-
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
Yet another channel: FX Networks to launch 'FXX' later this year
- Thread starter easttxtv
- Start date
Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks return to "basic" cable instead of IFC. I'm elated! I guess I'm also assuming that FXX gets moved to a basic tier when it debuts.
easttxtv said:
Sounds like this is taking place of the Fox Soccer Channel. At least Comcast has that in the Digital Preferred Tier, so I'll actually have access to it when it debuts. Unless they can get Comcast to move Speed from the Sports and Entertainment package, the same can't be said for FS1. I won't be paying $5.99 extra per month for Fox Sports 1 (and 2).
Of course, if they move it to another tier, chances are that tier will go up another $5.99.
Imagine if Fox had FXXX.
That would be a network so racy and raunchy that it would be rated at least XXX, if not XXXXX!
;D
That would be a network so racy and raunchy that it would be rated at least XXX, if not XXXXX!
;D
justpassingthough said:
I am not counting on that happening. Cable operators are moving more and more networks in the other direction to free up bandwidth. At best, I would expect FXX to become available on a more mainstream digital tier -- but not limited basic or expanded basic.
The "FX Now" app/on-demand content that will accompany the launch seems to be more key here than dial position. Quoting from the linked article --
"Within the three-day C3 TV window, programs on FX Now will carry the same commercial load and viewing will be added to the commercial ratings used to measure ad buys. That viewing will be included in the network's ratings estimates, as well as its post-air analysis."
We get Speed and Fox Soccer, but not Fuel. However, Fox Soccer is located near the start of a block of sports channels in both SD and HD, so I'd imagine Fox gets Comcast to convert that channel spot to the rumored FS2, not FXX, placing FXX elsewhere in the lineup.mnradiofan said:
Hey, regular FX HD is channel 665 on our system, and 666 is free...! ;D
What becomes of Fox Soccer Plus?
I wouldn't count on the channel position getting moved too quickly. That will be up to the cable systems.
Also, don't count on being able to get this channel if you now get Fox Soccer Channel. Cable systems usually have a right in their contracts to remove a channel if it ceases to offer the type of programming the original contract called for. So while changing Speed to Fox Sports 1 will be okay since it's going from sports to sports... changing Fox Soccer to FXX might trigger this clause since it's going from sports to entertainment. That's why TWC dropped Current when it was sold.
Also, don't count on being able to get this channel if you now get Fox Soccer Channel. Cable systems usually have a right in their contracts to remove a channel if it ceases to offer the type of programming the original contract called for. So while changing Speed to Fox Sports 1 will be okay since it's going from sports to sports... changing Fox Soccer to FXX might trigger this clause since it's going from sports to entertainment. That's why TWC dropped Current when it was sold.
Have Fox, FX or any of these networks ever considered a Cozi or Me tv appoach of offering these as digital stations to over the air tv?
Fox is getting ready to launch a movie channel on Fox Owned digital sub channels. Why not offer a younger geared network available over the air?
It seems as though this current field is already crowded with me tv, this, antenna tv, my family and retro tv offerings. Does retro tv even have any shows of value left? They seem to run a lot of shows that no other station would even want. What they do have, that is known well like Higway To Heaven, The Beverly Hillbilies and Lassie are all available on the others.
Tuff tv seems like the only network like this that is meant for a younger crowd. The other stations would seem to be going after a small group of older people.
There does not seem to be enough old shows to go around to fill all these channels without running them to often and sometimes on multiple stations, this would add the factor of local stations running some of the same shows also.
Retro tv seems to only be on stations that could not get me tv or the others. I wonder how retro even stays afloat with theire slim pickings.
Fox is getting ready to launch a movie channel on Fox Owned digital sub channels. Why not offer a younger geared network available over the air?
It seems as though this current field is already crowded with me tv, this, antenna tv, my family and retro tv offerings. Does retro tv even have any shows of value left? They seem to run a lot of shows that no other station would even want. What they do have, that is known well like Higway To Heaven, The Beverly Hillbilies and Lassie are all available on the others.
Tuff tv seems like the only network like this that is meant for a younger crowd. The other stations would seem to be going after a small group of older people.
There does not seem to be enough old shows to go around to fill all these channels without running them to often and sometimes on multiple stations, this would add the factor of local stations running some of the same shows also.
Retro tv seems to only be on stations that could not get me tv or the others. I wonder how retro even stays afloat with theire slim pickings.
Going back to Nashville said:
Easy. there isn't as much money in .2 channels, as there is in cable. This is also true of any broadcast TV channel. It is more lucrative to launch a cable channel, where you can not only get advertising revenue, but also get carriage fees. 75 million homes, even at, say, 25 cents per home is almost 19 million dollars per month before the first ad ever plays over the channel, which can be enough money for a lot more expensive content than playing "Happy Days".
The reason all these diginets air old content is because old content is CHEAP. They charge stations carriage fees, but they are most likely pennies on the dollar for a service that has yet to prove that it adds to the bottom line. At the end of the day, TV is a business, just like anything else, and business comes down to profit. If programming doesn't add to the bottom line, it's gone. And in a world with shrinking ad revenues, it's no wonder cable channels are getting better and better programming. After all, they get to go to the cash register twice.
