Greensboro, NC - HDTV [Text View] - Page 14

foxeng

10-01-06, 03:48 PM

How many towers are down there now? I haven't been down that way since WFMY's tower just about bit the bullet. And out of curiosity, why did WXLV put their DT tower there instead of Saurtown? And on a third totally unrelated question, have you seen/heard of any issues with 2.0 mixes loosing the center channel in the past 7 days (especially since some of the software updates that were done earlier this month to the Fox Mux?) on some of the NFL and MLB games?

Technically there are 5 towers but only 3 are used for TV. As you drive down US 220 from Greensboro the first tower on the right is a 1000 ft tower that has 98.7FM and 100.3FM. The next tower down right by Level Cross on the road is a 2000 ft tower with a 3 arm cantilever on top. On this tower you have WXLV-DT, WMYV-TV, WMYV-DT, WLXI-DT, WCWG-TV and WCWG-DT. Due west at 2 miles is WFMY's 2000 foot tower with WFMY-TV and WFMY-DT. Next down 220 at Randleman is Rock 92's tower and then 2 miles further south are the two 1250 ft main and auxiliary towers of WGHP with WGHP and WGHP-DT on both.

Zane may want to comment directly but I had heard that they wanted to be more centrally located in the market since the eastern part of the market doesn't receive the stations on Sauratown Mt well. The FCC let them put their digital there, but has refused to allow them to move the analog. I would image that with the cut off date so close now, WXLV-TV will never move to Level Cross.

As far as the center channel issue with FOX, I have no idea what they are doing. As I have stated before, when the splicer is on line we have no control over the audio since the HD receiver is literally connected directly to the transmitter at that point and we are at the mercy of what network sends us. We do complain and sometimes they even listen!! :)

HDTVFanAtic

10-01-06, 04:07 PM

Technically there are 5 towers but only 3 are used for TV. As you drive down US 220 from Greensboro the first tower on the right is a 1000 ft tower that has 98.7FM and 100.3FM. The next tower down right by Level Cross on the road is a 2000 ft tower with a 3 arm cantilever on top. On this tower you have WXLV-DT, WMYV-TV, WMYV-DT, WLXI-DT, WCWG-TV and WCWG-DT. Due west at 2 miles is WFMY's 2000 foot tower with WFMY-TV and WFMY-DT. Next down 220 at Randleman is Rock 92's tower and then 2 miles further south are the two 1250 ft main and auxiliary towers of WGHP with WGHP and WGHP-DT on both.

Zane may want to comment directly but I had heard that they wanted to be more centrally located in the market since the eastern part of the market doesn't receive the stations on Sauratown Mt well. The FCC let them put their digital there, but has refused to allow them to move the analog. I would image that with the cut off date so close now, WXLV-TV will never move to Level Cross.

As far as the center channel issue with FOX, I have no idea what they are doing. As I have stated before, when the splicer is on line we have no control over the audio since the HD receiver is literally connected directly to the transmitter at that point and we are at the mercy of what network sends us. We do complain and sometimes they even listen!! :)

And I can remember when as a young kid Channel 12 and WTQR off Sauratown had the signals to die for in that market, but as you noted, I could get 2 or 8 in Chapel Hill, but 12 was impossible (iirc, there is also a 12 in Greenville possibly). Either because of lack of real estate on top of the mountain or electrical service, UNC-TV was the only other thing they let up there - now thinking in retrospect - perhaps when Grey privately owned it he could do that and when Big Corporations took it over, they were more agreeable to compromise.

Granted, I have not been to Level Cross since there were 2 there and when WFMY was building theirs it took a bad tilt (either 9, 12 or 18 degrees - can't remember now - and just about came down - or maybe it did - too many tower failures between then and now to remember :) but I thought that both 2 and 8 at the time were closer together - about a mile NW of the Radio Station on 710AM that was there at the time (Of course the multilane 220 between Level Cross and Asheboro was only under construction then as well, lol).

Of course, I did not know 98.7 went down there either - but I do remember their 800- 900 foot tower coming down the night after it was topped off - or about to be - and looking at the welds on the ground, you really had to question the construction. Of course, it was pushed back to the swampy area closer to the interstate and rebuilt at that time. I wonder if the remains of that failure are down there still, lol.

At least they did loosen up as the FAA held back towers down there forever years ago. And even after 8 got the first one up, it took a good long while before 2's went up from the 700 or so feet they had at the station on US29.

foxeng

10-01-06, 04:42 PM

WGHP's aux tower went up in 1963. It was 1979 when WFMY was able to put theirs up. A few years later the 98.7 and 100.3 tower went up (don't know the date but it was in the 80's) and in 1985 Rock 92 went up. The cantilever went up in 2000 and then the new main WGHP tower went up last year. As a matter of fact, this time last year it was about 1/2 to 3/4 built.

WFMY's tower is about 5 mile air miles north of WGHP's towers. WFMY is due west of Level Cross at 3 miles and WGHP's towers are 1 mile SW of Randleman.

http://mymedia.myfoxwghp.com/media01/00000/63/25/Mw~~MjU2_large.jpg
Randleman from the WGHP tower.

http://www.w4cl.net/fox/dtv_project/2005-12-12%20-%20Week%20Twenty-Three/4Thursday/slides/000_0846.JPG
WFMY's tower (left) and Rock 92's tower (center close right) WXLV-DT, WMYV-TV/DT, et al tower (right) from the WGHP Tower.

UNC's tower went up in the mid 80's on Sauratown Mt (it is being replaced up there as we speak, it may even be done by now) and it was about that same time WXLV moved from the old Wachovia Building (now Winston Tower) to Sauratown Mt. Even though you can get great height up there, it is too far north and west to cover the market as Nielsen has defined the 16 counties. The towers south of Greensboro actually cover more populous in the market than WXII and WXLV and WUNL from Sauratown.

http://www.triad-hdtv.org/graphics/triad-map.jpg

Zane

10-01-06, 05:40 PM

WXLV indeed intended to move the analog transmitter to the Level Cross site in 2002. At first the FCC seemed to be going to allow this. A petition by a minority group halted the approval process. After red tape and lawyers wrangling about this, time has slipped away. Sinclair has dropped the proposal to move the transmitter because it will be too costly for only 2 more years of analog transmission. We have a nice big open space beside the WMYV analog transmitter waiting on the Harris that will not be there.
On another note concerning getting WXLV and WMYV. Antenna pattern makes the difference. I myself have to move my tenna rotor 2 clicks to get WMYV , even though they are located only feet apart on the top of the same tower. As low power as WLXI is, I can get them in almost any position.

jspENC

10-01-06, 05:51 PM

I have received WFMY dt way down here at the coast two times before. I have also picked up WFMY's analog several times along with WGHP. WGHP wiped out WFXI completely.
I haven been trying for distants in a while from that direction, but now I'm thinking I might give
it another shot! Each time I have received these channels has been early in the morning. I doubt I will ever see WGHP dt, because of our local analog 35.

foxeng

10-01-06, 06:28 PM

I posted this in the programming section but I thought I would also post it locally for those interested.

------------------------------

I was cruising the Star Trek New Voyages site and the next episode that just wrapped shooting this past week with George Takei reprising his role as Sulu from ST:TOS was announced being shot in 720p 16:9.

However.....this time we've bumped it up a notch to High Definition, specifically 720p/24p
New technology too, the Panasonic HVX200 using P2 cards. We had 4, 4GB cards...2 per camera. They each hold 10min worth of video...so we constantly had runners swapping cards out to be downloaded onto a G5 running FCP. Huge WOW factor here.....the video quality is SO CRISP and beautiful!!! and although I prefer an ENG style camera, this one is very easy to use, and holds well in the palm.
Anyway...on to more pics....I won't bore you anymore with tv geek stuff!!!
Oh yeah....the above pics were taken by yours truly:)

Here is the picture he is talking about. (it isn't a spoiler, they are being fairly secretive about it. If what we see here is anything like what they have shot, the home HD market may be on the verge of breaking wide open.

http://startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=641.0;attach=411;image

http://startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=641.msg9035#msg9035

http://startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=641.0;attach=383;image

------------------------------------

Oh Zane, the original series on WXLV and WMYV look fabulous! Too bad CBS isn't putting them out in HD yet. That should be awesome looking if the SD version is any indication.

gregchak

10-02-06, 09:31 AM

I have a couple of questions about moving my antenna to the attic. First, with it being in an attic, do I need to ground the antenna? The lead still goes into a grounding block, just not sure if I need to ground the antenna too.

Second, my antenna is a CM4228. My attic is not a full attic and they only way up there is with a ladder through a hole in the ceiling of the hallway. My 4228 is too wide to fit through the hole. Is it possible and if so would it damage the antenna if I tried to take it apart to fit it up there? It looks like the two sides are put together with something like self-tapping screws. Other than keeping the spacing and, obviously, not bending or breaking anything, are there any parts that I would need to pay special attention to if I try to take this apart?

Thanks for the help.

HDTV_NW_GSBO

10-02-06, 11:41 AM

duro

10-02-06, 12:51 PM

foxeng

10-02-06, 01:41 PM

Roanoke Digital Reception
Is anyone successfully locking into a signal for Roanoke FOX 17-1 from northwest Greensboro? I'm off Lawndale near Country Park and my signal breaks up constantly.
I receive NBC and CBS 10-1,7-1 with no problems.
I have a CM4228 with Titan 7778 pre-amp but I manually turn the antenna.
(The mast runs up the side of my house from the ground.)
This makes it tough to pinpoint a location.
Was wondering if a rotor or maybe tilting the antenna would enable me to lock in this station.

I live off of Battleground not far from you and FOX out of Roanoke is not 100%. I get it about 85% of the time. If you are interested in FOX, you shouldn't have any trouble picking up WGHP. The tower is north of Asheboro.

zikdaman

10-02-06, 02:04 PM

Good news. I did a rescan last night and lo and behold, WXLV is now coming in loud and clear. Maybe when I first scanned earlier last week it was a bad time for them. But I'm a happy camper now that I can watch episodes of Lost in full HD splendor.

Thanks everyone for your help and ideas.

HDTV_NW_GSBO

10-02-06, 02:34 PM

I live off of Battleground not far from you and FOX out of Roanoke is not 100%. I get it about 85% of the time. If you are interested in FOX, you shouldn't have any trouble picking up WGHP. The tower is north of Asheboro.

Thanks Foxeng,

I do get WGHP and all the other Greensboro area stations that antennaweb_org says I should.
I just want to watch the Redskins/Giants game this coming Sunday.
(Maybe I should try analog)
It would also be nice to occationally switch to the Michael Vick show on Sundays when he's on. It'd be like having the poor mans Sunday Ticket.
As it stands now I am lucky to see one complete play on 17-1 without it freezing up.

Zane

10-02-06, 04:38 PM

Foxeng or Zane,
This past weekends episode of Star Trek (The Naked Time) on 45.1 @ 11:30pm was recorded by my Directv HD Tivo on time and for it's 1hr duration as listed in the schedule guide. However the introductory "teaser" for the episode was not there; it was totaly omitted. If it was actually broadcast it was prior to the scheduled time thus not being recorded. If it was not broadcast then ABC 45 intentually cut it out in favor of paid commercials. Either way is ABC 45 allowed to manipulate a program they have contractual agreed to broadcast to fit their local commercial income interest? Please don't take offense, I'm just curious as to what is going on. (Last weeks episode (Devil in the Dark) did not record in it's entirety either; it started late and I did not get the end of the episode. I can only assume that a football game ran over it's time slot.
OK, I had to go back and look at the logger for this. I found that ABC ended game coverage early at 11:23:25. They usually fill to complete the scheduled time. For some reason they did not, our operator combined two breaks and filled but still came up lite in the break. He started Star Trek at 11:26:00. For most shows this would be no problem. If it had been " Cosby" or "Mad About You", it would not matter, but it was Star Trek. I'll have a talk with that boy.

Zane

10-02-06, 04:44 PM

Oh Zane, the original series on WXLV and WMYV look fabulous! Too bad CBS isn't putting them out in HD yet. That should be awesome looking if the SD version is any indication.
Right now it would not matter if it was HD. We do not have the ability to record and playback HD for broadcast. We have a fully digital plant, but it was installed in 03 before some of the standards were set by manufacturers so we ended up with a SD plant. We basically just pass the ABC and MY Network HD programs. We will not get much in the line of HD upgrades anytime soon due to other station buildouts in the group that are converting to all digital HD ready systems.

bigsnyder

10-02-06, 04:44 PM

Foxeng or Zane,
This past weekends episode of Star Trek (The Naked Time) on 45.1 @ 11:30pm was recorded by my Directv HD Tivo on time and for it's 1hr duration as listed in the schedule guide. However the introductory "teaser" for the episode was not there; it was totaly omitted. If it was actually broadcast it was prior to the scheduled time thus not being recorded. If it was not broadcast then ABC 45 intentually cut it out in favor of paid commercials. Either way is ABC 45 allowed to manipulate a program they have contractual agreed to broadcast to fit their local commercial income interest? Please don't take offense, I'm just curious as to what is going on. (Last weeks episode (Devil in the Dark) did not record in it's entirety either; it started late and I did not get the end of the episode. I can only assume that a football game ran over it's time slot.

I can confirm that it did start a couple minutes early, however I do not recall if they
showed the episode teaser. Did anyone else that watched Sat have stuttering issues
with the video ? If was not major, but I noticed several dropped frames. I also had some
audio sync issues. ABC 45 is the only OTA station that I have problems with regarding
some audio or video anonomaly. Sporting events have been the only exception, those
seem to always be fine.

C Snyder

vstone

10-02-06, 06:30 PM

Roanoke Digital Reception
Is anyone successfully locking into a signal for Roanoke FOX 17-1 from northwest Greensboro? I'm off Lawndale near Country Park and my signal breaks up constantly.
I receive NBC and CBS 10-1,7-1 with no problems.
I have a CM4228 with Titan 7778 pre-amp but I manually turn the antenna.
(The mast runs up the side of my house from the ground.)
This makes it tough to pinpoint a location.
Was wondering if a rotor or maybe tilting the antenna would enable me to lock in this station.Roanoke Fox is directional and NOT in our direction. I have a flying saucer antenna pointed at Roanoke from Martinsville. FOX8 is stronger than FOX27 for me.

foxeng

10-02-06, 08:44 PM

vstone,

What do you use up there? I got a call from a guy up that way before the SB in 2003 said he was picking up our low power signal. Are you the same guy?

MR12

10-02-06, 09:07 PM

HDTVFanAtic

10-03-06, 03:07 AM

WGHP's aux tower went up in 1963. It was 1979 when WFMY was able to put theirs up. ]

Ok, that makes sense. The aux is the old main that I remember. Isn't there a radio station on 710 with a three antenna directional array about 1 - 1.5 miles to the Southeast?

WFMY must of had their accident in 1979 or 1980 when they just about lost it.

UNC's tower went up in the mid 80's on Sauratown Mt (it is being replaced up there as we speak, it may even be done by now) and it was about that same time WXLV moved from the old Wachovia Building (now Winston Tower) to Sauratown Mt. Even though you can get great height up there, it is too far north and west to cover the market as Nielsen has defined the 16 counties. The towers south of Greensboro actually cover more populous in the market than WXII and WXLV and WUNL from Sauratown.

Must have been something new as WUNL had a manned operation up there even in the early 70s.

It was the best location available when there were 6 Counties pretty evenly split - with 3 Counties favoring Winston Salem and 3 Counties favoring Greensboro - as Saurtown had the heigth over average terrain.

