Sounds like a cheap fix for the eight FOX O&O's that were UPN plus two O&O FOX stations that were not UPN in Houston and Dallas. Didn't FOX see how UPN and The WB ranked by themselves? I think together they will get better ratings as The CW, also I think The CW will do way better then two drama soaps and reality shows. This makes the i network sound good to watch compared to My Network. Lets hope this crap of a network stays only on the FOX O&O's. This September should be interesting.
-
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
The New FOX Network - Will It Work?
- Thread starter radiolives
- Start date
NOPE!
Why?
Because, by WB getting together with CBS, they ensure that all the CBS owned stations that dropped UPN will not become UPN. Which means, in markets like Boston where the Fox owned station does NOT own one of the former UPN affiliates, it will take yet another start up independent in order for there to be a MyTV affliate. And, this creates a tremendous problem for MyTV. Don't look for TV 66 to be MyTV or PAX 68, and even if they did, what good are they, their signals are substandard.
Now, there are markets like San Diego (and on a smaller scale, Lubbock) where a Non-owned Fox affilate owned and ran the UPN affiliate. But that doesn't mean that San Diego's TV 13 will become MyTV, and I'm even less optomistic that the Low Powered KUPT CA 14 in Lubbock will become a MyTV affilate. And, any MyTV affiliate will have face the facts that it is a start and facing serious competition from a network, CW which is going to be made up of the highest rated shows from 2 other networks. And then, there's Fox itself.
So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
> Sounds like a cheap fix for the eight FOX O&O's that were
> UPN plus two O&O FOX stations that were not UPN in Houston
> and Dallas. Didn't FOX see how UPN and The WB ranked by
> themselves? I think together they will get better ratings as
> The CW, also I think The CW will do way better then two
> drama soaps and reality shows. This makes the i network
> sound good to watch compared to My Network. Lets hope this
> crap of a network stays only on the FOX O&O's. This
> September should be interesting.
>
Why?
Because, by WB getting together with CBS, they ensure that all the CBS owned stations that dropped UPN will not become UPN. Which means, in markets like Boston where the Fox owned station does NOT own one of the former UPN affiliates, it will take yet another start up independent in order for there to be a MyTV affliate. And, this creates a tremendous problem for MyTV. Don't look for TV 66 to be MyTV or PAX 68, and even if they did, what good are they, their signals are substandard.
Now, there are markets like San Diego (and on a smaller scale, Lubbock) where a Non-owned Fox affilate owned and ran the UPN affiliate. But that doesn't mean that San Diego's TV 13 will become MyTV, and I'm even less optomistic that the Low Powered KUPT CA 14 in Lubbock will become a MyTV affilate. And, any MyTV affiliate will have face the facts that it is a start and facing serious competition from a network, CW which is going to be made up of the highest rated shows from 2 other networks. And then, there's Fox itself.
So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
> Sounds like a cheap fix for the eight FOX O&O's that were
> UPN plus two O&O FOX stations that were not UPN in Houston
> and Dallas. Didn't FOX see how UPN and The WB ranked by
> themselves? I think together they will get better ratings as
> The CW, also I think The CW will do way better then two
> drama soaps and reality shows. This makes the i network
> sound good to watch compared to My Network. Lets hope this
> crap of a network stays only on the FOX O&O's. This
> September should be interesting.
>
S
studiotwenty
Guest
Re: NOPE!..really?
"We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in the US...along came FOX...
"We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't last but one season.....
"We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the National Football League...
well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions? Youve got to be kid----ok.
"FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie, but----
"Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash somehow makes money.
If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even for their own stations, it will be FOX.
Dont bet against them right off the bat.
"We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in the US...along came FOX...
"We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't last but one season.....
"We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the National Football League...
well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions? Youve got to be kid----ok.
"FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie, but----
"Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash somehow makes money.
If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even for their own stations, it will be FOX.
Dont bet against them right off the bat.
Re: NOPE!
> Why?
> Because, by WB getting together with CBS, they ensure that
> all the CBS owned stations that dropped UPN will not become
> UPN. Which means, in markets like Boston where the Fox owned
> station does NOT own one of the former UPN affiliates, it
> will take yet another start up independent in order for
> there to be a MyTV affliate. And, this creates a tremendous
> problem for MyTV. Don't look for TV 66 to be MyTV or PAX 68,
> and even if they did, what good are they, their signals are
> substandard.
