OTA better than cable

On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:37:44 -0400 Matthew L. Martin wrote:
| Tom Stiller wrote:
|
|
| And the weather doesn't qualify as children's programming?
|
|
| In certain parts of the country (Tornado Alley), weather radar on a sub
| channel should be mandatory, IMHO.

I agree 100%.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:14:35 -0400 Tom Stiller wrote:
| In article ,
| Del Mibbler [email protected] wrote:
|
| "Matthew L. Martin" wrote (in part):
|
| wrote:
| I suspect we will see higher quality now, and later see a reduction in
| quality as stations find various alternative programming they can add into
| secondary subchannels.
|
| That assumes that sub-channels can be programmed (content costs money),
| sold (salespeople get paid) commercials produced (production is labor
| intensive) at a cost low enough to be profitable.
|
| There's another factor that may discourage broadcasters from running
| multiple subchannels, at least publicly-available ones: the children's
| programming requirement. Each broadcaster must air a certain amount
| of children's programming that meets certain requirements (such shows
| are identified with an "e/i" symbol). That was recently extended to
| multicasts, so that more programming requires more children's
| programming, either on the subchannels or all on one of them. But it
| doesn't apply to data streams or private or subscription
| transmissions.
|
| One local channel was putting a continuous feed of their weather radar
| on a subchannel. It cost them next to nothing and was handy to see
| how soon it would rain or let up. The channel is available on cable,
| which gets the same feed that's sent to the transmitter. The station
| responded to the new rule by setting a bit to mark the channel as
| hidden, so it doesn't show up when a receiver scans for OTA channels.
| It's still there and some receivers can show it, at least until they
| do a rescan. I predict that this rule, if not modified or rescinded,
| will result in the elimination of free-to-produce information channels
| such as radars and weather loops.
|
|
| And the weather doesn't qualify as children's programming?

Stick "E/I" in the corner for the required percentage of time :-)

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

wrote:


I don't know what it costs them, but many NBC affiliates have weather on
a secondary channel. Maybe that's free?

If they have their own radar anyway, it is as close to free as it gets.

One local station here went with a 2nd network affiliation for their
secondary channel.

That they get paid for, though the affiliate payment will depend on the
number of eyeballs delivered.

They put on an extra newscast at 10 PM in addition
to the 11 PM one on the primary channel. They have lots of network and
local advertising.


Hardly the same as two or three sub-channels running for a significant
portion of the day.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:59:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin wrote:
| wrote:
|
|
| I don't know what it costs them, but many NBC affiliates have weather on
| a secondary channel. Maybe that's free?
|
| If they have their own radar anyway, it is as close to free as it gets.

It is apparently a network feed weather. I only got a glance at it once,
but have seen it advertised for 2 different NBC affiliate stations, and
with NBC logos attached. So I suspect it is an NBC related service.


| One local station here went with a 2nd network affiliation for their
| secondary channel.
|
| That they get paid for, though the affiliate payment will depend on the
| number of eyeballs delivered.

Given that the local cable dropped a nearby big city affiliation of that
network for the local new affiliation, they will at least get all the
local eyeballs that aim for that network.

The concern for me is that either we won't get both networks in HD, or
the HD will be way overcompressed.


| They put on an extra newscast at 10 PM in addition
| to the 11 PM one on the primary channel. They have lots of network and
| local advertising.
|
|
| Hardly the same as two or three sub-channels running for a significant
| portion of the day.

There seem to be a lot of old sitcoms from the 1950's through 1970's
available on the trade or buy market for small stations. I wonder if
there are enough to support 4 or 5 SD channels of dirt cheap content
in the smaller markets. I'm thinking of stuff like Addams Family,
Beverly Hillbillies, etc, which could be done in 2 to 4 plays per day.
A lot of the stuff is in black and white, which would compress easier,
possibly allowing for 6 SD channels. This could all be automated by
cheap computers (I could develop this cheaply with existing hardware).
I'd just need to find enough kids content.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:29:34 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

| In article ,
| wrote:
|
| There seem to be a lot of old sitcoms from the 1950's through 1970's
| available on the trade or buy market for small stations. I wonder if
| there are enough to support 4 or 5 SD channels of dirt cheap content
| in the smaller markets. I'm thinking of stuff like Addams Family,
| Beverly Hillbillies, etc, which could be done in 2 to 4 plays per day.
|
| Cable TV, circa 1972.

But still worth a small regular portion of an audience.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On May 27, 9:12 am, wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:59:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin wrote:| wrote:

|
|
| I don't know what it costs them, but many NBC affiliates have weather on
| a secondary channel. Maybe that's free?
|
| If they have their own radar anyway, it is as close to free as it gets.

It is apparently a network feed weather. I only got a glance at it once,
but have seen it advertised for 2 different NBC affiliate stations, and
with NBC logos attached. So I suspect it is an NBC related service.

| One local station here went with a 2nd network affiliation for their
| secondary channel.
|
| That they get paid for, though the affiliate payment will depend on the
| number of eyeballs delivered.

