Author Topic: PAX to Abandon All Entertainment Programming (Read 9360 times)

aaron sica · « **Reply #30 on:** April 22, 2005, 11:12:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:46 PM\']
What is the FCC planning on doing with the frequency occupied by a channel 62? Here in the Catskills, we used to have WTZA on Channel 62, but they switched call letters to WRNN several years back and became a mostly-infomercials station. They also put a transmitter in Nyack to get to New York City so they could get on the cable systems there. However, as of several months ago, I don't get a signal over the air on Channel 62.

WRNN, however, is still on the DirecTV local channels....

[snapback]82954[/snapback]

[/quote]

Although I never had WTZA, that channel brings back such memories. I remember The Times-Herald Record paper doing an article on the two new channels; 62 and WOLF-TV 38 from Scranton. I used to want 62 back when they were a true independent, carrying reruns and such.....

ObGameShow: WTZA carried "Dark Shadows", which was yanked for "Password" when it originally aired on ABC.

DjohnsonCB · « **Reply #31 on:** April 22, 2005, 11:21:45 PM »

I should have tried to explain it a bit more in depth. I'd heard it mentioned that the FCC was considering dropping analog broadcast channels higher than 59, just as they had done years ago with Chs. 70-83 which were underused, this time to make room for digital broadcasting, possibly multicasting. Not sure if this was supposed to be accomplished if and when they turn off the analog signals for good.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 23, 2005, 10:23:57 AM »

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 10:11 AM\']NBC Universal said Paxson's plan to abandon network programming and to replace it primarily with paid programming, "constitutes a breach of the contractual agreements between NBC Universal and Paxson."

[snapback]82851[/snapback]

[/quote]

2005 has not been a good year thus far for NBC/Universal as far as cable networks go:

• DirecTV drops Trio from its lineup in early '05 -- DirecTV said that NBC/Universal wasn't sure of the future of Trio at that point, so DTV got rid of 'em.

• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.

(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).

• And now NBC/U is getting screwed by Paxson. Granted, CBS/Viacom is not having the best of times with their Mini-Me Network called UPN, but maybe NBC can buy & control a nightly block of programming, kinda like the non-infomercial block that's going on now.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2005, 10:42:41 AM »

NBC is just upset that they won't have the inventory to sell. They're not averse to infomercials. Have you ever seen CNBC on the weekends?

MikeK · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2005, 10:48:39 AM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.

(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.

Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.

NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".

TimK2003 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2005, 10:58:56 AM »

[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 12:45 PM\'][quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Apr 22 2005, 11:11 AM\']If it's an over-the-air signal in your market it cannot be dropped from your cable line-up. It's called "must carry".

[snapback]82851[/snapback]

[/quote]
Hmmm...then why hasn't my college's cable service been carrying the local PAX affiliate? It does come in quite clearly over the air where I live.

[snapback]82868[/snapback]

[/quote]

I thought the station in question must first *want* to be a must-carry station first. Then once it is a must-carry station, then whatever they wish to air gets onto a cable channel. But I had also thought that the terrestrial station had to pay an annual fee to the cable channel to continue it's "must carry" status.

Therefore newer or 'low power' stations (possibly including some PAX affiliates) may not want to be a 'must carry' if the cable system isn't already airing them as a courtesy. When I had lived near Akron about 6 years ago, we had Cablevision. There was a Channel 67 in Canton that had been on the air for over a dozen years before Cablevision had to carry it as a 'must carry' on their lineup. By that time instead of an independent programming channel, they became HSN.

I also believe there is a low-powered channel combo in the Cleveland/Akron Area that is still not a 'must carry' on some of the cable lineups though their stations (Channels 29 & 35 -- The Cat) have been around for over 10 years.

dzinkin · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2005, 11:18:43 AM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:58 AM\']I thought the station in question must first *want* to be a must-carry station first. Then once it is a must-carry station, then whatever they wish to air gets onto a cable channel. But I had also thought that the terrestrial station had to pay an annual fee to the cable channel to continue it's "must carry" status.

[snapback]83018[/snapback]

[/quote]
No -- each full-power station has to choose whether it wants to be "must carry" or to demand compensation for carriage. Typically the major network affiliates demand compensation, sometimes as a direct payment but usually in some other form; without said compensation, the cable or satellite system can't carry the channel. (Viacom, for example, requires cable systems to pick up some of its less popular cable networks in exchange for the right to carry the CBS-owned stations.) Less popular stations, like Pax, home shopping and religious channels, choose must-carry status; the cable and satellite systems have to carry them but the stations can't demand anything in return.

A station chooses compensation if it believes it can get something from the cable/satellite provider, and must-carry if the provider isn't likely to carry the channel otherwise. After a certain number of years (five? six? I can't recall offhand), the station can change its status if it so chooses based on the demand for its programming. Only PBS stations can't make the choice; their carriage is governed by different rules, and they can't demand specific compensation in return.

Quote

Therefore newer or 'low power' stations (possibly including some PAX affiliates) may not want to be a 'must carry' if the cable system isn't already airing them as a courtesy. When I had lived near Akron about 6 years ago, we had Cablevision. There was a Channel 67 in Canton that had been on the air for over a dozen years before Cablevision had to carry it as a 'must carry' on their lineup. By that time instead of an independent programming channel, they became HSN.

I also believe there is a low-powered channel combo in the Cleveland/Akron Area that is still not a 'must carry' on some of the cable lineups though their stations (Channels 29 & 35 -- The Cat) have been around for over 10 years.

