Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

FX creating FXX


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,532 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:23 PM

Channel position remains important ... even in the age of DVRs and receivers that find programs for customers. Similar channels together in the guide is expected - and when a channel is "out of place" it is noticed (and someone usually starts a thread saying "why is channel X in position Y" to complain about it).

If position didn't matter DirecTV and DISH would never move channels. They would be listed in the order added. They are not.

I do not expect FXX to stay at 619 on DirecTV. It would be out of place.

BTW: DISH currently has Fox Soccer Channel on 390 along with other special sports channels (FSC+ on 391, BeIN on 392, away from the ESPN channels in the 140s). DISH has 137 available next to 136 FX and 138 TNT/139 TBS so FXX (FX for generation X) could be moved there.

I agree it would be "out of place", and I agree that position matters, and also that it is unlikely for the station to debut or remain in the 600's.

My position is not that position does not matter; it is that it matters much less than ever before. And I do not accept either of your arguments to the contrary. Some yahoo with too much time on their hands and nothing else to complain about deciding to spend their afternoon complaining on Twitter is not a cogent argument for how important position is, and speaking as a long-time industry insider with direct knowledge of why certain decisions are made, neither is your complete guess regarding why channels are slotted where they might be by DBS.

That is like saying the sky is blue because it always has been and no one's complained about it.
It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,515 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:53 PM

My position is not that position does not matter; it is that it matters much less than ever before. And I do not accept either of your arguments to the contrary. Some yahoo with too much time on their hands and nothing else to complain about deciding to spend their afternoon complaining on Twitter is not a cogent argument for how important position is, and speaking as a long-time industry insider with direct knowledge of why certain decisions are made, neither is your complete guess regarding why channels are slotted where they might be by DBS.

Thank you for your opinion, but as previously illustrated both DBS providers disagree. If position didn't matter channels would not be separated into ranges. DirecTV names the ranges on their website.

BTW: We have had channel position discussions here on this fine forum ... so apparently you are insulting the forum that allows you space to write.

#23 OFFLINE   trainman

trainman

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,453 posts
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA
Joined: Jan 09, 2008

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:03 AM

Coverage was a factor, but you could vie for licenses at powers that would give you more coverage than you could eat, somewhat regardless of where you were on the dial. Some of the great clear coverage stations which had the largest reach were WLS at 890 and KOMA at 1520. I don't think they could have had that same coast-to-coast reach if low on the dial, nor at the time do I think they would have wanted to be there.


Yes, they absolutely could have if they were lower on the dial. Go back in time and ask, for example, WNBC 660, which had a huge reach.

Exact dial position doesn't matter anywhere near as much as being allowed to operate a nondirectional 50-kilowatt signal with no one else on the frequency. (Or even 500 kilowatts, as WLW in Cincinnati was allowed for a time -- I can only imagine how well that boomed in.)

But if transmitting power, antenna height, etc. are identical...a station broadcasting at 540kHz will have a greater reach than a station broadcasting at 1600kHz.

And if being lower on the dial was all that more sought after for technical reasons, why would the combined might of the NAB allow the FCC to at one point physically move every single station 10 to 40 KHz higher on the dial?


You almost make it sound like armed FCC agents descended upon all the radio stations in the country with heavy equipment to pull their transmitting towers to a different location... :D

That 1941 reallocation of frequencies was to reduce interference, which was obviously more important to the stations than any slight degradation in their signal that might have been caused by moving a few steps up the dial.

I said companies "like Clear Channel", referring generally to congloms who ran hundreds of stations, such as in the 70's.


There were no real radio "conglomerates" in the '70s -- companies weren't allowed to own hundreds (or even dozens) of stations until various FCC deregulations occurred in the mid-to-late '80s. (Obviously, the networks had hundreds of affiliates, but even they could only outright own 5 AM, 5 FM, and 5 TV stations back then.)
trainman is Jim Ellwanger

HR34-700 | Linksys WGA-600N | Samsung 46" LCD | Slimline-5 dish

#24 OFFLINE   Jeffro

Jeffro

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 72 posts
Joined: Dec 23, 2006

Posted 12 June 2013 - 02:53 AM

Satelliteracer-  What channel is FXX going to be on?  What packages is FXX going to be in?






spam firewall