on stream, there is no space for them. Established channels don't need to permit sub channels, so additional channels may not be possible.

1) I don't think sub channels will confuse people, plus for the most part it is new content, right, so people will need to learn it anyways, As new content I have 3.2 is local news/weather, 5.2 is This, 33.3 is create, 33.4 is world, 44.2 isCW , 57.2 is world view and 57.3 is arts show case

2) yes there are fewer physical channels, but the reality is that with analogue you could not have adjacent channels in a market, so the reality is that you could not have 68 (2-69) so I don't think there are many (actually any) markets that had more then 44 analogue channels. If there is any pleas tell me which one.

3) do you really think there will be that much growth in content, now I know that I gave of the extra US content (3, CBS, 5 NBC, 44 FOX and 33/57 PBS) and all but my ABC (22) have added subs and 27 which is LP and still analog (and I have not caught it in years), so the content has double for the US stations I get but how many networks are really out there for the need of many more then 44 stations owners?

4) do you really think there will be real growth in "owners/channels" there is a reason that Sub channels are used, the same owner can add subs and bring in more ad revenue while only increasing his costs by the content cost. Obviously, for example the guy who runs channel 5 needs to pay for This which is added to his cost of NBC but when I watch Stargate (which I do) then the guy that owns 5 gets the ad $, same with shows like supernatural on CW. Obviously the owner will pay for the extra content, but he won't need separate emitters, antenna so it is much cheaper to him then opening a new station.... and 44 real stations could easily become 88 (if they all average 2) which is much more then the 68 that used to be available.




I am curious, anyone know the ATSC specs? can the same real channel have different sub channels (i.e. could 20 be 5.1 and 25.1? I am guessing there would be issues that would need regulatory approval because they would want to limit/know virtual channel numbering, but technically is it possible?)

But here is where I tie it into points 3 and 4 (for Canada at least), I think it would be cooler/ better if they went a different route, keep SRC/CBC separate but add to them, doesn't the CBC own RDI, newsworld and Country Canada? add RDI as a sub to SRC, NW or CC to CBC, the same could be done with most networks Global owns HGTV, food ..., CTV owns RDS/TSN..... But why would that happen (unless the CRTC changes the rules) CBC does not get anything for CBC/SRC from cable/sat companies but they do get for RDI, NW and CC because they are speciality channels and not free broadcast channels. You also have an other issue, of how many are in bed together, I contacted my local CTV and TVA to ask when they will start broadcasting in digital/HD and they said not until the deadline, it could be a coincidence that SRC,CBC,V, TQ have all gone digital and these two have not but I guess CTV being partially owned by Bell (who own Expressvue a sat company) and TVA owned by Quebecor (who own Videotron the local cableco) might prefer we use their services then OTA.