crap plus original TV series never shown in a theater.

Of all the cable networks that have changed their programming strategies (usually for the worse), I'll give AMC a slide. They had their whole strategy and most of their better programming taken by TCM, which does the same thing AMC used to do. That didn't leave them with much. So they added more recent movies and some very high quality original programming. I'd say that AMC, while shifting from their original mission, has at least maintained or improved their integrity. Plus, TCM fills the classic movie void very well.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yes, but what has this to do with digital as opposed to analog cable?

This is about cable programmers not being satisfied with the audience reach of their basic format. So, they water it down thinking they will get more people to watch (and the people they've got don't have any place else to go).

The more channels you add, the tougher it gets to find something you want to watch. Welcome to the come-back of LOP (least objectionable program).

AMC was supposed to be American Movie Classics, now it shows semi-recent movie crap plus original TV series never shown in a theater.

Of all the cable networks that have changed their programming strategies (usually for the worse), I'll give AMC a slide. They had their whole strategy and most of their better programming taken by TCM, which does the same thing AMC used to do. That didn't leave them with much. So they added more recent movies and some very high quality original programming. I'd say that AMC, while shifting from their original mission, has at least maintained or improved their integrity. Plus, TCM fills the classic movie void very well.

I agree with your comment about TCM. However, it seems to me AMC decided to abdicate the "movie classics" format. When TCM came into the game they had the rights to MGM and Warner Brothers. AMC still held Paramount, RKO, Columbia, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Columbia. Since movie package rights had changed hands over the years, the way the pie was divided was not quite so clean but the basic point is, AMC still had a lot of movies TCM did not (and the other way around). AMC also had Bob Dorian, who was more than capable of holding his own with Robert Osborne. Add to the mix indies and foreign films and there is more than enough in-demand product to support two basic cable movie oldies channels. Now, TCM has movie rights across the major studios and there's a lot they never show (or almost never).

Add to the mix, AMC got greedy. Just about the time TCM came into the game they decided cable fees were not good enough and started running spots during the movies, and cutting movies. They got rid of Dorian. They folded, they caved, they sold out.

I was willing to forgive and forget when they picked up Hu$tle from the BBC. But after three seasons, they couldn't leave well enough alone and insisted on changes and shows shot in the US. The star, Adrian Lester, walked out. The fourth season was poor and AMC, after screwing up the show, cancelled it (in the US only) and kept subsequent seasons off US TV for several years. So, in the words of Robert Duvall, AMC is a "whore house network" and if they go under and everybody loses his job, I won't shed a tear.

 

[Mario500]

AMC was supposed to be American Movie Classics, now it shows semi-recent movie crap plus original TV series never shown in a theater.

According to a newsletter I received from AMC in 2012, the meaning of the letters "AMC" was changed from "American Movie Classics" to "American Movie Channel".

 

[landtuna]

Cable during the hay days of the 80's and 90's before digital cable took over was meant for specific types of genre and specific types of programs.

None of those you list are actual "networks". A network would require an association of affiliates. These are just single-location services sent out for replication by signal forwarders.

 

[crainbebo]

I remember when A&E in the late 1990s would have all those U.K. mystery shows (A Touch of Frost, Cracker, Sherlock Holmes, etc) and even in the early 2000s they had mystery movies and good programming (like Third Watch reruns). Now all reality shows.

-crainbebo

 

[neomedia]

Some of the Channel really bother me. The channel that bother me the most are Tru TV, A&E, The Weather Channel, TLC, Discovery, Discovery Fit and Health, and all of the music channel in the previous posts. Tru TV has nothing that is true they should change to fake tv, half of the shows on A&E are fake, they have stretched the Storage Wars franchise too much, the weather channel is hardly ever weather anymore, they only air the true local on the 8's when they are airing actual live whether programming, You learn nothing on TLC they should be the fake life drama channel, you discover nothing on the Discovery channel but drama, The fit and health channel air nothing but shows from tlc anymore, the music channels are not even music just fake drama mtv should be the teen life drama channel, vh1 should be the 40 year old women drama channel, and cmt should just be rednecktv.

