Subchannel Discussion Thread

[zeebre12]

I see that Cozi TV have added Will and Grace to their lineup. Compared to their other programming excluding Frasier, other programs are older and some much older. Would you classify this as classic or just not classic enough for subchannels? Could they add Friends as well? Or 3rd Rock from the Sun etc?

 

[Peter Parker]

Laff specializes in 90s vintage shows. I see no reason a subchannel could not go after anything they wanted to. Friends is still on in main broadcast syndication so i suspect it is out of their price range Third rock i could see.

 

[zeebre12]

Why doesn't CBS offer CBSN to its affiliates to air on a secondary channel? Especially as it's a free channel anyway and it would be another platform for it.

 

[Mgsports]

But it's News Channel.

 

[osu1991]

Why doesn't CBS offer CBSN to its affiliates to air on a secondary channel? Especially as it's a free channel anyway and it would be another platform for it.

What benefit is it to the affiliates? CBS isn't going to pay the affiliates to carry it and there is limited space for subchannels. Why would an affiliate choose a news channel over something that would draw more general viewers?

 

[harshness]

Why would an affiliate choose a news channel over something that would draw more general viewers?

For the same reason that my local NBC affiliate can't seem to keep their "weather RADAR" channel off the air -- there are people who are jonesing hard for it. It is especially hard to justify as they still haven't figured out a way to put commercials on it.

I suspect that having a "news" channel tuned makes people think they are still part of the real world while they're attending to Facebook and Twitter.

 

[osu1991]

I can see a local news channel. Our local Griffin channel has had a 24/7 news channel loop for years on cable and moved it to a subchannel when they went digital, but they control all the advertising on it. I can’t see that happening with cbsn. Moonves is too greedy to just let affiliates have it or share much of the ad time.

 

[harshness]

I can see a local news channel.

I can't. My big 3 locals are all fighting tooth and nail for news supremacy. Without 6 hours of "local" news per day or more, they'd be shriveled husks like the CW.

 

[zeebre12]

Get TV is now airing 7th Heaven (1996-2007, are these broadcast rights or what as a few cable channels are also airing it or how does it work?) and Ghost Whisperer (2005-2010), soon Get TV will be airing Bones and Law and Order (Sonys free to air channel in thr UK does air Law and Order so it could be a possibility?

 

[osu1991]

It could just be a few seasons, it could be the entire series. Its all in what the media owners put out for sale and distribution. Last Man Standing is in syndication on OTA, Hallmark and CMT. Each with access to different seasons

 

[harshness]

Who carries what is entirely based on their respective syndication agreements. All of this stuff costs real money so it isn't just a matter of adding another stream.

 

[zeebre12]

There was talk of Antenna launching another subchannel called Antenna Classics. I presume this has been shelved? No other subchannels that could launch?

 

[navychop]

There was talk of Antenna launching another subchannel called Antenna Classics.

Wouldn't that be like advertising you sell antique antiques?

 

[harshness]

There was talk of Antenna launching another subchannel called Antenna Classics. I presume this has been shelved? No other subchannels that could launch?

With a few of the stations going away and others moving to sharing channels, now is probably not a good time to try to launch a new channel. I'd suggest making their main channel more attractive instead.

I can see a scenario where there isn't much new (outside of rebranding or refocusing) until ATSC 3.0 takes over.

Through all of this, we may see some of these channels appear as streaming-only channels (at least until cable moves to AVC or later) as bandwidth has become rather tight in some of the larger markets where the eyeball density is highest.

 

[Justin Hill]

I heard that with ATSC 3.0, there will be the ability for each local station to add a total of 100 digital subchannels to each main channel.

 

[harshness]

I heard that with ATSC 3.0, there will be the ability for each local station to add a total of 100 digital subchannels to each main channel.

And it will tie your shoelaces and make you more attractive to others.

As I've frequently reminded, new standards and gubmint policies cannot change the laws of Physics.

I also remind that we need to be very careful when we use the term channel. Channel can mean anything from the 6MHz RF channel to a single subchannel and with ATSC 3.0, it might even be a streaming Internet channel. ATSC 3.0 is more efficient, but it doesn't increase the airwave capacity by anywhere near an order of magnitude; I'm not convinced that it will double it.

 

[Voyager6]

I heard that with ATSC 3.0, there will be the ability for each local station to add a total of 100 digital subchannels to each main channel.

Don't think that is correct. I believe the number of sub-channels available will be much lower.
How ATSC 3 Changes Broadcasting for the Better (It's Not Just 4K) - Studio Daily

Making the Right Choice

Broadcasters will have quite a bit of latitude to decide what to do with their ATSC channels. Friedel said a single 6 MGz ATSC 3.0 channel has 36 "capacity units." (That's almost a threefold increase over the original ATSC spec, which offered 13 capacity units.) That means an ATSC 3.0 channel can hold a single UHD program, multiple HD programs (they take up six or 12 units each, depending on frame rate), or up to 36 SD programs.

It's not enough capacity, however, that bandwidth will not remain a primary concern. And that might mean that the future of broadcasting is not in UHD at all, but in high dynamic range (HDR) — or, rather, in what broadcasters are calling "HDR+".

HDR is mostly thought of as a 4K technology, since the first TV sets to enable it are UHD models, but there is no good reason HD content can't be encoded in HDR, then upres'd to 4K by the TV set. That's where HDR+ comes in. It's an HD-resolution stream that features HDR, wide color gamut, and 10-bit color depth (to eliminate the color banding that is arguably the most unsightly characteristic of HDTV images). Matthew Goldman, SVP of Technology, Media and Entertainment at Ericsson, said the increased payload when HDR+ content is delivered to consumers is at most 20% more than a standard HD stream, while HFR (60p to 120p) could require a 30% increase in bandwidth to the home and 4K can increase the required bandwidth by as much as 250%.

"If you want to get the best bang for the bit, what are you going to do?" Goldman asked the audience rhetorically. "I think you should look at doing 1080p HDR+. If you have the bandwidth, do the 4K. But if you don't have it, seriously, take a look at this. You can get, for a small increase in bandwidth, a much better user experience."

 

[Justin Hill]

Hopefully, it gets to the point where I can watch two programs side by side with one airing on a flatscreen TV and one airing on my computer monitor.

 

[harshness]

Hopefully, it gets to the point where I can watch two programs side by side with one airing on a flatscreen TV and one airing on my computer monitor.

You can do that now if you have a TV tuner that is computer addressable. I doubt the future is going to change that one way or the other.

 

[Justin Hill]

You can do that now if you have a TV tuner that is computer addressable. I doubt the future is going to change that one way or the other.

I'll have to see what they come up with for ATSC 3.0 USB tuners over at Hauppauge in the future.