# What's up with UPN?



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The two shows I record on UPN are Veronica Mars and Everybody Hates Chris.

They constantly have the HDTV tag in the guide data, but are never in HD.

Is this my local station screwing things up?

Does my local station possibly not even have HD capabilities, but the guide data doesn't know whether individual stations broadcast in HD?

-smak-


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

smak said:


> Does my local station possibly not even have HD capabilities, but the guide data doesn't know whether individual stations broadcast in HD?


More than likely, yes.

Here, our local UPN affiliate management didn't understand what they had to do regarding Digital TV (and therefore HDTV) and never requested a channel assignment from the government entity that was handing them out, and therefore was assigned the same channel they are currently broadcasting analog television.

Now we are stuck watching them Analog only until the cutoff date when all analog TV becomes Digital, as they can't run Analog and Digital on the same channel.

This point will become moot though, as UPN and WB are merging to become the new CBS owned network (name escapes me) this fall.
Hopefully the powers that be realize the situation and have the new network take over the current WB channels, as they are doing Digital and HDTV.

phox


----------



## thepackfan (May 21, 2003)

I don't know about Chris, but Veronica is usually broadcast in HD in Dallas on wednesday. the rebroadcast on saturday often is sd.


----------



## jcricket (Sep 11, 2002)

phox_mulder said:


> This point will become moot though, as UPN and WB are merging to become the new CBS owned network (name escapes me) this fall.
> Hopefully the powers that be realize the situation and have the new network take over the current WB channels, as they are doing Digital and HDTV.


CW (for CBS, which owns UPN and Warner Brothers) is the name of the new channel. It will be interesting to see which affiliates they end up broadcasting on.

For some weird reason I get UPN OTA just fine, but not WB (they're on the same tower in my area). Probably a multipath problem or something.

So for me, I hope the new "CW" channel broadcasts on what is currently my local UPN station.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

smak said:


> The two shows I record on UPN are Veronica Mars and Everybody Hates Chris.
> 
> They constantly have the HDTV tag in the guide data, but are never in HD.
> 
> ...


Same problem here, dunno why.


----------



## dcushing (Sep 25, 2001)

For the Los Angeles Area UPN13 is owned by FOX. Since FOX is the owner, UPN feels that FOX should pay for the HD equipment, FOX feels that UPN should pay for it since it's their programing. Therefore, there is no UPN HD in LA. 

This is soon to be a moot point when WB and UPN combine to form the CW, which will be on Channel 5, which does have HD equipment. Then Veronica Mars and EHC, which are both slated for the new network, will be in HD.

Dave


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

d, thx for the info. Any idea when the merge will be visible on our tv screens?


----------



## dcushing (Sep 25, 2001)

I don't remember when, but for some reason I keep thinking September.

Dave


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

38 miles from the station and I can't any signal from UPN. Antennaweb shows you need a large directional antenna with pre-amp to get a signal from UPN within 8 miles of the station.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

EMoMoney said:


> 38 miles from the station and I can't any signal from UPN. Antennaweb shows you need a large directional antenna with pre-amp to get a signal from UPN within 8 miles of the station.


Most likely running a low power transmitter for whatever reason.

Could be they are broadcasting on a channel that is also being used in the next state, so high power would interfere with it, so they are stuck with low power until the 2009 analog/digital changeover.

phox


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

jcricket said:


> CW (for CBS, which owns UPN and Warner Brothers) is the name of the new channel. It will be interesting to see which affiliates they end up broadcasting on.


That's it, C for CBS and W for WB.
I am owned by CBS and couldn't remember the name.

phox


----------



## TheBigDogs (Oct 14, 2004)

dcushing said:


> For the Los Angeles Area UPN13 is owned by FOX. Since FOX is the owner, UPN feels that FOX should pay for the HD equipment, FOX feels that UPN should pay for it since it's their programing. Therefore, there is no UPN HD in LA.
> 
> This is soon to be a moot point when WB and UPN combine to form the CW, which will be on Channel 5, which does have HD equipment. Then Veronica Mars and EHC, which are both slated for the new network, will be in HD.
> 
> Dave


The second largest media market in the country and they're in a p-----g match over a few bucks for equipment?