Remember that WGHP's current aux was the next highest tower in the 70s - and WFMY has that puny stick off US 29 North at their studios.

Thus 12 (and WTQR) blew everyone elses signal away - and most station actually attempted to get up there - but they could not move that far or real estate was an issue.

foxeng

10-03-06, 06:58 AM

Ok, that makes sense. The aux is the old main that I remember. Isn't there a radio station on 710 with a three antenna directional array about 1 - 1.5 miles to the Southeast?

That array is about 5 miles south. If memory serves it is WZOO AM.

Must have been something new as WUNL had a manned operation up there even in the early 70s.

You are right. I had forgotten about that. Now that you mention it, they had a tower up there in the 70's. A friend of mine who is now deceased ran that site until he retired. He also set up WXII when it first went on the air from there in the 50's as WSJS-TV.

It was the best location available when there were 6 Counties pretty evenly split - with 3 Counties favoring Winston Salem and 3 Counties favoring Greensboro - as Saurtown had the heigth over average terrain.

When you had three separate markets that made sense, but with the way Nielsen has the market carved up now, running from almost Statesville to the west, the NC/VA border to the north, Salisbury to the south and over to the Orange County line to the east, Sauratown Mt is too far north and west to cover those eastern most counties effectively. It actually covers Charlotte better than it covers Burlington. What is now happening is Burlington and to the east is becoming a bedroom community for both the Triad and Triangle and as far as broadcasting is concerned, it is become a no man's land with both markets targeting that growing area since half of it is in the Triad market and the other half is in the Triangle market. I suspect that will continue to be the growth area for the foreseeable future.

foxeng

10-03-06, 07:42 AM

vstone

10-03-06, 09:27 AM

vstone,

What do you use up there? I got a call from a guy up that way before the SB in 2003 said he was picking up our low power signal. Are you the same guy?I have one of those silly amplified flying saucer amplified antennas, and it barely rises higher than the roof peak. It's all I could get away with from my better half.

I don't think I ever got you on low power, even with the antenna pointed south. I'm not the guy that called you.

Currently my antenna is pointed north at Poor Mt. Even so, the S3 sees a good strong FOX8 signal

Right now I'm recording FOX8 on my S3 Tivo. I suppose that will not be possible with my current antenna when WGHP-DT goes to the channel 8 freq.

I know its not your job, but I see House will be on Wednesday this week (playoffs). Has Justice already been cancelled?

ee1993

10-03-06, 12:43 PM

I can confirm that it did start a couple minutes early, however I do not recall if they
showed the episode teaser. Did anyone else that watched Sat have stuttering issues
with the video ? If was not major, but I noticed several dropped frames. I also had some
audio sync issues. ABC 45 is the only OTA station that I have problems with regarding
some audio or video anonomaly. Sporting events have been the only exception, those
seem to always be fine.

C Snyder

Hello,

I'm new to the area, just relocated from Cedar Rapids. I have the same problem with ABC 45, video freezes for an instant. It seems to happen mostly when picture is 16:9 HD and not during the commercials. Using a rooftop RS yagi with CM rotator and CM7775 UHF preamp. South end of Oak Ridge. Most of the technical periblems I had in CR were with the Sclinclair own CBS affiliate. Dish 811 and 34" tube monitor and also a ViewSonic 32" LCD with internal OTA tuner.

HDTVFanAtic

10-03-06, 03:01 PM

I have one of those silly amplified flying saucer amplified antennas, and it barely rises higher than the roof peak. It's all I could get away with from my better half.

I don't think I ever got you on low power, even with the antenna pointed south. I'm not the guy that called you.

Is that the one with or without wings?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?parentPage=search&pg=2&summary=summary&cp=2032057&productId=2103091&accessories=accessories&kwCatId=2032057&kw=antenna&techSpecs=techSpecs&currentTab=summary&custRatings=custRatings&features=features&f=Taxonomy%2FRSK%2F2032057&categoryId=2032057&support=support&tab=custRatings

It's the best antenna I have found, without going to multiple hundreds of dollars set ups with antennas cut for each specific channel.

It has floored every TV Engineer I have shown it to - and I bet 75% of them in this market are now using it at home. However, the wings bend and break over time and in high wind (after first hurricane passed through - only 55 MPH gusts here - I took it back to Rat Shack and guy asked me if a tree fell on it) and as can be seen from the comments, it did not work for another person in the market that was 60-75 Miles away from the transmitter sites.

If that won't get it, then I would say you would have to go to extreme measures to pull it in.

The only station is has a slight problem with is a station on 7 virtual 8, but that is 35 or so miles away. Still very watchable - just not perfect...but I am on the verge of the the analog city grades (FM and TV) from that tower farm. However, another Hi VHF a mile away in the same tower farm on 12, virtual 13 has no issues.

The best news about Rat Shack, you can always take it back if it doesn't work.

As they are discontinued now and only selling remaining stock in stores, I have several spares in the garage as I know they will not last through a rough storm season (luckily for the first time in 2 years we might not go through that this year).

Your equivilant in the triad would be the ice storms - and I have no idea how the weight of the ice would affect the flimsy wings on the unit.

HDTVFanAtic

10-03-06, 03:11 PM

That array is about 5 miles south. If memory serves it is WZOO AM.

Your memory is correct!

You are right. I had forgotten about that. Now that you mention it, they had a tower up there in the 70's. A friend of mine who is now deceased ran that site until he retired. He also set up WXII when it first went on the air from there in the 50's as WSJS-TV.

I had not thought about it until now, but I also believe that hams had repeaters up there as well.

When you had three separate markets that made sense, but with the way Nielsen has the market carved up now, running from almost Statesville to the west, the NC/VA border to the north, Salisbury to the south and over to the Orange County line to the east, Sauratown Mt is too far north and west to cover those eastern most counties effectively. It actually covers Charlotte better than it covers Burlington. What is now happening is Burlington and to the east is becoming a bedroom community for both the Triad and Triangle and as far as broadcasting is concerned, it is become a no man's land with both markets targeting that growing area since half of it is in the Triad market and the other half is in the Triangle market. I suspect that will continue to be the growth area for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. Alamance County wasn't even considered into the equation years ago - and you never had it covered on the news.

vstone

10-03-06, 04:11 PM

Is that the one with or without wings?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?parentPage=search&pg=2&summary=summary&cp=2032057&productId=2103091&accessories=accessories&kwCatId=2032057&kw=antenna&techSpecs=techSpecs&currentTab=summary&custRatings=custRatings&features=features&f=Taxonomy%2FRSK%2F2032057&categoryId=2032057&support=support&tab=custRatings

...Mine is without wings. I didn't buy it at RS (this was circa 2003) and it didn't have an RS box, but the instructions indicated that it was RS equipment. It seems to work OK, but wion't touch WBRA-DT in Roanoke (channel freq 3).

PamW

10-03-06, 06:24 PM

Hello,

I'm new to the area, just relocated from Cedar Rapids. I have the same problem with ABC 45, video freezes for an instant. It seems to happen mostly when picture is 16:9 HD and not during the commercials. Using a rooftop RS yagi with CM rotator and CM7775 UHF preamp. South end of Oak Ridge. Most of the technical periblems I had in CR were with the Sclinclair own CBS affiliate. Dish 811 and 34" tube monitor and also a ViewSonic 32" LCD with internal OTA tuner.
Welcome to the Triad, ee1993!

foxeng

10-03-06, 06:58 PM

I know its not your job, but I see House will be on Wednesday this week (playoffs). Has Justice already been cancelled?

Network doesn't really schedule anything during October because of the MLB payoffs. We never know what the schedule is until a few days before so they have to fill the times when there are no games and they usually fill it with the stronger programs. Justice is currently scheduled to return in Novemeber when baseball is over.

foxeng

10-03-06, 07:02 PM

atoner

10-03-06, 10:23 PM

foxeng

10-04-06, 06:57 AM

I tried an experiment today to see if the standard definition feeds on Time Warner are any better in analog than digital. I was wondering if picture quality is being lost when the channels are re-compressed. I couldn't see any difference between an analog VCR feeding my 42" HDTV and my digital set-top box.

How does Time Warner get local and national feeds? Antenna/satellite? Analog/digital?

ABC standard definition really looked better over the antenna than cable on Saturday, so I'm wondering where the degradation is coming from.

Locally TWC takes all the local stations OTA at this point even though some of us do have fiber optic links to them. The analogs are encoded to MPEG2 and then are muxed into the digital streams for those with digital cable boxes and then decoded back down to analog for those not using digital cable boxes. This has been a very large bone of contention between the local stations and TWC in the last 6 months where some not so nice words have been exchanged due to lip-sync and closed captioning issues. TWC contends this has to be done because they are changing to switched distribution. From the stations stand point, this new system isn't ready for prime time yet with all of the problems they have been having with it. And we know they are having problems because you the viewer calls us when something happens, not TWC. TWC keeps forgetting that.

The stations digital signals are received OTA and then rate shaped down and converted from 8VSB to QAM to fit TWCs streams and then out into the system.

For sat stations, if it is an analog it is run through the same process the local OTA stations are and if it is a digital sat station, it goes through the same digital path and if the station is to be available in analog for those not using cable boxes, the digital signal has to be downconverted to analog with a digital decoder.

Bottom line is TWC is rate shaping and dropping resolution (analog feeds and digital feeds by converting everything to digital) where they can to save bandwidth since in that same bandwidth they are doing VOD and Road Runner and I do know they are desperately trying to get this new switched system on line to open up bandwidth, but they are having huge problems with it. They will not admit it, not even to the stations, but several of us from the stations have compared issues and conversations we have had with TWC and we all have come to the conclusion they have major problems and currently do not know how to fix them.

As far as WXLV, from comments Zane has made on here before, they are a totally digital house and so the digital signal of WXLV would look better than the analog signal.

MilChad

10-04-06, 08:13 AM

I did an experiment of my own last night during the baseball game comparing the local Fox 8 HD picture to the national Fox I get out of New York (Channel 88 on D*). I've got to give DirecTV credit, it was nearly impossible for my wife or I too tell the difference. Both pictures looked stunning on my 57" Hitachi. Hopefully the new MPEG4 stuff that is coming our way looks just as good. I've heard good things about the MPEG4 picture on other forums and nobody is calling it "HD-Lite". I've noticed that most people that use the "HD-Lite" term are cable subscribers.

vstone

10-04-06, 08:23 AM

Locally TWC takes all the local stations OTA at this point even though some of us do have fiber optic links to them. The analogs are encoded to MPEG2 and then are muxed into the digital streams for those with digital cable boxes and then decoded back down to analog for those not using digital cable boxes.
...I take it that cable ready analog TV's still need a cable box for the basic cable tier. This seems sort of contrary to the intent of the 96 bill.

jacksonian

10-04-06, 09:21 AM

I did an experiment of my own last night...I've got to give DirecTV credit, it was nearly impossible for my wife or I too tell the difference. Both pictures looked stunning ...I've noticed that most people that use the "HD-Lite" term are cable subscribers.
Glad you've got great PQ with D*, but I've always heard "HD-Lite" referring to D* and never to cable. I don't see as much missing resolution with TWC as I do compression artifacts. If you watch a football game and look at the grass and lines on the field, you see some blocking/pixelation type artifacts that aren't there on OTA. The OTA just looks "cleaner".

jacksonian

10-04-06, 09:24 AM

Bottom line is TWC is rate shaping and dropping resolution (analog feeds and digital feeds by converting everything to digital) where they can to save bandwidth since in that same bandwidth they are doing VOD and Road Runner and I do know they are desperately trying to get this new switched system on line to open up bandwidth, but they are having huge problems with it. They will not admit it, not even to the stations, but several of us from the stations have compared issues and conversations we have had with TWC and we all have come to the conclusion they have major problems and currently do not know how to fix them.
[Mr. Burns] EEEEXCELLENT! [Mr. Burns] I hope they can never get SDV working. I'd rather them drop the 75 channels of junk that nobody watches to open up bandwidth. That seems like the most logical solution to me. I just read a post on TiVoCommunity about TWC doing a sample of 1000 homes and only a small percentage of the channels were actually being watched at any one time. I'd just drop those channels altogether and save bandwidth. But that's just me.

gregchak

10-04-06, 04:58 PM

Search Channel Master 4228. I've seen previous threads that say taking it apart would be fine. You may want to consider one of the smaller bowtie style Channel Master antennas. Any of those would work for the Triad DT stations.

Also, my 4228 is in my attic and it is not grounded. It works fine, but technically I am taking a chance.
Thanks for the info. I did find some stuff. Mainly people just drill out the rivets.

foxeng

10-04-06, 08:48 PM

This weeks HD games have been announced. This week the Panthers are on CBS because the Browns are the visiting team and when the visiting team is an AFC team, CBS gets the game. Browns/Panthers game is NOT slated for HD. SD 4:3 this week.

http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/05-CBS.gif

jacksonian

10-04-06, 09:07 PM

Antenna setup question for the experts. I bought a couple of 4228's to put in the attic to try to get all the locals. I even bought a combiner and a Titan Amp. Basically what I'm finding though is that just one of them (unamplified and pointed south down 220) pulls in just about everything except PBS. And only the 12.1 NBC is less than an 80 signal strength and it's down at 34-38%.

Now when I combine both of them (unamplified and one pointing down 220 and the other pointing towards 12/26/45, I actually get LOWER values on everything except 12.1 (now up to 73%). It dropped all the other signals down about 10-20%.

Is it just a bad idea to try to combine to antenna? I used 1 foot RG-6 from each antenna into the combiner.

Any thoughts?

jspENC

10-04-06, 09:17 PM

Just a guess, but I think you should have these antennas at least five feet apart from one another. One foot of seperation is way too close for comfort. Once you do this you will see an improvement. I have two antenna joined by a splitter before entering an amp. I hardly ever have pixelation, and all but one channel is at 100%.

jacksonian

10-04-06, 09:20 PM

Hmm, hadn't thought of that, let me go try it. Thanks for the tip.

PamW

10-04-06, 10:04 PM

MilChad

10-04-06, 10:17 PM

I am about to pull the plug on TWC and go D*TV. I don't think I have been this nervous in a long time - what if it stinks? What if I have screwed up?

I am bundling Bellsouth services to try to save $$. Any words of wisdom before I actually do this? Does anyone want to talk me out if this?

I say go for it! If you are a new D* customer, you will get all the goodies at a very reasonable price (if not free) and treated like gold.

pwrmetal

10-04-06, 10:22 PM

Pam, I don't blame you. I am not quite ready to make a move on TWC like you, but if you do, I offer kudos and wish you the best of luck. Please let us know how it goes.

jacksonian

10-04-06, 10:41 PM

Can't offer any advice since I've never had D*. I was concerned about their bandwidth with them having to shut off an HD channel each week to show their NFL ticket in HD. Let us know how it goes. If you're real happy, maybe more folks will defect.

gregchak

10-04-06, 10:47 PM

Pam, I made the switch in 2003. I got completely frustrated with trying to prove to TWC when something was wrong. And most of the people I dealt with sounded like they were just pulled off of the street. Digital cable made me realize how good a digital signal could be. My first reaction when I switched is how amazed I was when all the channels on D* looked like TWC's digital tier. I've only had to deal with their customer service a handful of times for problems and they usually fixed it and always comped me something. Their CSR's are not that knowledgeable for any up and coming things; which is how I found this forum :) I use an antenna for HD locals. I have actually pondered switching to Dish, but I will wait and see what pans out when they get all of their HD channels up. I will never go back to TWC. If you are switching for reasons of frustration, I can completely relate and can say I am very happy with my decision to move to D*

foxeng

10-05-06, 06:57 AM

Pam W,

No provider is a panacea. D* has their problems too, I won't lie to you, but from my personal stand point and not as an employee of the "mothership" (because I pay the same rates as everyone else, no break for me just because I work for a News Corp division unlike TWC employees who get their cable and services for free). Some of the national HD channels may not be quite as good PQ as some on TWC at the moment, and you may not have the selection yet, but within the next 12 months, that should solve itself with the launch of the 2 new birds next year. D* is about to bust out with a lot of bandwidth.

