-
The next big battle
Since mr P banned me from his thread.
They are talking about getting rid of broadcast TV!
Saw a few ads on TV about fighting the move away from broadcast,
then heard a report about it this morning.
SEEMS SOME THINK that all of this bandwidth would be better served by
nerds downloading the latest shooter on their smart fones.
But what are the alkies going to watch between the five minutes from waking up
to getting to the liquor cabinet?
Will the rednecks go crazy fiddling with the coathanger hanging outside their
doublewide looking for a nonexistent signal?
The nets and local broadcasters will still be there, poor relations with their govt mandated spot on cable, but its a long way from their once dominant spot.
The heck with em.
They fought MTS STEREO.
They fought HD TV .
Anything that cost a few bucks, THEY FOUGHT.
And they turned up the vollume during commercials, waking you from that sound sleep that their programming lulled you into.
Who needs em?
I got Outer space astronauts on SYFY .:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Will the rednecks go crazy fiddling with the coathanger hanging outside their
doublewide looking for a nonexistent signal?
.:1:
Your way behind the times:
-- We rednecks have moved way beyond coat hangers. We're now into buying wire and stringing it between trees. Besides making better reception, it adds some excitement whenever thunder storms move through.
-- Doublewides?? Who can afford one of those? That's what we aspire to. Most of us use broken down mobile homes that are towed into place. With the price of gas they are more plentiful then before.
Best Regards,
Stan
Best Regards,
Stan
-
I still use Broadcast tv and vowed never to pay for it until it was unavailable. Screw cable and dish! When cable first came out, it was touted to be so great due to no commercials. Now cable has just as many or more commercials than OTA.
-
I didn't ban you from the thread just making predictions :)
They will never get that past. Look how many local stations and employees would lose their jobs, not to mention the vital service our local stations bring. How else would we get local news and events? Not to mention how many people can't afford cable or satelite. There are still some independent stations around. Ours used to be great but now subscribe to programming from WB or whatever that other brand of programming is.
Where did you see this? It don't make sense. Why would the feds spend billions on converter boxes so people can have OTA then attempt to turn it off? Of course, government and good sense seldom meet.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I didn't ban you from the thread just making predictions :)
They will never get that past. Look how many local stations and employees would lose their jobs, not to mention the vital service our local stations bring. How else would we get local news and events? Not to mention how many people can't afford cable or satelite. There are still some independent stations around. Ours used to be great but now subscribe to programming from WB or whatever that other brand of programming is.
Where did you see this? It don't make sense. Why would the feds spend billions on converter boxes so people can have OTA then attempt to turn it off? Of course, government and good sense seldom meet.
They are not doing away with local broadcasters, just the OVER THE AIR PART.
Now really, when was the last time you watched the locals over the air?
Its a lot more important that Todd and Buffy be able to download drinking apps
to their smart fones.
I mean, we gotta get our priorities straight.
AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE, ALL OF THAT BANDWIDTH FOR FREE?
Knew that couldnt last.:1
-
As for where I saw it, in two places, an AD on the local Fox affiliate(an expensive
ad) and a report on the WSJ newshour on the RADIO.
Remember radio?:1:
-
And what do you mean just for making predictions??
Hmmm?:1:
-
Pix, I know what you are trying to say, but there are some inaccuracies in your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Since mr P banned me from his thread.
They are talking about getting rid of broadcast TV!
Saw a few ads on TV about fighting the move away from broadcast,
then heard a report about it this morning.
SEEMS SOME THINK that all of this bandwidth would be better served by
nerds downloading the latest shooter on their smart fones.
It is not they are trying to get rid of broadcast television, it is a combination of two realities coming to pass. The first issue is business model. Free broadcast TV is supported by advertising dollars, and that money is moving away from broadcast television and towards the web. The networks are following that money and the business model of the cable companies as the current broadcast business model is breaking down. I would say in less than ten years, you will have to pay a fee for ALL content you watch, and it will probably be on the web instead of over the air. Secondly, congress wants the spectrum that broadcast currently sits on for wireless technology after transitioning broadcast over to digital to lessen its footprint "in the air". Google and Microsoft want this spectrum, and let's face it, they have more money than the networks do, and quite frankly more power as well. The FCC approves of this move, and the stupid thing is the FCC was created to mandate broadcasters, and this action could mean a huge loss of power and visibility. In others words, they are voting against their own interests, much like most Americans do.
