08-11-2009, 02:17 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
DTVUSA Member
|
Multicasting is more likely, because it represents a significantly smaller investment. If you're not seeing lots of multicasting, or if you're seeing, as in my case, a contraction of multicasting, then there is no real need for more allocations in general. Good thing, too, because there isn't any available bandwidth for it anyway, in this part of the country. |
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 02:30 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah, the shrinking of bandwidth sucks IMO. But I guess we will be moving to Internet or Satelite in the future.
Why is it that Cable Networks arent scrambling for OTA subchannels? Like ESPN, TBS, TNT, USA, Sci Fi?
Seems like a no brainer to me. I went to see a movie the other day and arrived early and saw adverts fro TNTs new show, which I have no access to. Seems to me that expanding audience would be prime for expanding revenues. |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 02:40 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
|
DTVUSA Member
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
Yeah, the shrinking of bandwidth sucks IMO.
|
The contraction I was referring to is that at least one of the sub-channels we had has been discontinued. It isn't clear to me that there is enough money to be made offering new channels, whether they be (less capital-intensive) sub-channels or (more capital-intensive) main channels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
But I guess we will be moving to Internet or Satelite in the future.
|
Well something with a cost profile more commensurate with the profit potential, at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
Why is it that Cable Networks arent scrambling for OTA subchannels? Like ESPN, TBS, TNT, USA, Sci Fi? |
Almost surely: Money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
Seems like a no brainer to me.
|
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
I went to see a movie the other day and arrived early and saw adverts fro TNTs new show, which I have no access to. Seems to me that expanding audience would be prime for expanding revenues.
|
I think you're overestimating the value of marginal viewership. If anything, I see things going in the other direction, with less and less original programming available OTA and more and more programming only available via pay services. That's the only way you can really safeguard a revenue stream for programming, given how people can skip, ignore or otherwise bypass commercials.
Last edited by bicker; 08-11-2009 at 02:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 02:45 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
|
Super Moderator
|
Right before transition:
UHF = 56 - 1 for Astronomy - 6 LMR = 49
VHF HI = 7
VHF L =5
Total usable was 61
==============
The Day After (intentional pun)
UHF = 38 - 1 for Astronomy - 6 LMR = 31
VHF HI = 7
VHF L = 5 (but unusable for practice except must carry laws)
So I don't count VHF Low...
So now we have 38 channels.
Net loss of channels
23 channels
That is huge if you ask me. Most of it realized after it was too late to scream, it's history now. Another part of the national park system sold to a corporation. Probably with Chinese money.
__________________
The more I understand, the less I know. 
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 03:45 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
Where is Universal Sports?
|
It's on one of those low-powered signals you can't receive.
- Trip
__________________
KJ4IEA
Comments are my own and not that of my employer or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Trip For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 04:09 PM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
|
|
I think it's WHDC-LD, which is on VHF. FM and TV Service Area Maps
I'm still not listing that station as on the air on my website because I have no confirmation that it's actually on the air.
- Trip
__________________
KJ4IEA
Comments are my own and not that of my employer or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 04:15 PM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
|
DTVUSA Member
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie
That is huge if you ask me.
|
Pretty small if you ask me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie
Another part of the national park system sold to a corporation. Probably with Chinese money.
|
(and distorted by some apparently anti-business bias, too: VHF Low is being used in some areas).
You did point out something important though: This is a prime time for people unhappy with the way the Telecommunications Act worked out for them to try to re-legislate reality.
I thought we weren't going to be discussing political issues in this part of the forum. |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 04:16 PM
|
#19 (permalink)
|
|
Administrator
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity
Where is Universal Sports? ...Why isnt ESPN doing ESPN OTA? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
My guess is that both would do better as revenue-generating cable channels, than they would do as free OTA channels. |
The programming on Universal Sports is focused squarely on Olympic-related sports, which in my opinion, misses the mark with OTA target audiences. A full time OTA sports news channel with the occasional professional sports rebroadcast would seem like a better idea. Again, that's just my armchair perspective. |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2009, 04:23 PM
|
#20 (permalink)
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip
I think it's WHDC-LD, which is on VHF. FM and TV Service Area Maps
I'm still not listing that station as on the air on my website because I have no confirmation that it's actually on the air.
- Trip |
Well I cant confirm it. I did pick up analog 20 occassionally. Never could recieve 18. Didnt even know there was a RC 10, 12.1, whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
| |
|
|
|
» Guest Message |
|
|
|
» Supporters |
|
|
|
» Marketplace: Auctions Ending Soon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Recent Topics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