I am sure you have heard Mr Murdoch's comments about 100 new HD channels by the end of the year. From what I can tell, there is some truth in that and from what I can find out second and third hand, not all will be HD LIL. If they want, they can do some national HD's on MPEG4. I have heard a name of one channel bantered about, and if it comes to pass, then there are others from that same pile that could go on very easily so I chose to believe something good is about to happen. Of course I can't get anyone who would have official knowledge to conform or deny so I have to go on faith and that faith is based on past performance and what I know they are capable of when they put their minds to it. Maybe I am the fool. ;)

In 1997, I went through the same anxiety you are going through now and that was pre SD LIL days when if you wanted locals you either had to have an OTA antenna or get basic cable. After I installed I ran with both for a while and I still wondered if I did the right thing. After I cut the TWC ties, I never looked back and now 9 years later, I have no regrets and would do it again. From what I see and know of the local TWC, I have no desire to go back, no matter how bad D* becomes. That is just me though.

News Corp has spent a boat load of money on D*. I don't see them letting D* flounder. It isn't in their nature. When they do something, they do it right. It may take them awhile, but usually the wait is worth it. Just look at my new transmitter site as an example. It took forever and is beyond anything I had hoped for. I truly believe if our former owners had done that project, They would have put a PODs unit at the base of the tower for the transmitter and put up just enough tower to hold the DTV antenna and called it a day. That is scary!

With HD LIL coming this month, in my mind, D* will have the complete package that as far as TV goes, will be pretty close on par with TWC for those who don't want to put up an antenna. I have been reading other threads where they have HD LIL and the PQ is equal to the OTA quality so there is no HD Lite on the HD LILs after they get the bugs worked out. Yes, some of the national HD channels are in HD Lite, but that is a bandwidth issue and should work themselves out when the new birds go up next year. It isn't as bad as some make it out and it is better than others say it is. No it doesn't have the huge pop (there is a pop though), but you can definitely tell it isn't SD or even a DVD. It will also look different on different monitors as well so it is hard to do a apples to apples comparison as you can tell reading some of the posts on the subject. It is definitely a YMMV issue.

I hope I haven't scared you off, but I think if you know the facts up front, it should make your anxiety easier to handle. Jump on in! The water is fine!!

jacksonian

10-05-06, 07:17 AM

I'm watching the Weather Channel and Time Warner just ran a crawl across the bottom of the screen that says "Depending on negotiations, TWC may ve forced to discontinue carriage of WCWG-CW20 in the future."

Anybody know what that's about? Are they a Sinclair station too?

foxeng

10-05-06, 07:43 AM

jacksonian

10-05-06, 08:21 AM

It does seem like a bully tactic.

MilChad

10-05-06, 08:31 AM

Take this with a grain, but I was at the Dixie Classic Fair last night and there was a local Dish / DirecTV rep there and I asked him about HD LiL for D* and his honest opinion was that he'd be very surprised if they flipped the switch in the Triad within the next month or two. I hope he's wrong. I've got a deal with D* lined up for the new HR20 (my basement receiver), free install with new dish and swap my H10 for the H20 (my bedroom receiver) for $69.99 when it's all said and done. After that, they said they would drop $10 off my bill for a year. I'm ready to roll on the deal but want to wait for the HD LiL to show up. I'd do It now if the OTA input was activated.

PamW

10-05-06, 10:27 AM

MilChad

10-05-06, 11:08 AM

Thanks for all of the responses, ya'll! I am currently trying to find out how to get the best bang for my buck. Any negotiating tactics are appreciated and welcomed. BTW, I am negotiating with Bellsouth (all sorts of ca$h back incentives here!).

I'm pretty sure you can get the best bang for you buck if you have DirecTV, Bellsouth, and Cingular Wireless. And like I said in a previous post, with you being a new customer, you should be able to get the best deals they have to offer. You can find details on the D* website and a couple of other places like solidsignal.com bellsouth.com and rapidsatellite.com. Take a look at some of the offers and call a D* rep to verify everything.

Hope this helps!

PamW

10-05-06, 02:05 PM

O-kee do-kee...here it is -

After much haggling and deliberation, I will end up paying out of pocket $25.86 for the HR 20 DVR. Thank you Bellsouth/D*TV Rebates! My bundled package will come to an approximate $40 savings per month over what I pay now. That'll pay for the DVR and a lot of popcorn the first month ;) I also got a free regular DVR as well for another set in the house! (Why not - it's free after rebate!) I pray we dotted all our "I"s and crossed all our "T"s on this one.... I took copious notes. :)

ee1993

10-05-06, 05:16 PM

Welcome to the Triad!!

FYI, WXLV-45 is also owned by Sinclair but that may be just luck. What make and model receiver do you use?

Thanks for asking. For now, I use a Dish 811 receiver with OTA tuner feeding a dish (RCA) 34" tube 1080i monitor. Don't get me started on all the problems with the Dish 811. I am holding out for the next generation of tuners. I also just acquired a ViewSonic 32" LCD for another room. The attic antenna that came with the house get good analog reception (even ch45) but both receivers got absolutely no digital reception from it. An indoor Silver Sensor worked ok when pointed just right most of the time. The rooftop RS antenna with CM rotator is much better. Ch 45 still has stuttering in the video on full HD programming some of the time. I am experimenting with amplifiers. I need some boost to drive a four-way splitter and the coax runs to feed four rooms. Currently using a CM7775 but it may have too much gain. I have not yet moved it up to the antenna mast. Next step would be to try two antennas to avoid needing to move the rotator to get NBC and PBS. I also get a few channels from Roanoke and PBS from Chapel Hill

Getting good OTA digital TV reception is often not easy.

uncrules

10-05-06, 06:07 PM

I know you have E* but the OTA tuner in D*'s H20 is probably the best in the business. In theory the OTA tuners in the HR20 will be just as good. But since they aren't active yet, we don't know for sure.

foxeng

10-05-06, 06:47 PM

Thanks for asking. For now, I use a Dish 811 receiver with OTA tuner feeding a dish (RCA) 34" tube 1080i monitor. Don't get me started on all the problems with the Dish 811. I am holding out for the next generation of tuners. I also just acquired a ViewSonic 32" LCD for another room. The attic antenna that came with the house get good analog reception (even ch45) but both receivers got absolutely no digital reception from it. An indoor Silver Sensor worked ok when pointed just right most of the time. The rooftop RS antenna with CM rotator is much better. Ch 45 still has stuttering in the video on full HD programming some of the time. I am experimenting with amplifiers. I need some boost to drive a four-way splitter and the coax runs to feed four rooms. Currently using a CM7775 but it may have too much gain. I have not yet moved it up to the antenna mast. Next step would be to try two antennas to avoid needing to move the rotator to get NBC and PBS. I also get a few channels from Roanoke and PBS from Chapel Hill

Getting good OTA digital TV reception is often not easy.

The 811 has a history of not playing well with some PSIP streams. We had a similar situation with an 811 about 2 years ago and even though our PSIP was set to the recognized values, we had to set one obscure bit on and it solved the problem. Luckily it didn't effect anyone elses receiver but it was a dog to find it.

HDTVFanAtic

10-05-06, 07:07 PM

WCWG is owned by Pappas Broadcasting, not Sinclair. They must be in retrans negotiations. That is a typical tactic of cable when that happens. At this point, it doesn't really mean anything other than TWC is trying to play hard ball with a small operator to get better terms. Don't you just love cable?

Not like satellite hasn't done that in the last 45 days either :rolleyes:

I know you have E* but the OTA tuner in D*'s H20 is probably the best in the business. In theory the OTA tuners in the HR20 will be just as good. But since they aren't active yet, we don't know for sure.

Out of curiosity, as the H20s have different tuners depending on the model suffix- with the 600s better than the 100s (and the 100s much more prevelant), how did you arrive that they have the best tuners in the business as my Sony HDTV outperforms them both?

uncrules

10-05-06, 07:26 PM

My H20 is the 600 variety and it works much better than my Samsung 160 does. Also I read around the net from people that know better than me that the 5th generation ATSC tuner by LG is the best.

HDTVFanAtic

10-05-06, 08:37 PM

But the 5th Generation chip is only in the 600 which has overheating problems and high failure rate so now most people end up with the H20-100 which does not have the same tuner and the threads indicate that when it replaces the 600 the reception is not as good as a result.

Thus, your chances of getting a H20-600 are slim right now (odds favor the 100) and as thus, I am not sure the blanket statement about the H20's tuner being the best in the business and that the HR20's will be just as good holds up as true.

ee1993

10-05-06, 09:24 PM

The 811 has a history of not playing well with some PSIP streams. We had a similar situation with an 811 about 2 years ago and even though our PSIP was set to the recognized values, we had to set one obscure bit on and it solved the problem. Luckily it didn't effect anyone elses receiver but it was a dog to find it.

No problems on either receiver with Fox 8 or any other channel except 45. I do need to change antenna direction to get PBS and sometimes to improve NBC 12. Channel 45 is my problem. Seems to only be an issue with on HD programming. Watched the ABC new tonight with no problem. Wife wanted to watch Gray's Anatomy tonight and the 811 had continuous pixalization (signal quality indicator read 90 or more). Tried both with and without the pre-amp (both bad). Had to switch to SD through *E. I don't think that this is PSIP issue because the receiver maintains lock.

uncrules

10-05-06, 09:38 PM

bigsnyder

10-05-06, 11:41 PM

HDTVFanAtic

10-06-06, 01:09 AM

Ok, I'll give you that. I bought my H20-600 from the Best Buy in Greensboro on 9/10 and I haven't had any problems with it yet (knocking on wood). As long as it keeps working I'll be happy with its terrific tuner.

Word to the wise, keep it open and well vented - as you can fry an egg on the thing - it leads to chip failure. There are literally hundreds of posts on avs about this.

There is also a thread on a modifying a fan from Rat Shack to vent air through the 600 for a very small sum. I would highly recommend you doing it.

HDTVFanAtic

10-06-06, 01:10 AM

I noticed on the DishNetwork site that the 811 appears to have been replaced by the Vip622.
Does anyone know if their newest equipment have fixed many of the bugs and problems associated
with the 811?

C Snyder

The 811 never worked right - The 622 is a DVR, where the 811 was not.

The 622 has its own set of issues - but has a prayer of getting gettting them fixed unlike the 811 - which hasnt had virtually anything except the new satellite coordinates/updates to its bios and check switch done to it in the last year.

atoner

10-06-06, 02:17 AM

Foxeng, thanks as always for the info on satellite and how TWC handles the analog and digital signals. I'm in also trying to decide on making the plunge from TWC. The combination of not getting channels like ABC HD, ESPN-2 HD, and ESPNU along with the poor picture quality is tilting the balance. I'm also looking forward for a better, less buggy DVR and an integrated OTA tuner. The only negatives at this point are no video on demand (my wife likes it, maybe I can convince her with PPV movies and NetFlix) and having to mount a dish (hopefully I an hid it on the back of the house).

Even if satellite's PQ for local stations isn't as good as OTA, at least the satellite boxes can handle an antenna without switching inputs. The only problem is if I'd need a rotator or if an omni-directional antenna can pull in the stations I'd need.

I don't see TWC getting better anytime soon. They'd have to radically change their approach to carrying new stations. Even if they get ESPN-2 HD and ABC HD within a year, there will be some new station on DirecTV that I want which will take TWC another 2 years to get. They'd also have to adpot a new DVR box and switch to a more efficient codec like MPEG-4. I've done some experimenting on transcoding MPEG-2 into other formats (for a hard drive camcorder to DVD or web video) and isn't pretty for picture quality. MPEG-2 on top of MPEG-2 is quite bad. Maybe they'll be forced into this with competition from satellite.

I counted the number of houses in the neighborhood with a dish. It seems to be around 50-50. One street was more like 2/3 satellite. It seems the trend has been going on for a while and TWC's service has just gotten worse.

Regarding the bundle with DirecTV, Bellsouth, and Cingular, that's not so appealing to me. I'm actually pretty happy with my cable modem. Cingular coverage in my house sucks recently after the Cingular/AT&T/Suncom dealings. Plus I don't really want a home phone as long as I have good cellular coverage.

pwrmetal

10-06-06, 07:22 AM

Speaking of Weather channel crawls on TWC, I was chatting with a coworker friend of mine yesterday warning him that there is a crawl warning that the local CW might be dropped. (He loves VM and likes Smallvile.) He sent me the following email.

I just saw the crawl on the Weather Channel that Time Warner is running. It does not say they may be dropping the WB[sic], it says they may be dropping WGHP. Fox. The House channel. That would seriously suck.

Anyone else see this? Foxeng, do you know anything about this?

foxeng

10-06-06, 07:30 AM

Speaking of Weather channel crawls on TWC, I was chatting with a coworker friend of mine yesterday warning him that there is a crawl warning that the local CW might be dropped. (He loves VM and likes Smallvile.) He sent me the following email.

Anyone else see this? Foxeng, do you know anything about this?

Like I said earlier, it is retrans season. I really doubt they will drop us. They would loose the FOX RSN's, FNC, and any other FOX channel they have. TWC would be handing over many viewers to D* and E*. TWC posturing. These deals are done at the corporate level of FOX and TWC not locally. If they pull us, they more than likely would loose other markets with O & Os as well.

I have no knowledge what so ever, but if I am reading the tea leaves of what I have read and seen in the media, I would bet it has something to do with the expected raise in the sub fee for FNC. TWC tried this tactic the first year FOX had the Super Bowl (which was when FNC launched and FOX wanted it on as many systems as they could get it on) and FOX threatened to pull ALL of their O & O's the weekend of the Super Bowl on TWC systems and TWC caved. It is all a negotition tactic.

And don't be surprised if you see one for all of the local channels in the next few months.

Don't sweat it.

pwrmetal

10-06-06, 07:52 AM

Foxeng, thanks as always for the information. I actually just saw the crawl myself. Thankfully, I can get Fox OTA in any event. :)

jacksonian

10-06-06, 08:51 AM

With my new TiVo Series 3 and its integration of my antenna into one input, I don't care if TWC ever carries any of the locals again. I deleted the TWC feeds off my channel list. Screw 'em. :D

Zane

10-06-06, 09:42 AM

PamW

10-06-06, 09:48 AM

I missed Ugly Betty last night - had a rehearsal and forgot to DVR it.

ee1993

10-06-06, 10:47 AM

Yesterday during Martha Stewart we lost the primary microwave transmitter to level cross for the WXLV DT path. We switched over to the backup transmitter and everything was cool. Microwave Radio is sending replacement parts. THEN, last night about 2 minutes into ABC's Ugly Betty we lost the backup. We changed freq. on the WMYV backup and put it in for WXLV. No one has mentioned it, so I guess no one was watching but I thought I would post it just in case.

I spoke with a friend who has the latest *D HD receiver + Sony LCOS and he had the same issues I had with channel 45 OTA last night. They had to switch over to SD because the pixelization was just too annoying.

