[opendtv] Re: UHF reception

  • From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:32:53 -0800

I recall that recently NBC(?) announced a plan to move prime time
programming to pay services and concentrate on local programming at the
O&Os.

And, as you mention, ABC has moved sports packages to there owned ESPN
network. I fear this to be the tip of the iceberg, but only time will tell.
Dale

>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Willkie
>Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:21 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: UHF reception
>
>
>No Dale, you and your comments aren't clueless, but you excited the peanut
>gallery into rhetorical excess, and they were heading way into the clouds.
>
>I think we need to disentangle intent from effect.  It's hard to imagine
>that the NAB intended to benefit one or more broadcast network at a time
>when about zero were NAB members.
>
>The only prime-time entertainment programming that has been
>transferred from
>broadcast to cable, in my memory, is Law & Order:CI.  And, of
>course, Friday
>Night Lights gets a first run this season on DirecTV, before it resumes in
>January on NBC.  I'm not sure that's a good deal all the way around, but
>I've never watched it, so I wouldn't miss it if it were to disappear to
>cable.
>
>And, I'm sure that you realize that sports programming isn't owned by the
>networks; they merely license it for single broadcasts.  So, they haven't
>transferred it to cable; they were merely outbid by entities with dual
>revenue streams.
>
>I will note that ABC may have effectively done an ABC to ESPN transfer, but
>usually, they end up with broadcasts rights that were previously held by
>networks other than ABC.
>
>I think it's safe to say that networks have become very cost-conscious, not
>unlike the newspaper industry, and it's well-regarded that you can't scrimp
>your way to success in the TV business.
>
>John Willkie
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
>nombre de Dale Kelly
>Enviado el: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:58 PM
>Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Asunto: [opendtv] Re: UHF reception
>
>
>John W. wrote:
>
>> And, it's plainly ridiculous to assert that the NAB intended,
>> through the transition, to destroy television broadcasting.
>> They clearly represent the views and intentions of television
>> broadcasters.
>
>My use of the term "complicit" regarding NABs role was clearly inaccurate.
>They were/are simply the pawn of Media Company owned Broadcast Networks
>plans to control both sides of this board.
>
>The NAB seldom represents the general good of the common broadcaster except
>when it is to benefit one or more networks. Call it "trickle down"
>representation.
>
>Also, IMO, the transfer by a broadcast networks prime entertainment and
>sports programming to subscription networks does devalue that
>networks O&Os.
>Perhaps this is simply part of a longer-range plan to transfer
>that value to
>an even more profitable branch of their company.
>
>Dale (Call me clueless..)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Willkie
>> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 7:43 PM
>> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: UHF reception
>>
>>
>> It occurs to me that you guys are largely confusing "creative
>destruction"
>> with "destruction."
>>
>> It was plainly the case that a forced conversion to digital
>> television from
>> analog (the U.S. implementation of same) was going to change "television
>> broadcasting as we knew it."
>>
>> This is running alongside the accretion of what used to be the whole
>> enchilada to the wider selections of cable and satellite.
>>
>> I would offer that if the transition hadn't been launched, that
>television
>> broadcasting would be in worse shape now than it is.  There is
>uncertainty
>> in the transition, sure.  There is also the power and flexibility
>> of one or
>> more toolkits to make television something that it could never be in the
>> analog world.
>>
>> And, it's plainly ridiculous to assert that the NAB intended, through the
>> transition, to destroy television broadcasting.  They clearly
>> represent the
>> views and intentions of television broadcasters.  Sure there are
>> unintended
>> consequences, but the greater risk was doing nothing.
>>
>> I really think that you folk need to do several "risk assessments",
>> including one that includes a world with analog over the air broadcasting
>> and a cable infrastructure able to transmit HDTV, and see how that looks
>> compared to what we have today.
>>
>> And, "man up!"
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Other related posts: