|reply to Anon |
Re: We need a new push for NasaTV and Cartoon Network HD
there is a SAP feed for cartoon network and TWC in my area has it on its own channel as the default audio so we have Cartoon network, Cartoon Network SAP, and Cartoon Network HD.
I would also very much like to see BBC America HD. Jeremy Clarkson is my idol.
|reply to motorola870 |
lol i watched the mars landing coverage on their website, it was a bunch of pointless crap
they even had to have stupid interviews with pop stars and other crap inbetween all the technical talk
the 5 minutes of coverage CNN gave was basically all you needed.
and there was 2-3 specials on Sci or NatGeo the very next day that broke down how the rover was built what all it could do and what the mission entailed...
then after the landing, like 4 hours later, (4hours of splashscreen) they had some horrible Q/A session where you couldnt even hear the media and just saw one of the JPL guys sitting there for minutes on end then just talking/answering the question we had no idea what was about...that went on for an hour, then it was a splashscreen for hours till the next program starts...idk why theres only 2 broadcast providers in the entire nation that waste bandwidth carrying it, cause thats clearly Emmy award winning production which would atract viewers for all the other Mars landings that happen each week...oh wait
id rather watch Cars.TV and see the creepy greased hair guy talk about the Lady in the Lake for the 50th time than the 1 time in the last 30 years something Nasa did was this interesting...which was only because of their Youtube over hyped dramatic "7 minutes of terror" video which they didnt make for the last rover...cause Youtube wasnt around back then to use as free marketing and "buzz" lol
all their programming is on their website and reuped to their youtube, the landing video isnt even 10 minutes, you watch it, and move on, thats 9 minutes of 24 hours of just 1 day of broadcast schedualing in the TV world...doesnt matter if they distribute the channel for free, it still costs tv providers money to re-distribute it and you dont even know if advertisers would even pay to fill those splashscreen timeslots to make sense to carry the channel when their biggest event only had about 200k "actual" viewers online during the stream when that 10 minute window of the landing was happening and most of the time it was barely over 100k viewers
It doesn't cost TV providers shit to redistribute the channel. All Verizon has to do is point one of their C Band dishes at their SHE over to AMC-18 (which they probably already have one pointed at as NASA is not the only network distributed on that satellite), and then send the LNBF's signal to a tuner (which, thanks to NASA HD being completely free, it uses the standard DVB-S and no encryption so a little $50 consumer-grade tuner would receive the channel just fine).
Then they just send that feed from the SHE to all their little VHOs.
A Verizon executive makes more money in 10 seconds than it would cost them to add NASA HD.
The reason why NASA's content is everywhere is because the channel is government-produced. This means nothing on it is copyrighted and everything is in the public domain. If Verizon adds the network you can record anything from it and upload it to the Internet to your heart's content.
The reason why we want Verizon to carry NASA HD is because of the lack of competence in the quality department when it comes to NASA and amateurs redistributing NASA TV content over the Internet. NASA's "HD" Internet stream is a pathetic 2 Mbps.
If I lived in Kansas City one of the first things I would try with Google Fiber's network is putting up a C Band satellite dish, grabbing NASA HD's feed off of satellite (it's 720p @ ~15 Mbps), and then putting that feed up as a live stream on the Internet. My amateur efforts would put NASA's current pathetic ~2 Mbps Ustream Internet stream to shame.