DO
It's weird because Viacom is a big company, yet they can't afford to make their channels HD? I know that maybe it's hard but I don't get why they haven't made any of their networks HD (apart from the main ones, Nick/MTV/Comedy Central), 480p would be acceptable.
Viacom wouldn't be a big company if they spent all their money on the "best" things. They, like all commercial broadcasters, are only interested in spending the least amount of money that will attract a sufficiently big enough audience that will get advertisers giving them money. What's the point in spending a LOT more money on a HD broadcast when it may only attract 5%* more viewers?
Oh, and 480p isn't HD.
* Number used as an example, I don't have access to a market research company to find out what the demand would actually be
If you're a broadcaster like Viacom launching a new channel (network ) in the UK, then I would expect it to be in HD.
It's weird because Viacom is a big company, yet they can't afford to make their channels HD? I know that maybe it's hard but I don't get why they haven't made any of their networks HD (apart from the main ones, Nick/MTV/Comedy Central), 480p would be acceptable.
Viacom wouldn't be a big company if they spent all their money on the "best" things. They, like all commercial broadcasters, are only interested in spending the least amount of money that will attract a sufficiently big enough audience that will get advertisers giving them money. What's the point in spending a LOT more money on a HD broadcast when it may only attract 5%* more viewers?
Oh, and 480p isn't HD.
* Number used as an example, I don't have access to a market research company to find out what the demand would actually be