Most of the cable channels are owned by the networks, and most already have commercials. I don't know why the networks would want to pull them off cable but it would seem to make sense to instead make some of them non-cable-exclusive and also offer them as sub-channels. They wouldn't need must carry to keep them on cable, though a little renegotiating would maybe be needed. IOW, I don't understand why economies of scale don't suggest making all national channels potentially available in all venues. - Tom Craig Birkmaier wrote: > At 11:55 AM -0500 2/2/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > >>But as ABC has proved by pulling ABC News Now as a >>separate cable channel, broadcasters can achieve this >>goal regardless. Why can't they gradually pull back >>their cable-only channels and stick them on their OTA >>multicasts? Then cable systems will want to provide >>those multicasts, or risk losing subscribers. > > > ABC News now WAS NOT a separate cable channel. It was delivered as > part of a multicast by ABC stations based on a negotiated > re-transmission consent agreement. ABC pulled the news channel from > their O&O stations and AFFILIATES! > > The apparent plan is to lay low for a short period of time, then to > re-introduce ABC News Now as a CABLE CHANNEL, that will compete with > CNN, Fox News, etc. ABC will charge cable operators/consumers a > monthly subscriber fee for this channel as they do now for ESPN > 1/2/HD, ABC Family, The Disney Channel, etc. > > Why is ABC doing this? > > Because they KNOW that the FCC is NOT going to extend Must > Carry/Retransmission Consent to broadcast Multicasts. The > "experiment" that ABC orchestrated by beginning this service as part > of a broadcast multiplex was just a stunt; it was intended to give > the impression that the networks would create new content for > multicasts, rather than pulling existing cable channels and letting > their O&Os and affiliates deliver them. > > There is no question that subscribers want many of the existing cable > networks. It is ABSURD to think that the media conglomerates would > pull existing networks for which they are receiving DOUBLE > compensation (commercial revenues and subscriber fees), and reduce > the audience to the small number of homes that can receive OTA DTV > broadcasts. > > The only way that this CAN happen is if broadcasters are granted Must > Carry/Retransmission Consent for the entire multicast. IF this > happens - it will not for many reasons - then the conglomerates would > move some networks from cable to broadcast in order to take control > of local commercial insertion revenues; those revenues would need to > exceed the subscriber fees that are now flowing to the conglomerates. > Thus it is likely that ESPN would remain on cable since Disney gets > nearly $3/mo per subscriber for these channels; but ABC family or ABC > News Now would likely move to broadcast since the subscriber fees are > very low. > >>What you keep repeating, that broadcasters are >>perfectly happy to see a non-viable DTT solution, >>seems way too preposterous and self destructive. > > > "Broadcasters" are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They exist > at the mercy of the media conglomerates, who are using them - > actually the Must Carry /Retransmission Consent regs that "protect" > broadcasters - to take total control of both content and carriage. > > Follow the money Bert. > > Regards > Craig > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.