Quote:
The nets and local broadcasters will still be there, poor relations with their govt mandated spot on cable, but its a long way from their once dominant spot.
The heck with em.
It is not the fault of the networks, its the feds and the American public that is driving this change. People just like you who stream through Hulu and the various other sites. You folks are fueling this change.
Quote:
They fought MTS STEREO.
No they didn't. They really wanted stereo so they could compete with the theaters at that time. Stereo was a cheap upgrade
Quote:
They fought HD TV .
Anything that cost a few bucks, THEY FOUGHT.
No, they fought being mandated to change without funding to do it. The upgrade to DTV (not everyone is HD) costs between hundreds of thousand for local stations (where the market could not support it financially) to millions for network owned and affiliates. Local stations and the Networks didn't have the cash to do this transition when it was mandated, so they didn't want something imposed on them that they could not afford. I think every American should understand that completely
Quote:
And they turned up the vollume during commercials, waking you from that sound sleep that their programming lulled you into.
Who needs em?
I got Outer space astronauts on SYFY .:1:
No they do not turn up the volume on commercials. Program material is not as compressed dynamically as commercials are. There are spaces of silence, and lower level sounds can easily be discerned. Commercials are heavily compressed with the volume pumped up as close to digital zero as it can be for maximum impact. They advertisers like it that way. All broadcasting antennas have limiters to prevent overload, so the volume has a maximum gain imposed on it. Commercials are loud because the programming on before and after is not heavily compressed with its volume pumped up to the hilt. Commercials are not shot and mixed by the networks, they are mixed by post houses like mine, and the audio engineer has been given instructions to compress and push the volume.
-
It seems there would have to be OTA for emergency and public service. As I stated look at all the converter boxes sold. There are still many who use OTA. During the occasional bad storm when satelite signal is lost I will use OTA. I still think if this comes to light where people wake up to what's happening it will never pass.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
It seems there would have to be OTA for emergency and public service. As I stated look at all the converter boxes sold. There are still many who use OTA. During the occasional bad storm when satelite signal is lost I will use OTA. I still think if this comes to light where people wake up to what's happening it will never pass.
Unfortunately the people will not have a choice in this one Mr. P. This change is not up for vote, it is a money thing. The thing is, unless the local station broadcast news 24/7, there isn't going to be much programming for them. Public stations may be the last man standing in this, as the networks are already making plans for this transition. If you look at the battle between Fox and Time/Warner cable, Fox wants to charge cable for all of its programming - a lot more. You will see quite a few more battles just like this in the coming future as advertising money dries up for broadcast television. Without advertising money, the Networks will be unable to continue broadcasting. Public television is funded more and more by the public, and less and less from the federal government. So for public broadcasting, you are essentially paying for programming even though it is free sort of speak to the public.
You know our government is not always very smart. Those converter boxes just mean that when all is done, what is left will be digital and that is it. The feds cannot stop the networks from moving to the cable model, as a matter of fact, they are encouraging it so they can get the sell the broadcast frequencies that are left. It is worth billions, and Google or Microsoft will pay for it no problem. Rumor has it that Google wants it so they can create their own wireless network system.
-
I don't understand what you mean. If CBS sells Tide a spot during David Letterman, that spot gets seen by CBS affiliates OTA as well as that same station on cable and satelite. Satelite still don't have the bandwidth to carry all local programming. It seems to me if you turn off OTA it would limit further the number of people capable of seeing the commercial. Also, it would seem to me less likely OTA commercials would be skipped by people using Tivo or DVR devices. OTA is a bit more involved to record, or at least not as convenient.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Unfortunately the people will not have a choice in this one Mr. P. This change is not up for vote, it is a money thing. The thing is, unless the local station broadcast news 24/7, there isn't going to be much programming for them. Public stations may be the last man standing in this, as the networks are already making plans for this transition. If you look at the battle between Fox and Time/Warner cable, Fox wants to charge cable for all of its programming - a lot more. You will see quite a few more battles just like this in the coming future as advertising money dries up for broadcast television. Without advertising money, the Networks will be unable to continue broadcasting. Public television is funded more and more by the public, and less and less from the federal government. So for public broadcasting, you are essentially paying for programming even though it is free sort of speak to the public.
