Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Tra La La, Jul 20, 2005.
The only reson I would prefer ESPN to the others is that ESPN can offer HD broadcasts. As far as I know this is not an option with the other networks who are negotiating for the broadcast rights (Comcast, Turner, Spike)
If it came down to more coverage (and more games hopefully) and a better attitude towards the sport or HD broadcasts...which would you choose?
ESPN is channel 28 for me. Spike 36. TNT 3. Do you even know what channel OLN is? I don't. I would never surf up to wherever it is and be like, "oh yeah, there is a game on." OLN is a joke. I really hope they do not get it. And let's not forget that it is in almost 40% fewer households than Spike.
The local Comcast affiliate (Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia) broadcasts most of the Flyers' games, and all of them are available in HD. I'd assume if Comcast picked up the NHL as a whole, they'd do it as well.
I know. It's Channel 99 on my system.
HD broadcasts, without a doubt.
ESPN is 44 for me. The Deuce is 47. Spike 34. OLN 96 I usually surf between 29 (The Weather Channel) and 47 (ESPN2)
It's in the 400s on mine, along with TSN, Sportsnet, The Score, NHL Network,...
Doesn't tv in the US group its sports channels together?
No. Only premium channels.
I have digital cable, when they added ESPNews it was 102.
We have NFL network on 180 and 275 as well...same network, 2 different channels.
Wow... Memorizing channels must be a real pain in the ass.
Yup. Channels here are spread out. I know 1 through 40 or 50 and I know where the other ones that I scan are (ESPNClassic, TVLand, HBO) but besides those, I do not know what channel OLN is or anything up in the numbers.
TNT is in HD. Comcast could get games on INHD.
I am curious. Exactly how many of you own High Def televisions?
Not I. But ask me again after my Christmas bonus this year...
I don't whats the prices on those?
Quite a chunk of cash, generally. That is why I am asking. I would like to know how many of these people trumpeting a NEED for HD in the next NHL TV deal actually have the capability to enjoy it.
And it is not digital cable, for those who don't know the difference (not directing that to any poster - just in general). Digital cable and HD are completely different things.
You can get a 30" CRT HDTV for about $700-900. You can actually get smaller (and therefore cheaper), but I really wouldn't recomend anything smaller than 30" for CRT.
I actually picked up a Sanyo HT30744 for $550 when Walmart was clearing them out.
Two for me, and it does make a tremendous difference, not only in the picture quality, but the sound is drastically improved as well.
I have digital cable in Montreal and the sports channel are all over the place, RDS 33, RIS 99, TSN 60, Sportsnet 81 to 84, The Score 111, but you can always program your remote and put all your sports stations as your "favorite" stations.
I own an HDTV, though I've only had the chance to watch one hockey game on it. It really made a difference.
Comcast's regional station in Washington, D.C. broadcasts in HD.
So let talk abot the NHL and HDTV.
The technology has been available you years. it took US legislation to put a fire under the broabcasters butts. To them it's all a big expence with little return. Even now with limited HDTV stations those same station don't have all the shows or sports events in HD, it's all about "delay,delay,delay". The pressure is mounting for things to change, sure eveyone is stateing they have plans for the future, that's good PR but wanting to wait untill almost everyone has a HDTV and cable and all other industries have converted before you actually go out and buy the darn HD camers to actually produce the shows should NOT BE THE LAST STEP.
with the re-start of the NHL and what I am sure will be a media blitz after that, not to sign a tv deal that demands 16:9 HD hockey
would be a real missed opportunity to promote the NHL. It has been known for years that Hockey with it's rink being rectangular aspect and the fact the the puck is so small will benifit MOST above all the other sports with 16:9 HD picture quality. Although it's true that only 5-10% of people have a HD set, HD set remains the highest growth market currently, If you want the NHL to explode with growth you must sell the very best product you can and that includes 16:9 HDTV, mark my words not just a 4:3 picture broadcast over a HDTV station with black bars all over the picture just for PR.
That's incorrect. The legislation was for digital broadcast, not HD.
HD IS digital, it can only be called a sub group under the digital broadcast legislation. HD is not yet another type of techlonlgy useing something else but digital broadcasting. My point is and contunues to be the expenditure for new hd digital cameras and stopping the use of analogue cameras then converting that picture into a digital format . This is NOT the selling point for HDTV or even digital picture broadcasting. Digital is trumpeted as better picture quality and the use of any analogue camera in the production of any kind of show is continued resistance to this legislation. just who ( which lobby group) is to blame for the ultra slow transition?
HD is digital, but digital is not HD. There is no FCC mandate for HD broadcast, only digital broadcast. Your other point I don't disagree with.