Doesn't say much for a possibility of quality improvement spending from News Corp. and hence DTV, does it?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

dcushing said:


> For the Los Angeles Area UPN13 is owned by FOX. Since FOX is the owner, UPN feels that FOX should pay for the HD equipment, FOX feels that UPN should pay for it since it's their programing. Therefore, there is no UPN HD in LA...


The real problem is that UPN provides no HD feed other than the east coast feed. This means that an affil in the Mountain or Pacific zone must purchase a HD delay server at 30 G's if they want HD prime. Not too many affils have that kind of cash laying around to spend on something that will not have any ROI, for 10 hours out of the week for 2% of the viewers, if that. Phoenix had one budgeted, but the recent announcement put the kibosh on that.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Thank whoever that the CW is going to be KTLA not KCOP.

Even though the two shows aren't in HD does it take up HD sized disk drive space if i record off of 13-1? Should I change my SP's to 13, or should it be the same space?

-smak-


----------



## Robert Deckman (Jun 27, 2002)

For the past several years, I've sent e-mails to KCOP (Channel 13) begging them to start broadcasting in HD. No response.

If you go to their website, they have a link to a site that will tell you what shows are being broadcast in HD. (I find this very strange.)

I've thought about sending them a dollar, to be used towards the purchase of the proper HD broadcasting equipment.

Here we are in the heart of the entertainment industry -- Los Angeles -- where we should be receiving the highest quality picture and sound (a LOT of Emmy voters live here!). But noooooooo.

I feel better now.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> The real problem is that UPN provides no HD feed other than the east coast feed. This means that an affil in the Mountain or Pacific zone must purchase a HD delay server at 30 G's if they want HD prime. Not too many affils have that kind of cash laying around to spend on something that will not have any ROI, for 10 hours out of the week for 2% of the viewers, if that. Phoenix had one budgeted, but the recent announcement put the kibosh on that.


No, the problem is Fox doesn't want to pay for anything. I'm in DC (East coast, top-10 market), and Fox owns the local UPN. They have refused to upgrade the power to the HD transmitter (currently at 1w, seriously). They have the equipment, but they don't want to pay the electric bill.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Woohoo, Veronica Mars and Everybody Hates Chris are on next year's schedule, on KTLA.

Finally HD versions of each.

-smak-


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

My CW affiliate is going to be on a subchannel of our CBS affiliate. So what are the odds that it will be in HD? Slim and none, and slim left town.  

And later, will it even be in HD when my locals get on DirecTV?


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

KCOP will begin HD primetime programming when MyNetwork TV launches.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Oh I forgot to mention here that my UPN affiliate is on a subchannel of our Fox affiliate. So we have little chance of that going HD (whatever it might be this fall).


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> No, the problem is Fox doesn't want to pay for anything. I'm in DC (East coast, top-10 market), and Fox owns the local UPN. They have refused to upgrade the power to the HD transmitter (currently at 1w, seriously). They have the equipment, but they don't want to pay the electric bill.


That is a completely different problem, but it is driven by the same issue--no ROI for HD channels yet. You might not like the way they run things, but it is undeniably sound business practice until HD reaches critical mass.


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

Again, that'll all change the moment MyTV goes on the air. Then they'll care. Where is CW going in D.C.?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Sorry--who will care? And about what, exactly?


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> Sorry--who will care? And about what, exactly?


About HD. Fox has already announced that MyNetworkTV will launch in HD.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't think that is a factor in how much FOX or the stations carrying MNTV will care. UPN was in HD and few stations outside the eastern/central time zone had the equipment to delay it for prime time in HD, including the 10 FOX-owned stations that will now be carrying MNTV. IOW, the content being in HD is not really much of an impetus for the stations to actually carry it in HD, especially since those stations expect to lose audience with MNTV(yet make more profit). UPN wasn't an impetus, and MNTV won't be either, although MNTV is more likely to feed western time zones with HD, which will help, although that is still undetermined.