Low-power stations can't demand must-carry or compensation by themselves. If a low-power station is owned by a full-power station, the latter can demand carriage of the former as its compensation. (In Syracuse, NY, for example, the cable system carries low-power UPN affil WSTQ as part of its deal to carry NBC affil WSTM.) Sometimes the cable system will carry a low-power station out of fear that subscribers will defect to satellite, since DirecTV does carry many low-power channels (particularly UPN affils) that it knows its subscribers want. And other times, as is the case where I live, the low-power channel will pay the cable system outright for carriage.

goongas · « **Reply #37 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:26:55 PM »

[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 09:48 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.

(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.

Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.

NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".

[snapback]83016[/snapback]

[/quote]

CNBC does ok from what I understand during the day. They get decent ad revenue because of their targeted audience. The ratings aren't what they were during the tech boom, but I think they are ok. At night is another story, that I am not that familiar with.

MSNBC primetime is not doing well. Keith Olberman now loses to Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News. Before he was only losing to Paula Zahn and Bill O'Reilley.

mmb5 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:41:14 PM »

In flipping through my on-line guide for my local PAX station, the Balderdash/On The Cover hour has been replaced with Bonanza starting tomorrow (Monday). The Pyramid/Shop and Pyramid/Feud hours were still intact.

--Mike

BrandonFG · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:42:29 PM »

[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 09:48 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Apr 23 2005, 10:23 AM\']• I though I had heard rumours of either CNBC or MSNBC running way behind their cable competitors, and I thought I heard talk that they might scale back or eliminate some if not all of their programming.

(if anyone can add current info to the above events, please do so).[/quote]
CNBC. John McEnroe's talk show got a 0.0 rating several times during its (thankfully) short run. Recently, CNBC has started rerunning NBC's reality shows during primetime, specifically The Apprentice and The Contender.

Tim didn't mention this, but it shows how crappy '05 has been at NBC/Universal--NBC is now the 4th watched broadcast network.

NBC--The "BC" stands for "We'll be see-in' ya at the unemployment line".

[snapback]83016[/snapback]

[/quote]

It seems that since Friends left, it took NBC's success with it. Is Joey even in the Top 20? How about ER? That was the #1 show for a couple of years in the late-90s (ObGameShow: Millionaire dethroned it in 99-00), and now I don't even think it's in the Top 10 anymore.

Matter of fact, isn't CBS' Thursday lineup running circles around "Must See TV"? (Survivor: Boise, CSI original recipe, Without a Trace)

Quote

In flipping through my on-line guide for my local PAX station, the Balderdash/On The Cover hour has been replaced with Bonanza starting tomorrow (Monday). The Pyramid/Shop and Pyramid/Feud hours were still intact.

They were still on? Our PAX affil. replaced it with a simulcast of WAVY's news some time ago. Why? I have no clue.

Chelsea Thrasher · « **Reply #40 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:55:30 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 08:42 PM\']
It seems that since Friends left, it took NBC's success with it. Is Joey even in the Top 20? How about ER? That was the #1 show for a couple of years in the late-90s (ObGameShow: Millionaire dethroned it in 99-00), and now I don't even think it's in the Top 10 anymore.

Matter of fact, isn't CBS' Thursday lineup running circles around "Must See TV"? (Survivor: Boise, CSI original recipe, Without a Trace)

[/quote]

(Information Courtesy the year-to-date ratings posted on the ABCMediaNet site available HERE and HERE.

Overall season to date, as of last week:

CBS' Thursday Shows:
CSI Original Recipe is #2 on the Season
The Two Survivors this season are 5/6 (I do NOT get why two seasons of survivor, airing in the same slot, are counted different...yes they take place at different locations, but they're the *same* show)
Without a Trace is #7

Whereas:
Apprentice 2 was 13th..but Apprentice 3 is 21st (Average: 17th)
ER is 17th overall in Year to Date ratings
Joey is currently 41st
Will & Grace is currently 43rd

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #41 on:** April 24, 2005, 11:18:19 PM »

[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 10:26 PM\']MSNBC primetime is not doing well. Keith Olberman now loses to Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News. Before he was only losing to Paula Zahn and Bill O'Reilley.[/quote]
Further proof that there's not much justice in the world, as Olberman's news program is consistantly quality stuff. It's probably too low-key in comparison to the shout-fest cable yackers, and his humor is a little dry for some tastes. Still, it's got an ingeniously simple structure that allows him not to be tied down to a single subject, the way he was the first time he went into the news game and everything was All Monica, All The Time.

GS Warehouse · « **Reply #42 on:** April 24, 2005, 11:54:48 PM »

[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 09:55 PM\']The Two Survivors this season are 5/6 (I do NOT get why two seasons of survivor, airing in the same slot, are counted different...yes they take place at different locations, but they're the *same* show)

[snapback]83172[/snapback]

[/quote]I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 08:42 PM\']Survivor: Boise[/quote]I'll bet a cyberpenny on that making the CBS schedule by January 2009 at latest. :-)

ObGS: Probst hosted a real gs once.

dzinkin · « **Reply #43 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:07:23 AM »

[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:54 PM\']I've long forgotten where I read it, but isn't there a rule saying if you change the rules of a competition show (like Survivor), you have to change the title? If so, this might be part of why Survivor: Vanuatu and Survivor: Pulau are counted as two separate shows.

[snapback]83183[/snapback]

[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. See:

Dream House
Scrabble
Password Plus
Play the Percentages
High Rollers (1974-76)
Tattletales
The Joker's Wild (CBS run)
Card Sharks

And probably a zillion other examples -- these are just the ones I can think of quickly.

clemon79 · « **Reply #44 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:44:52 AM »

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 09:07 PM\']No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. See:
[/quote]
And if you need a reality show, see The Apprentice, with the second-season-forward "exemption" clause.

But hey, why do you possibly need to check your facts, unless you're claiming to be an actual jour- oh, wait.