Now, of course, you do see this happening with broadcast stations too these days, but running a broadcast network is more expensive, with more points for expense. FX doesn't have to pay for local sales staff, news departments, engineers, transmission costs, building costs, etc. they only have to do that on a national scale.
I'm sure Fox got all their ducks in a row before announcing this - they renegotiated all their contracts with Comcast recently. The channel is actually slated to be in WAY more homes than Fox Soccer, as well it should be, since cable companies would be crazy to actively cut a channel that will have the likes of Always Sunny and The League on it.tested said:
JeeperOne
Banned
That would make for a GREAT competitor for Playboy Channel (Which is THE ONLY channel I know of that doesn't have any direct competition). Problem is though, Comcast & other cable operators would likely relegate it to PPVJoseph_Gallant said:
But it sure would be nice though ;D
Cheers & 73 ;D
JeeperOne
Banned
I would also count on Fox Soccer Channel (And it's Plus counterpart) dying off (In fact, I think Comcast just morphed the Plus channel in with the original). With the two new channels, Fox Soccer Channel will likely become Fox Sports 2 (Thus keeping it on Comcast Channel 401) while Fox Soccer Plus (Which I think was on via Fox Soccer Channel on Comcast) becomes FXXtested said:
On Comcast, Current TV is on 107 where it's basically in no-mans land (At least here in Denver anyways). It'll likely remain there once it becomes Al Jazeera America when its lineup position will be revisited & from all indications so far, the only thing that will change is the name. The format will likely remain the same as it is now (News & Documentaries)
Also keep in mind that TWC (Like both the satellite ops) tends to be trigger happy (History bears them out on this) whereas Comcast isn't
Cheers & 73 ;D
JayR said:
I'm sure there's more than we know happening; with the way Fuel TV is dumping anything that doesn't have 'UFC' pasted to it and basically out of business to the surf and skateboard filmmakers that used to provide the majority of its content, somehow I can see FS+ and Fuel merge into one channel as the eventual Fox Sports 2, which will get the 'other sports' not involving soccer. What needs to be worked out before everything launches though is everything needs HD on most cable systems; I currently don't get Fox Soccer or Fuel in HD, and though I can stretch the picture to fill the screen, definitely not the same.
The other concern for me is where the hours of Sky Sports News are going. I need my fix of Alex Hammond's 'horse of the day', English sports front pages discussion and Irish surf conditions daily, plus their view of sports far away from the spin of Bristol is downright sane.
thanks for your explanation. That makes much sense. I did not realize all the money and fees involved in this. So this is why there are so many disputes with cable and dish pulling channels offline when they don't want to pay up?mnradiofan said:Going back to Nashville said:
Easy. there isn't as much money in .2 channels, as there is in cable. This is also true of any broadcast TV channel. It is more lucrative to launch a cable channel, where you can not only get advertising revenue, but also get carriage fees. 75 million homes, even at, say, 25 cents per home is almost 19 million dollars per month before the first ad ever plays over the channel, which can be enough money for a lot more expensive content than playing "Happy Days".
The reason all these diginets air old content is because old content is CHEAP. They charge stations carriage fees, but they are most likely pennies on the dollar for a service that has yet to prove that it adds to the bottom line. At the end of the day, TV is a business, just like anything else, and business comes down to profit. If programming doesn't add to the bottom line, it's gone. And in a world with shrinking ad revenues, it's no wonder cable channels are getting better and better programming. After all, they get to go to the cash register twice.
Now, of course, you do see this happening with broadcast stations too these days, but running a broadcast network is more expensive, with more points for expense. FX doesn't have to pay for local sales staff, news departments, engineers, transmission costs, building costs, etc. they only have to do that on a national scale.
With this buisness model it is out of line to think that over the air tv might someday go away because the profit is so low?
Going back to Nashville said:thanks for your explanation. That makes much sense. I did not realize all the money and fees involved in this. So this is why there are so many disputes with cable and dish pulling channels offline when they don't want to pay up?mnradiofan said:Going back to Nashville said:
Easy. there isn't as much money in .2 channels, as there is in cable. This is also true of any broadcast TV channel. It is more lucrative to launch a cable channel, where you can not only get advertising revenue, but also get carriage fees. 75 million homes, even at, say, 25 cents per home is almost 19 million dollars per month before the first ad ever plays over the channel, which can be enough money for a lot more expensive content than playing "Happy Days".
The reason all these diginets air old content is because old content is CHEAP. They charge stations carriage fees, but they are most likely pennies on the dollar for a service that has yet to prove that it adds to the bottom line. At the end of the day, TV is a business, just like anything else, and business comes down to profit. If programming doesn't add to the bottom line, it's gone. And in a world with shrinking ad revenues, it's no wonder cable channels are getting better and better programming. After all, they get to go to the cash register twice.
