when analog TV signals end

[Peter Murray]

The point of "Channel 4" in the UK calling itself that is because it was 
a fourth national broadcast service in the UK. "Channel 4" is its 
branding, as "CBS", "ABC", "NBC", or "FOX" is the brand for each of 
innumerable national broadast network services.

It would serve no purpose to give CBS a nationwide "channel 2", as there 
are hundreds of markets that would have to change from the number they 
already know (and for which there is an existing solidly entrenched 
brand image)?

Unlike the UK, the legacy national broadcast networks did not have much 
of a "local" image. "Channel 1" on your telly was tuned to the local 
BBC1 transmitter. There may have been a bit of local programming from 
the regional news bureau, but for the most part, it was not in any way 
identified as an "individual" station - very unlike the US stations, 
which very heavily marketed themselves as affiliated, but stand-alone 
operations.

Unless I have just moved into a new TV market, I will know already what 
channel is what. My TiVo will know even before I do, when I do move! I 
have no idea what cable-only channel is what anymore, because I don't 
need to know. The TiVo does all that for me... For the consumer, it is 
all just about content, right? It is only us geeks that care about the 
particulars of channels (like "How many channel 83's were there EVER?")....

-Peter

--
Peter Murray (N3IXY)
Oak Hill, VA

marklaurence@mac.com wrote:
> Wouldn't it be worth it for all the broadcast networks to get together and agree on a single channel number for all their affiliates?   It would be temporary confusion for sure, but no more than when local stations swapped affiliates.  They could promote their channel numbers nationally, and even rename themselves like "Channel 4" in the UK.  It would give them a big advantage over all the cable networks which always find themselves in some forgettable position like channel 164.
>
> Mark