The stations really don't care about whether they are carrying their product in HD or are upconverting it. Like everyone else, they follow the path of least resistance, and if upconverting is less expensive, more reliable, or technically easier, that is what they will do. They care about profit, and there is no profit in DT as of yet, so they won't "care" if you can watch it in HD or not, because DT eyeballs just don't count.

HD has not reached critical mass. Stations do not sell DT avails, they only sell time on NTSC, and upconvert for DT so they get those viewers automatically whether they watch on NTSC or DT. There is no framework in place for selling DT. Nielsen barely counts DT viewers, who even if counted are a drop in the bucket. And there is no paradigm shift just around the corner. It will take the analog cutoff before the DT stations actually become a revenue stream, which means that currently station owners will spend as little as possible to keep their DT stations running.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

mitchrc said:


> About HD. Fox has already announced that MyNetworkTV will launch in HD.


The question yet to be answered in my area, is whether MyTV will be in HD on our Fox subchannel (which is UPN at the moment)? They could, since Fox uses 720p and I think a subchannel in HD won't necessarily look too bad. Only time will tell.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

MyTv bypassed the obvious choice, the previous UPN station and went with an independant.

UPN has never been HD here, as the station can't broadcast DT until they turn off their analog transmitter.

CW went with the WB affilliate as they have been broadcasting DT and thus HD for a couple years.

Since MyTV wants to jump in feetfirst with HD, they had to pick a station that had DT equipment and were "ready" for HD, although I doubt any of the operators there know anything about HD, (or DT for that matter) I guess they'll get some pretty quick schooling.

Either way, this bodes well for me, as both new networks will be HD when they launch here, not just DT subchannels.


phox


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> I don't think that is a factor in how much FOX or the stations carrying MNTV will care. UPN was in HD and few stations outside the eastern/central time zone had the equipment to delay it for prime time in HD, including the 10 FOX-owned stations that will now be carrying MNTV. IOW, the content being in HD is not really much of an impetus for the stations to actually carry it in HD, especially since those stations expect to lose audience with MNTV(yet make more profit). UPN wasn't an impetus, and MNTV won't be either, although MNTV is more likely to feed western time zones with HD, which will help, although that is still undetermined.
> 
> The stations really don't care about whether they are carrying their product in HD or are upconverting it. Like everyone else, they follow the path of least resistance, and if upconverting is less expensive, more reliable, or technically easier, that is what they will do. They care about profit, and there is no profit in DT as of yet, so they won't "care" if you can watch it in HD or not, because DT eyeballs just don't count.
> 
> HD has not reached critical mass. Stations do not sell DT avails, they only sell time on NTSC, and upconvert for DT so they get those viewers automatically whether they watch on NTSC or DT. There is no framework in place for selling DT. Nielsen barely counts DT viewers, who even if counted are a drop in the bucket. And there is no paradigm shift just around the corner. It will take the analog cutoff before the DT stations actually become a revenue stream, which means that currently station owners will spend as little as possible to keep their DT stations running.


Fox paid for and installed the splicer in every one of their affiliates. It's reasonable to assume they'll use the exact same distribution network for MyNetworkTV. The executives of News Corp. are based in New York and Los Angeles and have expensive 60" plasmas in their penthouses and Malibu mansions. MyNetworkTV will be in HD at launch in NY and LA. Mark my words.

The networks do sell DT which is contingent on the notion that the affiliate body is passing it. I know because I'm involved with that.

Oh, and if locals stations are only interested in barely keeping their DT operations on the air then why are stations across the nation converting news operations to HD?

I gotta go. I'm at work right now making HD graphics that nobody cares about or are watching.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

mitchrc said:


> Again, that'll all change the moment MyTV goes on the air. Then they'll care. Where is CW going in D.C.?


In DC, CW is going on WB50, which fortunately has had great HD for quite some time. One of the most reliable HD channels in this area (at least in prime time).

What's this "MyTV" you're all speaking of? I obviously missed something.