Now, of course, you do see this happening with broadcast stations too these days, but running a broadcast network is more expensive, with more points for expense. FX doesn't have to pay for local sales staff, news departments, engineers, transmission costs, building costs, etc. they only have to do that on a national scale.
With this buisness model it is out of line to think that over the air tv might someday go away because the profit is so low?
Yes, this is EXACTLY why channels get pulled, the programmer wants more money than the cable or sat company wants to pay. In MOST cases, increases in programming carriage fees simply get passed on to the consumer via higher bills. Most agreements do allow for ad insertion by cable companies, so they can sometimes recoup some of the fees that way. Of course, some channels don't ask for fees for carriage, and some channels even PAY for carriage (shopping channels will often share revenue with the cable provider for carriage).
It certainly is possible that OTA TV could go away, but doesn't seem THAT likely. What I see happening is that less and less money will be spent on programming as the revenues fall, and more and more broadcast channels will ask for re-transmission fees from the cable companies.
Unfortunately, this all means that cable and satellite bills will only continue to rise year after year, until they get to a point that is unsustainable and people cut the cord in bulk. Then, content creators will have to find another business model.
The only reason cable channels have the advantages they do is because the system is rigged in their favor. There's nothing to stop it from being de-rigged. There's always the threat of the FCC instituting a la carte or something.
I certainly hope broadcast TV doesn't die just because the FCC lets cable's unfair advantages come to their logical conclusion. What might more likely (and acceptably) kill broadcast is widespread Internet viewing, but even that may more favor certain types of programming.
I had another thread talking about the vast wasteland that is digital multicast, but I'm not going to start whining about why Fox won't start a digital network instead of a cable one until NBCUniversal stops keeping shows on USA that outrate the main NBC network (let alone a digital channel), TimeWarner moves the original shows on TBS and TNT to a broadcast network, and the highest rated non-NFL non-Olympic sporting event of the year isn't on ESPN.
Another drawback to running a digital network compared to cable is that the space currently allocated to a broadcast channel can't even handle two HD feeds very well without degradation, meaning you can't put the sort of programming people would want to watch in HD there, and that probably includes any remotely popular original scripted programming.
I certainly hope broadcast TV doesn't die just because the FCC lets cable's unfair advantages come to their logical conclusion. What might more likely (and acceptably) kill broadcast is widespread Internet viewing, but even that may more favor certain types of programming.
I had another thread talking about the vast wasteland that is digital multicast, but I'm not going to start whining about why Fox won't start a digital network instead of a cable one until NBCUniversal stops keeping shows on USA that outrate the main NBC network (let alone a digital channel), TimeWarner moves the original shows on TBS and TNT to a broadcast network, and the highest rated non-NFL non-Olympic sporting event of the year isn't on ESPN.
Another drawback to running a digital network compared to cable is that the space currently allocated to a broadcast channel can't even handle two HD feeds very well without degradation, meaning you can't put the sort of programming people would want to watch in HD there, and that probably includes any remotely popular original scripted programming.
Morgan Wick said:
Actually, the system has ALREADY been de-rigged, via re-transmission consent. Now, instead of forcing cable companies to carry your programming, broadcast stations can demand a fee for carriage. This is why you see broadcast stations being pulled from cable in disputes, and this will only rise. The only problem is that broadcast stations and networks are still on the old business model (with the exception of O&O). So, just because a station is charging fees, doesn't mean these fees are going back to the network to be invested in programming. And each program on TV has to be put to the same ROI tests that any business decision makes. The result is that broadcast networks spend less on programming. And local stations are fine with this, because they make most of their money in local news, programming which they can charge for 100% of the ad spots available, instead of say, 10% like network or syndicated programming.
The result is you see network programming of lower and lower quality. Meanwhile, Cable networks are able to invest more and more into programming (and most of them don't have 2-3 hours per night to fill with original programming). The end result is one or two amazing shows at a time, and a bunch of low budget filler, syndication, movies, etc outside of those times. If you took all the GREAT programs that are out there, I bet you'd still have to buy a movie package to fill out the prime time schedule. And yet even with all this programming investment, I'd be willing to bet that cable units are more profitable than the broadcast networks (I may be wrong on that).
Sports is the same story. ESPN has the highest rated non-nfl program because they can afford to outbid everybody else for them, and then just make the TV providers pay more for carriage. The cable companies are stuck paying these higher fees because they KNOW that sports is the biggest draw they have, especially in an age where more and more content is also available online. What has been interesting these last few years is watching all these independent or out of work content creators take straight to the internet with new shows. Netflix is now starting to produce some great original programming, youtube has made a huge investment in programming, and there are some very talented people doing great things independently.
But, the laws of supply and demand apply here. The highest quality content will always go to the highest bidder, and more and more often that is NOT broadcast television. Here in MN, the only local sports team that even has a presence on local TV anymore is our local NBA team. I know the NFL teams are all on broadcast still, but the NFL controls all those contracts on a national level. I can no longer watch 90% of the local sports coverage without a cable subscription.
- Status