Talk:Television channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] This list is of TV networks, not stations

At first I thought of moving the entire page to television network, but there is already an article there. We really need to have a list of television networks page, or perhaps one by country (as in the networks article) and one by network only (as in this stations article). –radiojon 23:28, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

[edit] Massive problems

Please see my comments in Talk:Lists of television channels if you are interested in standardizing the various television station/channel pages.- dcljr 02:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] US centric

Article seems to be too centered on the United States... —Cantus…☎ 08:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, all things applying to the US are marked as such, I do not see any problem with a US-centric view. Some of the article applies to europe and other countries, like the mention of PAL. If someone has information on other countries, he or she will add that information at a later date. I beleive you are overthinking NPOV. --Mboverload 09:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
If you believe it's too US-centric, maybe you should take a shot at broadening it out. It's very clearly not in need of a neutrality note -- it's almost laughable. Boisemedia 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Removed NPOV Mboverload 04:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Really, this complaint is meritless and negative. There is a big difference between a biased article and one that has a lot of information about one country and not so much about others. If there is not enough information about international facts, or television in other countries, you have the solution in your hands.Apollo (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is "channel" the right name?

I've always been under the assumption that calling, say, NBC, CTV or ESPN a "television channel" was faulty because a channel, be it physical or virtual, is simply the location on which a television signal is sent. Until very recently I assumed Wikipedia had reached the similar consensus opinion, but apparently not.

Would the term "television service" be more appropriate as a blanket term for stations, networks, and cable/satellite-based undertakings? The CRTC uses "specialty services" for the latter group whereas U.S. equivalents ("cable networks") are sometimes dubbed "programming services" for legal purposes. - Stickguy 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps service may be a confusing term as it could be applied to a broad network or an aspect of a television station. I agree with what you say about channel though and think that station is the most sensible unambiguous description. Dainamo 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Station" is the correct only when referring to over-the-air broadcasts. In common usage, the term "television channel" refers to television stations and to their cable/satellite counterparts. This broader category is the subject of the article.
The word "channel" can refer to a frequency band, but it also can refer to "a route of communication or access" or "a course or pathway through which information is transmitted." [1]
I agree that "television service" is too vague. Cable/satellite companies are "television services," as are businesses that repair television sets. —Lifeisunfair 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
For most Europeans, including people in Ireland and the UK, a TV or radio "station" is a building/company from where a TV or radio signal is being broadcast, just as railway stations and fire stations are buildings. In a world where one company sends one signal from one transmitter, calling that signal (feed) a "station" would be okay, but in a world where many broadcasters produce multiple feeds on a nation-wide or even global scale, the term just doesn't make sense. For 20-30 years most terrestrial broadcasters in Europe have had at least two TV feeds - nowadays often four or five, like the BBC and ITV in the UK - which are broadcasted across a whole country via a network of unmanned relay transmitters, with local or regional news perhaps inserted at specific timeslots in some of these feeds. And broadcasters for satellite and cable may offer even more feeds, like Discovery with 12 different feeds for the US market and 4-9 feeds in Europe (depending on country). The same is true for radio, where, for instance, the Danish public service broadcaster DR now is producing 27 parallell radio feeds (thanks to DAB and the internet).
To call each such a feed a "station" doesn't make sense, but "channel" does. On old TV sets the dial for switching between feeds was called a "channel selector", so using the term "channel" for the individual feeds make perfect sense for normal viewers (although the TV manucaturers originally introduced the term "channel" to mean a pre-set frequency).
I know that the term "station" has been the norm in the US and Canada, and it made perfect sense for a long time, when the radio and TV landscape largely consisted of local broadcasters with a transmitter on the roof, filling out their locally produced material with the feed from an affiliated network (a form of radio and TV distribution almost unknown in Europe, where most radio and TV has always been run on a national scale). However, cable, satellite, DAB, DTT and IPTV has totally changed this, even in the US. Today's broadcasters are more like publishing houses that produce a variety of magazines for different target groups, and the apropriate term for their "magazines" would be "channels" (with the individual programmes being the articles that make up these magazines, and the often separate playout company that handles the actual transmissions being the printing company). Interestingly enough, I've noticed that Discovery in the US call their feeds "channels", just like they do in Europe.
So, I would like to propose that the English language Wikipedia adopts the follwing terms:
  • Broadcaster or TV company/radio company - an enitity that produces one or more feeds for TV or radio.
  • Playout company - a company, often not owned by the broadcaster, that handles the actual transmission of each channel for one or several broadcasters.
  • TV channel/radio channel - a single feed from a broadcaster.
  • TV network/radio network - a group on broadcasters working together or being affiliates of a central broadcaster (i.e not a stand-alone broadcaster like CNN och Discovery, nor just the 'spider" in a network).
I understand that many may object to parts of this, as it means getting used to a new terminology, but the broadcasting world has changed drastically since the mid 1920's, when most of the current US terminology were coined, and the old terminology doesn't make much sense today.Thomas Blomberg 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station versus Channel versus Network

These terms have been adapted somewhat from their original meanings as technology advances. A station is place where electromagnetic radiation emanates for reception in a surrounding region. A channel is a number assigned to a frequency band within which a station broadcasts its program content. A network originally was a group of stations that broadcast common program content that originates at a network center. Signals were often relayed from one station to the next in round robin fashion in order that program distribution would occur. Nowadays, a network is seen both as the place where program material orginates (more properly a network operation center) and as a company that produces or arranges for the production of program material that will attact paying advertisers. For example, station WRC-TV operates on Channel 4 and serves the Metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. That station is owned and operated by NBC, a network owned by General Electric. Some stations are not owned and operated by a network. They are called affiliates. All stations broadcast some non-network, local content. Community Antenna Television (CATV) is the ancestor of today's cable television. In mountainous terrain, it was customary for an entrepreneur to erect a receiving antenna on a high plateau and run cables to receivers in the valley. Subscribers could then profitably operate television receivers that were useless without a signal. It occurred to operators of CATV systems that they could inject their own programming for reception in the valley and charge fees to advertisers. Cable television thus was born. Widespread availability of cable television was spurred by geostationary satellites, which relay program content from a network operation center to cable television operators who resell the program content (with or without advertising) to a public that is willing to pay dozens of dollars per month for the privilege. The channels on which cable television program content is received need bear no relation to channels associated with terrestrial television stations. A cable network is like a non-cable network in that there is a network that produces and distributes program content and a network operation center that sends program content aloft, yet such can only be received in cooperation with a cable television system operator. A non-cable network's program content is intended to be transmitted by terrestrial television stations. Cable television system operators distribute terrestrial television station programming via wire so that subscribers may enjoy a better reception experience such as those valley folks did back in the day of CATV. (It is understood that a variation on cable television, known as direct broadcast satellite, exists. It permits subscribers to enjoy the same programs offered by cable television system operators via signals received directly from orbiting satellites.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrockman (talk • contribs) 1:30 (UTC), 7 May 2006

[edit] Merge proposal

I see that it has been suggested that Television network and this article be merged together. Discuss here or at Talk:Television network#Merge proposal
--Jerome Potts (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do not merge. - They are two different things - network is much more specific - and I think the distinction is important enough to warrant separate articles. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. - It is certainly a problem without a perfect solution. However, there is information that would go into an articles on television "channels" that would not go into an article on "networks", so my humble opinion would be to leave them separate. In general, I prefer the lesser evil of redundancy. Apollo (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)