>
> Now, there are markets like San Diego (and on a smaller
> scale, Lubbock) where a Non-owned Fox affilate owned and ran
> the UPN affiliate. But that doesn't mean that San Diego's TV
> 13 will become MyTV, and I'm even less optomistic that the
> Low Powered KUPT CA 14 in Lubbock will become a MyTV
> affilate. And, any MyTV affiliate will have face the facts
> that it is a start and facing serious competition from a
> network, CW which is going to be made up of the highest
> rated shows from 2 other networks. And then, there's Fox
> itself.
>
> So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for
> MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
>
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
Considering, as pointed out elsewhere, FOX's duopolies have been a dumping ground for shows FOX doesn't think are good enough for their main FOX statons (Like WWOR and WPWR) I see this newtwork as becoming FOX2. But then again I see this new CW network as the basically as CBSjr too. I mean if any show has potential I doubt CBS would pass on it to boost their "other" network.
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> Why?
> Because, by WB getting together with CBS, they ensure that
> all the CBS owned stations that dropped UPN will not become
> UPN. Which means, in markets like Boston where the Fox owned
> station does NOT own one of the former UPN affiliates, it
> will take yet another start up independent in order for
> there to be a MyTV affliate. And, this creates a tremendous
> problem for MyTV. Don't look for TV 66 to be MyTV or PAX 68,
> and even if they did, what good are they, their signals are
> substandard.
>
> Now, there are markets like San Diego (and on a smaller
> scale, Lubbock) where a Non-owned Fox affilate owned and ran
> the UPN affiliate. But that doesn't mean that San Diego's TV
> 13 will become MyTV, and I'm even less optomistic that the
> Low Powered KUPT CA 14 in Lubbock will become a MyTV
> affilate. And, any MyTV affiliate will have face the facts
> that it is a start and facing serious competition from a
> network, CW which is going to be made up of the highest
> rated shows from 2 other networks. And then, there's Fox
> itself.
>
> So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for
> MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
>
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
Considering, as pointed out elsewhere, FOX's duopolies have been a dumping ground for shows FOX doesn't think are good enough for their main FOX statons (Like WWOR and WPWR) I see this newtwork as becoming FOX2. But then again I see this new CW network as the basically as CBSjr too. I mean if any show has potential I doubt CBS would pass on it to boost their "other" network.
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
Re: NOPE!..really?
What do you mean "WE" Kimosabie?
"I" never said that!
I always thought all of those things were possible.
> "We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in
> the US...along came FOX...
>
> "We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't
> last but one season.....
>
>
> "We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have
> the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the
> National Football League...
>
> well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
>
> umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
>
> You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
>
> What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions?
> Youve got to be kid----ok.
>
> "FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie,
> but----
>
> "Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it
> went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
>
>
> and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
>
> Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash
> somehow makes money.
>
> If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even
> for their own stations, it will be FOX.
>
> Dont bet against them right off the bat.
>
What do you mean "WE" Kimosabie?
"I" never said that!
I always thought all of those things were possible.
> "We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in
> the US...along came FOX...
>
> "We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't
> last but one season.....
>
>
> "We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have
> the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the
> National Football League...
>
> well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
>
> umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
>
> You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
>
> What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions?
> Youve got to be kid----ok.
>
> "FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie,
> but----
>
> "Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it
> went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
>
>
> and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
>
> Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash
> somehow makes money.
>
> If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even
> for their own stations, it will be FOX.
>
> Dont bet against them right off the bat.
>
Re: NOPE!..really?
> "We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in
> the US...along came FOX...
>
> "We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't
> last but one season.....
>
>
> "We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have
> the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the
> National Football League...
>
> well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
>
> umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
>
> You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
>
> What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions?
> Youve got to be kid----ok.
>
> "FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie,
> but----
>
> "Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it
> went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
>
>
> and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
>
> Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash
> somehow makes money.
>
> If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even
> for their own stations, it will be FOX.
>
But you've essentially gave a great argument of WHY this WON'T work.
If FOX is going to expend all that CASH they are going to put it on their MAIN network. If FOX has baseball are they going to compete with themselves? Cost themselves money?
Fox news channel doesn't compete with ANOTHER Fox News product. This new network to become a major network would have to do that.
But this doesn't mean it can't make money as become a sucsess as service to feed independent shows programs. Like the syndicators did in the 80s, with off-net first run sitcoms like "Mama's Family," and "It's A Living."
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> "We" said that a fourth TV network would never take hold in
> the US...along came FOX...
