Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV

[John Picard]

I'm one of those who, A) receives TV over the air, and B) opted not to get a coupon for a converter box because the cheaper boxes (according to reviews) were all utter shit. It didn't make sense to me to spend over $100 for a quality box when, for a just a bit more, I could get a new TV.

Netflix has been my lifeline. I've watched a lot of TV series I never would have seen before and caught up on tons of movies. I don't watch that much TV anyway, so this has worked out. Many people ask why I don't get satellite, but I don't see why I should pay a ridiculous amount of money for a package that consists of a ton of sports channels when I could care less for them. The cable companies claim it would be difficult for consumers, but I think a-la carte program would be best and not that difficult to implement.

I can see the free model that the US uses going away. It sucks that newer programs lose so much time because of commercials. Naturally, the "it will hurt the poor" card is played, which is quite comical considering what it means to be poor in the US. It is a far cry different than much of the rest of the world.

[Peach Wookiee]

^Still, that's the argument that will probably give free TV a bailout. It's the concept of bread and circuses. The people must have their entertainment. Furthermore, folks, not everyone is tied to watching their TV on the Net. There are still lots more people who watch broadcast and cable rather than online.

[tomalak301]

I read about this yesterday and I had a question. What's the sports angle of this, specifically for the NFL. Other than a few shows (Glee, Survivor, 24, and The Amazing Race for starters), the only TV I really watch other than DVD is sports. Would hate to have to see something like the NFL go the route of Pay Per View or something like that. Thank god for NFL Redzone if that happens which is on cable.

[John Picard]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

I read about this yesterday and I had a question. What's the sports angle of this, specifically for the NFL. Other than a few shows (Glee, Survivor, 24, and The Amazing Race for starters), the only TV I really watch other than DVD is sports. Would hate to have to see something like the NFL go the route of Pay Per View or something like that. Thank god for NFL Redzone if that happens which is on cable.

Many of you here are too young to remember the days of just three, or even four channels, and your favorite show being pre-empted by some damned sports game. To this day, I love pissing off sports fans by telling them that shit belongs on cable -- specifically PAY TV. Fuck that noise. You want to watch your precious mindless bullshit sports then you should have to pay for it. Not everyone gives two shits about that crap.

[Temis the Vorta]

Furthermore, if broadcast TV collapsed and mass entertainment like CSI & so forth had nowhere else to go but cable, might that squeeze out some of the niche programming that survives on cable now?

I could see there being a police-procedural specialty channel for the CSI's and L&O's - and there's already a reality-TV channel. Since there's apparently no limit to the number of cable/satellite channels, there's room for anything that has an audience. The real limitation is in the audience's attention - you don't have to hunt thru 500 channels to find CBS and ABC. When you do have to hunt for CSI, how many of its viewers will really bother? Police procedurals could end up being just another niche taste.

Maybe a better approach would be to encourage U.S productions to film in Canada or where Canadian actors can work in the U.S (I can imagine that produciton of BSG in Vancourver probably provide a fair bit of work for local production companies - set construction, catering etc).

The former already happens via tax credits (American states also do that to lure production away from Hollywood). Canadian actors of course will move to Hollywood if they think they can make it in the big time - actors from around the world have always done that.

But what does "Hollywood" mean when TV and movies are filmed all over the place, even when those places are wrong. One of my pet peeves is seeing a show that's supposed to be set in, say, New York or Kansas and it's obviously not being filmed there.

A story isn't just the characters and the plot, it's also the place. I like stories that have a strong sense of place and use it effectively (Invasion's use of Florida locations is a good example of this; Jericho's mountainous Kansas is an example of what not to do. At the very least, they can point the cameras away from the mountains, how lazy can you get? )

Netflix has been my lifeline. I've watched a lot of TV series I never would have seen before and caught up on tons of movies.

I might just move all my viewing to Netflix, too, except for TrekBBS! It's fun being able to yak about shows right after they air. The cable companies should give TrekBBS some of their revenues because otherwise, I would have bailed by now.