The other ball in play is the upcoming consolidation in the industry. The lines between service providers, content producers, and broadcasters are blurring. And all of these interconnected alliances are creating conflicts of interest everywhere.
If the pending Comcast/NBCU merger goes through, then you'll see an avalanche of mergers in its wake and that will create a mess of major proportions with no benefit whatsoever to consumers. The telcos, satellite companies, broadcasters, cable providers, and online players are all pawns in a big chess game.
The spat between TW and Fox is not unique. Just look at the still unresolved dispute between Directv and Versus (which is owned by cable provider Comcast, which also owns several cable channels and now wants to acquire NBC and its family of cable channels), or the earlier standoff between Dish Network and Viacom/CBS. These pissing matches have done nothing except blackout slates of channels and result in higher service rates.
Directv's already getting prepped for a spinoff, and the likely buyer will be either AT&T or Verizon. And what's to stop another media conglomerate from also trying to acquire a service provider (like Dish Network for example)?
Problem with all of the media mergers is that the businesses are no longer operated as standalone functionaries, but as cogs in a bigger entangled corporate machinery where every successive merger creates profits for the shareholders while saddling the business down with a higher debt load.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I don't understand what you mean. If CBS sells Tide a spot during David Letterman, that spot gets seen by CBS affiliates OTA as well as that same station on cable and satelite. Satelite still don't have the bandwidth to carry all local programming. It seems to me if you turn off OTA it would limit further the number of people capable of seeing the commercial. Also, it would seem to me less likely OTA commercials would be skipped by people using Tivo or DVR devices. OTA is a bit more involved to record, or at least not as convenient.
You're not seeing the big picture. TV stations no longer generate a profit strictly through ad sales. They've all been overvalued and saddled down with millions in debt in the mergers and acquisitions orgy that transpired after the ownership rules got relaxed in the mid-90s.
Right now, cable companies pay for the right to carry local station broadcasts. That's what keeps these stations afloat. If cable went away, the stations would go bankrupt. It's that simple. If OTA signals went away, viewers would flock to cable or satellite providers
Conversely, the TV stations also know that cable depends on the inclusion of local broadcasts. Without local TV broadcasts, viewers would cancel their cable service in droves. This is the tension that's leading to these standoffs like the one between Time Warner Cable and Fox.
Less than 20% of TV households get their programming via OTA antennas. Over 80% of TV households subscribe to either cable or satellite or fiber for their programming. The advent of digital TV multicasting has led to a slight resurgence of OTA usage, but it has not led to a notable decrease in the cable/satellite usage.
-
15 or 20% of the population is a big number to cut programming to and I wonder how many of that percent could afford cable/satelite if they wanted it or was left with that as an only alternative.
This almost sounds like another housing melt down but for TV broadcasters. TV started with OTA it would be weird not to have it around and to fall back on.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
During the occasional bad storm when satelite signal is lost I will use OTA. I still think if this comes to light where people wake up to what's happening it will never pass.
First of all, during a bad storm, depending on where your OTA signal is coming from, you will have the same exact issue as Satellite. I have one major station that sucks in storms and several smaller stations that disappear when it drizzles.
Second, it doesn't matter who wakes up because "The People" never have a real say in these decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
15 or 20% of the population is a big number to cut programming to and I wonder how many of that percent could afford cable/satelite if they wanted it or was left with that as an only alternative.
The number of households that did not already have Digital TVs was at least that or more and guess what, nobody cared. They only really extended the deadline because the Gov F'ed up the amount of coupon cards they needed to have.
I'm sure every politician already has cable or sat so they don't give a rats ass about those who don't. They will cram this through if only to make money from the taxes applied to your monthly contract.
I still only use OTA but do not watch too many shows. Most of them I can watch over the internet the next day. Here is a website I just heard about yesterday on NPR which helps you find over the net alternatives for cable-sat.
http://www.cancelyourcable.com/
This is seriously screwed up if they do push this through in the near future after making millions of people buy converter boxes while knowing all along they would be useless in a year or two for those using OTA.
I am also betting this will increase the pirating downloads of all TV shows that folks put up in torrents. I won't shell out $50 plus a month for a few TV shows until there are NO other alternatives.
-
I've never lost signal OTA during a storm. Sometimes depending on atmospheric conditions reception is better. With satelite or cable you just get a black screen, or maybe an error message.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
....