>
> "We" said this FOX cartoon full of yellow characters won't
> last but one season.....
>
>
> "We" said that this fledgling network would never EVER have
> the gall to put up money to acquire the rights to the
> National Football League...
>
> well, ok..but you wont get Major League Baseball----
>
> umm..ok, the NHL...eh...
>
> You ll never touch NASCAR----umm.
>
> What a cable sports network, tailored to specific regions?
> Youve got to be kid----ok.
>
> "FX", whats that? sounds like a title for a bad movie,
> but----
>
> "Family Channel"? Wasnt only watchable, but even when it
> went south, FOX found a sucker to take it off their hands...
>
>
> and...a FOX News Channel??? Incredulous.
>
> Look, FOX knows how the game is played. Even their trash
> somehow makes money.
>
> If anyone can develop another over the air TV network, even
> for their own stations, it will be FOX.
>
But you've essentially gave a great argument of WHY this WON'T work.
If FOX is going to expend all that CASH they are going to put it on their MAIN network. If FOX has baseball are they going to compete with themselves? Cost themselves money?
Fox news channel doesn't compete with ANOTHER Fox News product. This new network to become a major network would have to do that.
But this doesn't mean it can't make money as become a sucsess as service to feed independent shows programs. Like the syndicators did in the 80s, with off-net first run sitcoms like "Mama's Family," and "It's A Living."
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
Baltimore Maybe No My Network
Is their still any news on if FOX will move to WUTB away from Channel 45 as that contract is almost up? Would be foolish for FOX not to make WUTB FOX 24 instead of My Baltimore.
Is their still any news on if FOX will move to WUTB away from Channel 45 as that contract is almost up? Would be foolish for FOX not to make WUTB FOX 24 instead of My Baltimore.
R
RobertMoore
Guest
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
> Is their still any news on if FOX will move to WUTB away
> from Channel 45 as that contract is almost up? Would be
> foolish for FOX not to make WUTB FOX 24 instead of My
> Baltimore.
No word yet, but WUTB has been confirmed as a My Network TV affiliate according to industry reports. However that could change, depending on whether or not WBFF plans to renew its contract deal with Fox. Don't forget that Baltimore has yet to see a new affiliate for the CW, so that could be a factor as well.
> Is their still any news on if FOX will move to WUTB away
> from Channel 45 as that contract is almost up? Would be
> foolish for FOX not to make WUTB FOX 24 instead of My
> Baltimore.
No word yet, but WUTB has been confirmed as a My Network TV affiliate according to industry reports. However that could change, depending on whether or not WBFF plans to renew its contract deal with Fox. Don't forget that Baltimore has yet to see a new affiliate for the CW, so that could be a factor as well.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
Robert Moore wrote:
> However that could change, depending on whether or
> not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew its
> contract deal with Fox.
A wild-card for Fox:
Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need WBFF.
Robert Moore wrote:
> However that could change, depending on whether or
> not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew its
> contract deal with Fox.
A wild-card for Fox:
Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need WBFF.
D
DiamondJoe
Guest
Well, as I predicted correctly, a new network has been created to fill the void.
What I didn't expect was it to take its name from a radio station.<P ID="signature">______________
New York City Radio and TV</P>
What I didn't expect was it to take its name from a radio station.<P ID="signature">______________
New York City Radio and TV</P>
Re: NOPE!
> So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for
> MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
>
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
> I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person
> with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
>
>
> > Sounds like a cheap fix for the eight FOX O&O's that were
> > UPN plus two O&O FOX stations that were not UPN in Houston
>
> > and Dallas. Didn't FOX see how UPN and The WB ranked by
> > themselves? I think together they will get better ratings
> as
> > The CW, also I think The CW will do way better then two
> > drama soaps and reality shows. This makes the i network
> > sound good to watch compared to My Network. Lets hope this
MNTV reminds me of program syndication services of the past such as Operation Prime Time and PTEN - a sort of "unwired TV network," but nothing like UPN and WB are and what The CW will be.
> So, I agree that I don't really see much of a future for
> MyTV. Can you say PAX? (I knew you could).
>
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
> I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person
> with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
>
>
> > Sounds like a cheap fix for the eight FOX O&O's that were
> > UPN plus two O&O FOX stations that were not UPN in Houston
>
> > and Dallas. Didn't FOX see how UPN and The WB ranked by
> > themselves? I think together they will get better ratings
> as
> > The CW, also I think The CW will do way better then two
> > drama soaps and reality shows. This makes the i network
> > sound good to watch compared to My Network. Lets hope this
MNTV reminds me of program syndication services of the past such as Operation Prime Time and PTEN - a sort of "unwired TV network," but nothing like UPN and WB are and what The CW will be.
