NYCLA*

__________________
4:3 480i must DIE. All channels should be broadcast in 16:9 480p MINIMUM.

BCF68

If Comcast buys NBC then NBC will 100% become a cable channel unless the government stops it. Once NBC goes cable then ABC will follow. ABC is owned by Disney and most of what it owns are cable networks. So it makes sense to make ABC a cable network too.

EscapeVelocity

Im hoping that Rupert Murdoch buys NBC from GE.

__________________
.
.

bicker

I don't think the implication is necessarily there.

First, I don't see any reason to believe that NBC will ever give up its national over-the-air broadcast network. It is simply too value to the overall enterprise to have it, for presenting news and information, live sporting events, and variety. They can probably whittle it down to covering the costs for a few scripted dramas and comedies necessary to provide enough variety in programming on the national over-the-air broadcast network.

Second, there is nothing stopping them now from fostering their cable offerings. Indeed, they are. Syfy was the #3 cable network this week. That reflects an awesome improvement. And given that they have a much more direct and clear flow of cash, in the form of subscription fees, for cable networks, it makes sense to foster those offerings.

Will ABC follow-suit? Maybe. I think they need to turn more some of their cable assets towards adults, though.

Beyond that, is any of this a bad thing for viewers? For OTA viewers? Of course - absolutely. For cable viewers? A little bit (because prices will increase as valuable content gets placed more firmly behind a tollbooth). Is this something that requires government interference? Not even a little AFAIC.

Don_M

If the feds didn't stop this, each network has a few hundred affiliates whose owners might have something they'd like to say about it -- in court. Programming expenses might be the least of the networks' problems at that point. As beguiling as the slippery-slope theory may be, nothing is cut and dried in today's litigious society.

IDRick

In your opinion... We pay for a service that provides the tv programming that we want to watch. OTA locals account for less than 20% of our tv viewing. Our pleasure from watching tv would be dramatically reduced if we were to switch to OTA only. It's really all in how you spend your entertainment dollar. For us, cable is a good choice. YM obviously varies but that doesn't make me a sucker...

Have a great day!

Rick

BCF68

The thing is it won't be NBC anymore it's going to be run by Comcast. Which last time I checked is a cable company. Any "value" NBC has in OTA it can get that much and more by getting carriage fees from other cable companies and satellite etc.

Well maybe people using OTA can't afford cable or satellite or can't get cable or satellite. I guess in 10 years they'll be out of luck when all the networks are cable channels. People are getting tired of paying $750-$1000 a year or more for crap. Cable and satellite offers "hundreds" of channels only a few of which are worth watching. It'd be different if you could just pick the channels you actually watch and get charged appropriately.

bicker

That won't matter much.

That's not the case. There are specific advantages (with regard to the types of programming I mentioned earlier; also see * below) where OTA offers advantages. If nothing else, having an OTA network, as I described in my earlier message, fosters the ability to get carriage fees from other cable and satellite providers for cable network offerings.

* One of the most prevalent reasons given for the fact that the US television rights for Summer Olympic Games is now always a two-way battle between ABC and NBC is because they are the only two companies that have enough OTA and cable networks to make the most money off the US rights.

"Appropriately" is the problem. I pay about $30 per month for cable now, and for that I get three hours of programming per week (over and above what I can get on my antenna). So effectively, I'm paying more than $2 per hour of television. That's a little high, but that is because I'm buying so little. As with most things, the more you buy, the less each incremental bit costs. Over the summer, I was paying $70 for what was about 10 hours of programming per week (over and above what I can get on my antenna). That's about $1.50 per hour of television. With higher levels of service, I'd expect to pay even less per hour.

However, folks expecting to pay pennies per hour for the quality programming that I typically enjoy are deluding themselves.

BCF68

If that's the case why isn't ABC putting ESPN on a subchannel? I mean it's 15 million extra homes they wouldn't have. More eyes means more they can charge for ad rates. Yet they don't do it. Hmmm.


Well for $2 or less I can BUY an episode of my favorite show from Amazon and I don't have to put up with commericals plus it's mine to keep. So yeah, putting up with commericals for something that is gone after I'm done watching it, I do expect to pay less.

EscapeVelocity

Im hoping for a pay per view model over the internet.

Furthermore, I hope that the government eases up on the broadband speed limitations and rips it up to Japanese standards.

__________________
.
.