Zane

10-06-06, 11:05 AM

I spoke with a friend who has the latest *D HD receiver + Sony LCOS and he had the same issues I had with channel 45 OTA last night. They had to switch over to SD because the pixelization was just too annoying.
The pixelization was due to the dying of the gig module in the microwave unit. Even after swapping to the MYV unit, it was flakey for a while until it warmed up. We have the modules all replaced now. I hope things are better.

gregchak

10-06-06, 11:50 AM

The pixelization was due to the dying of the gig module in the microwave unit. Even after swapping to the MYV unit, it was flakey for a while until it warmed up. We have the modules all replaced now. I hope things are better.
I did have some issues last night. I just moved my antenna to my attic and thought it was just me and the large swaying trees around my house with the weather that was causing the problem. During Grey's Anatomy my signal went completely dead. I watched GMA this morning around 7 and it was all back to normal. I guess I may not need to readjust my antenna after all :D

Thanks for the updates Zane.

foxeng

10-06-06, 12:34 PM

The pixelization was due to the dying of the gig module in the microwave unit. Even after swapping to the MYV unit, it was flakey for a while until it warmed up. We have the modules all replaced now. I hope things are better.

I HATE those damn YIG oscillators! They seem to always die at the wrong time!. I have had to replace several here myself from that same vintage as yours.

zikdaman

10-06-06, 01:40 PM

MilChad

10-06-06, 02:01 PM

With so many folks here talking about jumping off the TWC ship because of dissatisfaction with the HD picture quality, I was looking into D*'s offers and then read somewhere that they were getting sued for offering HD Lite instead of true HD. Are you guys saying that TWC's HD picture quality is even worse than D*'s HD Lite thing?

I'm about 95% satisfied with D* HD picture quality. I noticed that last night's NCSU - FSU game left a little to be desired for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why it wasn't on par with other HD football games I've seen. HD-Lite? When watching programs on HD Net and Discovery HD, it would be hard for me to imagine the picture getting any better. (Short of them being able to broadcast in 1080p). The only issue I see from time to time would be fast moving programs like hockey on HD Net. I can see some pixilation with fast movement.

telemike

10-06-06, 02:08 PM

TWC has great PQ

zikdaman

10-06-06, 05:23 PM

Seems like it's not just TW that has a problem with the owners of WXLV with regard to being able to transmit their HD signal.
Mediacom files antitrust lawsuit against Sinclair (http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/06/mediacom-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-sinclair)

I think I'll be rooting for mediacom in this one :D

atoner

10-06-06, 07:38 PM

TWC has great PQ

Which TWC are you watching? Have you ever watched OTA HDTV?

jacksonian

10-06-06, 09:59 PM

Which TWC are you watching? Have you ever watched OTA HDTV?
Actually, I'm watching them BOTH right now. With my TiVo S3 with 2 tuners, I can toggle directly between 2.1 OTA and 520 instantaneously on my 60" Pioneer plasma.

They are IDENTICAL right now on "Close to Home".

Now I can see some compression pixelation on football games with the TWC feed, and OTA looks better in that regard. But I'm telling you, right now, on network primetime HD, they are identical.

Everybody thinks the grass is greener, and it's easy to villainize TWC. And I've been ticked with them about their DVR, not having ESPN2 and more HD content. But the truth is, they offer a lot of content compared to other providers and the quality is generally quite good. And I've had RoadRunner for about 6 years and it's been flawless every single day. I've never had a problem. I get service appts. (like for my cable cards for S3) within 2 days and they've always been on time and knowledgeable.

catdaddy

10-06-06, 10:08 PM

Is anyone else having problems with ABC tonight? I am trying to move my antenna to a better location and I keep getting drop outs. I dont' know if its my antenna or if it's ABC.

PamW

10-06-06, 10:10 PM

I haven't had problems either with TWC overall; I was looking to save a bit of $$ and try to get a few more HD stations.

pwrmetal

10-06-06, 10:30 PM

I've been mostly happy with TWC's picture in regards to HD. I agree that most of the time when I compare the two, the locals come in pretty much identically to OTA. Sometimes there are signal problems, but since I last had a tech out, those seem to be over (for now - knock on wood). TWC's SD however, is horrible, OTA looks way better when I compare the two. Generally, I find most of my complaints about HD picture quality this Fall have to do with the network in question moreso than the provider (though I guess you never know for sure who is more to blame).

That's ok though, I have plenty of other reasons to hate TWC. (GET ESPN2HD YOU LOSERS~!) :)

ee1993

10-06-06, 11:06 PM

Is anyone else having problems with ABC tonight? I am trying to move my antenna to a better location and I keep getting drop outs. I dont' know if its my antenna or if it's ABC.

I got video "stuttering" on 45 ABC tonight. Not on the news but on the network HD programming. Ch 2.1 was fine. I wonder if my ViewSonic can't keep up with 720p decoding.

MilChad

10-07-06, 08:00 AM

[QUOTE=jacksonian]Actually, I'm watching them BOTH right now. With my TiVo S3 with 2 tuners, I can toggle directly between 2.1 OTA and 520 instantaneously on my 60" Pioneer plasma.

So the TiVo S3 works locally with TWC? That's pretty cool. From what I've seen it comes with a pretty hefty price tag but is a very nice DVR. A good selling point for TWC would be if they let you lease the TS3 box. I assume you had to buy it correct?

jacksonian

10-07-06, 08:23 AM

Yeah, the TiVo was designed specifically for Cable and OTA. The one big issue is with cable using SDV (switched digital transmission) where you would need a 2-way device like their STB to "request" certain programming. The current TiVo has to use the 1-way current cable cards which means it can't request PPV type programs, and TWC has put a few channels on SDV, but the local TWC president told me they were not planning to put any HD on SDV. When OCAP or Cable Card 2.0 is released with 2-way communication, TiVo will have to make an S4 that supports it. Then all will be right with the world. :)

I got the TiVo for $720 with a coupon. You do have to buy it. But it's such an improvement over the SARA SA8300 box TWC uses, it's worth every single penny. I'll probably buy 2 more to replace my current SD TiVos.

I believe Comcast is going to be leasing a TiVo box in parts of the country, not sure if it will be a full-featured version or not.

MilChad

10-08-06, 01:27 PM

What's the deal with Fox's HD coverage of the Skins vs. Giants game? It was in HD, now it's not. Not only that, my HD feed out of NYC is in SD too. I'll be watching the race soon if they keep this up.

uncrules

10-08-06, 01:52 PM

When I saw that Fox-8's HD channel was showing the game in SD, I checked Fox-27 out of Roanoke and at that time they were still showing it in HD. But now they are also in SD mode.

ee1993

10-08-06, 03:32 PM

I got video "stuttering" on 45 ABC tonight. Not on the news but on the network HD programming. Ch 2.1 was fine. I wonder if my ViewSonic can't keep up with 720p decoding.

Yesterday's football games in HD were fine, no problems (ESPN on ABC feed to ch 45). However, I did see video stuttering on some of the commercials.

foxeng

10-08-06, 06:18 PM

When I saw that Fox-8's HD channel was showing the game in SD, I checked Fox-27 out of Roanoke and at that time they were still showing it in HD. But now they are also in SD mode.

This is the bi-annul Sun Outage. It happens every year in March and October. This is when the Sun gets directly behind a sat and the noise that is generated by the Sun downs out the signal from the sat. Every sat is effected, including D* and E* and BUDs. It effects each sat at different times of the day. The whole thing runs about 2 weeks with each sat effected for about a week for 20 minutes or so a day.

FOX provides backup receivers that are on different sats so we can keep the game on during the outage, but at this time, there is no back up for the HD feed so it drops out and to keep it from dropping out, we drop to SD during that time.

That is why you may have seen WNYW drop to SD and we were still in HD then we would drop to SD and then a little later FOX 27 out of Roanoke. Because we are in different locations, the outage time is different for all of us, but we are all effected within this sliding 20 minute window that moves to the west later in the day.

MilChad

10-08-06, 09:46 PM

This is the bi-annul Sun Outage. It happens every year in March and October. This is when the Sun gets directly behind a sat and the noise that is generated by the Sun downs out the signal from the sat. Every sat is effected, including D* and E* and BUDs. It effects each sat at different times of the day. The whole thing runs about 2 weeks with each sat effected for about a week for 20 minutes or so a day.

FOX provides backup receivers that are on different sats so we can keep the game on during the outage, but at this time, there is no back up for the HD feed so it drops out and to keep it from dropping out, we drop to SD during that time.

That is why you may have seen WNYW drop to SD and we were still in HD then we would drop to SD and then a little later FOX 27 out of Roanoke. Because we are in different locations, the outage time is different for all of us, but we are all effected within this sliding 20 minute window that moves to the west later in the day.

I had forgotten about that. I read on a different forum that you can use this "sun outage" find a good satellite location as long as the sun is shining and you know what time of the day your area is affected. You can find details about how to do this on dbstalk.com

HDTVFanAtic

10-08-06, 11:47 PM

Assuming a standard Fox setup with an Andrews 4.5M on 99W for Greensboro

Predicted Outage| Start | End | Duration| Start | End
Date | UTC | UTC | | EDT | EDT
mm/dd/yyyy |hh:mm:ss| hh:mm:ss|mm:ss | hh:mm:ss| hh:mm:ss
--------------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|------------
10/07/2006 | 18:32:20 | 18:35:55 | 03:35 | 14:32:20 | 14:35:55
10/08/2006 | 18:32:30 | 18:35:10 | 02:40 | 14:32:30 | 14:35:10

Roanoke with Andrews 4.5M :

Predicted Outage| Start | End | Duration| Start | End
Date | UTC | UTC | | EDT | EDT
mm/dd/yyyy |hh:mm:ss| hh:mm:ss|mm:ss | hh:mm:ss| hh:mm:ss
--------------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|------------
10/07/2006 | 18:32:25 | 18:35:30 | 03:05 | 14:32:25 | 14:35:30
10/08/2006 | 18:31:57 | 18:35:22 | 03:25 | 14:31:57 | 14:35:22

Those should be the only 2 days with any issues this Fall.

PamW

10-10-06, 07:27 AM

uncrules

10-10-06, 09:26 AM

For those with D*TV's HR 20:

"Thanks for writing us back. Please be informed that our HR10-250 can receive off-air antenna, however, our HR-20 receiver off-air capability will be added with software download by December 1, 2006. "
I know that it is D*'s official statement but the talk over at DBSTalk from Earl (D* beta tester and has good connections at D*) is that it will come this month. We shall see. I'm waiting for the OTA tuners to be activated before I get one.

uncrules

10-10-06, 09:29 AM

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=678292&postcount=49

Late 2006 is the "official" DirecTV stance on when it will be available.
October is the time frame I had been told way back when... And is still on the table right now, I haven't heard other wise. October is their target.

I'll know soon if it is going to make it in October or not....

There is more too it then just driving the Tuners... There is the recording, scheduling, ect.....

gregchak

10-10-06, 09:32 AM

In addition to Pam's post, I spoke with a CSR Sunday regarding the drop of TNT HD again. While she was giving me free service as compensation I picked her brain about their new stuff. She said that MPEG4 service was still not available in GSO and that I would have to keep calling to find out when it was. She said that when she looked up GSO there was not date just a not yet available note. If you notice too on D* site, where it listed the upcoming markets, the months with cities have been removed. Now it just lists all the cities that were there saying sometime this fall. Sounds like they have had a hiccup of sorts rolling out to their next group of cities. Anyone remember those ads that D* put out almost 2 years ago, "You're TV is ready, are you?" I'm ready, is my satellite provider :)

PamW

10-10-06, 01:59 PM

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct 10, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Already leading the satellite TV industry in the delivery of local HD programming, DIRECTV will offer local HD broadcast networks in 67 markets, representing approximately 74 percent of U.S. TV households, by year end when it rolls out 25 more local HD markets in the fourth quarter.

Local news, sports and popular primetime programming from ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC will be available in HD to customers who subscribe to any TOTAL CHOICE(R) programming package that offers local channels. There is no additional charge for local HD programming.

The 25 local markets to receive HD programming from DIRECTV include:
Albuquerque, N.M.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Des Moines, Iowa
Ft. Meyers, Fla.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Green Bay, Wisc.
Greensboro, N.C.
Greenville, S.C.
Flint, Mich.
Harrisburg, Pa.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Little Rock, Ark.
Madison, Wisc.
Mobile, Ala.
New Orleans
Norfolk, Va.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Me.
Providence, R.I.
Reno, Nev.
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Spokane, Wa.
Springfield, Mo.
Toledo, Ohio
Tulsa, Okla.

"With 67 markets receiving local HD channels from DIRECTV by year end, we've set the stage for our historic capacity expansion in 2007," said Dan Fawcett, executive vice president, Programming Acquisition, DIRECTV, Inc. "This will enable us to leapfrog the multichannel video industry in terms of the sheer volume of HD programming available to our customers. With more than 44 million homes projected to have HD TV sets next year, we expect to be the video provider of choice for those consumers, offering the best lineup of HD programming, including local broadcast networks, sports, special events, and national networks, as well as original and exclusive programming."

jacksonian

10-10-06, 02:26 PM

Just something for those that seem to hate TWC. There's a lot of forum talk amongst TWC subscribers with the new TiVo S3 that needs 2 cable cards (I'm one of them).

There are tons of posts of people having 5 & 10 multi-hour, multi-technician, multi-supervisor visits and phone calls to get these cable cards working right (and they've always been bad from the start, not just with TiVo). And for a total of what, the one-time $20-$30 truck roll installation fee. And this is to support a product that is their competition and will lose them money.

I find that pretty impressive. I'm not a fanboy of any company and I have my issues with TWC. But in a lot of places, they have lost a ton of money supporting a competing product in order to keep their customers happy. That includes me getting email replies directly from the president of Greensboro TWC regarding my TiVo questions. I have to give them props for that.

MilChad

10-10-06, 10:58 PM

For those of you out there is interested in the new "SlimLine" 5 LNB dish, I saw an actual photo of one installed on dbstalk.com. It looks a lot nicer than the AT9 if you ask me. Here's one of the photos he posted. All I have to say is "It really does exist!"

http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6360&d=1160523478

foxeng

10-11-06, 07:42 AM

OOOH! I want that one!!

PamW

10-11-06, 12:06 PM

MilChad

10-11-06, 01:44 PM

:(

Installer came this morning, complete with an HR-20! Everything ready to go. Until we looked for a place to put the AT9 dish. $%*#% trees!!!!! Add to that the fact that he would have to put the thing on my roof with a total of 8 bolts (can you say "wind"?) then string the first cable run for 150 + feet. I was told maybe a 50% chance of receiving HD channels because of line of sight issues. :rolleyes:

I am just glad I didn't cancel TWC.

That stinks. There are no openings towards the south of your property with a 20 degree span of clearance? (99-119 degree) Using a compass and my zip code, the new dish will need clearance from 217 to 237. I have a ton of trees in my back lot and I walked around my property several times looking for a good spot and finally had to settle for the front yard next to a small fence that is between me and my neighbor. (He's cool with having the dish there, thank goodness). I went ahead and moved my triple LNB dish to the new location and ran 4 runs of about 120' each to my junction box. I know they are long runs but my signal strength is still in the 95-100% range on all receivers and all transponders. The RG6 I used is sweep tested @ 3 GHz and according to the place I bought it, good to go for the new 5 LNB dish. I have over 500' left over, so if there are any DIYers out there that need good coax, I'll let it go at a reasonable price. Just PM me.

posg

10-12-06, 02:52 PM

OOOH! I want that one!!