 

[FredLeonard]

None of those you list are actual "networks". A network would require an association of affiliates. These are just single-location services sent out for replication by signal forwarders.

The cable/fiber optic/satellite systems are the affiliates. These "affiliates" get local avails and place spots in network programming. And the affiliates get to decide whether to carry a "network" and even how much to carry (on some systems, cable "networks" share channels). Cable/fiber optic/satellite systems have far more autonomy than terrestrial network O&Os.

 

[willdav713]

I remember when A&E in the late 1990s would have all those U.K. mystery shows (A Touch of Frost, Cracker, Sherlock Holmes, etc) and even in the early 2000s they had mystery movies and good programming (like Third Watch reruns). Now all reality shows.

-crainbebo

Don't forget A&E's Quincy and Columbo in 1995 (I have VHS airchecks of plenty of that one)
TBS used to be the "Perry Mason" Channel, along with "Three Stooges Marathon-I got that one, too!!!" along with the Beverly Hillbillies.

Did anyone mention USA? Remember back then when they aired The Flintstones, and Pebbles and Bamm Bamm Show? Back in 1987. Now it's the Law and Order Network.

Disney when it was a premium channel had movies such as Goodbye Ms. Fourth Of July, Flight of the Navigator, Once Upon A Brothers Grimm, Mickey Mouse Show, and the Mickey Mouse Club all late 80's. Now it's George Lopez, and Garbage shows nobody watches.

Ahh, Nick At Nite, used to air The Monkees, Classic SNL, Laugh In, Donna Reed, Ozzie and Harriet, Mr. Ed, Petticoat Junction, Alfred Hitchcock, My Three Sons, Car 54, Doobie Gillis, Mannix, Dragnet, Get Smart, and the Brady Bunch.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Did TBS or USA ever have stated themes for them to drift from? Sure, they may have aired certain shows a lot, but a least nominally they were explicitly general entertainment channels. In fact, if anything TBS has gotten narrower with its "very funny" slogan.

 

[landtuna]

None of those you list are actual "networks". A network would require an association of affiliates. These are just single-location services sent out for replication by signal forwarders.

The cable/fiber optic/satellite systems are the affiliates. These "affiliates" get local avails and place spots in network programming. And the affiliates get to decide whether to carry a "network" and even how much to carry (on some systems, cable "networks" share channels). Cable/fiber optic/satellite systems have far more autonomy than terrestrial network O&Os.

I understand what you are saying but disagree. One cable outlet servicing hundreds of program services is not close to the historic definition of a radio or TV network affiliate. The closest thing would have been in those markets where one broadcaster serviced two networks because there weren't enough transmitters to go around.

The only "local" thing I see in today's cable/sat services is commercials. Nothing else that is traditionally originated by the network source.

 

[mnradiofan]

None of those you list are actual "networks". A network would require an association of affiliates. These are just single-location services sent out for replication by signal forwarders.

The cable/fiber optic/satellite systems are the affiliates. These "affiliates" get local avails and place spots in network programming. And the affiliates get to decide whether to carry a "network" and even how much to carry (on some systems, cable "networks" share channels). Cable/fiber optic/satellite systems have far more autonomy than terrestrial network O&Os.

I understand what you are saying but disagree. One cable outlet servicing hundreds of program services is not close to the historic definition of a radio or TV network affiliate. The closest thing would have been in those markets where one broadcaster serviced two networks because there weren't enough transmitters to go around.

The only "local" thing I see in today's cable/sat services is commercials. Nothing else that is traditionally originated by the network source.

