What's up with ABC?

NBC has beach volleyball in HD, CBS has the U.S Open (minus the rain delay
footage) in HD, ESPN has
Cal-Tennessee in HD, but ABC has Ohio State-Northern Illinois in SD? What's
up with that? I wonder if it will be like last year, when the only Ohio
State game in HD was the bowl game?

Steve

Steve Hawkins wrote:
NBC has beach volleyball in HD, CBS has the U.S Open (minus the rain delay
footage) in HD, ESPN has
Cal-Tennessee in HD, but ABC has Ohio State-Northern Illinois in SD? What's
up with that? I wonder if it will be like last year, when the only Ohio
State game in HD was the bowl game?

Steve

But the ABC prime time Saturday game is in HD and there was at least 1
other football game in HD on ABC this afternoon. As I understand it, the
major issue with doing all the regional college games in HD is not just
cameras & production trucks, but the number of HD games that can be
uplinked to ABC and then broadcast to the stations around the US.

We are not yet at the point where all major weekend sporting events
are in HD. There is a lot more HD than last year and will be more
complete HD coverage next year. For example, CBS recently announced that
ALL of their men's golf events in 2007 will be 100% HD (no mobile SD
cameras). Getting there in steps.

Alan F

AlanF wrote:
snip
But the ABC prime time Saturday game is in HD and there was at
least 1
other football game in HD on ABC this afternoon. As I understand it,
the
major issue with doing all the regional college games in HD is not
just
cameras & production trucks, but the number of HD games that can be
uplinked to ABC and then broadcast to the stations around the US.

We are not yet at the point where all major weekend sporting
events
are in HD. There is a lot more HD than last year and will be more
complete HD coverage next year. For example, CBS recently announced
that
ALL of their men's golf events in 2007 will be 100% HD (no mobile SD

cameras). Getting there in steps.

Alan F

So Bob and Elmo and Thumper predict that the networks (and the
independant production facilities), after buying the new HD gear, will
go back to delivering programming in SD.

GG

OTA, after 2009, you are going to be getting SD, or maybe wide screen
SD,,,,plus 4 sub channels. There is no mandate, nor any money to be
made, for OTA broadcasters to send out a single HD channel, when they
can send out 5 SD channels. That was the "carrot" for them to convert
to digital modulation.

From cable, and Sat, there will be plenty of HD content to purchase -
HD can easily be down converted to an SD digital signal for OTA.


"G-squared" wrote:


AlanF wrote:
snip
But the ABC prime time Saturday game is in HD and there was at
least 1
other football game in HD on ABC this afternoon. As I understand it,
the
major issue with doing all the regional college games in HD is not
just
cameras & production trucks, but the number of HD games that can be
uplinked to ABC and then broadcast to the stations around the US.

We are not yet at the point where all major weekend sporting
events
are in HD. There is a lot more HD than last year and will be more
complete HD coverage next year. For example, CBS recently announced
that
ALL of their men's golf events in 2007 will be 100% HD (no mobile SD

cameras). Getting there in steps.

Alan F

So Bob and Elmo and Thumper predict that the networks (and the
independant production facilities), after buying the new HD gear, will
go back to delivering programming in SD.

GG

wrote:
OTA, after 2009, you are going to be getting SD, or maybe wide screen
SD,,,,plus 4 sub channels. There is no mandate, nor any money to be
made, for OTA broadcasters to send out a single HD channel, when they
can send out 5 SD channels. That was the "carrot" for them to convert
to digital modulation.

Please explain why the networks and local stations are spending *any*
money on HD equipment then? There is no mandate, so they must think
there is money to be made with HD.

From cable, and Sat, there will be plenty of HD content to purchase -
HD can easily be down converted to an SD digital signal for OTA.

So what?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

The will sell thier HD produced content to the Sat and Cable
providers,,,,,

Just like HBO and Showtime,,,you will get SD OTA, and be able to see
the HD over your PAY Sat or cable - as a premium service ad on. Your
local stations will upload the HD content to the cable or sat
companies, for a fee.

