KMCI relocation barker channel

[harshness]

Same with the Cable Systems in KC don't call all the Sub Channels that are available in the area that's why their's OTA,

OTA doesn't exist to fill in the gaps in cable. OTA is a standalone situation that is partially funded by gouging cable and DBS companies for carriage.

You can't really expect cable or satellite to waste resources carrying subchannels 6-16 of an ATSC feed when there's probably much the same content elsewhere in their basic TV package with perhaps much better picture and sound quality than the hind teat bandwidth that OTA is affording the subchannel.

 

[jayn_j]

But people tend to like the number of subchannels and variety OTA. I personally mourn the loss of the initial picture quality from the early HDTV broadcasts before subchannels became common. Those images were bitchin.

 

[harshness]

But people tend to like the number of subchannels and variety OTA.

Channel count doesn't mean jack if it is largely wasted on content that doesn't appeal to most. I'd prefer two subchannels that carried all of the classics (no need for marathons... really!) to twenty that I had to pick through to find the pearls.

As it is with conventional pay TV, more channels doesn't necessarily mean more variety (are you listening Viacom and A&E Networks?). Oftentimes more is just overkill.

 

[jayn_j]

Channel count doesn't mean jack if it is largely wasted on content that doesn't appeal to most. I'd prefer two subchannels that carried all of the classics (no need for marathons... really!) to twenty that I had to pick through to find the pearls.

As it is with conventional pay TV, more channels doesn't necessarily mean more variety (are you listening Viacom and A&E Networks?). Oftentimes more is just overkill.

Not sure what point you were trying to make here. The public in general reacts to higher channel count as value added. Traffic cams, 24/7 weather, doesn't matter. Someone likes them.
At least in my DMA, over 75% of the subchannels are devoted to these nostalgia content networks. Antenna, H&I, Decades, Grit, etc. And it seems that they prefer to see reruns of Barney Miller more than they care about the network feeds being razor sharp.

A story to relate. Several years ago, I had cable installed. I specified an HD feed and an HD DVR. I was at work, so my kids were there for the installation. When I got home I noticed it looked like garbage. It didn't take long to figure out that the installer had ignored the HDMI cable I had left and connected the DVR via an RF feed tuned to channel 3 (NTSC). I called Charter and complained. The tech sympathized, but then stated that most people were unhappy when they connected the HDMI cable which required them to switch to the HDMI input. They were used to tuning to channel 3. Basically, the average person never noticed the difference and just wanted stuff to work the way it always did. Thus wasting features of a new TV and an upgraded cable box.

Face it, we are not the normal viewer.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Not sure what point you were trying to make here. The public in general reacts to higher channel count as value added. Traffic cams, 24/7 weather, doesn't matter. Someone likes them.
At least in my DMA, over 75% of the subchannels are devoted to these nostalgia content networks. Antenna, H&I, Decades, Grit, etc. And it seems that they prefer to see reruns of Barney Miller more than they care about the network feeds being razor sharp.

A story to relate. Several years ago, I had cable installed. I specified an HD feed and an HD DVR. I was at work, so my kids were there for the installation. When I got home I noticed it looked like garbage. It didn't take long to figure out that the installer had ignored the HDMI cable I had left and connected the DVR via an RF feed tuned to channel 3 (NTSC). I called Charter and complained. The tech sympathized, but then stated that most people were unhappy when they connected the HDMI cable were required them to switch to the HDMI input. They were used to tuning to channel 3. Basically, the average person never noticed the difference and just wanted stuff to work the way it always did. Thus wasting features of a new TV and an upgraded cable box.

Face it, we are not the normal viewer.

I would agree with this. Most common viewers are not videophiles who examine (obvious to us) bitstarved "HD" subnets. We are not your average consumer.

 

[Clarbear]

Very few DMAs carry everything (do any?) Milwaukee isn't too bad in comparison. I suppose it depends on whether or not they are carrying the one channel you want.

I prefer seeing all of the channels that Milwaukee carries if I ever decide to get cable or dish. But I would prefer not getting dish or cable.

 

[harshness]

Not sure what point you were trying to make here. The public in general reacts to higher channel count as value added.

If that were the case, you'd probably be seeing a lot more TV antennas popping up on people's homes. Streaming sticks wouldn't be outselling TV tuners many, many to one if subchannels were striking viewers fancies. Bruce Springsteen said it about cable TV but now it applies to OTA in a lot of markets: 57 channels and nothing on.

The 'philes (those that have demonstrated an willingness to spend money for the best gadgetry) see added subchannels as quality subtracted from existing channels.

Just because the channels are appearing doesn't mean that anyone is watching. We have three or four hardcore OTA channel counters here (though I haven't seen the one from Lake Charles recently) but they're surely not representative of the "public in general". The only way most know what a channel plays is by frantically searching the guide information after a subchannel lights up in our market. After that, we go back to watching what we've always watched.

 

[comfortably_numb]

If that were the case, you'd probably be seeing a lot more TV antennas popping up on people's homes

There ARE more people putting up antennas, or installing in-home antennas. Read through the multitude of articles in this forum indicating the same.