Right now, cable companies pay for the right to carry local station broadcasts. That's what keeps these stations afloat. If cable went away, the stations would go bankrupt. It's that simple. If OTA signals went away, viewers would flock to cable or satellite providers
...
That's interesting. Of course, you're talking State-side; here in Canada the CabSats don't pay for local stations. Up here the networks who provide local content want the CabSats to pay for local as they do for specialty channels. The CRTC regulator proposed that the Cabsats pay ~$10/mo. for local channels. The CabSats spent millions of dollars fighting this; they portrayed it as a "tax on consumers" rather that a charge to themselves. Of course it actually would behave like tax rather than a charge to the them since they would simply pass on the cost rather than absorb it, given there is no longer regulation or sufficient compedition to prevent that.
I pay $80/mo. for my satilite service that includes a very limited amount beyond the mandated minimum. It's a huge gouge and I am very seriously thing of cancelling the whole damned thing once I'm retired in a couple of months. I have no provision for OTA at the moment but might have to look into it.
BTW, the very same Canadian CabSats also are the main mobile 'phone providers and ISPs. Canadians pay more and get worse service for all these things than most developed countries. These corporate interest are extremely rich needless to say. Personally I'm extremely fed up and PO'd with the whole situation :mad5: but of course there's effectively FA, (oh sorry, nothing personal, FA), that can done about it.
Given consolidation trends, American should stand by to be screwed over by corporate interests just as badly as Canadians already are. Long live capitalists and their ball-crushing grip on our politicians and regulators.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
15 or 20% of the population is a big number to cut programming to and I wonder how many of that percent could afford cable/satelite if they wanted it or was left with that as an only alternative.
Nearly every cable system has some sort of "lifeline" service that replicates the OTA channel selection for less than $20/month (my parents pay $13/month for their service). People who don't subscribe to cable or satellite generally do so because they choose to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
I still only use OTA but do not watch too many shows. Most of them I can watch over the internet the next day. Here is a website I just heard about yesterday on NPR which helps you find over the net alternatives for cable-sat.
http://www.cancelyourcable.com/
That puts you way in the minority. Internet TV viewing gets a lot of hype and a lot of hits, but it doesn't sustain long-term viewership. The average viewer will watch TV for multiple hours a day, but online video viewership averages only a few minutes a day. The simple reality is that most people don't like watching TV on computers and don't have or want their TV networked.
The OTA broadcast networks have been moving more towards live programming and unscripted programs because those show create instant demand and their shelf life has already expired by the next day when people talk about it over the water coolers. People who watch stuff like sports or reality TV or American Idol will not wait until the following day. Despite the advent of the internet and DVRs and VCRs and other time shifting devices, over 70% of TV viewing is still in real time. And it's that need for immediate gratification that will keep broadcasters viable at least for the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
This is seriously screwed up if they do push this through in the near future after making millions of people buy converter boxes while knowing all along they would be useless in a year or two for those using OTA.
I doubt that OTA signals will be going anywhere for at least a decade, certainly not "in a year or two."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Nearly every cable system has some sort of "lifeline" service that replicates the OTA channel selection for less than $20/month (my parents pay $13/month for their service). People who don't subscribe to cable or satellite generally do so because they choose to.
That puts you way in the minority. Internet TV viewing gets a lot of hype and a lot of hits, but it doesn't sustain long-term viewership. The average viewer will watch TV for multiple hours a day, but online video viewership averages only a few minutes a day. The simple reality is that most people don't like watching TV on computers and don't have or want their TV networked.
The OTA broadcast networks have been moving more towards live programming and unscripted programs because those show create instant demand and their shelf life has already expired by the next day when people talk about it over the water coolers. People who watch stuff like sports or reality TV or American Idol will not wait until the following day. Despite the advent of the internet and DVRs and VCRs and other time shifting devices, over 70% of TV viewing is still in real time. And it's that need for immediate gratification that will keep broadcasters viable at least for the near future.
I doubt that OTA signals will be going anywhere for at least a decade, certainly not "in a year or two."
Points taken. My personal opinion is that people who hang on every episode of American Idol or any other so called reality show should look into getting a life of their own. Sports on the other hand is a different story due to betting and all the people who live in Fantasy Land.
-
Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.
Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.
Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.