Largely the locals are buying equipment to get ready for the switch to
digital OTA broadcasting - OTA HD is only a sideline. HD has nothing
to do with the switch to digital braodcasting - the local stations
want those 5 sub channels - they will be money makers for them.

Currently less than 16 percent of households get thier TV OTA - when
analog goes away in 2009, that percentage is going to go down further.
Of the 16 percent, less than 20 percent will have the ability to watch
OTA HD. Thats a less than 3 percent market.

Your right, why are they spending the money - certianly its not to get
a 3 percent market share.


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

wrote:
OTA, after 2009, you are going to be getting SD, or maybe wide screen
SD,,,,plus 4 sub channels. There is no mandate, nor any money to be
made, for OTA broadcasters to send out a single HD channel, when they
can send out 5 SD channels. That was the "carrot" for them to convert
to digital modulation.

Please explain why the networks and local stations are spending *any*
money on HD equipment then? There is no mandate, so they must think
there is money to be made with HD.

From cable, and Sat, there will be plenty of HD content to purchase -
HD can easily be down converted to an SD digital signal for OTA.

So what?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

wrote in message
...

OTA, after 2009, you are going to be getting SD, or maybe wide screen
SD,,,,plus 4 sub channels. There is no mandate, nor any money to be
made, for OTA broadcasters to send out a single HD channel, when they
can send out 5 SD channels. That was the "carrot" for them to convert
to digital modulation.


Read this, please:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/httalk...man/index.html

Thats very nice, so what does it have to do with what I said,,?

They will SELL the HD done at that studio to the Sat and Cable feeds,
and send you SD OTA,

You will get to see all David Lettermans wrinkles and nose hairs on
your pay cable or Sat dish service,,,,in glorious HD.

They are not doing this to service a 3 percent market share,,,,,


"David" wrote:

wrote in message
...

OTA, after 2009, you are going to be getting SD, or maybe wide screen
SD,,,,plus 4 sub channels. There is no mandate, nor any money to be
made, for OTA broadcasters to send out a single HD channel, when they
can send out 5 SD channels. That was the "carrot" for them to convert
to digital modulation.


Read this, please:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/httalk...man/index.html

wrote:
The will sell thier HD produced content to the Sat and Cable
providers,,,,,

I guess you don't know very much about how the OTA business works, do
you? I'm not surprised. Take a look at the laws covering "must carry"
and imagine just how much they will have to change to make your vision a
reality.

Just like HBO and Showtime,,,you will get SD OTA, and be able to see
the HD over your PAY Sat or cable - as a premium service ad on. Your
local stations will upload the HD content to the cable or sat
companies, for a fee.

Right! Like that is going to happen! Where do you think the money is
being made on OTA now? Why do you think that is going to change? Selling
more channels will cost more for content and sales effort and yield less
money per ad.

Largely the locals are buying equipment to get ready for the switch to
digital OTA broadcasting - OTA HD is only a sideline. HD has nothing
to do with the switch to digital braodcasting - the local stations
want those 5 sub channels - they will be money makers for them.

Please answer the question put to you: The local stations are spending
millions of dollars to upgrade to HD studios, cameras, editing and
mixing equipment. That is a fact. Why are they doing it?

The short answer is that they expect to make money on HD.

Currently less than 16 percent of households get thier TV OTA

Are you one of bob's sock puppets? That wouldn't surprise me. You sure
are spouting bob's lines.

- when
analog goes away in 2009, that percentage is going to go down further.
Of the 16 percent, less than 20 percent will have the ability to watch
OTA HD. Thats a less than 3 percent market.

Up to 40% of all analog TVs depend on OTA. They are not hooked up to
either cable or satellite. You can look it up on the FCC's website.

Your right, why are they spending the money - certianly its not to get
a 3 percent market share.

Are you top posting to convince people you aren't bob? The business
model you are espousing makes no sense.

