Comcast's power play?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tra La La

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
4,707
0
Buffalo, New York
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/12174949.htm

While the latter part of that may be premature, the front end has merit. ESPN now has packages with major league baseball, the NFL and the NBA. Those who argue, as Pilson does, that ESPN increases the profile of your sport may be operating under an outdated premise. The mainstream media still do not cover the X Games, the Great Outdoor Games (which resemble a really long David Letterman skit), Texas Hold 'Em poker or cheerleading competitions.

You could even go the other way on this, that the NHL would be better served hooking up with one of Comcast's networks. With all due respect to Lance Armstrong, hockey becomes the most interesting thing on Outdoor Life Network the moment the ink is dry.

At ESPN, hockey is one level above the cheerleaders. If the money is the same, what's the big risk, anyway?
 

JeffW

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
140
0
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)
 

Rails

Registered User
Mar 30, 2003
2,333
0
LBurg and FBurg, VA
Visit site
JeffW said:
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?
 

Phil333

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
997
0
New York City
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.
 

PhoPhan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,724
100
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 am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
Phil333 said:
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.

I know. It's Channel 99 on my system.
:D
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,663
37,457
ESPN is 44 for me. The Deuce is 47. Spike 34. OLN 96 I usually surf between 29 (The Weather Channel) and 47 (ESPN2)
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,663
37,457
All-Star said:
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.
 

All-Star

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
6,645
0
Snake Mountain
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
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.
 

Phil333

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
997
0
New York City
All-Star said:
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.
 

Yus

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
156
0
JeffW said:
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)

TNT is in HD. Comcast could get games on INHD.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Sanman19 said:
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.
 

Yus

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
156
0
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. :D
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
gscarpenter2002 said:
I am curious. Exactly how many of you own High Def televisions?

Two for me, and it does make a tremendous difference, not only in the picture quality, but the sound is drastically improved as well.
 

Thibaj

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
336
0
Montreal
Visit site
All-Star said:
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?

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.
 

RLC

Registered User
Aug 7, 2004
622
0
Montreal
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.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
RLC said:
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.
That's incorrect. The legislation was for digital broadcast, not HD.
 

RLC

Registered User
Aug 7, 2004
622
0
Montreal
Dr Love said:
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?
 
Last edited:

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
RLC said:
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 and just who ( which lobbly 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->