Go back and look at my 1st response. That was the big deal when cable first hit the scene. Then after they hooked everyone, there is now more commercials than on OTA in some cases. If you are paying for Content, you should not have to watch the Advertising, they should already be making enough money from the customers. But, thanks to corporate greed, they take your money and still advertise.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The thing is, unless the local stations broadcast news 24/7, there isn't going to be much programming for them. Public stations may be the last man standing in this, as the networks are already making plans for this transition.
What about local religion stations :D
I have about 16 OTA channles which four of them carry religion programs. I am sure if all of local OTA stations disapear, those four channels will keep trucking forever. All they have to do is to say that Jesus want these local stations to broadcast forever (or plant a seed in their future), and watch money pouring in.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.
They could remove commercials very easily, but then your cable bill will go through the roof. Those commercials are keeping your cable bill in the nose bleed territory and out of the wallet is exploding territory. Their programming costs have gone through the roof over the last decade, and they need commercials to offset the cost.
Quote:
Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.
Advertising has been moving away from broadcast for nearly a decade, but the last two years has seen a quick acceleration of that trend. It does not have anything to do with the recession because overall advertising spending has not decreased, it has just moved from one place to another. To make up for the loss, the networks are starting to ask for more money from the cable companies that carry their programming. Once the networks hit the wall with trying to offset the loss of advertising dollars by charging more, they will end up leaving broadcast for the web or cable entirely.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
What about local religion stations :D
I have about 16 OTA channles which four of them carry religion programs. I am sure if all of local OTA stations disapear, those four channels will keep trucking forever. All they have to do is to say that Jesus want these local stations to broadcast forever (or plant a seed in their future), and watch money pouring in.
My comments are referring to the major networks, not smaller independent stations that produce their own programming. Religious stations usually rely on donations and offerings to support their station. The usually do not rely on commercials to keep the station broadcasting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I've never lost signal OTA during a storm. Sometimes depending on atmospheric conditions reception is better. With satelite or cable you just get a black screen, or maybe an error message.
The solution.....Uverse
frenchmon
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
Analysis Plus Clear Oval speaker cable.Tweeks---->Isolation "ceramic blocks for CDP and SACDP, Stands filled with cat litter Dedicated two channel/library room with refection points treated.
Frenchmon,
Did you try other fillings besides cat litter? Perhaps 'used' cat litter would have a more useful density?? :-)
Best Regards,
Stan
-
Yeah, but U-verse isn't free either. You are right though that it is the best reception option. Well.... I don't know they could be prone to some of the same outage issues as cable.
-
Well I neither watch much OTA TV, nor do I own cable. It's actually kind of funny the way they keep trying to sell me on these packages mailings, door tags, and the occasion solicitor (who gets the door slammed on him/her promptly). They must have some kind of database in which I must be at the top of the list of detractors, rebels, and non-conformists. It's probably integrated with the other databases that have me on their lists: store-discount cards, toll-road-meters, magazine subscriptions, and the charities I refuse to donate to. Pretty soon they'll be able to build a psychological profile of me just from the records of things they can't track and that I won't purchase. Is it 1984 yet?
For my part, I'm mostly renting and buying movies, and I fast-forward through all the crap at the beginning of the movies too. Now most movies don't allow that any more either (Disney's real big on that kind of force-feeding), so now I usually put the disk in the player first, go get my beer and snacks, and then turn on the TV and sound. If I do want to see previews, I'll select them after I'm done watching the movie.
For my news & info, I read. Most of what's on TV isn't news anyhow - it's just pointless drivel to get me to buy more products. As for magazines & newspapers, I skip right over the adds, and tear them out if I intend on keeping the mag. Anyhow, that's what a table of contents is for (when I can find it). If the rag is too ad-bloated, I usually loose interest and let the subscription run out.
I've given up on a whole host of websites I used to frequent to (about.com, anything from Microsoft, and the major newspapers too). My browser usually does a decent job filtering out the crapola, but if it's all over the place, then I'll find my info elsewhere. Fortunately, that's where the web is most useful: for every intrusive piece of mallware code, there's an intrepid hacker who finds a work-around and lets me plug it into my browser. Maybe that's why the media corporations hate the web so much - they can't completely control the force-feeding of junk.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well I neither watch much OTA TV, nor do I own cable. It's actually kind of funny the way they keep trying to sell me on these packages mailings, door tags, and the occasion solicitor (who gets the door slammed on him/her promptly). They must have some kind of database in which I must be at the top of the list of detractors, rebels, and non-conformists. It's probably integrated with the other databases that have me on their lists: store-discount cards, toll-road-meters, magazine subscriptions, and the charities I refuse to donate to. Pretty soon they'll be able to build a psychological profile of me just from the records of things they can't track and that I won't purchase. Is it 1984 yet?