Content costs money. Five streams of content will cost much more than
being paid to carry network programming (I'll be you didn't know that
the affiliates are paid by the networks), drop the affiliation and they
lose that income.

n order for the commercials on these multiple channels to be worth
buying, the content has to attract viewers. That implies that it must be
something other than what is carried on cable, giving your reasoning
that almost all sets are on cable. That implies new programming, not
reruns of network shows. In case you hadn't notices, DVDs have all but
killed syndication.

It still remains that it will be much more expensive to sell and deliver
ads on five streams of content and the revenue per ad will be lower,
since each stream will be viewed by fewer people. Stations will not be
able to lose a dollar on every ad and make up the difference in volume.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
wrote:

The will sell thier HD produced content to the Sat and Cable
providers,,,,,


I guess you don't know very much about how the OTA business works, do
you? I'm not surprised. Take a look at the laws covering "must carry"
and imagine just how much they will have to change to make your vision a
reality.

Just like HBO and Showtime,,,you will get SD OTA, and be able to see
the HD over your PAY Sat or cable - as a premium service ad on. Your
local stations will upload the HD content to the cable or sat
companies, for a fee.


Right! Like that is going to happen! Where do you think the money is
being made on OTA now? Why do you think that is going to change? Selling
more channels will cost more for content and sales effort and yield less
money per ad.

Largely the locals are buying equipment to get ready for the switch to
digital OTA broadcasting - OTA HD is only a sideline. HD has nothing
to do with the switch to digital braodcasting - the local stations
want those 5 sub channels - they will be money makers for them.


Please answer the question put to you: The local stations are spending
millions of dollars to upgrade to HD studios, cameras, editing and
mixing equipment. That is a fact. Why are they doing it?

The short answer is that they expect to make money on HD.

Currently less than 16 percent of households get thier TV OTA


Are you one of bob's sock puppets? That wouldn't surprise me. You sure
are spouting bob's lines.

- when
analog goes away in 2009, that percentage is going to go down further.
Of the 16 percent, less than 20 percent will have the ability to watch
OTA HD. Thats a less than 3 percent market.


Up to 40% of all analog TVs depend on OTA. They are not hooked up to
either cable or satellite. You can look it up on the FCC's website.

Your right, why are they spending the money - certianly its not to get
a 3 percent market share.


Are you top posting to convince people you aren't bob? The business
model you are espousing makes no sense.

Content costs money. Five streams of content will cost much more than
being paid to carry network programming (I'll be you didn't know that
the affiliates are paid by the networks), drop the affiliation and they
lose that income.

n order for the commercials on these multiple channels to be worth
buying, the content has to attract viewers. That implies that it must be
something other than what is carried on cable, giving your reasoning
that almost all sets are on cable. That implies new programming, not
reruns of network shows. In case you hadn't notices, DVDs have all but
killed syndication.

It still remains that it will be much more expensive to sell and deliver
ads on five streams of content and the revenue per ad will be lower,
since each stream will be viewed by fewer people. Stations will not be
able to lose a dollar on every ad and make up the difference in volume.

Matthew


I think what AZV14 is trying to say is:

1) The stations will make the network shows available in SD over the
air, and in HD or SD to cable/sat providers, thus making the network
shows available to almost 100% of their market, missing only those
viewers with HD sets and no cable/sat, a small fraction of the viewers.
Thus the add value will be almost as much as it is now.

2) In addition, they will make available 4 SD non-network channels. But
these 4 channels are only available to the fraction of the 15% who are
OTA viewers and who are not watching the network shows. The add value
of these viewers is thus very small because the number of potentiol
viewers is very small. Is this add value greater than the cost of
providing the 4 additional channels plus the add value lost by the
reduced market for the network shows? That is a decision the
broadcasters will have to evaluate.

3) If the stations don't make the network shows available OTA, then I
would argue that the stations will lose their network frachise, and the
networks would prefer to sell the network shows directly to the
cable/sat providers, eliminating the useless middleman (the station) and
providing more revenue direct to the networks. The stations then become
just another 2nd rate broadcaster of low value shows, and able to only
serve 15% of the market, not a good postion to be in, competing for 15%
of the viewers against the cable/sat providers who reach 85% of the
market with hundreds of channels vs. the broadcaster with 5 channels.