 

[harshness]

There ARE more people putting up antennas, or installing in-home antennas. Read through the multitude of articles in this forum indicating the same.

That's to be expected in a forum dedicated to OTA, but that's absolutely no bellwether for what the "public in general" is up to.

 

[comfortably_numb]

That's to be expected in a forum dedicated to OTA, but that's absolutely no bellwether for what the "public in general" is up to.

The articles posted here are specifically related to what the general public is doing.

 

[Trip]

Streaming sticks wouldn't be outselling TV tuners many, many to one if subchannels were striking viewers fancies.

Er, most TVs have tuners in them. I'm not sure why you would expect many TV tuners to be sold if people are just hooking an antenna (likely indoor) to an existing set.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

Er, most TVs have tuners in them. I'm not sure why you would expect many TV tuners to be sold if people are just hooking an antenna (likely indoor) to an existing set.

Maybe I should have compared antenna sales to streamer sales but I don't see my argument as failed.

In this day and age, a non-negligible percentage of OTA programming viewers are using something other than conventional televisions to view their OTA content. As time goes on and streaming options and viewing habits evolve, it is conceivable that things may move even more in that direction.

As the repack proceeds, many won't be able to get away with an indoor antenna like they could when most of the channels were stacked in high UHF land.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Maybe I should have compared antenna sales to streamer sales but I don't see my argument as failed.

In this day and age, a non-negligible percentage of OTA programming viewers are using something other than conventional televisions to view their OTA content. As time goes on and streaming options and viewing habits evolve, it is conceivable that things may move even more in that direction.

As the repack proceeds, many won't be able to get away with an indoor antenna like they could when most of the channels were stacked in high UHF land.

My market has nearly completed its repack and my signal strengths have increased, not decreased. Without measurable data to back up your theory, its difficult to prove that "many people" won't be able to tune as many channels with an indoor antenna.

 

[harshness]

My market has nearly completed its repack and my signal strengths have increased, not decreased. Without measurable data to back up your theory, its difficult to prove that "many people" won't be able to tune as many channels with an indoor antenna.

Your's is arguably a mid-sized market (Nielsen 33). The lowest frequencies are in the VHF-high range (both of which are in St. Joseph and maybe not of interest to you as they have KC counterparts -- I don't know which you're closer to). Larger markets are going to have cause to visit VHF on a larger scale (especially as Next Gen TV deploys). As more stations dip onto VHF high and ultimately VHF low, mud flaps and other "HD antennas" (UHF) will no longer meet the need.

It is a matter of physics.

If you're using signal strength numbers from your HDHomerun app, we've already discussed that a couple of times.

 

[Mgsports]

Some bigger Markets like LA get more Sub Channels that KC gets at moment and some smaller Markets in Kansas also get channels KC doesn't get yet. Yes some on the low power ones in KC area need a National Feed and show up on Mediacom and Sprectrum like GETTV,The Country Network,Quest,Buzzrtv and so on. CCI,Comcast and so on need to added National feeds of Digital Sub Channels.

 

[jayn_j]

Everyone forgets that this is all about the money.
Stations put up subchannels to sell advertising. Advertising on primary stations has been heavily squeezed by the networks, but subchannel advertising revenue all goes to the station. This revenue is why the locals push hard to get their subchannels on cable rather than a national feed.
In spite of harshness' arguments, there must be enough pepole watching to justify the local merchant to advertise. Yes, there does seem to be an increase in cable disconnects, especially in urban areas.

 

[harshness]

In spite of harshness' arguments, there must be enough pepole watching to justify the local merchant to advertise.

If these weren't dominated by infomercials and ads for mesothelioma and mesh lawsuits and things Guthy-Renker, your argument would carry a lot more weight.

Yes, there does seem to be an increase in cable disconnects, especially in urban areas.

Link?

I submit that most disconnects are a precipitate of programming quality going down and prices continuing up. I also caution that disconnects from the traditional model don't necessarily equate to a long-term upswing in OTA interest.

 

[jayn_j]

Then why do stations keep adding subchannels? There is a cost, so there must be sufficient revenue to justify it. Revenue comes from ads.

Oh, btw, the bulk of the trash ads seem to happen at night

 

[Trip]

From the stations' perspective, the business model, as far as I can tell, is that many of the subchannels pay the stations for carriage directly, with local ads not being part of the equation. I believe most of the Katz networks (Bounce/Grit/Escape/Laff/Court TV), GetTV, ION when carried as a subchannel, and the Cooper networks (Justice/Quest) operate this way, as may the Sinclair ones (Comet/Charge!/TBD/Stadium), some of the cases where COZI is carried, and I think some of Weigel's lesser-carried networks may do this as well in some cases.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

Then why do stations keep adding subchannels? There is a cost, so there must be sufficient revenue to justify it.

From the stations' perspective, the business model, as far as I can tell, is that many of the subchannels pay the stations for carriage directly, with local ads not being part of the equation.

Asked and answered.

For the very same reason that the shopping channels are carried by conventional pay tv services.

This is precisely why I shared my observation that the bulk of the ads (not just overnight) were not local ads.