For my part, I'm mostly renting and buying movies, and I fast-forward through all the crap at the beginning of the movies too. Now most movies don't allow that any more either (Disney's real big on that kind of force-feeding), so now I usually put the disk in the player first, go get my beer and snacks, and then turn on the TV and sound. If I do want to see previews, I'll select them after I'm done watching the movie.
For my news & info, I read. Most of what's on TV isn't news anyhow - it's just pointless drivel to get me to buy more products. As for magazines & newspapers, I skip right over the adds, and tear them out if I intend on keeping the mag. Anyhow, that's what a table of contents is for (when I can find it). If the rag is too ad-bloated, I usually loose interest and let the subscription run out.
I've given up on a whole host of websites I used to frequent to (about.com, anything from Microsoft, and the major newspapers too). My browser usually does a decent job filtering out the crapola, but if it's all over the place, then I'll find my info elsewhere. Fortunately, that's where the web is most useful: for every intrusive piece of mallware code, there's an intrepid hacker who finds a work-around and lets me plug it into my browser. Maybe that's why the media corporations hate the web so much - they can't completely control the force-feeding of junk.
I hear ya. I get something in the mail every other day for Verizon Fios, which they should give me for free after the 1.5 year battle I had to get my property and driveway back to the condition it was in before they dug it all up. Comcast sends me crap on a daily basis. I do get some Dish stuff but nowhere near the ammont from Verizon and Comcast. Hmm maybe they could lower the price if they stopped chopping down trees and sending people the same crap every other day.
The other point you made about not being able to select Menu instead of all the previews does piss me off. I just rented UP the other day from Redbox and there is no menu or audio selections.
Side Question-
As stated in another thread about new releases being delayed for redbox over royalties or fees, and it was said that they buy them from Target or WallMart, how to they get labeled as dvdname_rental?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Pix, I know what you are trying to say, but there are some inaccuracies in your post.
Quote:
No they didn't. They really wanted stereo so they could compete with the theaters at that time. Stereo was a cheap upgrade
It was a cheap upgrade, but that didnt keep them from fighting it tooth and nail.
I was there, don't try to say otherwise.
Quote:
No, they fought being mandated to change without funding to do it. The upgrade to DTV (not everyone is HD) costs between hundreds of thousand for local stations (where the market could not support it financially) to millions for network owned and affiliates. Local stations and the Networks didn't have the cash to do this transition when it was mandated, so they didn't want something imposed on them that they could not afford. I think every American should understand that completely
Trying to get something for nothing is something too many Americans understand.
A broadcast liscense carries responsibilities, if broadcasters didnt want to upgrade (and most needed to upgrade obsolete equioment anyway) then they should have just walked away, let someone else take over.
DTV was and is the future, no way around that
No they do not turn up the volume on commercials. Program material is not as compressed dynamically as commercials are. There are spaces of silence, and lower level sounds can easily be discerned. Commercials are heavily compressed with the volume pumped up as close to digital zero as it can be for maximum impact. They advertisers like it that way. All broadcasting antennas have limiters to prevent overload, so the volume has a maximum gain imposed on it. Commercials are loud because the programming on before and after is not heavily compressed with its volume pumped up to the hilt. Commercials are not shot and mixed by the networks, they are mixed by post houses like mine, and the audio engineer has been given instructions to compress and push the volume.
In the book WINNING THROUGH INTIMIDATION Robert Ringer, talking about a tour he took through a local TV station, mentioned how the tour guide answered that question when it was posed to her.
She said that it wasnt even possible.
When leaving the control room Ringer asked a tech if he could do it and he said "sure,
just turn this knob".
THIS IS SUCH A COMMON PROBLEM that several receivers have a mode that fixes it.
And anybody with ears can tell it.
There is no technical reason like you cite, if there were then you're saying it is unfixable?
SURE, and the check is in the mail.
It is an easy fix to run the vollume through a master gain circuit to even out the vollume.
If they don't do it because the advertisers like it that way...