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
> Robert Moore wrote:
>
> > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew
> its
> > contract deal with Fox.
>
> A wild-card for Fox:
>
> Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it
> technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
> for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
> transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
> Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> WBFF.
FOX can say no to WBFF to renew them as a FOX station can't they? Why would FOX want them to stay as a FOX station in the first place, could it be because WBFF would give News Corp. money instead of letting their own WUTB 24 go FOX as it would be all the same company.
As for the other topic with Baltimore not having a CW Network yet. Not sure if they carry Tribune's WBDC WB 50 soon to be 50 The CW on Baltimore cable but could they if The CW does not make it in Baltimore? Maybe Sinclair would sell WB 54 to CBS TV or Tribune to make it 54 The CW Baltimore.
> Robert Moore wrote:
>
> > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew
> its
> > contract deal with Fox.
>
> A wild-card for Fox:
>
> Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it
> technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
> for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
> transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
> Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> WBFF.
FOX can say no to WBFF to renew them as a FOX station can't they? Why would FOX want them to stay as a FOX station in the first place, could it be because WBFF would give News Corp. money instead of letting their own WUTB 24 go FOX as it would be all the same company.
As for the other topic with Baltimore not having a CW Network yet. Not sure if they carry Tribune's WBDC WB 50 soon to be 50 The CW on Baltimore cable but could they if The CW does not make it in Baltimore? Maybe Sinclair would sell WB 54 to CBS TV or Tribune to make it 54 The CW Baltimore.
My Network TV will work..
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
> I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person
> with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
>
When the whole CW thing was announced a few weeks ago, dozens of UPN and WB station owners were scrambling around trying to figure out what they were going to do. Many of them knew they would be left without any kind of network. One group owner made the comment that he was a little comforted because he knew that Rupert Murdoch was facing the same problem and had the resources to offer an alternative.
The My Network is Fox's way of filling the programming hole left on it's 9 UPN affiliates. Fox also owns one true independent in the Dallas area that will air this new network. However, they will undoubtedly sign up many of these other soon-to-be-former UPN and WB affiliates.
There are several business reasons why the My Network is attractive to local stations.
1. The local stations will not have to pay a dime for the My Network programming. The CW will require affiliates to pay for the right to carry their network (as do most networks).
2. Apparently the My Network will offer a 50/50 split of advertising time with local affiliates. Every other network (including CW) keeps about 80% of prime time advertising time for themselves.
This means that My Network affiliates will have free programming and more time to sell. They could literally see their bottom line improve even if the ratings are lower.
> But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and disenfranchised UPN
> affiliates will jump at it, but I doubt Fox will be able to
> gain back 95% of US TV market penetration. At least not for
> another 2 years, and will that be soon enough?
>
> I'd like for someone whose in the know (not a certain person
> with the initials JG) to come on and telll me how I'm wrong.
>
When the whole CW thing was announced a few weeks ago, dozens of UPN and WB station owners were scrambling around trying to figure out what they were going to do. Many of them knew they would be left without any kind of network. One group owner made the comment that he was a little comforted because he knew that Rupert Murdoch was facing the same problem and had the resources to offer an alternative.
The My Network is Fox's way of filling the programming hole left on it's 9 UPN affiliates. Fox also owns one true independent in the Dallas area that will air this new network. However, they will undoubtedly sign up many of these other soon-to-be-former UPN and WB affiliates.
There are several business reasons why the My Network is attractive to local stations.
1. The local stations will not have to pay a dime for the My Network programming. The CW will require affiliates to pay for the right to carry their network (as do most networks).
2. Apparently the My Network will offer a 50/50 split of advertising time with local affiliates. Every other network (including CW) keeps about 80% of prime time advertising time for themselves.
This means that My Network affiliates will have free programming and more time to sell. They could literally see their bottom line improve even if the ratings are lower.
> Well, as I predicted correctly, a new network has been
> created to fill the void.
>
> What I didn't expect was it to take its name from a radio
> station.
>
HAHAHAH!!!!!
I was thinking of My94.1 in San Diego, which of course, is now Star - which could have been a good name for a network too, but they didn't think of that, huh?
> created to fill the void.
>
> What I didn't expect was it to take its name from a radio
> station.