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

AbMagFab said:


> In DC, CW is going on WB50, which fortunately has had great HD for quite some time. One of the most reliable HD channels in this area (at least in prime time).
> 
> What's this "MyTV" you're all speaking of? I obviously missed something.


Fox is launching what many people have described as a mini-network to replace the loss of UPN on it's owned stations that were affiliated with that network. It's being run by Roger Ailes the President of Fox News, who also now oversees the station group. You know him. He's the guy who runs that news channel that would never compete with CNN.

There are now 141 stations committed to the new network.

You can read more here and here.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Huh... So Fox owns my local UPN, but it's on it's own channel. So that will become MyTV? And although it's not HD now, they will pump up the power to broadcast real HD when it launches?

Question- since there wasn't enough programming to keep UPN and WB alive, where is MyTV going to get programming?


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Okay, just read a little bit about it. Is it going to be spanish-language? What's up with the "telenovelas"?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

mitchrc said:


> Fox paid for and installed the splicer in every one of their affiliates. It's reasonable to assume they'll use the exact same distribution network for MyNetworkTV....


That is what we are expecting, but they have not told the affiliates anything about distribution as of yet (and time's a'waistin'). Be that as it may, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether they will provide an HD feed to all time zones. Just for those who aren't aware, the FOX distribution system was created primarily for digital distribution to affils of the SD signal, and the HD distribution within that model was included, simply because they are smart enough to look into the future to 2009. And, that distribution system was in place long before even FOX provided HD to all time zones, which was not until September of 2005.

There is limited bandwidth in that distibution system, and 3 more HD feeds might squeeze things a bit, and certainly a bit more than SD feeds would, so there is pressure NOT to provide HD feeds to all time zones using this distribution model. And only 10 of the 144 stations are FOX-owned, leaving 134 that would need splicers, antennas, and Unity receivers to use this model (although they could get away without the splicer if they can decode/re-encode). Will FOX pay for that?

FOX makes 800 mil a year, and the largest profit center they have is their owned stations, and the second largest is their affiliate distribution agreement. UPN and WB, on the other hand, lost hundreds of millions each year they existed. MNTV will probably lose money for a decade, too. Will News Corp be as willing to spend $100 grand per affiliated station for the TVRO capability for what will be a money-losing proposition in MNTV? We'll have to wait and see. Having seen FOX in action and close up in this kind of situation, history says the affils are on their own.



mitchrc said:


> ...The executives of News Corp. are based in New York and Los Angeles and have expensive 60" plasmas in their penthouses and Malibu mansions. MyNetworkTV will be in HD at launch in NY and LA. Mark my words...


While you are probably right, this is hardly a reason why. They all had HD sets during UPN, as well, as did the CBS and Paramount execs. Still, only fed EST/CST.



mitchrc said:


> ...The networks do sell DT which is contingent on the notion that the affiliate body is passing it. I know because I'm involved with that...


The nets do, the stations don't. And selling an HD spot in place of a SD spot in a national avail is not much of an upgrade, and therefore not a significant profit center, yet. If HD is sold on that contingency, then they are being sold something that they are not really getting, as every market does NOT pass HD, for any network. The networks have no leverage to get stations to pass HD, that is strictly an economic decision at the station level. I know because I'm involved with that.



mitchrc said:


> ...Oh, and if locals stations are only interested in barely keeping their DT operations on the air then why are stations across the nation converting news operations to HD?...


Only a handful have done this so far. What remains of 2006-7 will, however, be the year we start to see this happening in most of the top 20 markets. But that is the future, and I was speaking of the present. As far as the future goes, I stand by my assertion that analog cutoff will be needed for HD to have any real ROI. HD news is an image strategy only, and is based on one-upping the competition, not on creating a venue for local HD ad revenue. It won't, until cutoff.



mitchrc said:


> ...I gotta go. I'm at work right now making HD graphics that nobody cares about or are watching.


Thanks for sharing that tidbit with us. We are all mightily impressed. I'm sure that raises your credibility here significantly.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> Okay, just read a little bit about it. Is it going to be spanish-language? What's up with the "telenovelas"?