It's not traditional, in that the local programming is inserted into national network feeds, but most cable networks provide feeds 24/7. Cable companies have entire channels dedicated to local interests. Public access, government access, educational access, and local cable networks (here we have MCN 6 as an example). If anything, it is MORE local, because what I see on my cable system is different from what is seen on the same channel space two cities over.

 

[Morgan Wick]

None of those you list are actual "networks". A network would require an association of affiliates. These are just single-location services sent out for replication by signal forwarders.

The cable/fiber optic/satellite systems are the affiliates. These "affiliates" get local avails and place spots in network programming. And the affiliates get to decide whether to carry a "network" and even how much to carry (on some systems, cable "networks" share channels). Cable/fiber optic/satellite systems have far more autonomy than terrestrial network O&Os.

I understand what you are saying but disagree. One cable outlet servicing hundreds of program services is not close to the historic definition of a radio or TV network affiliate. The closest thing would have been in those markets where one broadcaster serviced two networks because there weren't enough transmitters to go around.

The only "local" thing I see in today's cable/sat services is commercials. Nothing else that is traditionally originated by the network source.

By your definition, ion, TBN, all of the subchannel services other than the weather channels, and most "networks" outside the United States, are not "networks", and MyNetworkTV is more of a network than any of them.

 

[landtuna]

It's not traditional, in that the local programming is inserted into national network feeds, but most cable networks provide feeds 24/7. Cable companies have entire channels dedicated to local interests. Public access, government access, educational access, and local cable networks (here we have MCN 6 as an example). If anything, it is MORE local, because what I see on my cable system is different from what is seen on the same channel space two cities over.

I think we are confusing LOCAL vs NETWORK AFFILIATE.

Your example seems to fit local indie broadcasters more so than network affiliates. Indies tend to have more local programs than affiliates whose local offerings tend to be only news-oriented. Obviously there is a difference between small and large markets as well but I think in most cases the larger the market the fewer local programs are offered by affiliates.

Also, cable/sat providers tend to offer broadcasting capability but they don't tend to offer program development or origination. Pointing a camera and microphone at a city council meeting does not qualify in my mind as program origination. A moderated panel discussion about civic matters does. I have seen many of the former but not so many of the latter - especially in large markets.

 

[landtuna]

By your definition, ion, TBN, all of the subchannel services other than the weather channels, and most "networks" outside the United States, are not "networks", and MyNetworkTV is more of a network than any of them.

AFAIK, ION and MyNetworkTV offer only syndicated programming, infomercials and not much of anything else. If that is true they would not be considered affiliates under my definition.

English language subs in my market are either local weather/traffic loops or movie services. Not network programming even though offered by network affiliates. I am not familiar with foreign or foreign language stations or TBN or their subs enough to define them.

 

[ercjncpr]

I am wondering why we keep having this discussion. It's like some of the radio topic boards posting endless threads about the good old days of AM Radio. Multichannel cable TV is an idea which just could not sustain itself. So the owners just decided to monetize their properties

 

[Mario500]

AFAIK, ION and MyNetworkTV offer only syndicated programming, infomercials and not much of anything else.  If that is true they would not be considered affiliates under my definition. 

MyNetworkTV would only provide syndicated programs while ION would provide both syndicated programs and paid commercial programs (or "infomercials").

 

[ShawnHill1]

Did TBS or USA ever have stated themes for them to drift from? Sure, they may have aired certain shows a lot, but a least nominally they were explicitly general entertainment channels. In fact, if anything TBS has gotten narrower with its "very funny" slogan.

You're correct in that USA and TBS were always general enterainment networks; USA had its beginnings as a national offshoot of the Madison Square Garden Network, and as we all know, TBS' origins were as an Atlanta UHF indie station that happened to be beamed across the country via satellite. Although both networks have more or less shifted their programming directions to a specific genre (USA having more dramatic programming, TBS more comedic), they still carry other types of programming (TBS has some dramas, plus sports and reality, while USA sometimes airs news specials from NBC, plus comedies and sports--not counting WWE).