The NFL deal also prompted Fox to acquire a 20% stake New World, giving it VHF stations in twelve markets where they'd been with UHF affiliates. Eventually Fox bought all of it, making those stations O&Os. The improvement in signal and facilities was hugely important to Fox's growth from that point on, and it likely would not have happened without the NFL.
-
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
Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
- Status
The NFL deal also prompted Fox to acquire a 20% stake New World, giving it VHF stations in twelve markets where they'd been with UHF affiliates. Eventually Fox bought all of it, making those stations O&Os. The improvement in signal and facilities was hugely important to Fox's growth from that point on, and it likely would not have happened without the NFL.
My Roku TV has all the FAST apps as well.
I prefer a separate streaming decoder box - there are newer video codecs becoming available:
en.wikipedia.org
that may need a lot of computer processing power to decode and having a separate box means that a newer box with more computer processing power can be easily substituted, a Tablet/Smartphone or an in-the-TV decoder may not be upgradable with a software download.
I'm mainly thinking about lower income people having access to (some) ad supported "TV" (probably the OTA TV Networks) with a low cost or "free" streaming decoder box (with numerous A/V outputs - HDMI, composite, RF [to work with almost any TV]).
Kirk Bayne
Versatile Video Coding - Wikipedia
that may need a lot of computer processing power to decode and having a separate box means that a newer box with more computer processing power can be easily substituted, a Tablet/Smartphone or an in-the-TV decoder may not be upgradable with a software download.
I'm mainly thinking about lower income people having access to (some) ad supported "TV" (probably the OTA TV Networks) with a low cost or "free" streaming decoder box (with numerous A/V outputs - HDMI, composite, RF [to work with almost any TV]).
Kirk Bayne
Along with a VCR. In case you can't tell Kirk, you seem to be from a world that occurred forty years ago.
Didn't you read any of the other posts? An Amazon Firestick is the size of a large USB drive, just on an HDMI connector. It's upgradeable via WiFi. In fact, my three Firesticks in the house just went through a firmware update yesterday.
If they can't afford cable, but have Internet access, they can purchase a Firestick for $24.99.
Have you tried it? I have.
Yes, it looks like the Amazon Fire Stick tech + subsidy is a good solution to providing TV via streaming to low income people.
A docking box could be developed that would add an A/V output (the old red/white/yellow RCA style) and an RF output (ch 3/4) to cover all the bases, this docking box would magically convert a Fire Stick to an STB, a one time subsidy (for low income people) could be provided to lower the cost of the 1 Fire Stick + 1 docking box to about $10.
Kirk Bayne
A docking box could be developed that would add an A/V output (the old red/white/yellow RCA style) and an RF output (ch 3/4) to cover all the bases, this docking box would magically convert a Fire Stick to an STB, a one time subsidy (for low income people) could be provided to lower the cost of the 1 Fire Stick + 1 docking box to about $10.
Kirk Bayne
Keep in mind the purpose of the internet subsidy is primarily for educational purposes, so young people can learn, not to give even more money to Amazon.
The alternative version, in more ways than one (Content warning: A doll is beheaded in this video.) :
Too late.
Roku had some earlier models with either RCA jacks or a 35 mm jack with an adapter that could plug in for RCA jacks. I have one that was from 2018 and was the last model to have them. They're convenient for recording streaming apps, but everything in newer models has HDMI. The earlier models with RCA jacks for $100 or more on Ebay now.
I haven't see anyone with a TV that required channel 3/4 or A/V input with no HDMI in probably 10 years.
Last edited:
Hence the Amazon Fire Stick docking box - not needed in most cases, however, IMHO, there needs to be a (nearly) universal "interface" from the National Broadband system to TV sets that might be used at home, such as these people, using a ~70 year old color TV (needs a ch 3/4 RF NTSC color signal):
I'm still using my ~40 year old 12 inch B&W analog TV (tunes in ch 83!)
Kirk Bayne
I'm still using my ~40 year old 12 inch B&W analog TV (tunes in ch 83!)
Kirk Bayne
The "nearly universal" interface *is* HDMI, at least for this decade.
There are always adapters for the edge cases out there, but it's up to users of those obsolete edge cases to find their own solutions if they want to have an antique hobby. When you can get a 32" flatscreen with Roku built in and multiple HDMI inputs (and an ATSC tuner) for $120 or so, the decision to use a 1980s analog TV becomes a quirk and a hobby, not any reflection of mainstream media usage. Enjoy it if it makes you happy, but understand that the rest of the world has moved on, and will keep moving on as equipment has shorter lifespans and standards change more rapidly.
(And having seen a DVD playing through a 1953 CT-100 at the Early Television Museum a decade or so ago, yes, it's pretty neat to watch - but it's still a quirky hobby.)
That 32" DTV, or a variation of it, was selling at Costco for $89 in the two weeks before and weekend after Thanksgiving. I'm not sure what the loss leaders were at Walmart, Target, etc. on Black Friday, but probably not that much more.
Here's a radical thought: the government gave away coupons in the wake of the DTV launch for the purchase of ATSC-to-NTSC converter boxes, good for about $40 at the time, this being maybe 15 years ago. With inflation, maybe that's $60 in today's dollars. But whatever the actual amount, if the government offered a $50 subsidy coupon to low-income or elderly citizens for use in acquiring a basic flatscreen TV that meets certain parameters (for example, retail price must be less than $100, screen size can be no larger than 32", it must have at least 2 HDMIs and an OTA antenna connector, etc.), then this problem could be solved fairly quickly and easily. Virtually nobody would have an excuse not to have at least one modern TV in their home. Participating retailers would see a short term sales volume bump that would compensate them for taking the coupons and foregoing a bit of profit. Buyers would see a small but immediate savings in their monthly electric bills. It could be a win-win for all concerned.
Again, your media consumption electronics are out of step with the rest of society. Something akin to the Amish still insisting on using horses and buggies. That doesn't mean electronics manufacturers need to sell devices to comply with the .00001% of people who insist on living in the past.
So what's on channel 83 analog Kirk?
It was in 2008, and cost the government about $1.3 billion. They say it was paid for by the FCC spectrum auctions. Republicans, as you can imagine, saw it as wasteful government spending. They felt the same way about the internet money. They all voted against it. But in both cases, it passed. I doubt very much you could pass such a thing today. They can't even pass the most basic funding now.
IIRC something like this was done in Mexico for their 2016 digital transition, with modest modern TV’s handed out for free to those who wanted/needed them.
- Status