• 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

Why Can't This Happen ?????

K

KR4BD

Around here, cable systems offer hundreds of channels...99% of which I WILL NEVER watch but am still forced to pay for. Why couldn't some of the "more popular" cable networks like ESPN, FoxNews, The Weather Channel, etc. be piggy-backed onto some of the sub-channels of their OTA affiliates? ABC stations could put ESPN on their OTA subchannels; FoxNews could go on their local Fox station's OTA sub-channel; The Weather Channel could be on NBC's local affiliate, etc. etc. I know bandwidth is "an issue", but some OTA stations around my parts have as many as 6 subchannels going simultaneously without problems. I would even watch these channels in "low defination" subchannels.

It would certainly increase viewership of OTA outlets and offer an alternative to the OUTRAGEOUS fees that the cable companies are charging. Already, many of my friends have dropped cable because of the cost and I believe it won't be long before more folks just "cut the cable" which results in "everybody losing".
 
KR4BD said:
Why couldn't some of the "more popular" cable networks like ESPN, FoxNews, The Weather Channel, etc. be piggy-backed onto some of the sub-channels of their OTA affiliates?
Click to expand...

Money. They're getting hundreds of millions in rights fees from cable companies. If they do what you suggest, they'd lose a revenue stream. But they probably could scramble those sub channels and force you to pay directly for them, cutting out the cable middleman. The outragous fees cable companies are charging come from the outrageous fees the program suppliers charge. And I hear the program suppliers make more from fees than from advertising.

Right now, there are lots of investors scurrying around with programming options for those subchannels.
 
In a better economy, I might agree with you. But if cable rates keep going up, no one will be able to afford it. Everyone loses.
 
GREAT IDEA. Put about 5 sub stations on each station......then cable would almost be obsolete. That day will come, but it will probably be 2025 by then. Suddenly a city with 7 viewing choices would have 35+.
 
gregg75 said:
Put about 5 sub stations on each station......then cable would almost be obsolete.
Click to expand...

They tried doing that a few years back with USDTV, an attempt to bring popular cable channels via conventional terrestrial subchannels, for a monthly fee. Because of the usual reception problems, plus the fact that is not as cost-effective as cable or satellite (thanks, ESPN), USDTV lasted only from 2004 until 2007, when it declared Chapter 7.

The UK and France have similar services, with Freeview and TNT, respectively -- the only difference with those is that those services were free. Even though USDTV was a pay service, it will probably be a long time before the terrestrial infrastructure is used for an organised service again, even for free.
 
And it's quite fortunate that USDTV croaked, too--they used WMV for their codec. YUCK!!

USDTV, from what I saw of it (a cousin living in Vegas at the time used it) was a joke. The picture had a severe macroblocking problem (even inside the city whilst using an outdoor aerial) and the audio sounded like you were listening to someone talking on a CDMA phone whilst underwater. But then again, that's to be expected when you use codecs that Micro$oft once considered the "wave of the future" (and they really should have stopped at WAV.... ;o) Then I talked the cousin into a DVB-S receiver, FTA of course, and that USDTV receiver ended up becoming a $100 paperweight.

As far as I am concerned, over the air (specifically, terrestrial) pay TV already ran its course in the 80s. It died out along with the last vestiges of "ON-TV".

Edit add, @KR4BD:

Weather Channel at least *did* have a local thing along the same vein as NBC's "Weather Plus+". I don't know if it's still operating or not. (We have never had it here, I do know that for certain.)

But if all you want on cable is the local channels, CA channels and the occasional shopping channel (all anyone really needs anyways; the 100s of "specialty" channels only exist to fill up excess bandwidth on the cable system and lighten up the user's wallet), you could just connect your ATSC receiver to the cable if it also has QAM demodulator, and have at it. Of course, that also assumes your cable system has any channels available unscrambled.
 
azumanga said:
gregg75 said:
Put about 5 sub stations on each station......then cable would almost be obsolete.
Click to expand...

They tried doing that a few years back with USDTV, an attempt to bring popular cable channels via conventional terrestrial subchannels, for a monthly fee. Because of the usual reception problems, plus the fact that is not as cost-effective as cable or satellite (thanks, ESPN), USDTV lasted only from 2004 until 2007, when it declared Chapter 7.

The UK and France have similar services, with Freeview and TNT, respectively -- the only difference with those is that those services were free. Even though USDTV was a pay service, it will probably be a long time before the terrestrial infrastructure is used for an organised service again, even for free.
Click to expand...
You'd think so, but unfortunately you're wrong. Sorry (for all of us). :'(

www.sezmi.com/

It's USDTV with a broadband connection and a hard drive. This time out it's one (wannabe) LA station dropping HD for two sub-SD quality channels to sell out to Sezmi and their all SD cable networks. Many of which brag about the HD content you'll never get with Sezmi.

I just hope you can use the Sezmi boxes ($300) after the service has died like old USDTV boxes are good as ATSC tuners.
 
KR4BD said:
Around here, cable systems offer hundreds of channels...99% of which I WILL NEVER watch but am still forced to pay for. Why couldn't some of the "more popular" cable networks like ESPN, FoxNews, The Weather Channel, etc. be piggy-backed onto some of the sub-channels of their OTA affiliates? ABC stations could put ESPN on their OTA subchannels; FoxNews could go on their local Fox station's OTA sub-channel; The Weather Channel could be on NBC's local affiliate, etc. etc. I know bandwidth is "an issue", but some OTA stations around my parts have as many as 6 subchannels going simultaneously without problems. I would even watch these channels in "low defination" subchannels.

It would certainly increase viewership of OTA outlets and offer an alternative to the OUTRAGEOUS fees that the cable companies are charging. Already, many of my friends have dropped cable because of the cost and I believe it won't be long before more folks just "cut the cable" which results in "everybody losing".
Click to expand...

I actually think there'd be some money in creating free terrestrial alternative to the popular cable channels, assuming you had cheap enough (yet watchable) programming to make it work.

We've already got niche channels showing movies and classic TV shows, nodding to TV Land, Hallmark Channel, and all sorts of basic or premium movie outlets. How about a free news channel following the former Headline News format (if not, perhaps, stations allowing feeds of Bloomberg TV, LinkTV, or FreeSpeechTV)?

Best of all: How about a 'Free-SPN' dominated by big-league sports highlights with a few live/tape delayed sports events from lower level colleges and the minor leagues?
 
Most of you cable bill gets passed on to the cable channels who charge a fee for each subscriber (subscriber, not viewer - whether you ever watch that channel or not).

Here is the going rate for the channels KR4BD mentioned.

ESPN $4.08
Fox News $.58
Weather Channel $.11
Average $.20

Both NBC and AccuWeather offer alternative weather channels on broadcast sub-channels. ABC News Now used to be offered but ABC seems to have backed off on putting it on sub-channels. NBC also has a sports channel it puts on sub-channels.

As pointed out, the broadcast networks are also among the biggest operators of cable networks. They have a very sweet deal. They collect money from cable systems and they sell ads. They are raking it in with both hands. They have no incentive to put popular cable channels on their OTA sub-channels (and a big disincentive).
 
MattParker said:
Here is the going rate for the channels KR4BD mentioned.

ESPN $4.08
Fox News $.58
Weather Channel $.11
Average $.20
Click to expand...

What's the going rate for CNN and MSNBC?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom