New info on WFLA on BHN

[superbigg]

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:05:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "SuperBigg" <biggb55@yahoo.com>
Subject: Whats the hold up on HDTV on Brighthouse?
To: news@wfla.com


I have ask BHN about when NBC will be added to there HDTV lineup, and they said the hold up is with WFLA. Whats the deal??!! After buying a new TV I just can't watch you guys on 007 anymore because of the quality of the signal. Its a real bummer! Can you give me a real answer on whats up. I am not alone on this matter.

BHN is pointing the finger at you.

thx

SuperBigg

PS: WFLA news is the best in Tampa I hate to change.

reply from them


From: eland@wfla.com Add to Address Book
To: biggb55@yahoo.com
Subject: HDTV
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:49:59 -0500






Dear Mr. Super:

Thanks for taking time to write WFLA-TV and for being a loyal viewer.

WFLA-TV is working through contract language with cable operators which would be amendable to WFLA-TV and the operator(s). So far, the cable folks have been reluctant to grant TV stations across the country full bandwidth for the TV station's signal. They want to "strip" part of the signal for their own use which many TV stations find repugnant and moreover a form of compensation to the cable company for carrying the signal. On the flip side, other TV stations (some in Tampa) have reached agreement though we believe with some serious concessions; concessions WFLA-TV will not accept.

Since most TV stations receive no compensation from cable companies and since cable subscribers view nearly 70% of their time spent on over-the-air television (local commercial TV stations like WFLA-TV) this issue looms large going forward. Stay tuned as we hope to have resolution in the very near future. This is being given careful consideration at the FCC as well, since the government is interested in moving DTV's conversion along. In the meantime, you should be able to receive a terrific signal, off,-air-, of the HDTV product Channel 8 transmits. I know I do.

Hope this helps you understand our plight. From WFLA-TV's standpoint, the cable company either carries 100% of Channel 8's signal or they get to carry none of it.

Best regards.



Eric S. Land
President and General Manager
WFLA-TV


hmm now what? :?

[gmclaughlin]

Keep in mind what 100% of the signal could mean:

1) Multicasting, even to the point of degraded (or no) HD signals. Do we really need more shopping channels?

2) Error correction signals required for 8vsb but of absolutely no value in QAM modulation,

3) Datacasting. Numerous broadcasters around the country are considering using part of their spectrum to broadcast data for other commercial services, completely unrelated to TV. An example is a proposed service called "iBlast" (try Google), or Disney's MovieBeam service trialing in 3 US markets. Essentially they could "lease out" their FCC provided spectrum to anybody that wished to use it. This is just something else to degrade the bandwidth (and thus quality) available for the HD "primary video" signal.


Keep in mind that I am not involved in these discussions between Channel 8 and BHN, and I don't claim know the specific sticking points or to represent BHN's position on this.

For those of you in agreement with the "no multicasting" thread/email campaign, consider who's on your side in this conflict.

[bdraw]

NBC is so at fault on this one.

I can watch them OTA, but after reading this I don't thing I will.

We don't want any additional channels.
We want our HDTV, with no signal degredation.

I hope BHN sticks to their guns, and keeps fighting for us. I don't want to watch Law & ordeer that much. I mean really what else do they have that worth watching anyways? Leno I guess.

[LonghornXP]

Well CBS was BHN fault for the most part but as much as I hate BHN I will say that what BHN is doing with NBC is the best move because my contact at the St. Pete Times pretty much told me that NBC wants BHN to commit to offering any multicast channels they might decide to offer in the future (I think NBC said up too five multicast channels in addition to the HD feed) and BHN doesn't want too end up making money for NBC while hurting the customers which is true. NBC can multicast a local advertising channels where they (NBC) gets all the money and BHN gets nothing at all for even carrying the channel. Now BHN isn't against multicasting since they offer PBS HD and 2 multicast feeds but BHN is getting some advertising money from these channels just for the cost to carry them and since the programming is not making money but public content (not a shopping channel) they don't mind carrying it. I agree that it isn't right for cable companies to carry something that hurts their business and helps the OTA business while getting nothing in return (not even the cost to operate and maintain the channel) but this doesn't excuse not having UPN HD and taking so long to get CBS HD but from what I heard is that CBS and BHN were fighting for a long time about how long the contract was going to be. One of the two sides thought it was too long and I don't know which side this was so I won't go further with this.

Now the fact is this is only going to get worse as more and more HD (local and national HD channels) channels go on the air and I think that right now HDTV has grown enough that the FCC should mandate local HD must carry like current analog channels are and that new national HD stations must have a deal worked out within certain guidelines within say less than 3 months and than at that time if they want to go further on making a deal the FCC would require both sides too offer this channel until the deal is made. So the provider would have to carry it and the network would have to provide it to the provider as well. So if they want to take 10 years to work out a deal the customers would have the channel for 9 years and 9 months. I'm not saying that it would ever take that long but customers shouldn't be hurt because the network and/or providers want to be pricks about everything.

[teampozer]

If the FCC is gonna require all stations to transmit digital and all TVs digital receivable by a certain year, then they need to update the must carry rules. Local HD "primary" signals (ie 8-1) need to fall under "must carry" rules. As far as multicasting and WFLA... it appears they want the opportunity to multicast in the future in the contract. I say get your primary signal on the system first and worry about the multicasting later. The funny thing is that they don't even do it now OTA. So quit the bitching and server the viewers.

[gmclaughlin]

Just to clarify: BHN does not (can't) do ad insertion on the digital channels (those channels aired over broadcast as digital TV).

As far as "must carry" goes, keep in mind how it works: The station provides the feed to the cable operator at no cost, and the operator has to carry it. In the analog world, must carry is for primary video only. But the station can waive their must carry rights, and opt, instead, for a retransmission consent contract.

The position cited in the letter suggest that WFLA would never agree to a must carry of primary video only. BHN would likely welcome it.