Why do we have so much more channels than the British anyway? Is PAL just inefficient or something? What do you use all the extra spectrum for?
Well, I mean, we have those kind of overlap issues to an extent in the United States, too, which is why there's no Boston channel 6 for example, because it would interfere with WLNE-TV in New Bedford/Providence.
What happened with ITV was that one or two of the regional production offices (in particular LWT, for London, and Granada, which covers Manchester, Lancashire and that area) became known for producing quality programmes and often ended up selling them to the other broadcast regions. Nowadays ITV has lost its regionalism and most of its in-house production, but ironically the BBC is now taking on its former role - BBC Wales has become known for producing a ridiculous number of dramas, including Doctor Who, Torchwood, Life on Mars and this new 'Merlin'.Hm, I forgot about Westinghouse Broadcasting- they could beat RKO General to the punch, I suppose.
Does this stunt the development of broadcast networks in the US? I would imagine that the "USTV" channels would do a lot of their production in-house, and perhaps buy programs from movie studios (like exists already today with companies like Warner Bros. Television), but not necessarily having something like NBC where there's a national schedule of prime-time shows that's the same on every channel.
Hm, this would have rather large effects on PBS as well. Note that the Public Broadcasting System as such didn't exist until 1969, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting until in 1967- the non-government predecessor National Education Television was founded in 1952.
No, it's not because of PAL being inefficient - in actuality, PAL is more efficient than NTSC, so much so that television sets with PAL don't have tint control (unlike NTSC, also jokingly called Never Twice the Same Colo(u)r). In the case of the UK (and most European countries, by the same token), the problem is of co-channel interference by many different countries, compounded by the fact that so many of the European countries are close together. Thus, broadcasters and regulators have to carefully select the channels needed for broadcasting - after all, if you're watching BBC1, for example, you don't want it ruined by some Norwegian adult television station, right?![]()
Hm, a good point about transmitters- in the US stations usually only have one high-powered transmitter. If you have an area that goes beyond the transmission range, either the FCC would have to allow more power or you'd have to have more than one transmitter per station.You can't pick up foreign stations in Britain except some places on the south coast. Transmissions are pretty short range, we need quite a lot of transmitters around the country to get them out.
The Bell System was under strict regulation in this period to only provide telephone service, thanks to the 1956 consent decree they agreed to. But independent cable operators could grow larger earlier if there's more demand for more channels.People are forgetting the availability of coax cable television.
True, in the Fifties it was used to serve areas that had poor TV reception. But if there is only room for one TV frequency per service area and high enough demand to pay for more, cable TV would be used to make up the difference.
I'd bet that Bell Telephone would just piggyback Coax with their Long-Lines long distance service for coverage between cities and states.
We only have to wait for the Sixties to add satellite to the formula and have real nationwide service.
You can't pick up foreign stations in Britain except some places on the south coast. Transmissions are pretty short range, we need quite a lot of transmitters around the country to get them out.
People are forgetting the availability of coax cable television.
True, in the Fifties it was used to serve areas that had poor TV reception. But if there is only room for one TV frequency per service area and high enough demand to pay for more, cable TV would be used to make up the difference.
Actually, with New England, I could see a split that could allow WBZ-TV (well, in reality, Westinghouse) control over Eastern New England (pretty much Metro Boston, SE Massachusetts, Cape Cod and the Islands, southern New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), WNHC (the New Haven Register newspaper) control over Western New England (Connecticut and Western Massachusetts), a Vermont or New Hampshire station given control over Vermont and New Hampshire (outside of Southern New Hampshire), and WCSH/WLBZ given control over Maine (as the "Maine Broadcasting System").