Given that the local cable dropped a nearby big city affiliation of that
network for the local new affiliation, they will at least get all the
local eyeballs that aim for that network.

The concern for me is that either we won't get both networks in HD, or
the HD will be way overcompressed.

| They put on an extra newscast at 10 PM in addition
| to the 11 PM one on the primary channel. They have lots of network and
| local advertising.
|
|
| Hardly the same as two or three sub-channels running for a significant
| portion of the day.

There seem to be a lot of old sitcoms from the 1950's through 1970's
available on the trade or buy market for small stations. I wonder if
there are enough to support 4 or 5 SD channels of dirt cheap content
in the smaller markets. I'm thinking of stuff like Addams Family,
Beverly Hillbillies, etc, which could be done in 2 to 4 plays per day.
A lot of the stuff is in black and white, which would compress easier,
possibly allowing for 6 SD channels. This could all be automated by
cheap computers (I could develop this cheaply with existing hardware).
I'd just need to find enough kids content.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Chicago has a digital channel that is all older reruns. Honeymooners,
Batman, Star Trek, all the old Norman Lear stuff, etc, etc, etc. A
lot of it ends up on my DVR. The little ones love Batman, its
timeless.

On 27 May 2007 19:15:07 -0700 mogator88 wrote:

| Chicago has a digital channel that is all older reruns. Honeymooners,
| Batman, Star Trek, all the old Norman Lear stuff, etc, etc, etc. A
| lot of it ends up on my DVR. The little ones love Batman, its
| timeless.

All SD I presume. How many subchannels of it? Or is this just one
subchannel of an otherwise regular station? What I was wondering is
the possibility of a station that would be exclusively this kind of
programming with 4 to 6 subchannels of it. Maybe one of them just for
the kids from 5AM to 10PM, e.g. old cartoons and E/I programming.
Lots of ad-trade programming comes with double run, which can help
fill in a lot of time. And in many markets, religious programming
and infomercials could fill in if regular programming was not enough.

Addams Family, The Munsters, Gilligans Island, Flipper, Get Smart,
The Brady Bunch, My Three Sons, Perry Mason, Leave It To Beaver.
Lots of those would not likely have ad-trade arrangements available,
but hopefully their broadcast rights can still be bought directly
at a cheap price for a small station (low power digital, when the
FCC opens the floodgates for new apps).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

| Chicago has a digital channel that is all older reruns. Honeymooners,
| Batman, Star Trek, all the old Norman Lear stuff, etc, etc, etc. A
| lot of it ends up on my DVR. The little ones love Batman, its
| timeless.

All SD I presume. How many subchannels of it? Or is this just one
subchannel of an otherwise regular station? What I was wondering is
the possibility of a station that would be exclusively this kind of
programming with 4 to 6 subchannels of it. Maybe one of them just for
the kids from 5AM to 10PM, e.g. old cartoons and E/I programming.
Lots of ad-trade programming comes with double run, which can help
fill in a lot of time. And in many markets, religious programming
and infomercials could fill in if regular programming was not enough.

Addams Family, The Munsters, Gilligans Island, Flipper, Get Smart,
The Brady Bunch, My Three Sons, Perry Mason, Leave It To Beaver.
Lots of those would not likely have ad-trade arrangements available,
but hopefully their broadcast rights can still be bought directly
at a cheap price for a small station (low power digital, when the
FCC opens the floodgates for new apps).

Matthew Martin will tell you that it could never work.

I haven't said that. I do believe that it is unlikely to work. A
commercial station manager's job is to maximize profit. Most of them are
seasoned professionals who really do know what they are doing. If any
significant number of them thought that 4-6 sub channels with low value
programming would generate more income than HD with one sub channel, you
can bet that they would be doing that. Oddly enough, very few are. I
believe that very few will because more sub channels increase costs more
than they can recoup in revenue.

But then, that's what they said about cable TV using the same model back
in the early 70s.

Actually, I don't think that was said about CATV or early cable. The
business model was pretty compelling, especially given the monopolistic
licensing agreements. Once satellite delivery of cable channels came
about, there was no turning back. Of course, they didn't have to compete
with 200 channels on cable or satellite being readily available. They
were competing against a few OTA stations with a total of three or fours
streams of content.

Comparing multiple sub channels to '70s cable and CATV is just laughable.

Ad revenues are all about delivered eyeballs. Please explain how more
channels create more eyeballs in any market?

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:42:03 -0400 Matthew L. Martin wrote:

| I haven't said that. I do believe that it is unlikely to work. A
| commercial station manager's job is to maximize profit. Most of them are
| seasoned professionals who really do know what they are doing. If any
| significant number of them thought that 4-6 sub channels with low value
| programming would generate more income than HD with one sub channel, you
| can bet that they would be doing that. Oddly enough, very few are. I
| believe that very few will because more sub channels increase costs more
| than they can recoup in revenue.

