Can I have some information on these new channels?

[mets82]

Since its Turkey Day, I'll make this quick. This morning I found out that I have some new channels and I would like some info. on them because I've never heard of a few of them.

I got a new movie channel called ReelzChannel. Its 159 on Comcast here in Conn. Is that what it is, just a movie channel?

I got something called, I think, The Smithsosian Channel.

I also have another movie channel, called OVAT on my digital cable. It seems like This TV because it shows commericals and has movies.

I also got a couple of Comcast SportsNets as well.

But how come with all these new channels I have gotten as well as Hallmark Movie Channel, Bounce TV etc. I still havent gotten ME-TV:mad:

[Brad]

ReelzChannel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReelzChannel)
Smithsonian Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_Channel)
Ovation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovation_%28TV_channel%29)
Comcast SportsNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Sportsnet)

Me-TV is a broadcast channel, not a cable network. Where I live, it's the digital subchannel of my ABC affiliate (channel 7.2 with an antenna), but it's not yet carried by Comcast here.

[LUNCH]

The reason you got Bounce instead of Me-TV is the affiliate station that decided to carry them instead of the far superior Me-TV are either clueless or just plain stupid.Same thing happenned here.Hopefully some other SMART affiliate that actually wants alot people to view their station will carry Me-TV in both our areas soon.

[ajgenard]

I'm becoming convinced that satellite and cable providers are very reluctant to carry MeTV, AntennaTV, etc due to the fact they could easily beat TV Land and N@N at their own game. I honestly think Viacom fears the idea of MeTV being available in the same market because it would force competition with their own networks. Any idiot can see how these far superior OTA channels would greatly cut into TVLand. Viacom has quite a totalitarian empire running on nearly all media outlets. It wouldn't shock me to learn they are in effect pressuring cable co's to NOT carry MeTV and AntTV.

Everyone seems to rally against Walmart as some evil corporation - Viacom's ethics makes them look like a cancer research fund.

[mets82]

With all due respect to the channels I just received and the people who like those channels, I just dont find anything really interesting on any of them. I'll take ME-TV over them.

I actually did pick up to Comcast SportsNet. It looks like one from Chicago and one from the Bay Area which is pretty cool I guess.

[bencasey]

ME-TV was good for the first couple of months when they aired show complete. Now they cut them all up like everybody else does.

[Torgo]

Since its Turkey Day, I'll make this quick. This morning I found out that I have some new channels and I would like some info. on them because I've never heard of a few of them.

I got a new movie channel called ReelzChannel. Its 159 on Comcast here in Conn. Is that what it is, just a movie channel?

I got something called, I think, The Smithsosian Channel.

I also have another movie channel, called OVAT on my digital cable. It seems like This TV because it shows commericals and has movies.

I also got a couple of Comcast SportsNets as well.

But how come with all these new channels I have gotten as well as Hallmark Movie Channel, Bounce TV etc. I still havent gotten ME-TV:mad:

Reelz isn't just a movie channel as it airs sitcoms like Coach, Spin City, Third Rock From The Sun...

[mets82]

Like I said, with all due respect, the channels I just got I really dont watch. Some of the channels should be condensed. Take for example ReelzChannel. They show movies which you really dont need considering you have This TV etc. The shows that they show Cheers, 3rd Rock etc. can easily be back on TV Land or Antenna TV or even The TV Guide Channel. My point is that instead of lets say having 2 channels, they stretch it over 3 or 4.

Same goes for something like MTV. They have, what, 5 or 6 channels, they can easily have only 2 or 3. If you look at some of the channels now you can easily get rid of 3 or 4 channels and that left over programming can go to other channels.

[LUNCH]

And how many Nick or Nickelodeon channels are there now,5 or more,showing the same shows and junk on their 'different' channels. Realistically there could and should be 1 tenth the amount of channels,and at the same time have at least ten times the amount of variety they have now.But again it all comes down to the same thing,a few big companies own most of the channels.And that's plain wrong and should not be allowed.