Not into the "Erector Set" (AT9) look ??? :D

jspENC

10-12-06, 02:59 PM

Not into the "Erector Set" (AT9) look ??? :D

They (directv)do need something a little less complicated :rolleyes:

foxeng

10-12-06, 05:27 PM

Not into the "Erector Set" (AT9) look ??? :D

No, I just want the latest and greatest, that is all!

ncsustash

10-12-06, 06:30 PM

foxeng

10-12-06, 06:35 PM

Probably the same thing the NFL thought when ABC had MNF.

MilChad

10-12-06, 07:30 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=2&id=2622960

So what would espn think now that they are pumping all this money into NASCAR and one of the largest markets of Greensboro can't get NASCAR on ABC-HD with TWC?

Yet another reason to get an OTA receiver w/ antenna or switch to DirecTV. The good news is ABC is quite easy to get OTA from just about anywhere in the Triad.

itms1022

10-12-06, 08:14 PM

MilChad

10-13-06, 02:29 PM

Here's an interesting article I found on tvpredictions.com concerning DirecTV's current PQ and MPEG 4. (The future of D* looks bright).

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dtvpicture101306.htm

HDTVFanAtic

10-13-06, 02:59 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=2&id=2622960

So what would espn think now that they are pumping all this money into NASCAR and one of the largest markets of Greensboro can't get NASCAR on ABC-HD with TWC?

As they know NASCAR fans will watch in SD as they have for 30 some years, they know they won't loose any viewers.

MilChad

10-13-06, 03:28 PM

As they know NASCAR fans will watch in SD as they have for 30 some years, they know they won't loose any viewers.

You'd be surprised at how many "high tech redneck" NASCAR fans are out there. I'd count myslef as one of them considering I'd rather watch the race than the NFL. What I find funny is that the Indy Racing League hasn't gotten with the times and upgraded their coverage to HD. This past Indy 500 (arguably the biggest race in the world) wasn't even in HiDef.

HDTVFanAtic

10-13-06, 04:11 PM

You'd be surprised at how many "high tech redneck" NASCAR fans are out there. I'd count myslef as one of them considering I'd rather watch the race than the NFL. What I find funny is that the Indy Racing League hasn't gotten with the times and upgraded their coverage to HD. This past Indy 500 (arguably the biggest race in the world) wasn't even in HiDef.

I am not arguing that NASCAR fans are not high tech (For all sports there are different levels of fans). I grew up in the area and know NASCAR very well. In fact, look at the in car cameras and the package they sell with the different car camera so you can switch to the channel with your favorite driver's view from inside the car.

Again, all I am saying is just like Football, if you want to watch the race (or a NFL Football game) you will watch it, whether its Nascar in SD on ABC or a NFL game in SD on CBS - or a weekly college game in SD or an ACC Basketball game in SD. Just as you pointed out the Indy 500 is in SD and people still watch.

Content remains king.

uncrules

10-13-06, 06:28 PM

MilChad

10-14-06, 12:17 AM

I agree that content is King and people will watch even if it isn't in HD. But that won't stop people from pressuring TWC to complete a deal with Sinclair. Remember that there were several local articles written about the TWC/Sinclair dispute during the Super Bowl. Not to mention the dueling statements on each companies web site. It generated negative press for TWC.

When the races start on ABC next year this subject will be brought up again. But this time ABC-45 will be available from D* and there will probably be a number of people who will switch to D* just for this reason.

Agreed. The viewers that might be "on the fence" when it comes to deciding what to watch on Sunday would more than likely choose the HD content over SD content. So if I'm just flipping through the channels next fall with my sweet TWC digital cable box and come across the race in SD on ABC and a football game in HD on Fox, I'm pretty sure I'm going to watch the football game over the race. Some people would rather watch grass grow in HD over many other programs in SD. It (to me anyway) is a major selling point.

zikdaman

10-14-06, 11:32 AM

I agree that content is King and people will watch even if it isn't in HD. But that won't stop people from pressuring TWC to complete a deal with Sinclair. Remember that there were several local articles written about the TWC/Sinclair dispute during the Super Bowl. Not to mention the dueling statements on each companies web site. It generated negative press for TWC.

In this case it seems like it's Sinclair who is the one being unreasonable here. TWC does not charge its customers a penny extra to get the HD signals from local stations. I find it curious that sinclair has no problem with TWC retransmiting their SD signal but won't allow them to retransmit the HD signal. TWC is not the only cable company that has a problem with what amounts to an extortion attempt by Sinclair.

Thankfully one cable company Mediacom is fighting back hard and actually taking Sinclair to court. Read about it here (http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/06/mediacom-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-sinclair/). It was after I read this article and the comments that follow that I realised that this is not a TWC problem unique to our market but that it was a Sinclair problem that exists wherever they do business. I hope that Mediacom prevails in court because it would mean the end of Sinclair's extortion and the consumer would be the winners.

uncrules

10-14-06, 02:03 PM

Don't you have to get Digital cable to get local HD channels. Getting digital cable isn't free.

bigsnyder

10-14-06, 02:37 PM

@uncrules

No, if your receiver/tuner can receive QAM signals. Many of the Sony HD sets have
one built in addition to ATSC. The catch is many TVs don't and you have to subscribe
to the Digital Tier to get an HD capable cable box. I bought my own box off ebay
and it worked fine, though the box took several minutes to understand TWC's system.
The only problem I have ran into is that most of the expanded cable tier has been locked
out since my area now has all digital on the SD channels because I don't subcribe to the
digital tier. This is not a big deal for me since I can receive the standard analog through
the TV for those channels.

C Snyder

jacksonian

10-14-06, 03:57 PM

jacksonian

10-14-06, 04:18 PM

J. L.

10-14-06, 04:21 PM

I have a question about OTA HD reception. I have a TiVo S3 and I put 2 Channel Master 4228's up in the attic combined together and amplified. I have strong signals > 90% on all my locals. But I keep getting picture break ups with audio drops every 15-30 seconds. Someone mentioned "multipath interference" as a cause, but I don't really know what that is.

When I was using a little Zenith Silver Sensor and had a low signal like 35%, I never got dropouts. Does anyone have an idea?Multipath is when the signal from the transmitter takes two (or more) paths to get to your receiver. Now that is not a huge issue unless they are traveling different distances (one is direct from the transmitter, and the other reflecting off some building, tree, mountain, water tower, airplane, etc and traveling a longer distance to get to you.)

In the analog TV days, you would get "ghosts" in the TV picture ( a second image displaced horizontally from the first by the extra time (distance) the second signal had to travel to get to you. In the digital world, if the second signal is of sufficient amplitude it will confuse the digital tuner and even if the signal strength is high, the bit-stream will be of poor quality and you will get the drop-outs you described.

You probably have introduced some of the possible multipath yourself by your attempt to combine two antennas in your attic. If they are pointing in different directions, or if connected with different lengths of coax to the combiner they will pick up two different signals (one time delayed from the other) and the result is what we commonly call multipath.

Another possible is the amplifier you are using. Unless of very high quality it is possible to "overload" it with signal and cause it to generate distortions. (Actually, it is possible to overload ANY amplifier, even high quality ones, but some high quality ones more resistant to overload than others) If you had decent reception with a simple set-top antenna indoors the odds are you might not need any amplifier at all.

So... first, try only one antenna... and try it without the amplifier. you might find the drop-outs go away even if the signal level is not as strong.

Joe L.

HDTVFanAtic

10-14-06, 04:23 PM

In this case it seems like it's Sinclair who is the one being unreasonable here. TWC does not charge its customers a penny extra to get the HD signals from local stations. I find it curious that sinclair has no problem with TWC retransmiting their SD signal but won't allow them to retransmit the HD signal. TWC is not the only cable company that has a problem with what amounts to an extortion attempt by Sinclair.

Thankfully one cable company Mediacom is fighting back hard and actually taking Sinclair to court. Read about it here (http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/06/mediacom-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-sinclair/). It was after I read this article and the comments that follow that I realised that this is not a TWC problem unique to our market but that it was a Sinclair problem that exists wherever they do business. I hope that Mediacom prevails in court because it would mean the end of Sinclair's extortion and the consumer would be the winners.

Well, you better get ready for more action to come.

You must understand that local stations is what added rocket fuel to sub levels of satellite companies about 8 years ago - and quite frankly - it did the same for cable companies though at a much slower rate.

TWC is charging you for basic cable and thus you are paying for the signals - and they are making money off you for it.

FOX, CBS and all the rest of the OTA Network Broadcast Companies are planning to make cable companies pay for content in the future - and it will be a fight just like with Sinclair. At that point, you might see Fox 8 disappear from TWC for a while - or CBS etc.

The most viewed channels on a cable system are the local channels and TWC is paying nothing for those - but you ARE paying TWC for them. Considering that TWC pays close to $3 for an ESPN channel, the local stations with more viewing want their fair share.

jacksonian

10-14-06, 04:31 PM

So... first, try only one antenna... and try it without the amplifier. you might find the drop-outs go away even if the signal level is not as strong.

Joe L.
Thanks for all the info, Joe! You were EXACTLY right. I'm using the Titan 7777 amp, so I think that's good quality. I left it in the loop since the drop outs went away when I removed the other antenna.

So I have a 4228 for sale cheap if anyone needs one.

J. L.

10-14-06, 04:52 PM

Alright, answered my own question with experimentation. I un-combined the antennas and went back to just one 4228 amplified = glitches gone. And I checked all my signal levels. All I lost was a few points off of 12.1 and lost PBS completely (which I never watch and can get from TWC if I had to anyway), and some of the signals actually got stronger. I'll post my signal levels below for educational purposes:

2-4428's combined/1-4228
2.1 = 91/96
8.1 = 85/94
12.1 = 98/80
26.1 = 96/0
45.1 = 95/97
48.1 = 94/98

So I guess my problem was self induced interference.Just curious, what direction do you have your antenna facing? It does not sound like it is on a rotator.

It sounds as if you are getting stations from multiple directions? Or am I mistaken?

If that is the case, some of the signals must be reflections off of something, since the back-screen on your antenna pretty much eliminates most signal from the rear.

Glad you've got everything working, even if you had to give up OTA PBS.

Joe L.

jacksonian

10-14-06, 04:58 PM

ee1993

10-14-06, 05:30 PM

I originally had one aimed down 220 South (for CBS, FOX, ABC) and one aimed NW (for NBC and PBS). When I went to just one, I took the one pointing South and split the distance a little with the one aiming NW. I was actually surprised that the channels from the South were giving me stronger signals now.

No, I don't have it on a rotor, it's actually just sitting in the attic leaning against a support beam.

I was going to try this as well. PBS-HD is often worth watching but I don't like having to turn the roatator to get it (or to improve ch 12.1). The ideal way to do this is to use individual channel filters so each antenna sees only the desired channels. However, they are typically very expensive. I may try to make one filter for PBS and combine that with the signals from the main antenna.

ee1993

10-14-06, 05:46 PM

gregchak

10-14-06, 06:05 PM

Can anyone tell me why I always get momentary video freezes watching evening HD network programming on channel 45.1 (ABC) but the football games (ESPN on ABC) are excellent, never a blip! The receiver is a new ViewSonic N3251w 32” LCD with rooftop OTA antenna. This seems to be an issues fro this particular receiver, my Dish Network 811 with 34” CRT monitor is better but I still get an occasional momentary picture freeze on 45. This happens only in wide screen HD and never on sports programming. I may have a issue with this equipment by channel 45 is the only on that gives me this problem. This problem is so bad that ABC evenings is unwatchable on the otherwise fine set. The freezes occur regularly about every five or ten seconds.
I watch live and DVR many primetime shows on ABC45 and never have any problems. I get the occasional audio hiccup but never video, and I haven't had any problems with the audio for several months now. I have the D* HR10-250 as my OTA receiver.

EDIT:
Although now the OSU game that was in HD is not. Is that the sun flares again?

foxeng

10-14-06, 06:12 PM

Thanks for all the info, Joe! You were EXACTLY right. I'm using the Titan 7777 amp, so I think that's good quality. I left it in the loop since the drop outs went away when I removed the other antenna.

So I have a 4228 for sale cheap if anyone needs one.

Joe is the antenna man. I have known him for over 10 years and you would be surprised what he has used to build antennas out of that work. Not just receive antennas, but transmit antennas. My favorite? The metal measuring tape antenna. A classic!!

foxeng

10-14-06, 06:16 PM

PamW

10-14-06, 10:36 PM

Off Topic...

If any of you are Mozart fans, there will be a concert at 4 PM Sunday Oct. 15th (yes, tomorrow!) at West market St. UMC downtown Greensboro. The Vesperae Solennes De Confessore is the major work, with a few other pieces added. It'll last about one hour. The rehearsal was fabulous and you might recognize the name of one of the soloists....

HDTVFanAtic

10-15-06, 01:41 AM

Thanks HDTVF! You brought up the points I was going to make. You get nothing for free with ANY pay service, cable or sat. You pay for it all, no matter what they say. I really hated to wade into this because I knew as soon as I did, posq would be on here tell me just how big of a bastard we broadcasters are to even THINK about charging cable for our signal. Fair is fair unless you are a cable company then you feel you have a license to steal.

But I digress.......

The interesting point that most do not realize is that most expensive "tier" on your cable bill is the "basic service" portion.

So for anyone to say the do not pay TWC or any cable company for their local channels is an absolute fallacy.

pwrmetal

10-15-06, 01:08 PM

The interesting point that most do not realize is that most expensive "tier" on your cable bill is the "basic service" portion.

I am not in any way trying to butt into this argument. Nor am I trying to defend TWC in any way, but this statement is absolutely false. The basic tier is $9/month and that includes local channels. It is the "standard" package that is the most expensive, where you start to get ESPN, A&E, etc. at $41/month.

HDTVFanAtic

10-15-06, 04:54 PM

I am not in any way trying to butt into this argument. Nor am I trying to defend TWC in any way, but this statement is absolutely false. The basic tier is $9/month and that includes local channels. It is the "standard" package that is the most expensive, where you start to get ESPN, A&E, etc. at $41/month.

Interesting. I just spoke with my brother and he read me his cable bill that confirms that is the case there now.

In most areas of the country TWC charges in the mid $20s up for all the analog channels and $10 - $15 more for the digital tiers.

It's very bizarre they have taken that pricing structure there.

But regardless, you are paying $9 a month for 12 channels for basic service (and if memory serves right, not all 12 channels have a station actually on them as opposed to a slate)- so clearly the cable company is charging you for the OTA Network stations.

foxeng

10-15-06, 05:08 PM

So for $9.18 a month you get 14 channels. Out of those 14 HBO doesn't count since that is a pay channel. So that number is now reduced to 13 channels That is .70 cents that EVERY sub pays for EVERY channel in the basic package. Out of those 13 channels TWC owns 3 of them. So that is $2.10 that is pretty close to pure profit. The other $7.08 IS pure profit since the stations currently DO NOT get ANY of that money. Now there is approximately a little north of 300,000 TWC subs but for the sake of argument, lets round that off to 300,000 subs and basic is something that EVERYONE pays for no matter what package you subscribe too. $7.08 times 300,000 equals $2.124 million dollars PURE PROFIT EVERY MONTH! That works out to $25.488 million dollars A YEAR just for the local stations that we see NOTHING from. But cable reaps the benefits of the local stations. The only reason why cable thumbs their nose at the local stations is because they believe the stations NEED them so they will not rock the boat too much. With sat now, cable doesn't have the monopoly they used to. They think with all of their bundling of services that will keep people. As has been proven here on this thread, that CLEARLY is NOT THE CASE.