If I was investing in a high-dollar station with the intent to maximize
profit, or was running one that big investors were expecting high ROI,
then of course I would make it go with big network HD programming and
maybe add the sub channel.

I put some thought into the idea because I believed I could scale down
the operation of so many channels by means of automation I could develop
on my own. Then it would take maybe one or at most two people to keep
the ingest operation going. Add a sales person or two and giving them
ad ingestion capability would cover that end. Or that part could be
outsourced to a local production company that might want to do the sales
on perhaps 50% commission. The idea is to minimize the costs everywhere
that is possible and run it on a low budget. Affiliations with other
larger local stations might even be possible for sales and promo exchange,
as well as possible news rebroadcast at odd times like 9PM or 3AM.

I also put some thought into doing something like that with one channel
of radio. I've heard of that being done already.

In part, the idea would be to serve as a test-bed for the computer system
I would develop.


| But then, that's what they said about cable TV using the same model back
| in the early 70s.
|
| Actually, I don't think that was said about CATV or early cable. The
| business model was pretty compelling, especially given the monopolistic
| licensing agreements. Once satellite delivery of cable channels came
| about, there was no turning back. Of course, they didn't have to compete
| with 200 channels on cable or satellite being readily available. They
| were competing against a few OTA stations with a total of three or fours
| streams of content.

My grandfather's first cable system had a grand total of 2 channels :-)
But that was back in the days when line amps used tubes. He spent a lot
of time climbing poles to change tubes. FYI, those channels were KDKA
and WSAZ. See if you can figure out where the system was. Of course,
back in those days no one considered originating programming on cable.


| Comparing multiple sub channels to '70s cable and CATV is just laughable.
|
| Ad revenues are all about delivered eyeballs. Please explain how more
| channels create more eyeballs in any market?

More channels _divert_ more eyeballs. The first channel might take away
some from another station, or bring a few more into viewing anything at
all. The 2nd channel would take a few away from the 1st, but also take
a few away from another station, and maybe even a few more might turn on
the set.

What networks are showing on prime time these days is mostly crap, at least
in my opinion. I believe a lot of people share that opinion. Certainly
not everyone does, or the big networks would figure out they are not getting
many viewers. Of course they do get a lot. But it has been dropping with
many people going in a variety of directions, including non-TV as well as
alternative channels on cable/satellite (like History, Discovery, etc).

Would a 4-6 subchannel station with mostly old grade B reruns and cheap
syndication actually generate a profit? Maybe, if the costs were kept
low enough. And if it managed to get onto the local cable, that would be
a whole different story. But that's unlikely if the station is low power,
and a high power station would be much more costly (though it would have
more audience potential).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Mon, 28 May 2007 08:44:11 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
| In article ,
| wrote:
|
| | Chicago has a digital channel that is all older reruns. Honeymooners,
| | Batman, Star Trek, all the old Norman Lear stuff, etc, etc, etc. A
| | lot of it ends up on my DVR. The little ones love Batman, its
| | timeless.
|
| All SD I presume. How many subchannels of it? Or is this just one
| subchannel of an otherwise regular station? What I was wondering is
| the possibility of a station that would be exclusively this kind of
| programming with 4 to 6 subchannels of it. Maybe one of them just for
| the kids from 5AM to 10PM, e.g. old cartoons and E/I programming.
| Lots of ad-trade programming comes with double run, which can help
| fill in a lot of time. And in many markets, religious programming
| and infomercials could fill in if regular programming was not enough.
|
| Addams Family, The Munsters, Gilligans Island, Flipper, Get Smart,
| The Brady Bunch, My Three Sons, Perry Mason, Leave It To Beaver.
| Lots of those would not likely have ad-trade arrangements available,
| but hopefully their broadcast rights can still be bought directly
| at a cheap price for a small station (low power digital, when the
| FCC opens the floodgates for new apps).
|
| Matthew Martin will tell you that it could never work.
|
| But then, that's what they said about cable TV using the same model back
| in the early 70s.

Back in the 70s, cable didn't have the option of automating the whole
thing with a cluster of computers that could store two or more weeks
of content right on the hard drives. Instead, they would have had to
have racks of IVC tape machines or cart machines, and several people
on duty at all times to keep the content flowing. That would have
cost a bundle. Now a cheap computer can do playout for 1 or 2 channels
using some big disk drives fed from a bank of file servers that are kept
populated by a couple of ingest computers. At DVD grade compression, a
500 GB disk that costs $150 can hold 4 days of programming, not counting
any repeat plays of the same episode. Playout would be trivial. The
ingest would take real time. Segmenting could be done in about 1/3 of
play time. Ingests could be done in parallel on a few machines and I
even have an idea how to do the segmentation via a web interface from
home using an automated black search and thumbnails (won't even need
the format sheet for the episode).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|