[catsrule]

I like Reelz, it's the only place you can see Coach. They're one of the few channels that air full closing credits, they even air the full opening theme song on Cheers.

[ajgenard]

And how many Nick or Nickelodeon channels are there now,5 or more,showing the same shows and junk on their 'different' channels. Realistically there could and should be 1 tenth the amount of channels,and at the same time have at least ten times the amount of variety they have now.But again it all comes down to the same thing,a few big companies own most of the channels.And that's plain wrong and should not be allowed.

Completely agree. With the absurd amount of channels that exist today, there should be much more variety. But its the same pool of shows. The channels really need to be condensed. I wouldn't mind paying for cable or satellite IF you could pick your channels a la carte. I refuse to pay for MTV Tr3s, Nicktoons, or any other bloated Viacom crap that does nothing but cloud up my channel lineup.

Hopefully that case going through the courts now will be successful and the service providers will be forced to offer ala carte choices. But I've had such a blast this past year WITHOUT cable and just the 20 OTA channels I receive. So I may never go back to cable regardless of what they're offering.

[mets82]

And how many Nick or Nickelodeon channels are there now,5 or more,showing the same shows and junk on their 'different' channels. Realistically there could and should be 1 tenth the amount of channels,and at the same time have at least ten times the amount of variety they have now.But again it all comes down to the same thing,a few big companies own most of the channels.And that's plain wrong and should not be allowed.

You hit the nail right on the head Lunch!! I was going to start a thread about what you said and its the truth. There are so many wasted channels that we dont even need. I will say I dont have a problem with a few big companies owning all the channels but there has to be quality and enough programming on the channels which I dont think there is.

[RetroTVNitekatt]

I'm becoming convinced that satellite and cable providers are very reluctant to carry MeTV, AntennaTV, etc due to the fact they could easily beat TV Land and N@N at their own game. I honestly think Viacom fears the idea of MeTV being available in the same market because it would force competition with their own networks. Any idiot can see how these far superior OTA channels would greatly cut into TVLand. Viacom has quite a totalitarian empire running on nearly all media outlets. It wouldn't shock me to learn they are in effect pressuring cable co's to NOT carry MeTV and AntTV.

Everyone seems to rally against Walmart as some evil corporation - Viacom's ethics makes them look like a cancer research fund.

You really don't know how things work,do you?

MeTv and AntennaTV HAS TO HAVE AN AFFILIATE IN A MARKET before the local cable operators can carry it.

Viacom IS NOT stopping local cable operators from carrying either MeTV and Antenna TV. (Both networks actually have have decent cable carriage in the markets they are in.) It is up to the local affiliates of both networks to arrange for carriage on the local Cable systems. Since most of the affiliates are on sub-channels, they don't have FCC Must-Carry coverage, and it has to be negotiated - and in most cases they ARE carried.

There is channel allotment space to be considered and it might take some time to be added to the line-ups, (sometimes between a month to six months on average) It's not as simple as picking it up off the air at the antenna farm/signal relay and putting on - it requires additional equipment and configurations. There's also the consideration of what type of relationship the affilate's station ownership group has with a particular cable operator,which might speed up the sub-channel to be added.

(There's a reason why MeTV was eager to displace RTV on many stations - those sub-channels already had cable clearances in place.)

Of Course in any market with MeTV, AntennaTV (and RTV) aired on a station's primary (main) channel, they get full coverage thanks to FCC must-carry. (Why do you think MeTV is thrilled that they bumped RTV to 62.2 in Boston?! Being on 62.1, They'll get full across the board carriage and effectively pushed a rival on a channel without any current cable coverage)

As for Dish/DirecTV they simply do not have the channel space to add sub-channels - They'd have to find space for about 2000 new channels over 200 markets - and if they started adding a minimum number of sub-channels, picking and choosing one stations sub-channels in a market, or ones from one market,but not another, they would have a lot of angry station groups on their hands.

[ajgenard]

You really don't know how things work,do you?