IT IS STILL THEIR FAULT.:1:
-
BTW you can add the local NBC station to the list of those showing this commercial.
It looks nice but is actually cheaper than it looks.
Really, tho, we have a lot more infrastructure than when broadcasting started, it has really become obslolete.
Its no longer a VHF signal with a FM mono audio carrier.
Its UHF HDTV with subcarriers and DD sound.
Time to say goodnight.:1:
-
Hyfi, it's Red Box, you paid $1.00 per movie, and you have expectations? :)
-
ANYWAY..
back to the future.
At CES they have pocket TV, and not those old lcd casios.
There are two competing formats, DTV AND FLO.
They convert broadcast tv to wi-fi, and it plays on your blackberry, smartfone etc, on
a OLED SCREEN with a great picture.
Thats the presentation, anyway.
-
Gee, this sounds like a familiar tune...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
ANYWAY..
back to the future.
At CES they have pocket TV, and not those old lcd casios.
There are two competing formats, DTV AND FLO.
They convert broadcast tv to wi-fi, and it plays on your blackberry, smartfone etc, on
a OLED SCREEN with a great picture.
Thats the presentation, anyway.
Well I know I get blasted for this every time I bring it up, but it sure looks from all indicators that movies on small screens is indeed the future. That's certainly the message I'm getting from this threat to OTA, the pervasiveness of Android, Cisco's moves into video, as well as everything that's trickling in from CES, and it sure looks like a merged Comcast/NBC will be targeting that market too. I expect Google to sign some deal with NetFlix anytime, now. Sorry to all the naysayers who think that the battle is over larger TVs, but I just don't see that. Maybe it's because they're still looking at last year's sales figures, lol.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
In the book WINNING THROUGH INTIMIDATION Robert Ringer, talking about a tour he took through a local TV station, mentioned how the tour guide answered that question when it was posed to her.
She said that it wasnt even possible.
When leaving the control room Ringer asked a tech if he could do it and he said "sure,
just turn this knob".
THIS IS SUCH A COMMON PROBLEM that several receivers have a mode that fixes it.
And anybody with ears can tell it.
There is no technical reason like you cite, if there were then you're saying it is unfixable?
SURE, and the check is in the mail.
It is an easy fix to run the vollume through a master gain circuit to even out the vollume.
If they don't do it because the advertisers like it that way...
IT IS STILL THEIR FAULT.:1:
Pix, you really shouldn't argue about things you have no first hand information about. I have mixed commercials for broadcast, and I can tell you first hand what producers tell us. They want the dynamic range compressed to the hilt, and keep the volume as close to digital reference as possible without clipping the signal. I also mix television programming, and I use only as much compression as it takes to meet SMPTE standards for broadcast audio. Is the problem fixable, yes it is. You tell producers that their requests are going to annoy viewers instead of getting their attention, back off the compression and gain, and mix the commercial at the same levels you mix regular programming. That will cure the problem without the Dolby loudness metering system. If you doubt my explaination, I suggest you purchase Sound Forge 8 and do an analysis of the audio of a commercial versus program audio and you can plainly see the flattening of the wave forms on the commercials (the compression) versus the less flattened wave forms of the program audio.
Televisions stations have become so automated there is nobody sitting around riding the gain on program material which includes commercials. Commercial spots and programming are on servers with the times they run slaved to a master clock. There are no audio dials or sliders in the process, its all automated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17229281...consumer_news/
http://www.dxaudio.com/page1/files/3...7f6a070-3.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well I know I get blasted for this every time I bring it up, but it sure looks from all indicators that movies on small screens is indeed the future. That's certainly the message I'm getting from this threat to OTA, the pervasiveness of Android, Cisco's moves into video, as well as everything that's trickling in from CES, and it sure looks like a merged Comcast/NBC will be targeting that market too. I expect Google to sign some deal with NetFlix anytime, now. Sorry to all the naysayers who think that the battle is over larger TVs, but I just don't see that. Maybe it's because they're still looking at last year's sales figures, lol.
Sorry, but the prepondurance of evidence does not support your comments. What is happening is not a trend towards movies on small screens, but a trend to add mobility to digital content. Survey after survey points to the television as the main viewing device for movies, and that trend has not changed one bit. What is viewed on the small screened video devices according to surveys are youTube videos, and television shows rented from Itunes, not movies at all.
