People irate about NASA TV channel move=$$

[jcarrera]

They want their NTV | floridatoday.com | FLORIDA TODAY

Dear Help!: In the Help! Column of Dec. 6, Bright House Networks of Central Florida was reported to have moved NASA TV from channel 15 to channel 49.

My Bright House listing shows nothing on channel 49. It shows NASA TV on cable channel 144, which the article said could be accessed by new digital TVs without need for special equipment.

I do not have a cable box, and my new digital Sony TV will not pick up channel 144. I get digital signals and other HD channels, but I cannot receive NASA TV on any channel. That's why people are complaining so much.

My guess is that Bright House is "scrambling" channel 49 so digital sets won't receive it, creating need for a cable box.

It sure would be nice if they'd move NASA TV back to a channel that can be received without a cable box. Of course, we all know that'll never happen.

Larry Thompson, Titusville

Dear Help!: It is a public disservice to move the NASA channel from free TV to pay digital TV. It is absolutely ridiculous to have to pay Bright House a monthly fee of any amount to get a program that is telecast free by the U.S. Government to provide the public with information about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the space shuttle program.

Not being able to see the NASA channel is a slap in the face to citizens of Brevard County who want up-to-date info about NASA.

We the public deeply resent Bright House for failing to support NASA and the thousands of NASA workers who make their homes here.

Speaking on behalf of current and retired NASA workers and contractors on the Space Coast, I demand that Bright House put the NASA channel back on free TV.

Shame on you, Bright House.

George Barlow, Melbourne

Bright House was unresponsive to Help! Desk attempts made from Dec. 9 through 16 to elicit comment. After leaving one voice-mail message and sending six e-mail requests for a telephonic interview about the two readers' reactions to the NASA TV changeover, a columnist can only surmise network officials didn't wish to talk about it -- for whatever reason
----------------------------
It is interesting that the argument BHN uses regarding not wanting to get charged for using free OTA channels without paying for them seems to not apply to THEM using free government provided channels. It is OK for THEM to use free programming and charge customers extra for it, but not the other way around. Disgusting two-facedness.

[The Insider]

People watch nasa tv.. it sucks things moving to digital. But analog is a dead format people need to get in this decade. Hopefully more and more will go digital

[byron]

So many things to keep in mind here. It's not considered a basic channel, so it isn't carried in the basic lineup. It doesn't have a must-carry policy. It's a clear (free to air) channel, but not a government channel that has any
carriage requirements--anywhere. It's been carried in Standard before, but was removed sometime in the 90s when capacity became a problem, as it was a low-demand channel and added back to Digital when the technology became available because it is still, quite honestly, a low-demand channel. Always has, probably always will be. On the Space Coast, it was carried in Standard because (guessing) of the KSC close-proximity and the chances more people would want it carried there. Sure, KSC is in your backyard.. we'll carry the channel in Standard here...

This is a great example of a channel we DON'T want in analog or standard because "someone wants it there" ... this is a very low demand channel that deserves to be in Digital to keep the momentum on analog spectrum free-up moving along.

By the way, no matter how many free channels people complain about having to pay to watch, it still costs BHN a ton of money to carry each and every service they give you. I don't care if it's percenths of a penny or $2.00 per subscriber, they must cover the gigantic bills on antennas, fiber and dedicated microwave feeds required to bring you each and every offering they have, even if it's on demand, recorded and sitting in a gigantic server room on their own property. Infrastructure costs money. If you wanted to watch this channel, in the clear, anytime you wanted at your own house without cable bringing it to you..you would still have to invest $50 for a Ku-band satellite dish, $100 for a decent DVB receiver, and you'd have to aim and keep the antenna up yourself.. As you sit back and then watch the free channel, you would still have to paid to watch this free channel.

I don't like Bright House, I don't have their service. But I still know what it takes to bring you this stuff. Sometimes the belly-aching is warranted but two things are apparent here and need to be thought of: Cable technology and it's enhancement must continue to progress and you must learn to accept the changes in programming that isn't demanded by the masses.

[byron]

Also.. Re-reading the article.... Where do people get the crazy notion that cable without a set-top box is "free tv" ?? A converter box is not what you're spending $56+ on each month. I trust these aren't the same people building our shuttles.

