New Sci-Fi channel

Quote :

Launching Fall 2015

(MARYLAND & LOS ANGELES) June XX, 2015, Sinclair Television Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI) (“Sinclair”), and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (“MGM”), today announced a partnership to jointly create, develop, distribute and air the first ever 24 hour/7 day per week science fiction multi-channel network which will feature over 1,500 hours of premium MGM content. Under the ownership of Sinclair Television Group, MGM will handle certain operations of the network, including programming, and Sinclair Television Group Co-Chief Operating Officer, Steve Pruett, will oversee the venture for Sinclair. The announcement was made today by David Amy, Chief Operating Officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and John Bryan, President, Domestic Television Distribution, MGM.

“We are excited to be partnering with MGM on the launch of the first ever science fiction multi-channel network,” said Mr. Amy. “MGM has an extensive collection of science fiction films and television movies that appeal to a vast audience who will now be able to access that content through broadcast television.”

“As a producer of some of the genre’s greatest films and television series, MGM knows how passionate and loyal fans are about Sci-Fi,” said Mr. Bryan.

The science fiction multi-channel network will initially debut in the fourth quarter of 2015 across approximately 30% of the country with Sinclair and MGM anticipating to enter into distribution deals with other broadcasters prior to launch. The network will feature a mix of science fiction, fantasy and adventure fan-favorite titles from MGM including television series such as “Stargate,” “Poltergeist,” “Outer Limits,” and “Dead Like Me,” among others.

Link

Hell yeah!!!

Great it will be 10 years before we get it.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Great it will be 10 years before we get it.

Nope. It will be completed within the next 60 days. I don't think you understand the magnitude of this news.

Sorry I mean our cable company they are slow to get channels.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Sorry I mean our cable company they are slow to get channels.

Not in this case because they are all local channels. We're talking broadcast TV, NOT cable bro.

Truth is, you'll likely get before I do.

Oh taking a big chance. I know the CW like Sci Fi a lot. Wonder if this will sort of follow in its footsteps. Matter of fact can't wait for The 100 to return.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Oh taking a big chance. I know the CW like Sci Fi a lot. Wonder if this will sort of follow in its footsteps. Matter of fact can't wait for The 100 to return.

You still don't get it.

Quote :

The science fiction multi-channel network will initially debut in the fourth quarter of 2015 across approximately 30% of the country with Sinclair and MGM anticipating to enter into distribution deals with other broadcasters prior to launch.

They're not taking a "big chance" or even a risk. It's a brilliant business decision, even at the level of "OMG" brilliant.

Sinclair renewed it's contracts with ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, FOX and a bunch of Spanish speaking broadcasting companies, BEFORE this was released.

So if you're still not sure what that means, it means they pretty much cornered the market for the genre. And there isn't anything anybody can do about it.

Monopolies are bad. :roll:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Monopolies are bad. :roll:

That's the beauty of it. It isn't a monopoly, anymore than the original Science Fiction channel was on cable.

Face it. Sci-Fi is an extremely hard genre to sell to a broadcast network. In the last 30 years, how many made it to the air, only to get cancelled in the first season? The networks want unrealistic numbers in the ratings for the genre.

This provides another option to writers and producers.

As I stated before, it has arrived. And it is AWESOME!


****WARNING****

For you tech geeks, forget your cable/satellite garbage. You won't get it, nor will your provider get it for you.

Actually probably more "tech geeks" will be watching it that anybody else. They can get it off Roku devices and the like, whereas only 7% of the US population watches over the air anymore and only half of them, at best, will be in an area where the channel is available. Not to mention even if it's available in your area you might need bigger antennas, more antennas, etc just to pick it up. It's a great addition for city dwellers, or others who happen to be close to the transmitter, who watch OTA though.

Too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Anyway, approximately 60 percent of the country or 65-70 million homes now get the new network. For all those wondering, here's what happened.

If you look back at my first post, you can see only 30 percent of the country was planned, because that's all Sinclair had control over. Well while they anticipated other broadcasters would be interested, they had no idea it would be pretty much EVERYBODY. That's why the delay in the channels premiere. It was supposed to be by the end of the fourth quarter of 2015 (September) and instead turned out to be the end of the first quarter 2016 (October).

Now it has become the largest multicast broadcast network in the United States.

AFAIK MGM is still running programming with Sinclair running broadcasting. What that means, is to be included in the network, go through Sinclair. Once in, for programming, go through MGM.

As some of you know, I live in the "boonies". But I get the channel. Nuff said.

"Anyway, approximately 60 percent of the country or 65-70 million homes now get the new network."
No they don't. It might be available to them, but that doesn't mean they get it.

It's available OTA to about 60% of the country. But only 7% of the country watches OTA anymore. And even for them they have to either be very near the transmitter and/or have a big enough antenna pointed in the right direction to pick it up. So at the very best, 7% of the US population will be watching this OTA, which assumes they all live within the right 60% of the country, are all within range and and all want to watch it.

The channel is available to me, but I'd need a roof top antenna and at least a 50 mile range antenna, probably a 70 mile one to get good reception. If I really wanted to watch it, I'd buy a Roku or an Amazon Fire and stream it for less than a hundred bucks, just like 90% of the people who watch any of these channels do. Hundred bucks max to stream all the OTA channels, including the ones not available in your region, sure beats the several hundred dollars it would cost for roof top antennas. As I said, it will be mostly the people you called "tech geeks" watching this via streaming.

Posting the first thing you find using Google, does not make you look like you know what you are talking about.

First off, the latest research completed by GfK Media and Entertainment shows the estimated number of Americans now relying exclusively on over-the-air (OTA) television broadcasting increased to 59.7 million. That's approximately 19.3 % of the homes in the U.S. Now that research was completed and released in 2013, over 2 years ago representing roughly 95 million homes. At that time, they said the numbers were increasing faster.

