Author Topic: PAX to Abandon All Entertainment Programming (Read 10956 times)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #45 on:** April 25, 2005, 02:21:18 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 24 2005, 11:44 PM\']And if you need a reality show, see The Apprentice, with the second-season-forward "exemption" clause.

[snapback]83187[/snapback]

[/quote]

And if you don't want a clause, then see Idol, American. Don't watch too much of it, though.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:02:49 PM »

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:07 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.[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. [/quote]
I think this rumor really heated up when Greed changed to Super Greed. Seems that there were a lot of folks saying that they were required to change the name because of the change in the prize structure. As David says, that's obviously absurd.

dzinkin · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:09:57 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:02 PM\'][quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:07 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.[/quote]
No -- that was something Steve Beverly came up with (he claimed it was an FCC regulation), and it's easily debunked. [/quote]
I think this rumor really heated up when Greed changed to Super Greed. Seems that there were a lot of folks saying that they were required to change the name because of the change in the prize structure. As David says, that's obviously absurd.

[snapback]83209[/snapback]

[/quote]
The first time I heard the claim was when ABC was about to introduce Super Millionaire, though Greed was mentioned in the thread in question.

uncamark · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:34:23 PM »

According to this msnbc.com article, the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #49 on:** April 25, 2005, 12:39:01 PM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article, the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time.

[snapback]83211[/snapback]

[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?

Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?

clemon79 · « **Reply #50 on:** April 25, 2005, 01:19:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article, the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time.

[snapback]83211[/snapback]

[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?

Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?

[snapback]83212[/snapback]

[/quote]
Mark Cuban has an interesting and fairly compelling argument as to why this is good for a lot of people on his blog.

uncamark · « **Reply #51 on:** April 26, 2005, 12:50:43 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 12:19 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM\']According to this msnbc.com article, the FCC is announcing that analog transmissions of broadcast signals are to end on December 31, 2006--if 85 percent of households have digital sets. Something tells me they won't reach that figure in time.

[snapback]83211[/snapback]

[/quote]
All thanks to an act signed way back under the Clinton administration, no?

Backhanded slaps aside; exactly what good does this do; except force consumers to eventually buy a new digital TV, thus increasing the country's GNP?

[snapback]83212[/snapback]

[/quote]
Mark Cuban has an interesting and fairly compelling argument as to why this is good for a lot of people on his blog.

[snapback]83219[/snapback]

[/quote]

Of course, as he himself states, he has a vested interest in the whole thing, but it is an interesting argument.

ChuckNet · « **Reply #52 on:** April 26, 2005, 10:03:00 PM »

Quote

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.

Yep...I visited relatives in Albany back in 95, and was surprised at what little non-infomercial programming Ch. 62 was carrying...local news, a primetime movie, the unsuccessful syndie revivals of The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries that aired during the 95-96 season, and that was about it.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")