Superbowl on the non-HD channel

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Station: It's our programming. We provide the copyrighted content and the franchise for a major network. Without it, you have nothing to show. You should pay us.

Cable: We provide you with more viewers. Not everyone can receive you off the air. With more viewers, your advertising rates go up. You should pay us.

And so it goes. But the truth is, they both need each other.

I'm not sure how the economics of other cable networks work. I think the cable companies has to pay for them, and in turn they charge the cable subscribers and can sell some advertising space. I'm not sure if Oceanic can sell advertising space on the local station channels or not. That would shift the normal economics.

I think I'm siding with the TV stations on this one. But on the other hand, they better not play too hardball. I think the rise of IPTV is going to make a dent in their business. I know of some co-workers that go to the network website to watch their favorite TV shows.

[mel]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Erika Engle has an item in her Buzz column today regarding the state of HD TV in Hawaii, particularly with Oceanic Cable and the local affiliates. The Super Bowl is mentioned, and the parties involved with this seem to be working on it.

As for an HD airing of that upcoming annual broadcast showcase of expensive advertising, er, football game in So-Fla, hope springs eternal.

"Nate and I are having serious discussions to see if we can't make it happen," said Rick Blangiardi, senior vice president and general manager of KGMB-TV, Hawaii's CBS affiliate.

The sticking point is, "we have parent companies that have a different view of the world ... but at the end of the day we are trying to come up with a win-win situation."

Smith is looking at an agreement beyond a one-time broadcast of a football game.

• Slogging toward new TV technology

[Konaguy]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Konaguy, this is a rediculous and uninformed statement you are making.

Jeez, maybe I should've not bothered to look for responses to my comments. You don't have to act like a belligerent idiot.
Go back a read what I wrote. In no way your rude response is warranted in this case. Its like you have stick up where the sun don't shine.

[Konaguy]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Incidentally, Time Warner is not making a whole bunch of money on broadcasting HD channels. At 6.95 per month for 11 channels (Yes, OTW claims 16 channels for 6.95 a month, but the other 5 are additional fee). So Tunl your assertion
that Time Warner is greedy is baseless.

[BigD]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Geez. Our service people is dying in the Middle East to save our freedom and from being terrorized and yet some of you act like its gonna be the end of the world for you if you cannot get HD football. What the hell is wrong with you crybabies ?? Get a life already and MOVE ON. If you gonna rant about something, at least grumble about something worthwhile. Just be happy you will get the Superbowl in color period. Things could be a hell of a lot worst like maybe someday soon we might get a tidal wave that will make you wish you had not cried just because you did not get spoiled over no HD TV. Get a real life folks. Life is too short to worry about silly stuff like this. I just had to say my piece. Aloha, BigD.

[mel]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

It's a matter of priorities and values I guess here. People buy big screen HDTV sets, subscribe to HDTV service and expect the best from their purchase, especially at times for events such as the Super Bowl. Also this is the Hawaii Television section of the board, so the priority here is TV... not politics, the Iraq War, saving the world or anything that doesn't deal with local TV.

So carry on with the fact that the focus of this thread is the ability to get the Super Bowl on HD.

[TuNnL]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Emmis is the one wanting to be compensated for the KGMB-HD, not Time Warner Cable.

(Oceanic Time Warner) claims 16 channels for 6.95 a month, but the other 5 are additional fee.

Uhh, see how you just contradicted yourself, Konaguy? You just proved my point. Emmis is paid zero dollars and zero cents off their own HD programming from viewers. Oceanic makes 6.95 PLUS an additional fee, per viewer. Your words, not mine Konaguy.

If I’m Emmis’ financial advisor, I would advise them not to listen to your questionable business acumen, Konaguy.

As for the namecalling/insults you made, I refuse to stoop to your level.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Uhh, see how you just contradicted yourself, Konaguy?

I don't see a contradiction. The first quote refers to the relationship between KGMB and Oceanic. The second is between Oceanic and their customers. Oceanic wants to be paid by both parties.

[Konaguy]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

Speak for yourself Tunl, your response was equally offensive and belligerent. That being said, there is only 25,000 Oceanic HD customers. That is only $173,750 per month. A drop in the bucket when Oceanic overall grosses over 200 million a year.

[Media Guy]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

That's $2,085,000 ($2.08 Million) a year that Oceanic is collecting from retransmitting a broadcast station's HD signal, not including commercial avails, and they don't want to share any of the proceeds with the originating stations who made the millions of dollars in HD upgrades. That isn't Oceanic being greedy? Even at .50 a subscriber, which is about what the NAB is asking cable systems to pay, Oceanic would be paying out $150,000.
Why should Oceanic profit from a product it's receiving free of charge?

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

not including commercial avails

Are there any on a local broadcast signal? How does that work? Does the station "give" them the slots as part of the payment and then charge a lower rate to the advertiser since it's only seen by the over-the-air viewers?

[Media Guy]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

My bad! The memory isn't what it used to be. There aren't usually commercial avails for the cable systems on major network affiliates since most of them went to clock time a few years ago. Before that they just added them to the local break. However they still get them in most of the other programming; CNN, ESPN, USA, etc.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

There aren't usually commercial avails for the cable systems on major network affiliates since most of them went to clock time a few years ago. Before that they just added them to the local break.

Huh? You mean the cable system would stuff more commercials into the programming by adding delays to the system?

I know the regular cable networks (ESPN, Discovery, etc.) set aside time for the local cable system to sell ads but didn't know how that worked for local stations.

[TuNnL]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

...there is only 25,000 Oceanic HD customers. That is only $173,750 per month. A drop in the bucket when Oceanic overall grosses over 200 million a year.

Thank you for making my point for me. Bottom line: Oceanic makes bank, KGMB makes zero. What is wrong with this picture?

That's $2,085,000 ($2.08 Million) a year that Oceanic is collecting from retransmitting a broadcast station's HD signal...That isn't Oceanic being greedy? Even at .50 a subscriber, which is about what the NAB is asking cable systems to pay, Oceanic would be paying out $150,000.
Why should Oceanic profit from a product it's receiving free of charge?

Oh yeah, THAT is what is wrong with this picture. Mahalo, Media Guy!

[hebeasor]

Re: Superbowl on the non-HD channel

No Super Bowl in HD via OTW.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...701300337/1071