The argument that cable uses is that your cable rates will go up if they have to start paying stations is pure bunk. They are making over 80% on the basic service as it is now. Even if they gave stations $.40 a station, they still make over $1 million dollars a month. That is still 40% profit.

I predict you will see stations pulling out of cable in the next few years if the situation doesn't change and cable will be forced to deal with the stations equably or they will lose subs. With the stones that CBS has, I see them being the first to pull out. When that happens, the domino effect will begin.

pwrmetal

10-15-06, 05:46 PM

foxeng

10-15-06, 05:55 PM

With the number of channels that cable provides, the maintenance cost is over a wide range of channel package incomes, not just basic. The number of basic only packages are small and cable really does not want to offer basic but has to by law and they price it as such to make it look like the next package is up a better deal but if you want the basic package, you are going to pay for it and they keep all the money. If it were you, you would do the same thing. That doesn't make it right and that is what the broadcasters are fighting.

jspENC

10-15-06, 06:26 PM

Very interesting information foxeng. I have to believe and agree with everything you have said. Also I think my signature speaks volumes for how I feel about Cable. Back in the 80's the local channels here included 3 markets in North Carolina. Wilmington, Raleigh and Greenville. The price of these channels plus HBO was only about $12. In 1995 a few more channels were added and the price was about $26 which was reasonable. Now for the limited junk they throw on the analog tier and a price of $52, I can only laugh at someone who would pay that price for a grainy signal and more shopping channels than movies/sports then settle for E* or D*. The amount of satellites in this area is exploding, and I hope it is a trend that continues. One day cable will have to change the way they treat the customer. Another thing, they are making a KILLING with RoadRunner.

pwrmetal

10-15-06, 06:49 PM

With the number of channels that cable provides, the maintenance cost is over a wide range of channel package incomes, not just basic.

They have to provide that same network and free repairs and service to the $9/month subscribers as much as they do the $200/month subsribers.

The number of basic only packages are small and cable really does not want to offer basic but has to by law and they price it as such to make it look like the next package is up a better deal but if you want the basic package, you are going to pay for it and they keep all the money.

I am not sure how $51/month looks like a "better deal" than $9/month.

If it were you, you would do the same thing. That doesn't make it right and that is what the broadcasters are fighting.

And all I am suggesting is that broadcasters benefit from their stations being carried on cable. Cable needs broadcasters so they have content to sell to their subscribers. Broadcasters need cable to reach those subscribers who make up the vast majority of TV watchers. Broadcasters would have been well served to extort money from the cable providers during the infancy of cable when the providers needed them and the broadcasters weren't so dependent on them.

Having said that I don't necessarily think cable should NOT pay something to broadcasters for their signal. But I am also not making silly claims that Sattelite companies' profits = Subscriber fees - Payment made to broadcasters. All I was suggesting is that cable has overhead to provide that $9/month of programming, and that it isn't all profit, and that broadcasters directly benefit from cable airing their programming for free. I am NOT suggesting that cable isn't profiting in a big way and could and should provide better service for a lower price.

foxeng

10-15-06, 08:01 PM

They have to provide that same network and free repairs and service to the $9/month subscribers as much as they do the $200/month subsribers.

I submit that is not a correct assumption. Most basic subs do not have a STB. As long as the cable is not damaged into the back of the TV, there is no reason for a service call, either on site or via phone. Now with a STB, as has been voice here on this thread, service calls, on site as well as via phone can become a way of life.

I am not sure how $51/month looks like a "better deal" than $9/month.

Which looks like a better deal? 13 channels for $9 or 70 channels for $51 (and on average that same $.70 per channel per sub)? But of course, this is great marketing on TWCs part!! ;)

And all I am suggesting is that broadcasters benefit from their stations being carried on cable. Cable needs broadcasters so they have content to sell to their subscribers. Broadcasters need cable to reach those subscribers who make up the vast majority of TV watchers. Broadcasters would have been well served to extort money from the cable providers during the infancy of cable when the providers needed them and the broadcasters weren't so dependent on them.

I wished you hadn't used the word "extort." That automatically puts me on the defensive. Broadcasters (well most broadcasters anyway) are not out for extortion money from MSOs. We would like to have fair market value paid to us for our programming just like ESPN, BBC America, CNN and HBO, etc. The truth is our viewer numbers are much higher than the cable only channels and cable has no problem with the concept of paying for those channels. The precedence has been set. But the truth is if all of the local stations pulled off cable, cable would take a big hit. With digital, you can get as good signal OTA as via cable or if you can't get OTA, you will/do have other options now.

Having said that I don't necessarily think cable should NOT pay something to broadcasters for their signal. But I am also not making silly claims that Sattelite companies' profits = Subscriber fees - Payment made to broadcasters. All I was suggesting is that cable has overhead to provide that $9/month of programming, and that it isn't all profit, and that broadcasters directly benefit from cable airing their programming for free. I am NOT suggesting that cable isn't profiting in a big way and could and should provide better service for a lower price.

We as broadcasters have overhead too. Do we not deserve to be paid for overhead by a service who makes money off of our service and then says we don't deserve any? In any other industry, that would not be tolerated but for broadcasting that IS OK?

If cable DIDN'T charge for our programming, then broadcasters would not have a leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It has been proven beyond a doubt that cable uses the locals as a way to get and keep new subs and they make money by doing it. If you need proof, look at the ads cable used against satellite that they had locals and sat didn't. Look now that cable is using the same argument for HD locals. At least satellite comes clean and tells you that they are going to charge you $5.99 for locals. I don't like that either, but at least I know what the situation is. I wish cable would be a little more forthcoming.

My goal here is not to change your mind, but to hopefully open your eyes to some things that you may not have been aware of. It is a somewhat complicated relationship and I think that is part of the problem.

HDTVFanAtic

10-15-06, 08:20 PM

Look, I am not trying to be a defender of TWC here. I basically hate them and wish I had a non-sattelite alternative. But, your #'s are a bit misleading. While I don't doubt for one second they are profiting in a big way off of the channels they don't pay the channel owners for, you seem to have omitted all of the overhead that cable has in terms of maintaining their cable network, coming out for free repairs for virtually any problem, employees, etc. Acting like the $9/month is some sort of pure profit for them is silly. Plus channel owners seem to forget about the inherant benefit of having their signal provided to cable subscribers over the network that TWC paid for and maintains whenever they bemoan no payment for their content.

Again, I am not trying to be some defender of them, and I agree that their raising cable rates is only to maintain/improve their profit margin. But it's not like there aren't costs associated with providing those 13 channels.

Does a Honda cost as much to repair as a Porsche? How about Nissan to a Corvette? As you have stated the other tiers cost more money, the higher cost (and that actually is where the higher cost is compared to basic) of supplying programming has to be allocated to them accordingly.

It cost more as you need a system that has a high bandwidth compared to basic, stbs and other high cost items.

So again, allocate it accordingly and basic is relatively nothing as everyone's tv can receive the stations (2-13) without a convertor box or modification.

HDTVFanAtic

10-15-06, 08:41 PM

Broadcasters would have been well served to extort money from the cable providers during the infancy of cable when the providers needed them and the broadcasters weren't so dependent on them.

7 years ago the City I live in put in reclaimed water service. With all the sewage treatment, they had to find somewhere to put all that treated water. They had already supplied virtually every golf course in the County, but they still had far to much.

So they put in reclaimed water service so you could water your lawn as much as you wanted for $15 a month. Considering most water bills dropped as the lawn watering was now with reclaimed, everyone was happy.

Now, surprise surprise, everyone wants reclaimed water. So now, after "all you want for $15", its $9 a month and everything is metered - which will increase virtually everyone's bill $40.

So, should the City continued to give us all the reclaim water we want for $15 because that is the way it was when it started?

Heck, when I purchased a car gas was $1.50 a gallon. Now that its hit over $3 in the past year, shouldn't the car maker subsidize the increase in gas cost as well :D

Cost go up. At one time you could actually get land for free (and HBO if you wanted to climb the pole in Greensboro and take the filter off the line). Get used to it. Things change.

gregchak

10-15-06, 09:16 PM

I was going to try this as well. PBS-HD is often worth watching but I don't like having to turn the roatator to get it (or to improve ch 12.1). The ideal way to do this is to use individual channel filters so each antenna sees only the desired channels. However, they are typically very expensive. I may try to make one filter for PBS and combine that with the signals from the main antenna.
Not to butt into the cable fees discussion, but a quick question about an earlier post. If I wanted to have one antenna get the channels south of GSO (WGHP, WFMY, WXLV, etc) and one to get the stations north (WXII, PBS) it would sound like I would need to put a filter on the one pointing north (channels 31 and 32). Or would they go on both antenna leads? How expensive are those filters? This has always been a constant struggle for me. I love the calm clear days because everything (usually) comes in clear. Do you have any pointers or suggestions if I wanted to look into filters? I already have 2 antennas. Thanks!

pwrmetal

10-15-06, 10:10 PM

I submit that is not a correct assumption. Most basic subs do not have a STB. As long as the cable is not damaged into the back of the TV, there is no reason for a service call, either on site or via phone. Now with a STB, as has been voice here on this thread, service calls, on site as well as via phone can become a way of life.

True, but there are still costs for providing and maintaining that cable. If someone digs in the wrong spot and cuts the cable, the cable co. is still stuck coming out to repair it, at no cost to the subscriber (this has been my direct experience). Though your point is certainlt valid that the overhead costs are lower for basic subscribers.

Which looks like a better deal? 13 channels for $9 or 70 channels for $51 (and on average that same $.70 per channel per sub)? But of course, this is great marketing on TWCs part!! ;)

Ahhh, I see what you mean now.

I wished you hadn't used the word "extort." That automatically puts me on the defensive.

Sorry. I didn't mean to generate the negative connotation, though I understand your reaction. I just didn't think of a more appropriate verb when I wrote that paragraph.

We as broadcasters have overhead too. Do we not deserve to be paid for overhead by a service who makes money off of our service and then says we don't deserve any? In any other industry, that would not be tolerated but for broadcasting that IS OK?

No, but I think it's silly for broadcasters to act like they don't receive any benefit from cable providing their signal. Again, the vast majority of the people in the local market every broadcaster is trying to reach is watching their TV via cable.

If cable DIDN'T charge for our programming, then broadcasters would not have a leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It has been proven beyond a doubt that cable uses the locals as a way to get and keep new subs and they make money by doing it. If you need proof, look at the ads cable used against satellite that they had locals and sat didn't. Look now that cable is using the same argument for HD locals. At least satellite comes clean and tells you that they are going to charge you $5.99 for locals. I don't like that either, but at least I know what the situation is. I wish cable would be a little more forthcoming.

Hey, I wasn't trying to paint TWC or any other cable company as altruistic angels. I'm not even trying to suggest that cable should be able to charge for local channels and not reimburse the broadcasters. I merely thought it was short sighted to claim that 100% of the $9/month they charge for basic service was pure profit. And again, I think the characterization of broadcasters as victims who see no tangible financial benefit from their channels being on cable is ridiculous.

My goal here is not to change your mind, but to hopefully open your eyes to some things that you may not have been aware of. It is a somewhat complicated relationship and I think that is part of the problem.

I assure you my eyes are wide open to the greed and profit mongering of cable. In most tv markets (that I am aware of) cable has a monopoly. This is never good for consumers. Sattelite is an alternative, but for most (including myself at present) it's not an ideal or even acceptable alternative. It's amazing how much better cable service seems to be when there's more than one cable provider operating within a single market. I really wish this environment was the norm and not the exception.

I will be interested to see if the networks put up a united front against cable in the quest for retransmission fees. I honestly think that no one of them can do it on their own, but if they all did it at once (assuming such collusion is legal) they would have cable by the short hairs. Somehow I feel like cable subscribers will be the losers.

HDTVFanAtic

10-15-06, 11:00 PM

As the retransmission agreements come up at different times, there is no way they could do it all at once - which would be collusion anyway.

As you state, cable has a virtual monopoly, though one must wonder would they have that now without the local stations (especially as cable was only the basic 2-13) for years. Satellite found out they had to offer the channels to get to their next level and most likely cable would have had a much harder time as well.

However, another factor came into play with cable. Housewives that hated the big antenna on the roof.

Now an interesting change is happening. A recent woman's magazine did a poll asking younger women which would rather get as a gift - a diamond or a plasma tv and the plasma tv won (no joke).

As the computer age rolls through the demos and sexes, we might continue to see more changes as to what is acceptable to females and things might not be so clear cut in the future.

J. L.

10-15-06, 11:19 PM

Not to butt into the cable fees discussion, but a quick question about an earlier post. If I wanted to have one antenna get the channels south of GSO (WGHP, WFMY, WXLV, etc) and one to get the stations north (WXII, PBS) it would sound like I would need to put a filter on the one pointing north (channels 31 and 32). Or would they go on both antenna leads? How expensive are those filters? This has always been a constant struggle for me. I love the calm clear days because everything (usually) comes in clear. Do you have any pointers or suggestions if I wanted to look into filters? I already have 2 antennas. Thanks!It is a tiny bit more complicated than that...
Since you are trying to pick up TWO stations from the north you need to filter those TWO frequency ranges out of the antenna pointing south... AND you need to only allow those two frequency ranges to pass from the north facing antenna to the combiner.

So... in theory you need two "filters" (to pass the signal from the North antenna to the combiner), and two "traps" (to block those same frequency ranges from the south antenna from getting to the combiner)

Joe L.

zikdaman

10-16-06, 02:24 PM

Well, you better get ready for more action to come.

You must understand that local stations is what added rocket fuel to sub levels of satellite companies about 8 years ago - and quite frankly - it did the same for cable companies though at a much slower rate.

TWC is charging you for basic cable and thus you are paying for the signals - and they are making money off you for it.

FOX, CBS and all the rest of the OTA Network Broadcast Companies are planning to make cable companies pay for content in the future - and it will be a fight just like with Sinclair. At that point, you might see Fox 8 disappear from TWC for a while - or CBS etc.

The most viewed channels on a cable system are the local channels and TWC is paying nothing for those - but you ARE paying TWC for them. Considering that TWC pays close to $3 for an ESPN channel, the local stations with more viewing want their fair share.

I never said Cable was free. All I'm saying is that TWC to my knowledge is not charging EXTRA for its customers to access the feed from local HD channels. Therefore, it seems to me that the fair thing for local stations would be to offer their HD signal for distribution on similar terms that the SD signal is being offered.

As a matter of fact, one can say that the cable companies actually provide an additional more reliable means of distribution for the content provided by these local stations. Local stations thus get more viewers and can charge more for their advertising, which is how they actually make money. WXLV for the most part has lost me as a viewer because I can't get their HD signal on cable.

It just doesn't make sense to me that a local station will give permission to distribute their SD signal but not the HD when they make their money via the count of eyeballs looking at their feed.

J. L.

10-16-06, 03:23 PM

It just doesn't make sense to me that a local station will give permission to distribute their SD signal but not the HD when they make their money via the count of eyeballs looking at their feed.Not sure if has changed recently, but not too long ago Nielson did not count HD eyeballs, just SD eyeballs. It was only last year or so they counted PVR users who recorded shows with their tivo units. It might be a while before they migrate to HDTV and Digital TV from analog.
Now, the advertisers would love to have your eyes on their commercials in HD and pay lower rates because Nielson counted fewer eyeballs.

