[BC] HDTV

[Alan Kline]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Mark W Earle wrote:
> Well, I think the perception difference is because you're not comparing
> apples and oranges. I cannot stick up a set of rabbit ears, or an antenna
> and get HBO, ESPN SD or HD, etc. I must get them from a sat provider or
> cable.
>
> Your HD and SD signals, come in "free" to the consumer, so the value is
> perceived to be less.
>
> In my case I'm glad the local broadcasters are on cable - I get terrible
> Off-Air reception, because in an apartment only indoor antennas are
> permitted (well, I could rig something on the patio, but it doesn't help
> where I am , relative to the transmitter sites).

So, in your case, it sounds as though you're happy to pay for a service
which includes the local broadcasters.  All I'm asking is, why shouldn't
the broadcasters receive a share of your payment to the cable companies,
as the cable networks do?

I disagree that the value of an OTA HD or SD signal is perceived to be
less, because it could be received for free by a viewer.  The fact is,
most viewers receive their "free" TV from a cable or satellite system,
which profits from reselling that signal to the viewer.  Your argument
would have more merit if the cable/satellite companies provided the local
broadcasters to the viewers for no more than the actual cost of obtaining
and retransmitting the signal.  I'd be willing to bet that if a scientific
survey was done, most basic cable subscribers would be surprised to learn
that broadcasters generally aren't paid for their signals.  And I doubt
that any viewer would see OTA HD coverage of the NFL or NCAA tourney to be
less valuable than a game on ESPN-HD.

It's different for satellite--I pay Dish a separate fee for the local OTA
signals, but I know that some of it comes back to me via my employer.  The
local ABC affiliate here held out from Dish for almost 6 months before
getting what it saw as acceptible compensation.

> Haven't tried but it is doubtful digital Off-Air will be any better.
>
> Side note: Recently the ABC affiliate "held out" for a better carriage
> deal from Time Warner. Time warner put an out of market ABC affiliate on
> their system, same channel, for a few hours (18 as I recall). Somehow,
> suddenly, things worked out and the local station is "back".
>
> There is still behind the scenes legal wrangling on this one.

I'm not surprised--I don't think that what T-W did is legal.  In the other
recent cases I've heard of, where Nexstar pulled some of their stations
off of cable systems during negotiations, those networks were simply
gone--they weren't replaced with out-of-market stations.  It wouldn't
surprise me if the local station was able to go to the local Federal court
and get a restraining order against T-W.

> My residence is on Grande cable, so we never "lost" the local ABC
> affiliate.

I've never heard of Grande cable, so I can't comment...

ak