It might as well be in spanish, because the low-rate actors they hired can barely enunciate.

I had the "pleasure" of seeing the upfront presentation, which contained a lot of unplanned comedic line delivery. The programming reeks of 4 AM USA network bad off-net Vancouver productions circa 1997. Lots of skanks and himbos with crooked teeth and $1500 implants having sex behind each others' backs D not literally! that would be painful!), betraying each other, stealing fortunes from each other, sociopathically murdering each other, and wondering why they're so unhappy.

The production values remind me of CSI:Miami, except that show has producers with real talent instead of film-school rejects cutting the shows and producing the graphics. I think Aaron Sorkin can sleep easy that whatever time slot he ends up in, he won't have to worry about being a distant 6th. Masterpiece Theatre, it ain't.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I need to apologize, to CSI:Miami.


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> While you are probably right, this is hardly a reason why. They all had HD sets during UPN, as well, as did the CBS and Paramount execs. Still, only fed EST/CST.


We recently spent hundreds of man hours on an HD project for an audience of one.

The key difference is that the CBS and Paramount execs had no control over the News Corp. owned UPN affiliates in NY and LA. Now that KCOP and WWOR are O&Os that will change.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> I need to apologize, to CSI:Miami.


I actually think CSI:Miami is some of the best looking HD on television!


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

AbMagFab said:


> I actually think CSI:Miami is some of the best looking HD on television!


Apparently the President of CBS Entertainment does as well. She mentioned it during the upfront.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> Okay, just read a little bit about it. Is it going to be spanish-language? What's up with the "telenovelas"?


They're going to do programming based on the "telenovela" concept, but it'll be in English.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

phox_mulder said:


> ...This point will become moot though, as UPN and WB are merging to become the new CBS owned network (name escapes me) this fall...


The CW network will not be owned by CBS. They'll be half owner, jointly with Warner.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

jcricket said:


> CW (for CBS, which owns UPN and Warner Brothers) is the name of the new channel...


CBS doesn't own Warner brothers.

The two companies will be partners, jointly running The CW.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> I actually think CSI:Miami is some of the best looking HD on television!


Oh, I agree. Don't get me wrong, MNTV looks terrific as does CSI:M. There just doesn't seem to be anything other than flash and little actual content, which is I guess why the CSI:M comparison came to mind (they just do it a whole lot better).

CSI:M was the highest rated program last night, even beating the 24 finale. People watch it, but I can't see anyone with any real depth and actual intelligence outside of the 18-20 demo tuning in to MNTV. (I guess that leaves them quite an audience, tho.  )

Oh, and brace yourself for extreme product placement gone wild. They are actually writing plots around products, which will make that Smallville/Ford 500 tie-in look pretty tame. In the up front they were blatantly soliciting for advertisers to write scripts around.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

mitchrc said:


> ...The key difference is that the CBS and Paramount execs had no control over the News Corp. owned UPN affiliates in NY and LA. Now that KCOP and WWOR are O&Os that will change.


That would indeed be a "key" difference if there were something different about the motivations of one entertainment conglomerate that was different from those of the other entertainment conglomerate. News Corp and CBS/Viacom, you might as well be talking about Coke and Pepsi. Both are motivated by the same forces, and one is not really any more in bed with HD than the other. It doesn't matter who vends the product if the motivations are the same. The O&O station has no control of the parent company (kind of the definition of "owned and operated"), and will take whatever the network provides, just like they did with UPN.

There is only one thing that will make MNTV HD to all time zones where UPN was not, and that is the march of time towards Feb 17, 2009. If UPN were being launched in Sept '06 as is MNTV it would probably be HD to all time zones. If MNTV were being launched in 1996 as was UPN they probably would not yet be feeding HD to all time zones (assuming they could stay on the air that long with that drivel).


mitchrc said:


> We recently spent hundreds of man hours on an HD project for an audience of one...


 Talk about your ROI. Again, we're all impressed with your wonderful job, but what does that prove that is relevant to your point?