>
HAHAHAH!!!!!
I was thinking of My94.1 in San Diego, which of course, is now Star - which could have been a good name for a network too, but they didn't think of that, huh?
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
> > Robert Moore wrote:
> >
> > > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to
> renew
> > its
> > > contract deal with Fox.
> >
> > A wild-card for Fox:
> >
> > Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is
> it
> > technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
>
> > for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> > (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
>
> > transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> >
> > I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> > transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
>
> > Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> > Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> > WBFF.
>
> FOX can say no to WBFF to renew them as a FOX station can't
> they? Why would FOX want them to stay as a FOX station in
> the first place, could it be because WBFF would give News
> Corp. money instead of letting their own WUTB 24 go FOX as
> it would be all the same company.
>
> As for the other topic with Baltimore not having a CW
> Network yet. Not sure if they carry Tribune's WBDC WB 50
> soon to be 50 The CW on Baltimore cable but could they if
> The CW does not make it in Baltimore? Maybe Sinclair would
> sell WB 54 to CBS TV or Tribune to make it 54 The CW
> Baltimore.
>
WNUV will be The CW affiliate. WUTB has been in Fox's hands for a quite a time. Sinclair renewed their Fox affiliations last time, even when Fox had the opportunity to move Baltimore Fox to WUTB.
Maybe Fox could play hardball with Sinclair and take away Fox programming from WBFF. Sinclair's stock would tumble some more, by losing FOX from their flagship market. Having lost rapport with FOX, I don't see Sinclair picking up any MNTV affiliations, if so, for markets like Pittsburgh.
Tribune already owns the Baltimore Sun, so can't own a TV station in Baltimore. Ch.50 used to be on some Baltimore area cable systems, back when 54 was UPN and there was no WB in Baltimore.
I don't see Sinclair wanting to break up their duopoly.
WUTB is the one not attached to one. Fox could sell off WUTB- maybe to Hearst Argyle (WBAL 11 owner). Hearst owns KQCA 58(WB-Fall2006(Ind.)), duopoly partner to KRCA 3 (NBC). Fox would want an MNTV affiliate in Sacramento as well.
> > Robert Moore wrote:
> >
> > > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to
> renew
> > its
> > > contract deal with Fox.
> >
> > A wild-card for Fox:
> >
> > Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is
> it
> > technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
>
> > for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> > (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
>
> > transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> >
> > I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> > transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
>
> > Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> > Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> > WBFF.
>
> FOX can say no to WBFF to renew them as a FOX station can't
> they? Why would FOX want them to stay as a FOX station in
> the first place, could it be because WBFF would give News
> Corp. money instead of letting their own WUTB 24 go FOX as
> it would be all the same company.
>
> As for the other topic with Baltimore not having a CW
> Network yet. Not sure if they carry Tribune's WBDC WB 50
> soon to be 50 The CW on Baltimore cable but could they if
> The CW does not make it in Baltimore? Maybe Sinclair would
> sell WB 54 to CBS TV or Tribune to make it 54 The CW
> Baltimore.
>
WNUV will be The CW affiliate. WUTB has been in Fox's hands for a quite a time. Sinclair renewed their Fox affiliations last time, even when Fox had the opportunity to move Baltimore Fox to WUTB.
Maybe Fox could play hardball with Sinclair and take away Fox programming from WBFF. Sinclair's stock would tumble some more, by losing FOX from their flagship market. Having lost rapport with FOX, I don't see Sinclair picking up any MNTV affiliations, if so, for markets like Pittsburgh.
Tribune already owns the Baltimore Sun, so can't own a TV station in Baltimore. Ch.50 used to be on some Baltimore area cable systems, back when 54 was UPN and there was no WB in Baltimore.
I don't see Sinclair wanting to break up their duopoly.
WUTB is the one not attached to one. Fox could sell off WUTB- maybe to Hearst Argyle (WBAL 11 owner). Hearst owns KQCA 58(WB-Fall2006(Ind.)), duopoly partner to KRCA 3 (NBC). Fox would want an MNTV affiliate in Sacramento as well.
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
> Robert Moore wrote:
>
> > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew
> its
> > contract deal with Fox.
>
> A wild-card for Fox:
>
> Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it
> technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
> for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
> transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
> Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> WBFF.
>
D.C. is the 8th largest TV market. When one broadcaster is off-center, away from the major broadcasters, they become the rimshot outcast. Doesn't seem to be a bright move, esp. for courting a smaller TV market(Baltimore is 24th largest).