When I hear some of these OTA sub-channels offering free carriage to cable and satellite companies in some markets and then being turned away without much explanation, it certainly makes a person scratch their head. If they were genuinely interested in carrying them, all the technical aspects would be cleared. Simple as that. Granted it's not free for them to carry them as more operational costs are incurred. But since when have they ever hesitated to raise rates? So the only logical explanation is in the backroom dealings that we can't see. These few huge companies like that already have questionable business practices in place seem to be a likely candidate for holding things up.

Yes, they do have a fair amount of cable coverage already but by all measures it should be covered even more and at a faster rate. I'm not suggesting Viacom or anyone is trying to wipe them out across the board. All I am saying is that quite possibly this could be a reason for some of the holdups.

I am not crazy about the idea of being told I don't know "how things work" considering I'm one of the few people here actually employed in the media field who has worked on both the technical and business ends of it. I'm not pretending to know everything but don't think it's unreasonable to not be treated as some yahoo living alone in the woods.

[RetroTVNitekatt]

I am not crazy about the idea of being told I don't know "how things work" considering I'm one of the few people here actually employed in the media field who has worked on both the technical and business ends of it. I'm not pretending to know everything but don't think it's unreasonable to not be treated as some yahoo living alone in the woods.


My apologies.

However, the suggestion that Viacom was/is influencing cable companies not to pick up the classic tv sub-channels has no basis in fact what so ever, and to even suggest that makes it sound like some sort of conspiracy theory.

Simply put, it does boil down to two factors - The station ownership groups negotiating with the the cable companies and the companies wanting to allocate space to add the channel. Station group have been offering the sub-channels free as part of a combined value incentive for the retransmision fees for the main channels.

Here's an example MeTV just switched affiliates here in Boston from NRJ's WMFP 62.1 to Hearst Television's WCVB 5.2 - and right out of the gate they have strong cable coverage. WCVB's sister-station WMUR in Manchester,NH has also had MeTV for some time now,and 9.2 has strong cable clearance as well.

I honestly don't know of a major/mid-level station group that HASN'T been able to get cable carriage for their sub-channels. It's the smaller ownership groups that have the issues - some attempt and can't even give away the channel, or worse, they don't even make the effort. NRJ's Boston and NYC/Bridgeport,CT station have no carrage for RTV on 62.2/43.2 respectively. (NRJ is only in it for the short term just waiting to sell the stations in the upcoming spectrum auctions in 2014)

[ajgenard]

My apologies.

However, the suggestion that Viacom was/is influencing cable companies not to pick up the classic tv sub-channels has no basis in fact what so ever, and to even suggest that makes it sound like some sort of conspiracy theory.

Simply put, it does boil down to two factors - The station ownership groups negotiating with the the cable companies and the companies wanting to allocate space to add the channel. Station group have been offering the sub-channels free as part of a combined value incentive for the retransmision fees for the main channels.

Here's an example MeTV just switched affiliates here in Boston from NRJ's WMFP 62.1 to Hearst Television's WCVB 5.2 - and right out of the gate they have strong cable coverage. WCVB's sister-station WMUR in Manchester,NH has also had MeTV for some time now,and 9.2 has strong cable clearance as well.

I honestly don't know of a major/mid-level station group that HASN'T been able to get cable carriage for their sub-channels. It's the smaller ownership groups that have the issues - some attempt and can't even give away the channel, or worse, they don't even make the effort. NRJ's Boston and NYC/Bridgeport,CT station have no carrage for RTV on 62.2/43.2 respectively. (NRJ is only in it for the short term just waiting to sell the stations in the upcoming spectrum auctions in 2014)

LOL I've forgotten about this topic. It was nearly a year ago and after reading what the hell I wrote, I fully agree with your assessment. After such a long time I can definitely see how my statements would seem conspiratorial in a sinister nature. I must have really been on edge and steamed with my then-roommate that night LOL. What I meant to convey was merely conjecture about the hold-ups - a point which has kind of been rendered moot in the transpiring months as coverage seems to have increased/stabilized. If anything, I should offer my apologies for acting the fool so to speak.