[tomalak301]

Ebeneezer wrote:

---

Many of you here are too young to remember the days of just three, or even four channels, and your favorite show being pre-empted by some damned sports game. To this day, I love pissing off sports fans by telling them that shit belongs on cable -- specifically PAY TV. Fuck that noise. You want to watch your precious mindless bullshit sports then you should have to pay for it. Not everyone gives two shits about that crap.

What you just described is no different than the stuff you probably watch.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Temis the Red-Nosed Vorta wrote:

---

I could see there being a police-procedural specialty channel for the CSI's and L&O's - and there's already a reality-TV channel. Since there's apparently no limit to the number of cable/satellite channels, there's room for anything that has an audience. The real limitation is in the audience's attention - you don't have to hunt thru 500 channels to find CBS and ABC. When you do have to hunt for CSI, how many of its viewers will really bother? Police procedurals could end up being just another niche taste.

Isn't there already a cable channel like that called Sleuth? IIRC, there's a Sleuth special counting down the 10 greatest TV detectives of all time included on the Law & Order Season 5 bonus features.

[Marc]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Isn't there already a cable channel like that called Sleuth? IIRC, there's a Sleuth special counting down the 10 greatest TV detectives of all time included on the Law & Order Season 5 bonus features.

might be mysterytv you're thinking off.

[Serial thread killer]

In the UK the UK Drama channel renamed it self Alibi.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

"Alibi"? That's even worse than SyFy, which at least *sounds* like Sci-Fi.

[Bisz]

I said FU to the cable people when I moved into my new house, no way am I spending that much money on shit programming. I buy DVDs of the shows I like.

This year I'm going to do the same with the phone company - $32/month for the absolute base service is a joke. I'll take the $6/month hit and switch to dry loop DSL then just get a pay as you go personal cell (I currently use my business cell for all my cellular needs).

[Dusty Ayres]

Bisz wrote:

---

I said FU to the cable people when I moved into my new house, no way am I spending that much money on shit programming. I buy DVDs of the shows I like.

This year I'm going to do the same with the phone company - $32/month for the absolute base service is a joke. I'll take the $6/month hit and switch to dry loop DSL then just get a pay as you go personal cell (I currently use my business cell for all my cellular needs).

So what do you use for basic phone service? What if the battery runs dry or something? And how will you make sure that the kids don't fuck around with the phone using it all of the time?

[John Picard]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

So what do you use for basic phone service?

I dropped my landline as well once I could get a 3G signal to my house. No sense paying two phone bills.

What if the battery runs dry or something?

Recharge the battery. Duh. Believe it or not, there are times when the phone company (landline) experiences outages and problems.

And how will you make sure that the kids don't fuck around with the phone using it all of the time?

Again,

[Dusty Ayres]

John Picard wrote:

---

I dropped my landline as well once I could get a 3G signal to my house. No sense paying two phone bills.

Recharge the battery. Duh. Believe it or not, there are times when the phone company (landline) experiences outages and problems.

Again,

Sorry, I don't have a cell phone, that's why I asked.

Myself, I've got a bundle from Ma Bell (Internet, satellite TV, basic phone) and I'm content with that. But just for info's sake, what is a 3G signal, and why is it better than a land line?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I'd suggest stocking up on as much DVD's of your favorite show as you can-when the new tax takes shape in June, you won't be able to buy as much as you're used to.

[John Picard]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Sorry, I don't have a cell phone, that's why I asked.

Myself, I've got a bundle from Ma Bell (Internet, satellite TV, basic phone) and I'm content with that. But just for info's sake, what is a 3G signal, and why is it better than a land line?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I'd suggest stocking up on as much DVD's of your favorite show as you can-when the new tax takes shape in June, you won't be able to buy as much as you're used to.

I live out in the sticks where there is no cable broadband service. Satellite is expensive and service is shit. I have a wireless device that picks up AT&T's "wireless broadband" signal that I use for connecting to the Internet, which means no more dial-up for me.

Having all bundle from one-provider, to me, is pretty much suicide. People I work with are hysterical, bitching that their cable bundle keeps going up in price -- as well as bitching when their digital phone service goes out. Um, Dumbass -- you can't tell the difference between the digital quality and analog considering you're not on a true digital connection. Top that off with losing phone service when there's a power interruption due to a storm -- where's the advantage? None.