I just want the cable rates to be fair...
When I want the best picture from a local station I watch it OTA and forget about cable.

Joe L.

Zane

10-16-06, 03:29 PM

zikdaman

10-16-06, 03:44 PM

All that has to be provided to meet FCC regs is the SD signal. HD is not a requirement.

Well in my opinion then, the FCC needs to revisit this issue. The same rules should apply for SD and HD. How does the FCC expect to push their agenda of widespread HD adoption by the population when they allow crap like this to pass under their radar where station owners are allowed to manipulate and rig the system in an attempt to extort more $$ from the public?

foxeng

10-16-06, 04:05 PM

How does the FCC expect to push their agenda of widespread HD adoption by the population when they allow crap like this to pass under their radar where station owners are allowed to manipulate and rig the system in an attempt to extort more $$ from the public?

The FCC is not interested in widespread HD adoption. The FCC is interested in widespread DIGITAL adoption for the sole purpose to free up spectrum to be sold at auction to the highest bidder and nothing else.

That is why you have 18 different digital formats with only 3 of those being HD formats. The industry agreed upon a total of four digital formats (480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i) to help keep the cost of the broadcast equipment reasonable even though your OTA receivers have all 18 formats in them (by law). The FCC has never and has no plans to ever mandate a single digital format, hence the 18 formats your receiver is required to have.

"Let the marketplace rule" is the FCC's mantra.

HDTVFanAtic

10-16-06, 07:26 PM

To further what Foxeng said, if you will look you will find that it was DTV that was put into place. Anyone who thinks it was HDTV is either 1) misinformed or 2) guilty of wishful thinking. No ruling has ever come down as an HDTV act. It's been DTV (Digial Television) or ATSC. It wasn't labelled as HDTV for a reason.

All one has to do is look at virtually all the FCC rulings and you would find they support VARIETY OF VOICES for the public airways. Truth be told, that mean that if the FCC had to actually issue a ruling on it, instead of letting the marketplace rule as foxeng pointed out, the FCC would probably come down on the side of more multicasting INSTEAD of more bitrates for HD.

As Foxeng also pointed out - there are 18 DTV standards - only 3 of which are HD.

Think about it.

zikdaman

10-16-06, 07:34 PM

The FCC is not interested in widespread HD adoption. The FCC is interested in widespread DIGITAL adoption for the sole purpose to free up spectrum to be sold at auction to the highest bidder and nothing else.

That is why you have 18 different digital formats with only 3 of those being HD formats. The industry agreed upon a total of four digital formats (480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i) to help keep the cost of the broadcast equipment reasonable even though your OTA receivers have all 18 formats in them (by law). The FCC has never and has no plans to ever mandate a single digital format, hence the 18 formats your receiver is required to have.

"Let the marketplace rule" is the FCC's mantra.

Ok, then the rules should be the same for local digital and local analog broadcasts since both use the public airwaves. As it is now, they clearly are not and while folks like Sinclair are looking for a new revenue stream, its us the consumer that suffer.

Zane

10-16-06, 08:12 PM

Ok, then the rules should be the same for local digital and local analog broadcasts since both use the public airwaves. As it is now, they clearly are not and while folks like Sinclair are looking for a new revenue stream, its us the consumer that suffer.
I'm not trying to be smart, but I do not understand your statement. Local digital will take the place of local analog in 2009. It will be must carry or a retrans agreement. Every broadcaster would like to find a new revenue stream, but are limited in how they can use the on air signal. Currently they are limited to 5 streams per channel and that's all SD. The HD bit rate would be so low with multiple streams that no one would want to watch it. Fox eng would have more knowledge about that than me. Broadcasters would want to offer something that would make money. The Tube is on 48-2. They pay Sinclair to air it. It's a source of revenue. No viewer has been asked to pay for it. From my own point of view I do not know how the Tube makes money. I see no adds and I do not think anyone watches it. No one ever mentions it here, but that's besides the point. They pay to have the channel on the air. 12-2 and 2-2 both are local weather channels sponsored by adds. A source of revenue. All broadcasters will be experimenting with ways to best make money with their stations as digital tv continues to evolve and competition changes.

foxeng

10-16-06, 08:14 PM

Ok, then the rules should be the same for local digital and local analog broadcasts since both use the public airwaves.

Actually there is no difference between analog and digital when it comes to carriage. A station can pull its analog off if they feel they are not being compensated in a manner they want. There is no law that says a station has to be on a cable or sat system. But if a system does have local stations on their system, there are rules that dictate how it can be done.

Election Day 1996, ABC pulled their O & O stations (pre-digital days - translated analog) off of Time-Warner systems nationwide. So it has and does happen.

foxeng

10-16-06, 08:17 PM

The Tube is on 48-2. They pay Sinclair to air it. It's a source of revenue. No viewer has been asked to pay for it. From my own point of view I do not know how the Tube makes money. I see no adds and I do not think anyone watches it. No one ever mentions it here, but that's besides the point.

I WATCH IT! You take it off and I will be SCREAMING!! :cool:

Davinleeds

10-16-06, 08:20 PM

The FCC is not interested in widespread HD adoption. The FCC is interested in widespread DIGITAL adoption for the sole purpose to free up spectrum to be sold at auction to the highest bidder and nothing else.

That is why you have 18 different digital formats with only 3 of those being HD formats. The industry agreed upon a total of four digital formats (480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i) to help keep the cost of the broadcast equipment reasonable even though your OTA receivers have all 18 formats in them (by law). The FCC has never and has no plans to ever mandate a single digital format, hence the 18 formats your receiver is required to have.

"Let the marketplace rule" is the FCC's mantra.
That's interesting, foxeng, do the other formats have to do with datacasting, etc? Direct me to the correct thread,

Davinleeds

10-16-06, 08:21 PM

I watch(listen) it while on AVS.

Zane

10-16-06, 08:28 PM

I WATCH IT! You take it off and I will be SCREAMING!! :cool:
I actually boosted the bitstream a bit the other day because I thought it looked a little blocky. Some of the old video music clips look like that directly off the sat feed.

MilChad

10-16-06, 09:08 PM

Quick update on HD locals via DirecTV. I wrote D* today and asked them when we should expect to receive them and this was their reply:

Thanks for asking about HD local programming. As our TV commercials mention, DIRECTV is getting ready to offer HD programming from local channels in select cities. We expect to be serving Greensboro, NC with HD local programming late Nov 2006.

We also have plans to offer over 150 national HD channels. These channels will be gradually added over the next couple of years. We're committed to providing the best in HDTV programming and we're in constant discussions with program providers to continue adding new channels and programming.

Thanks again for writing and stay tuned to DIRECTV.com/HDTV for the latest news and announcements as they become available.

Sincerely,

Leigh
DIRECTV Customer Service

foxeng

10-16-06, 09:13 PM

That's interesting, foxeng, do the other formats have to do with datacasting, etc? Direct me to the correct thread,

This are picture formats. Data is something else.

ATSC Picture Display Formats
Format . Vertical . Horizontal . Aspect . Scan Mode . Frame
...........Scan ..... Pixels .... Ratio ..... ....... Rate ...........Lines......................................(fps)
HDTV:
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..24
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..30
1080i.....1080.......1920........16:9....Interlaced ..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..24
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..60
EDTV:
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30

480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60

480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30

480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60

SDTV:
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Interlaced ..30

480i .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..30

480i .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..60

J. L.

10-16-06, 09:39 PM

This are picture formats. Data is something else.

ATSC Picture Display Formats
Format . Vertical . Horizontal . Aspect . Scan Mode . Frame
...........Scan ..... Pixels .... Ratio ..... ....... Rate ...........Lines......................................(fps)
HDTV:
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..24
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..30
1080i.....1080.......1920........16:9....Interlaced ..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..24
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..60
EDTV:
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30

480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60

480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30

480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60

SDTV:
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Interlaced ..30

480i .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..30

480i .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..60
That's what I like about standards committees, if you didn't like the ones available, lobby for a different one and get it included too.

Joe L.

Davinleeds

10-16-06, 09:51 PM

Foxeng, I'm glad you're here. Where do I find out about datacasting?

uncrph90

10-16-06, 11:56 PM

From my own point of view I do not know how the Tube makes money. I see no adds and I do not think anyone watches it. No one ever mentions it here, but that's besides the point.

Me too--I really enjoy it! I've wondered about their revenue too, but I thought I had seen a few commercials--was I wrong?

HDTVFanAtic

10-17-06, 01:09 AM

They slowly are adding commercials.

This is Les Garland's channel. He was at VH1 when it was launched - even though it seems they have tried revisionist history to say he co-founded MTV as he was still PD of KFRC in 1984 - long afte the launch of MTV and then went to at Atlantic Records before he moved to MTV in 1985. He spent the last 10 years at The Box which was essentially a rap music video channel out of Miami.

Since Les put together much of the foundation for VH1, he knew where old archive material was and how to gain access to it.

foxeng

10-17-06, 08:36 AM

Foxeng, I'm glad you're here. Where do I find out about datacasting?

Go here for more info about ATSC than you will EVER want to know!! http://www.atsc.org/

HDTVFanAtic

10-17-06, 10:13 AM

Me too--I really enjoy it! I've wondered about their revenue too, but I thought I had seen a few commercials--was I wrong?

Interesting timing....look at what came out this morning:

Miami-based digital music network The Tube faces liquidity crisis
Miami-based digital TV music network The Tube is mired in a liquidity crisis.
BY CHRISTINA HOAG
choag@MiamiHerald.com

The Tube, the start-up digital TV music network, has run out of cash and has not been able to pay employees for the past month.
The Miami-based company, founded by MTV legend Les Garland, reported no revenue and a net loss of $4.1 million for the first six months of 2006, in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company reported a working capital deficit of $7.9 million and an accumulated deficit of $25.1 million.
Spokesman Barry Kluger said new management has been brought in to seek fresh financing. ''They're working on funding this thing long term,'' he said.
Executives hope to have enough cash this week to meet payroll, he added.
The new chief executive, Patrick LaPlatney, has loaned the company $100,000, according to a filing.
The Tube is breaking new ground in the TV industry by marketing programming for broadcast stations' digital channels. The Federal Communications Commission has mandated that broadcasters switch from analog to digital signals by 2009.
Most stations have already made the change, which gives them up to five separate channels on the digital bandwidth, for which they must find content.
The Tube's business model calls for revenue streams from both advertising and viewer purchases of music aired on The Tube.
The company has so far lined up distribution in major markets that cover about 17 million homes, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
But advertising has not yet come in. In a filing, the company said that its financial constraints have meant next to no budget for marketing and promotion. It said it plans a national media campaign to raise consumer awareness.
Maryland TV consultant Gary Arlen said it's still early days for secondary digital channels.
''Viewers who have bought digital TV sets are still awed by how good the picture is rather than see what else is on there,'' he said. ``It makes it difficult for alternative channels to come out.''

Zane

10-17-06, 10:25 AM

Sounds like the Tube is going down the tube to me. Too bad because it is very low maintenance for us.

posg

10-17-06, 01:46 PM

Sounds like the Tube is going down the tube to me. Too bad because it is very low maintenance for us.

Maybe if you got it on cable (wink, wink) where it might actually get some viewers (wink,wink), you might contribute to it's success rather than guaranteeing it's failure. (wink, wink)

zikdaman

10-17-06, 02:53 PM

Maybe if you got it on cable (wink, wink) where it might actually get some viewers (wink,wink), you might contribute to it's success rather than guaranteeing it's failure. (wink, wink)

Hah...you beat me to it posg. I was about to fire off a similar reply then I saw yours.

It does seem like some folks here think that it's the local broadcasters that make cable valuable and they do not consider that it is indeed a two way street. Cable brings a lot (my guess is the vast majority) of eyeballs to the local broadcasters, eyeballs that translate directly to $$ for them. There is a symbiotic relationship between local broadcasters and the cable company and when one of them seems to think that it is they alone who is valuable then things go awry. Local broadcasters benefit tremendously from being included in the cable lineup. They get the viewership that makes them money. Cable companies benefit tremendously by having the popular content that the local broadcasters provide.

When local broadcasters say that they provide valuable content therefore they should be paid by the cable companies for redistribution, while at the same time ignoring that cable companies do not charge them a penny for the enormous benefit of reaching hundreds of thousands of homes with this valuable content, thus increasing their ad revenue, it smacks of disingenuity. You can have all the content you want, but if you don't have an effecient, reliable distribution mechanism it won't fly.

Comparing local broadcasters to ESPN, HBO etc is equally disingenuous in my opinion. Does any local broadcaster share their ad revenue with the cable companies? ESPN, HBO, MTV etc don't enjoy the free ride and get the free distribution throughout a cable company's subscriber base that the local broadcasters do, do they?

foxeng

10-17-06, 03:06 PM

You take the number of eyeballs of just the 4 networks on a cable system and that number will be larger than all of the other cable channels on that system combined. Now who needs who?

posg

10-17-06, 03:11 PM

Hah...you beat me to it posg. I was about to fire off a similar reply then I saw yours.

It does seem like some folks here think that it's the local broadcasters that make cable valuable and they do not consider that it is indeed a two way street. Cable brings a lot (my guess is the vast majority) of eyeballs to the local broadcasters, eyeballs that translate directly to $$ for them. There is a symbiotic relationship between local broadcasters and the cable company and when one of them seems to think that it is they alone who is valuable then things go awry. Local broadcasters benefit tremendously from being included in the cable lineup. They get the viewership that makes them money. Cable companies benefit tremendously by having the popular content that the local broadcasters provide.

When local broadcasters say that they provide valuable content therefore they should be paid by the cable companies for redistribution, while at the same time ignoring that cable companies do not charge them a penny for the enormous benefit of reaching hundreds of thousands of homes with this valuable content, thus increasing their ad revenue, it smacks of disingenuity. You can have all the content you want, but if you don't have an effecient, reliable distribution mechanism it won't fly.

Comparing local broadcasters to ESPN, HBO etc is equally disingenuous in my opinion. Does any local broadcaster share their ad revenue with the cable companies? ESPN, HBO, MTV etc don't enjoy the free ride and get the free distribution throughout a cable company's subscriber base that the local broadcasters do, do they?

I've always contended that cable carriage is a financially mutually beneficial relationship for both broadcasters and cable operators, and also serves the public interest by allowing quality reception of DMA stations that might not be available otherwise.

It's win, win, win. Until one party decides their contribution is more valuable than the others. At that point, a fourth interest, the bloody attorneys, end up the real winners. This whole process wastes a bunch of time, money, and good will. Corporate greed gone amuck.

I'm sure the broadcasters here will be able to explain why the relationship that has worked for the past thirty years isn't fair and they've been getting screwed all this time. (Just funnin' with you guys.)

But it does seem like entities like MyTV, CW, Tube, and all the start ups need all the traction they can muster. Not everybody is CBS yet.

posg

10-17-06, 03:14 PM

You take the number of eyeballs of just the 4 networks on a cable system and that number will be larger than all of the other cable channels on that system combined. Now who needs who?

We need each other. :) :) :)

foxeng

10-17-06, 03:21 PM

We need each other. :) :) :)

I agree but cable needs to come off its attitude that they are as needed as the electric company or water company. That is simply not true. It has been a fact for years and broadcasters know this, TV OTA or sat or cable is NOT a necessity. Cable hasn't got the message yet.