They could do away without WBFF, by just keeping affiliation on WUTB, or running Fox5 on WUTB-DT2. WTTG has the greater metro area, but the Baltimore station would be the outlet for Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Northern MD local advertising.
> Robert Moore wrote:
>
> > However that could change, depending on whether or
> > not (current Fox Baltimore affiliate) WBFF plans to renew
> its
> > contract deal with Fox.
>
> A wild-card for Fox:
>
> Given how close together Washington and Baltimore are, is it
> technically feisable for Fox to change the city of license
> for O&O WTTG-5 from Washington, D.C. to Laurel, Maryland
> (halfway between Washington and Baltimore) and build a new
> transmitting tower for the station in or close to Laurel??
>
> I would think a COL move to Laurel and building a tall
> transmission tower there (or within three or four miles of
> Laurel) could make WTTG the Fox affiliate for both
> Washington and Baltimore. This way, they would not need
> WBFF.
>
D.C. is the 8th largest TV market. When one broadcaster is off-center, away from the major broadcasters, they become the rimshot outcast. Doesn't seem to be a bright move, esp. for courting a smaller TV market(Baltimore is 24th largest).
They could do away without WBFF, by just keeping affiliation on WUTB, or running Fox5 on WUTB-DT2. WTTG has the greater metro area, but the Baltimore station would be the outlet for Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Northern MD local advertising.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
r566 wrote:
> D.C. is the 8th largest TV market. When one broadcaster
> is off-center, away from the major broadcasters, they become
> the rimshot outcast. Doesn't seem to be a bright move,
> esp. for courting a smaller TV market(Baltimore is 24th
> largest).
I thought Washington and Baltimore were a little more than 30 miles apart from oneanother, and a city of license change to Laurel, Maryland and a new tall transmitting tower there would place WTTG's new stick about 15 to 17 miles from both Washington and Baltimore. Given how close they are, a stick halfway between the two cities would not make WTTG a "rimshot" in most of the Washington and Baltimore areas, but a strong local signal.
This way, Fox's new programming service would go on their UHF stations in both cities.
r566 wrote:
> D.C. is the 8th largest TV market. When one broadcaster
> is off-center, away from the major broadcasters, they become
> the rimshot outcast. Doesn't seem to be a bright move,
> esp. for courting a smaller TV market(Baltimore is 24th
> largest).
I thought Washington and Baltimore were a little more than 30 miles apart from oneanother, and a city of license change to Laurel, Maryland and a new tall transmitting tower there would place WTTG's new stick about 15 to 17 miles from both Washington and Baltimore. Given how close they are, a stick halfway between the two cities would not make WTTG a "rimshot" in most of the Washington and Baltimore areas, but a strong local signal.
This way, Fox's new programming service would go on their UHF stations in both cities.
Re: Baltimore Maybe No My Network
> WUTB is the one not attached to one. Fox could sell off
> WUTB- maybe to Hearst Argyle (WBAL 11 owner).
Technically Hearst can't because of ownership limits. Hearst would have to setup a seperately owned corporation to hold it and they would just manage the station.
______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.stationindex.com/>Complete list of tv stations & tv markets</a></P>
> WUTB is the one not attached to one. Fox could sell off
> WUTB- maybe to Hearst Argyle (WBAL 11 owner).
Technically Hearst can't because of ownership limits. Hearst would have to setup a seperately owned corporation to hold it and they would just manage the station.
______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.stationindex.com/>Complete list of tv stations & tv markets</a></P>
Baltimore Maybe No Ravens For Two Sundays
The Baltimore Ravens will have two home games in 2006 against NFC teams. If those games are on Sunday afternoon, they will be on Fox regionally IIRC. Not having a Fox affiliate or O&O by then would mean those games would not be seen in Baltimore except by those at Ravens Stadium, sellout or not, right? And how would relicensing WTTG to Laurel affect this, since Washington has an NFC team most of whose games will be on Fox?
ixnay
The Baltimore Ravens will have two home games in 2006 against NFC teams. If those games are on Sunday afternoon, they will be on Fox regionally IIRC. Not having a Fox affiliate or O&O by then would mean those games would not be seen in Baltimore except by those at Ravens Stadium, sellout or not, right? And how would relicensing WTTG to Laurel affect this, since Washington has an NFC team most of whose games will be on Fox?
ixnay
N
Nertz
Guest
How many markets is the new network committed in?
- Status