----------



## mitchrc (Jun 12, 2000)

So the launch is soon, Tyrone. Can you give us any info. on MNTV's net distribution and the extent of their HD feeds to the time zones. I've been told they'll be launching HD and/or letterbox SD in all markets. No 4x3.


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

Well MNTV could really take off if women like it. It's one of those high risk high reward bets. I could be up for this model if they would make room for some of the FX programing they have. I'd love to see more shows like The Shiels, Nip Tuck, and many others get a chance on a full blown network. It could really work considering that most seasons on FX are only 13 episodes and that could work great with the 13 week rotation MNTV shows will have. 

BTW please don't post about the shield and other FX shows not being filmed in HD lol let me dream.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

generalpatton71 said:


> BTW please don't post about the shield and other FX shows not being filmed in HD lol let me dream.


If they're shot on good ol'-fashioned film they can easily be transferred in HD. Film has plenty of resolution. (This assumes that film masters are kept, but nowadays one assumes they are.)


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

mitchrc said:


> So the launch is soon, Tyrone. Can you give us any info. on MNTV's net distribution and the extent of their HD feeds to the time zones. I've been told they'll be launching HD and/or letterbox SD in all markets. No 4x3.


No official info, but best guess?:

They will be HD/SD to all time zones except mountain, apparently, which means 2 feeds, east/central, and pacific. Each feed is a multiplexed HD/SD ASI bit stream, and the stations have to parse it out for their respective HD or SD stations. SD will of course be broadcast as 4:3, but it may be LB-ed within that 4:3. Rumor is the SD promos on the feeds were normal 4:3.

There will be a late repeat each night and a repeat of Saturday on Sunday afternoon, for the first 4 weeks, I think. The repeats do not come down the network live, they are local playbacks from the early feed, which means stations without HD delay servers or recorders (most stations) will not be able to do repeats in HD, which means an upconvert.

Off the record, I sort of like Patton's idea of the MyTV shows tanking and FOX filling the void with FX shows. Doubt that could happen (even though it's a good idea in some ways and would vault the quality level from an extremely-distant 6th among networks, to a real contender), there are probably too many egos involved here for something like that to happen. And, FX content is too racy to weather the post-Janet Jackson religious right paranoia for OTA stuff (although some of what I've heard about what might be on MyTV could be a lot more "obscene", in a broad definition of that word). I'm not sure "Desire" or "Fashion House" would be approriate for a 4 PM repeat on a September Sunday afternoon, either, but that's what's behind the headlight coming through the tunnel, so fasten your safety belts.

But I really have no idea, that's either just what I've heard unofficially, or a completely wild-ass guess. The viewers will vote with their remotes. It's probably a scramble-play for FOX, getting the rug yanked out from under in January. It seems that from a buisiness standpoint they have done a great job making lemonade from all of this. MyTV stations will ironically probably make more money with fewer viewers than they had last year, which is a pretty good trick. Too bad the content might not match that effort.

And I expect the ratings for CW to be far less than the combined viewership of UPN and WB last year, so I'm not sure what those folks have gained, other than cutting their ad time essentially in half and opening the door for FOX, who can now just pick that money right up off the table. The real pressure is on CW, MyTV doesn't have to live up to those high expectations. The CW deal for stations is not exactly all that "sweet", either, they are paying through the nose and only get about a third of the local ad time MyTV stations get, plus they're required to also carry a bunch of non-prime crap no programmer in their right mind would dream of buying. Basically, the whole CW thing is a hail-mary water-bailing move based completely on executive flop-sweat over the billions lost on WB and UPN. It's easy to see why a lot of stations were not too disappointed to not get CW and were happy to be thrown into the MyTV briar patch, which is reflected in the affiliate count for MyTV.

But who knows, I'm the same guy who thought buying American Idol was a bonehead move, so what do I know? It's all just wild speculation and unfounded opinion on my part.


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

n8. said:


> d, thx for the info. Any idea when the merge will be visible on our tv screens?


It happens tomorrow but your local affiliate may have already started using the new icons on screen.


----------

