Shouldn't minimum amount of HD content be mandated?

[Petrovich]

I really believe that the minimum amount of HD content should be mandated for every channel that markets itself as HD. We're already seeing TBS-HD-like channels with virually no HD at all. I'm afraid that more and more channels will follow this practice and will start announcing their corresponding HD versions with minimal or no true HD in them. To me, this trend is even worse than HD Lite!

 

[aperry]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more SD widescreen content. Fox did that this summer with Hell's Kitchen.

But for channels like TBS that show older material, it would be really hard to "mandate" a minimum amount of HD content.

On a personal level, I don't want to lose out on being able to view old shows that didn't happen to air when HD was available.

 

[BigTimMN]

Then it should be mandated, if its not in HD, show it in OAR Ban the Stretch-o-vision.

 

[Mr.Pinkeye]

What would be the minimum? I'm surprised people are getting so upset that these new HD versions of channels don't show that much HD. Most network affiliated local channels still don't show more than 3-4 hours a day.

 

[richiephx]

What would be the minimum? I'm surprised people are getting so upset that these new HD versions of channels don't show that much HD. Most network affiliated local channels still don't show more than 3-4 hours a day.

The BIG difference is, OTA is free to the viewer whereas a subscriber to cable or satellite pays extra each month for the hd channels with little or no hd content. IMO, it's a big marketing scam by providers to entice viewers into term commitments to get new subscribers. The programmers could care less when they provide the HD programming.

 

[Voyager6]

Then it should be mandated, if its not in HD, show it in OAR Ban the Stretch-o-vision.

Definitely agree. Ban the stretch-o-vision!

What would be the minimum? I'm surprised people are getting so upset that these new HD versions of channels don't show that much HD. Most network affiliated local channels still don't show more than 3-4 hours a day.

3 -4 hours per day is much better than the 3 - 4 hours per week that most of these new pseudo-HD channels are showing.

 

[FlyingJ]

The BIG difference is, OTA is free to the viewer whereas a subscriber to cable or satellite pays extra each month for the hd channels with little or no hd content. IMO, it's a big marketing scam by providers to entice viewers into term commitments to get new subscribers. The programmers could care less when they provide the HD programming.

Not extra for HD channels that have SD counterparts! Which is what you are talking about. Just give it a while. When ESPN went HD there was very very little HD, and it's pretty damn good now. It has just begun, I wouldn't expect so much HD programming from these stations yet. Oh, besides that I think the whole premise of the thread is silly. Oh and Voyager, which psuedo channels are we talking about??

 

[mlb]

No more government regulation is needed... they can market themselves as HD and have an HD network if they like, it only costs them more money in order to get the satellite space.

 

[talos4]

Right, Just what we need more government mandates,

I think not!!!

 

[Voyager6]

Oh and Voyager, which psuedo channels are we talking about??

Cartoon Network-HD, Speed-HD, Fuel-HD, TWC-HD, CNN-HD, TBS-HD, etc....

 

[edpkp81]

Don't see very much HD content on the newly launched NHL Network.

 

[Sammy033]

Short and sweet: No.

As much as I dont like it, given the choice for example to opt for 24/7 stretch-o-vision or the government having more authority to dictate what I can watch, I choose the former. More regulation is one of those knee-jerk reactions by people who dont like something. And the people who are ok with it? Too bad. You have no choice.

Doesnt mean I would ever watch a 24/7 stretch-o-vision channel