Next, is how many homes are like myself, and still retain the ability to receive OTA transmissions from broadcast networks. This is despite the fact they subscribe to cable, satellite or some other pay TV service. The fact is, most. This is largely because you lose the cable/satellite signal so often. But there was a MAJOR problem.

After 2006, TV's were no longer made with analog tuners. That meant we had to get a digital antenna, which most did. But unlike the old antenna's or current dishes, these could be mounted inside the home in the attic, or in my case, above the ceiling. They were much smaller than analog antenna's and omnidirectional. As time went by, more and more digital antennas came on the market, including portable indoor ones. All are dirt cheap now days.

Everything else you posted is plain garbage. Oh, and since you said it is available to you, what's the name of the network?

You really spew nonsense don't you? Obviously you know very little about any of this. First, the old analog antennas do still work to pick up digital broadcasts... surprise! Secondly you could have analog antennas inside your home as well, ever hear of rabbit ears? They are the analog equivalent to those stick on the window or the wall digital mat antennas they sell now. And just like rabbit ears, they don't work worth a darn unless you live within a few miles of the transmitter. And yes, you can use the bigger digital antennas inside or out, but you could also do that with the old analog ones as well.

Whether you need to mount them inside or out depends again on how far away you are from the transmitter and the range of your antenna. Outside they get better reception and range, just as they get better reception and range the higher you put them. "Dirt cheap" is subjective I guess. If I wanted to pick up just this one channel, I need at least one $100 60 mile antenna, plus a mast, coax, routing it through my house, plus paying somebody to install it on my roof. And yes, I'd need to go on my roof with it. If I wanted to go to all OTA, I'd need three of those antennas to point in three different directions to get ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, not to mention the sub channels like comettv, getv, etc. Or I could go with one $140 8 Element Bowtie antenna for two directions and one $100 one for the third. At least $300 I'd need to spend if I could do the install myself, which I can't, so probably at least another $100 for an installer to do the roof work. And no omnidirectional wouldn't work for me, omnidirectionals only work well if your transmitters are all close by. Mine are all far away in three different directions.

What difference does it make what the name of the network is? What are you accusing me of lying about it being available to me? You're the one who just claimed 70 million homes are receiving it, yet you doubt I could? And even if I was, would it be so hard to look it up and find out the name is "Comet"? Since your so interested, my local I could receive it from is WSMH channel 66.3, which is a  Fox channel out of flint Michigan.

Quote :

Posting the first thing you find using Google, does not make you look like you know what you are talking about.

First off, the latest research completed by GfK Media and Entertainment shows the estimated number of Americans now relying exclusively on over-the-air (OTA) television broadcasting increased to 59.7 million. That's approximately 19.3 % of the homes in the U.S. Now that research was completed and released in 2013, over 2 years ago representing roughly 95 million homes. At that time, they said the numbers were increasing faster.

Lol, and yet this "research" you rely on IS the first thing on Google. And you didn't even get that right. That percentage is for people watching OTA channels without paying a subscription fee for them, unlike cable subscribers who receive OTA channels but pay for them as part of their package. Those people watching them without paying include the 7% who are literally watching OTA channels "over the air" with antennas, as well as the people watching OTA channels via streaming devices like the Roku, Fire, etc. So thanks for proving my point that more people watch this channel, and all OTA channels via streaming than antennas. 7% watch over the air channels literally OTA, whereas 12.3% stream them. You claimed "tech geeks" wouldn't get this channel. Yet, it's available (along with every other OTA across the country) to everybody with a simple $40 Amazon fire stick and the internet. No antennas needed.

Or you could just go with this one. http://antennadeals.com/HD2605.html

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Or you could just go with this one. http://antennadeals.com/HD2605.html

That would probably be good if you weren't going to record stuff. I'm to used to having a DVR now, if I went to air I'd need to buy a Tivo and with that antenna I'd have to move it to tune in each channel before recording. That's why I'd go with the three fixed position antennas for each direction of the triangle the transmitters create around me. Then they would all always be tuned in and I could set the DVR to record without worrying about it.

I considered going to antenna a few years back since about half the shows I watch are on network channels anyway. The rest I could watch via Netflix when they were out on streaming or disc. Of course now they have all the live tv streaming devices that make antennas obsolete as long as you have decent speed internet. I'm not sure if or how those devices work with DVR's though, which is the big priority for me. I watch hardly anything live any more. Of course you can also stream a lot of shows for free on demand on those devices. Although antennas are great if you live close enough to get all your locals on one that is $50 or less, especial if you can do that from inside the house. In that situation it's as good as the streaming devices, if I could do that I'd switch today.

In the end I decided to stick with Directv. Not the cheapest alternative, but easy, convenient, reliable, and not much more than cable with a better lineup. I also once considered getting my locals only from Charter for about $20 a month and the cable shows via Netflix. If I'm ever really hard up for money I'll probably do that.

Actually if you search the website you can also buy a DVR for that.

I know you can use a DVR with it, but you still need to move the antenna to get the channel in first. Makes it hard to record your shows when you're gone, especially if you have two or more shows on during that time that require antenna movements to get in those channels.

True dat. I cannot get over the Air Channels well I could but I would have to climb the mountain and get signal boosters. I was looking into Dish Or direct TV but I cannot get local stations with them.

Eber, I know more about this, than you could learn using Google, the rest of your life. And no, I was not trying to call you a liar. It doesn't matter what I was trying to do, because you insist on being a jacka$$. So I'm done with you.

Vulcan,

Do not be so sure about OTA reception. I can help if you wish. But I am curious. Why do you say you cannot get local stations with Dish or DirectTV?