Movies are shot for the big screen, and have copious amounts of detail in the foreground and background that are totally lost on a 4.5" screen. They are QC checked on a large screen, not a small screen. Nobody sits in their living room(where movies are watched by the majority of the population) with a cell phone watching movies. Nobody is going to sit for 2-2.5 hours staring at their cell phone or netbook. The latest survey I have seen points to the reality that people that use portable viewing displays watch an average of less than 20 minutes of video on that device per day. That would point to short videos or television programming, not movies. Just over 3% of mobile subscribers watch video on their phones, according to comScore, so not many folks are watching anything on their phones.
The only trend we are seeing here is a broadening of choices to view broadcast and online content, not movies. Movies are less than 10% of the overall content a broadcaster shows daily. With more and more displays being produced that can be connected to either a network, or directly to the net itself, there is no reason to believe OTA changes reflect that more than folks viewing content on small screen devices.
The trend in movies is to shoot, scan, author, and compress at higher resolutions (with 4k on the horizon) to be viewed on larger screens, not smaller ones. 3D is huge at CES, and 3D requires larger screens to be most effective. Both of these trends in movie production and reproduction are beyond the capabilities of portable video devices.
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-...-course-2009-4
You get blasted because your comments are not based on facts, but gut feelings, desires, and out right fantasy.
-
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. What I'm seeing at CES is certainly not in agreement with what you're saying. Also, the people who are being targeted for 3D are those who cannot afford large HT setups. I think you're still basing your assumptions on past information which says very little about the future, and also on sales figures, which simply doesn't reflect the whole picture of what people are watching - it leaves out free content and pirated content because it cannot account for it. You are also forgetting that the Gen-X and younger crowd is even more expectant of free content instead of paid content. Finally, I'm kind of surprised you don't see the Comcast-NBC-Universal deal as a hedge play in response to these trends - that's been the mantra for all those who oppose the merger.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. What I'm seeing at CES is certainly not in agreement with what you're saying. Also, the people who are being targeted for 3D are those who cannot afford large HT setups. I think you're still basing your assumptions on past information which says very little about the future, and also on sales figures, which simply doesn't reflect the whole picture of what people are watching - it leaves out free content and pirated content because it cannot account for it. You are also forgetting that the Gen-X and younger crowd is even more expectant of free content instead of paid content. Finally, I'm kind of surprised you don't see the Comcast-NBC-Universal deal as a hedge play in response to these trends - that's been the mantra for all those who oppose the merger.
Wrong again NF. 3D is going to eventually be offered at all price points. The information I have is from studies done last year, and nobody can know what is happening this year. You have offered nothing to support your comments but your gut, and it has a 100% failure rate so far.
I believe my comments included broadcast television and online video content, so free content is covered. Beside what you call free isn't free at all. You need a internet connection to access youTube. It is not free. If you use wifi, it is not free except in certain places.
As far as what Gen -X wants....let's put it this way. They can want all they want, but they are probably not going to get it.
As far as the Comcast NBC deal, we'll see what happens with that. I however cannot see it being any different than Disney/ABC deal. Its just another marriage of a content producer and a content provider. It might not really help Comcast that much because they are developing an extremely negative reputation as a cable company. Their prices are too high, and they are on the verge of pricing themselves out of the market of the very people they are trying to reach. Comcast will only have a 51% stake in the deal, so it is not certain that the whole deal will be any good for them. Investors think they are paying too much, and there's going to be a well-defined set of regulations around how Comcast is going to treat others in the media industry, how they're going to treat consumers. So I think that will restrict at least initially how big of an impact this deal will have on the media industry.
-
I wonder if all the small devices could just be other companies wanting a piece of the Ipod pie?
-
Not so fast...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Wrong again NF. 3D is going to eventually be offered at all price points. The information I have is from studies done last year, and nobody can know what is happening this year. You have offered nothing to support your comments but your gut, and it has a 100% failure rate so far.
You're saying I'm wrong about something that hasn't even come to pass yet - you really shouldn't pass judgment so soon. Let's just wait this out. I think all your fancy figures of glories past will not stand up to this much change in this industry. All the comments I'm reading point towards miniaturization and yes, Mr. P, that is also because many other players want a piece of the iPod pie. The tide is shifting and you can try to beat it back with a spoon if you like, but you'll look pretty silly....
|