Explain to me the difference between Network and cable TV.

[Johnny Swallow]

I mean I know that ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX are networks. But I don't understand why all these other huge stations are not networks.(TBS, USA etc.) And FOX just a few years back became the newest network, had it been a cable channel before that? And what did it do to become a network?


------------------
This post brought to you by: MTV "It's only cool if it's profitable."

AIM: JuanSwallow

 

[melon]

1) TBS is a superstation, a local station in Atlanta, but spread on cable because, obviously, airwaves don't travel so far. It's also cheaper for TBS to be on the cable systems, rather than have to invest in all that capital for affiliates. Superstations were a 1980s phenomena that hasn't been repeated, because it is expensive, but not as expensive as the networks.

2) FOX is the newest successful network, mostly because the government was pushing for a fourth network, as the big three were considered anti-competitive, so they loosened a lot of the laws for FOX. Hence, it was easier for them to wedge their way in, and Rupert Murdoch put in a lot of money to buy up affiliates in 1996; otherwise, FOX would still be quite obscure most likely.

3) Limited bandwidth. We are still using the analog spectrum, so there's no room for those other networks. This should change with the conversion to digital, which packs much more in in smaller bandwidth.

4) Most of these cable stations suck, and can't compete against the major networks, because they don't want to put in the money to make all original programming. They would fall flatter than UPN on the networks the way they are.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 11-04-2001).]

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by melon:
1) TBS is a superstation, a local station in Atlanta, but spread on cable because, obviously, airwaves don't travel so far. It's also cheaper for TBS to be on the cable systems, rather than have to invest in all that capital for affiliates. Superstations were a 1980s phenomena that hasn't been repeated, because it is expensive, but not as expensive as the networks.

2) FOX is the newest successful network, mostly because the government was pushing for a fourth network, as the big three were considered anti-competitive, so they loosened a lot of the laws for FOX. Hence, it was easier for them to wedge their way in, and Rupert Murdoch put in a lot of money to buy up affiliates in 1996; otherwise, FOX would still be quite obscure most likely.

3) Limited bandwidth. We are still using the analog spectrum, so there's no room for those other networks. This should change with the conversion to digital, which packs much more in in smaller bandwidth.

4) Most of these cable stations suck, and can't compete against the major networks, because they don't want to put in the money to make all original programming. They would fall flatter than UPN on the networks the way they are.

Melon

that was an awesome answer. straight outta my first year text.
the only thing i thought of that you didn't post was their price structures. cable stations are almost always on a monthly subscription basis, in other words you pay the cable company and the cable company pays the channel. a network affiliate is generally broadcast to you in your 'basic' cable package, and the affiliate/network get a much smaller payment for every subscriber.
for the most part these days, the majority of the cable channels are in some part owned by one of your large networks.


------------------
i'm a reasonable man
get off my case

 

[pub crawler]

Hmmm, well, CBS, NBC, ABC used to be "broadcast" networks, so that's what sets them apart. FOX falls into the same category because of the reasons mentioned by melon. And yes, original programming and affiliates are really what set the big 4 apart from all the others.

TBS and USA are networks as well, but not in the classic sense of the term. (Doesn't USA still call itself the "USA Network"?) They are only "networks" in the sense that they are available through different cable providers throughout the country. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[tiny dancer]

Network TV are your basic stations like CBS, NBC, and ABC. Cable are stations that you pay extra for, stations that your normally don't get for free. Where I live I pay $40 a month.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by kobayashi:
that was an awesome answer. straight outta my first year text.

If you study this stuff long enough, you start being able to repeat it in your sleep. Telecom is my bitch!

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Achtung Bubba]

There are other differences between broadcast and cable, all stemming from one fact:

There is a limited number of allocated frequencies for broadcast television and a (theoretically) unlimited number of cable networks.

The consequences?

* Cable networks are usually cheaper to run, so they can afford to target smaller, specific groups (music fans, kids, history buffs, news hounds), and you have networks devoted to just one or two of those groups.

(These networks also make a bit more money in advertising then expected because their ads can be more targeted: toy commercials on Nickelodeon, beer ads on ESPN, and investment ads on MSNBC.)

* Because of the limited number of frequencies, the FCC has to issue licenses for each broadcast network, and thus the FCC has much more say on the content. That's why Comedy Central can get away with South Park and NBC couldn't.

* Finally, because a corporation can create and maintain several networks, we've begun to see several fall under one name brand -- similar but different programming on each of several networks. Hence, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, and ESPNNews. MTV and MTV2. Several HBO's. Etc.

 

[melon]

NBC could get away with "South Park," but it's mostly due to the network executives. The loophole in the content censorship laws is that you can run more "indecent" programming between 10 pm and 6 am I believe. Hence, that is why you will never ever see "South Park" on before 10 pm. "Beavis and Butthead" used to play at 8 pm on MTV, but they were testing the Bush Administration, who, at the time, tried to eliminate all indecent programming, then backtracked and tried to set the time to 12 am. I believe the Clinton Administration reinstituted the 10 pm rule, and the controversy has pretty much ended, aside from a few family groups who won't be happy until they have complete media domination. I guess you'll always have your fanatics.

Network and basic extended cable are, pretty much, regulated the same way regarding content in the FCC. The pay channels are where the restrictions start dropping immensely.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time