[The Insider]

"Dear Help!: It is a public disservice to move the NASA channel from free TV to pay digital TV. It is absolutely ridiculous to have to pay Bright House a monthly fee of any amount to get a program that is telecast free by the U.S. Government to provide the public with information about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the space shuttle program.
"

I love that one... Listen your not paying for NASA TV you are paying for the other channels and the network in which you get that channel.

[jcarrera]

People watch nasa tv.. it sucks things moving to digital. But analog is a dead format people need to get in this decade. Hopefully more and more will go digital

There is a major difference in making it digital, and moving it into a digital tier, no?

[jcarrera]

All of you BHN apologists avoided addressing the contrast in BHN whining about THEM being asked to pay for "free" programming and them doing the same thing, i.e., increasing the cost to their customers to continue watching a channel providing no-cost programming to BHN.

By the way, I didn't say it was totally no-cost, did I? I said it was free PROGRAMMING, an exact truth. Their costs for this channel's programming did not increase, but the cost to customers to continue watching it was increased.

Tell me this, in the cities where BHN gets competition, how is it that there are all kinds of changes favoring the customer, yet BHN continues to make a profit. This NTV thing is nothing but another money grab just because they can do it.

[jcarrera]

...I love that one... Listen your not paying for NASA TV you are paying for the other channels and the network in which you get that channel.

What a crock. That totally obfuscates the fundamental issue. If you were already had digital tier, yes, there was no effect on you. %&%# all the other people right? They're just cheapies who should be paying more anyway. Exactly reflective of the arrogant BHN attitude.

[The Insider]

There is a major difference in making it digital, and moving it into a digital tier, no?

The channel is sent with no encryption. You could technically pick it up on a digital tv. The problem of course is with BHNS mapping system, (which is needed to manage bandwidth) The channel will move from freq to freq.. So while the channel is availible with a digital tuner in your tv, it will take you some extra steps to get it.

Second BHN does offer a Digital box for customers upset over channel migration to digital for 1$ a month. Very reasonable rate. I do beleive its a 1 per house limit but dont quote me on that.

The same issues arose when cell phones went all digital. Sure the upfront costs got higher, but then as everyone went digital the prices came down even cheaper then analog service. Same will happen with cable. Digital is so much cheaper to operate (in the long run) vs analog, that its only fitting that once everyone moves over prices will come down more inline to todays "analog rate" if not even less (in relation to what you get) Heck they sell boxes now for 50-100$ thats a big impvorment over the 300-400$ avgs..

This is progress, and its a good thing. All 10 people who watch that channel maybe upset, but the other 900k people who want the extra HD channels we will get by replacing this one will be happy.. Its a win lose situation. Dont add HD lose, remove Channel lose, But in each of those cases you also win, you just have to figure out which is a bigger win for you and your customers.

[The Insider]

All of you BHN apologists avoided addressing the contrast in BHN whining about THEM being asked to pay for "free" programming and them doing the same thing, i.e., increasing the cost to their customers to continue watching a channel providing no-cost programming to BHN.

By the way, I didn't say it was totally no-cost, did I? I said it was free PROGRAMMING, an exact truth. Their costs for this channel's programming did not increase, but the cost to customers to continue watching it was increased.

Tell me this, in the cities where BHN gets competition, how is it that there are all kinds of changes favoring the customer, yet BHN continues to make a profit. This NTV thing is nothing but another money grab just because they can do it.

BHN has to weigh what will impact the most customers. NASA tv, vs two national HD channels. Guess which wins and which loses.

BHN is not charging you any more for the channel (did the digital tier price go up because of? Did analog price go down because of it?) The price for pakages were unchanged. Sure you need a digital tv (with work) or a 1$ converter box. But guess what with that converter box, or even a standard digital box for that extra 6$ you get 100+ more channels. So your 6bux is not just for NASA..

What was NASA channels ratings in Bervard? Id bet their biggest draw is when hte shuttle is in space, and thats less then a handful times a year for 2 weeks at a time? Really do we need all that bandwidth wasted for something thats last on the ratings list?

I will give you though it was a dumb move "PR" wise. Specially on the "Space Coast" to do that. Im sure there are a handful of other channels to choose (Of course they probably all get better ratings then NASA TV) and although from a "smart person" stand point it was a good move, the spin on this story and the bad press is an easy story for any paper to run with. So good technical and "business" decision at the same time a bad PR move and bad business decision.