If stations pulled off cable, yes they would be hurt, but cable would be hurt more. Just ask Echostar or DirecTV about not having the locals on your system how much that hurts. Just ask those in Raleigh who would like to switch to DirecTV for their HD LIL but don't because they don't have WRAL-DT or WRAZ-DT. I rest my case.

zikdaman

10-17-06, 03:46 PM

I agree but cable needs to come off its attitude that they are as needed as the electric company or water company. That is simply not true. It has been a fact for years and broadcasters know this, TV OTA or sat or cable is NOT a necessity. Cable hasn't got the message yet.

If stations pulled off cable, yes they would be hurt, but cable would be hurt more. Just ask Echostar or DirecTV about not having the locals on your system how much that hurts. Just ask those in Raleigh who would like to switch to DirecTV for their HD LIL but don't because they don't have WRAL-DT or WRAZ-DT. I rest my case.

Would the local broadcasters be in favor of legislation that removed the requirement that cable companies retransmit the local signal? That way cable companies would be free to make a deal with whatever network affiliate offers them the best deal and the cable consumers would benefit. How about that?

Let's face it, most people just want to watch House, Survivor, Oprah etc and they don't give a damn what part of the country it's coming from whether local or otherwise.

Zane

10-17-06, 04:02 PM

The context of my point was, Sinclair is paid to broadcast the Tube. The Tube is free and able to talk with cable companies concerning carriage of their satellite signal at their own will. They do this in some markets. Negotiating for 48-2 to be carried on cable would not make or break the Tube. I do not think anyone has even asked.

posg

10-17-06, 04:42 PM

Would the local broadcasters be in favor of legislation that removed the requirement that cable companies retransmit the local signal? That way cable companies would be free to make a deal with whatever network affiliate offers them the best deal and the cable consumers would benefit. How about that?

Let's face it, most people just want to watch House, Survivor, Oprah etc and they don't give a damn what part of the country it's coming from whether local or otherwise.

No, they would not be in favor of such legislation, but from a free market perspective it makes perfect sense.

Currently broadcasters do have somewhat of an upperhand in retransmission negociations. How can you establish a fair market value for a product without the opportunity for any really fair competition. :confused: :confused: :confused:

posg

10-17-06, 04:45 PM

Let's face it, most people just want to watch House, Survivor, Oprah etc and they don't give a damn what part of the country it's coming from whether local or otherwise.

Especially if their local affiliate (WXLV for example) is completely devoid of any local content.

zikdaman

10-17-06, 05:08 PM

Especially if their local affiliate (WXLV for example) is completely devoid of any local content.

Exactly! WXLV's "turf" is protected by legislation, not because WXLV itself is so great. I don't care to watch WXLV per say. I just want to watch some ABC programming. I'd be happy to let WXLV demand cable retramission fees if cable in turn were allowed to shop anywhere it could to bring me ABC network programming and get the best deal for me their customer.

Same goes for all the other networks. As long as they are protected from competition by government legislation they should not be allowed to extort the viewing public via demanding retransmission fees from the cable company, especially when it cost them nothing extra to use the cable facilities.

Zane

10-17-06, 05:15 PM

Especially if their local affiliate (WXLV for example) is completely devoid of any local content.
Your points do have some validity but in keeping with your example of the free market, if cable and satellite allowed customers to pick and pay for what they wanted to watch I'm sure there would be a lot of channels both broadcast and cable to go by the wayside on the cable and sat delivery. If you just want to watch your shows like House, Survivor, and Oprah then get satellite. Those viewers do not seem to have a problem, and it is a free market, you can do that if you wish.

posg

10-17-06, 05:32 PM

Your points do have some validity but in keeping with your example of the free market, if cable and satellite allowed customers to pick and pay for what they wanted to watch I'm sure there would be a lot of channels both broadcast and cable to go by the wayside on the cable and sat delivery. If you just want to watch your shows like House, Survivor, and Oprah then get satellite. Those viewers do not seem to have a problem, and it is a free market, you can do that if you wish.

I'm confused. Even if I get satellite, I still HAVE to get House, Survivor, and Oprah from my local DMA station, and there are cases where because of negociation impasses they will be unavailable.

CBS/FOX HD channels are currently not available via DirecTV in the Raleigh DMA. I cannot substitute Greensboro or New York even though technically those feeds would be available to my equipment.

foxeng

10-17-06, 05:54 PM

Would the local broadcasters be in favor of legislation that removed the requirement that cable companies retransmit the local signal? That way cable companies would be free to make a deal with whatever network affiliate offers them the best deal and the cable consumers would benefit. How about that?

Let's face it, most people just want to watch House, Survivor, Oprah etc and they don't give a damn what part of the country it's coming from whether local or otherwise.

Totally academic. Legislation will not happen because the courts have already ruled that stations DO have a right to be on cable in either a retrans consent or must carry. It is something called LOCALISM. Congress isn't going to get into that. They have said so.

foxeng

10-17-06, 05:59 PM

Something my cable friends ether forget or forget to mention. There is NO law that says a cable company HAS to have a HD signal from ANY source on their system. The law only states that cable only has to carry a SD signal of a station. Why? Because cable shot themselves in the foot with the lame argument that they don't have the bandwidth to carry BOTH analog or digital so they shouldn't be required to carry the HD signals. So if you can't get a digital station on cable and you supports cables right to continue to take the broadcasters signals for free, all I can say is "Too bad, Not my problem. You want to watch? Put up an antenna." Broadcasters somehow survived BEFORE cable. I suspect they can survive WITHOUT cable. But the real question is and one you guys keep avoiding is, "Can cable survive without the locals stations?" Most in the industry do not believe so.

Truth is we will go through this dance until analog shuts down and then cable will have no choice but to accept some form of compensation to the stations. It is ashame cable wants to deny their customers of HD signals now just because they feel they have some right to continue to make money off of the locals and not compensate them or is it they don't have the bandwidth for the second signals but they have bandwdith for VOD, internet, etc. It can't be both.

Zane

10-17-06, 06:27 PM

I'm confused. Even if I get satellite, I still HAVE to get House, Survivor, and Oprah from my local DMA station, and there are cases where because of negociation impasses they will be unavailable.

CBS/FOX HD channels are currently not available via DirecTV in the Raleigh DMA. I cannot substitute Greensboro or New York even though technically those feeds would be available to my equipment.
Yeah, I was thinking and typing and it did not all make it to my fingers. Even though those shows are not on WXLV, I was meaning that with the TWC and Sinclair issue, DirecTV customers will be able to get ABC in HD soon. So local reception will be available other than cable and talking to other markets by cable(even if allowed) would not mean as much.

jspENC

10-17-06, 06:32 PM

You want to watch? Put up an antenna." Broadcasters somehow survived BEFORE cable. I suspect they can survive WITHOUT cable. But the real question is and one you guys keep avoiding is, "Can cable survive without the locals stations?" Most in the industry do not believe so.

Exactly Cable would not be worth a damn W/O local stations, and they know it. Cable was born on local stations and will die over local stations. The exact is true for satellite. Now with this new digital stream and technology, cable feels a little nervous. They don't want people to figure out how simply we can get a superior picture, and for no cost. That is one reason I think they are bundleing all these services now. Dragging people in, once they see a little line given to the customer they start reeling them back in with all this package crap.

Davinleeds

10-17-06, 06:36 PM

Something my cable friends ether forget or forget to mention. There is NO law that says a cable company HAS to have a HD signal from ANY source on their system. The law only states that cable only has to carry a SD signal of a station.

That's what I've been telling my local thread. They can put up 4/5 SD channels and be done with it. BUT the news is HD. And we want it.

HDTVFanAtic

10-17-06, 06:47 PM

If a theater chain in NYC doesn't get Pirates of the Carribean this Summer, can they just get a copy from their theater in Burlington and ship it to NYC and show it instead?

Of course not.

CBS, FOX, NBC whoever grants the rights for their copyrighted program to a particular station in a TV DMA. Contained within those station agreements signed with the Networks are the fact that they cannot use the CBS, FOX, NBC etc programming outside of their Television DMA.

In fact, many cable companies that are in between two major cities that have 2 CBS stations (one from each) must shut down the network programming just as ESPN blacks out Sport Events in certain areas.

This is common in Palm Springs for example, where they have the LA Stations on except for network programming, along with the local LA stations.

So WRAL can sign an agreement to put their local CBS programming on TWC in Greensboro. However, they cannot allow the CBS Network programming to be aired and it would be blocked out just like ESPN does.

They would most likely also be forced to black out the syndicated programming such as Friends, Seinfeld, Simpsons, MASH, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight etc.

Thus, you are left with very little except for possibly their newscasts - and they may be forced to not use CBS National Feeds on those.

In other words, its not going to be viewed by many people and total waste of bandwidth in the Triad.

foxeng

10-17-06, 06:47 PM

That's what I've been telling my local thread. They can put up 4/5 SD channels and be done with it. BUT the news is HD. And we want it.

It appears that cable doesn't get that message yet. They would rather put up pay channel HD they can make money off of rather than deal with the local stations and have to pay fair compensation. After the analog shutdown, the field changes and they know it. Cables excuses go away.

If there is a station that you want isn't on your local system, you have three choices, put up an antenna, switch to a different provider or to use an overused line, "Call your local provider."

atoner

10-17-06, 10:21 PM

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 01:44 AM

Well, I can tell you first hand that Comcast Atlanta passes everything through Native - which I cannot say for the TWC systems which deal with rate shaping and other devices.

So I find it somewhat laughable that you are talking about the mediocre HD Picture Quality (of course, as we all know, not all displays are created equal and perhaps that is where some of your opinions come from) but that is what the stations actually look like OTA or via cable.

Personally, I find it absolutely comical that anyone would WANT to switch to MPEG4 at this stage. I just put another large dish up today so I can get the signals direct and not worry about the low rez and mpeg4 crap that the dbs facilities are dolling out.

bigsnyder

10-18-06, 07:52 AM

Why not switch to mpeg4? How is mpeg2 any better? There might be better
alternatives, but compared only to mpeg2, mpeg4 is the way to go in my opinion.

C Snyder

pwrmetal

10-18-06, 08:26 AM

posg

10-18-06, 08:42 AM

MilChad

10-18-06, 11:51 AM

I visited a friend in Atlanta this weekend. They have Comcast HD and get ABC, TBS, and ESPN-2 in HD. However, they only get INHD, not INHD2 or HDNET. I also noticed the mediocre HD picture quality on local channels that I'm used to seeing on TWC - MPEG-2 compression artifacts. I didn't watch enough SD to determine if their's is any better than TWC.

Based on the disussions, it sounds like DirecTV will be offering a lot of HD in the coming years. My feeling is that TWC will always be late to the game on offering new channels and technology like ESPNU and MPEG-4. If I do switch to DirecTV, this will be a big motivating factor. Any comments on the mid/long-term prospects of DirecTV vs. TWC? I don't want to jump ship now only to find that TWC fixes all their problems in a year and does DirecTV one better (doubtful).

From everything I've read on various forums, within the next year or 2 DirecTV is going to be hard to beat when it comes to the amount of HD content they offer. Once all the new birds are in place and active, they will have more than enough bandwidth to supply their customers with more national HD channels. That's what we all want right? As far as MPEG 4 PQ, I got my first look at it this past weekend at a friends house in Charlotte and it was top notch. To me it's like comparing a song encoded in MP3 format versus CD format. The MP3 sounds just as good but takes up less space.

foxeng

10-18-06, 12:08 PM

I think it's naive of broadcasters to say "we survived without cable before... we can now". Yes you did, but the landscape of TV has changed dramatically since then. The fact is the vast majority of America watches their TV through cable. An even larger majority of America watches their TV through cable or sattelite providers. If one network (on a grand scale) or local provider (on a smaller scale) pulled their signal from cable, they would DIE either nationally or locally depending on which scenario. The broadcaster's hold over cable only works if all of them pull their signal at once. Otherwise, they can't afford to have their competitors in vastly more homes than they are.

You have unknowingly made my point.

Because the TV landscape has changed, stations can survive better now due to the fact that there is not one MSO player in the market anymore. We get dropped from one service, we are still available on other services. Cable can't afford to loose ANY local station. Sat and Fios would get many of those subs. Why do think cable fights so hard to keep Fios from coming? They don't want the added competition. Sat is more than enough for them and Fios just makes the situation worse. Do you realize what kind of uproar would be if TWC took FOX off? With American Idol, Panthers football, it would be unbelievable. (I personally know what happens when something happens during one of those shows and the phones melt off the wall.) I know you find that hard to believe but you ask anyone from TWC and see what they do during Panthers football and shows like AI to be sure service isn't interrupted. TWC FULLY understands the ramifications of loosing a local station. It will cause viewers to do one of two things, put up antennas, something cable REALLY doesn't want to have happen because when that happens people realize that they CAN pick up stations from other markets for free that are not available for pay through cable and with digital, the PQ is equal or better than cable or secondly they can go to another MSO that does have that station(s). If you need proof, look at how people bailed on cable due to cost when satellite came on the scene 10 years. Something that still holds true in this market. This market has some of the highest sat sub numbers in the country. Those are subs that TWC hasn't won back for lots of reasons. In recent numbers, TWC subs are down even though they have all of these bundled features and I think in our little community here the number of people who are/have jumped from TWC to D* and E* just adds to that. How many people on AVSForum in general switch providers for lots of reasons, cost, PQ, content, etc not just from cable but from sat or Fios?

I think it's fair for the local stations to be compensated for their programming to be on cable, but I think it's unfair for them to negotiate with cable for that price when cable can't negotiate with other stations by law. I think as long as cable is forced to carry the local network only (by law) than the gov should probably determine what the "fair" payment should be and enforce it across the board. Remove the restriction from cable and I would be all for open negotiations for those retrans rights.

Now you talking about changing a legal contract between two parties. The parties being the content owner such as Freemantle Media or NBC Universal or Sony Pictures or 20th Productions, Harpo Productions, etc. These companies go into an agreement with NBC, CBS, NBC, FOX or local stations for certain territories, certain times and certain days. If the networks or stations or MSO's allowed other stations into competing markets, they have violated a contract that the content owners would be able to sue for financial damages. The courts or Congress would not get involved in a legally executed contract. And they have come out on the record saying as much in this case.

As I have stated, this monster cable created. Had they gone along with the must carry of digital signals in the same vein as the analogs, then you wouldn't have this problem. The digital signal would be locked to what the contract for the analog said. But cable wanted to deal with the digital signals separately and so here you go. They got what they wanted. "Be careful what you wish for. You may get it." And cable has it now. But when analog goes away, cable looses many of its excuses and will then have to negotiate in good faith or loose those signals and along with that loose subs. Look how much bad feelings there are with TWC and Sinclair over a digital signal that 90% of the doesn't care about. You expand that to the whole sub base loosing ABC and TWC has a big problem. Bigger than WXLV even though WXLV would not be unscathed either.

foxeng

10-18-06, 12:21 PM

I've brought this up several times in the past, but it's time to bring it up again.

Satellite operators "tier" broadcast channels. No matter how they market them, they are an optional service level. They pay cash to the stations for the subscribers that take the tier. At $5.99 per month, they split their revenue about 50/50 with the stations.

And cable doesn't have tiers? I think you need to go back and look at the fight between the NFL and TWC for moving the NFL Channel to a "sports only" tier to see how much cable mirrors sat in that regard.

Broadcasters have always been on the most basic of cable service, with 100% availabilty. They have historically not been a direct cost to the cable operator. Should a broadcaster desire cash compensation from a cable operator, the cable operator SHOULD be able to unbundle that channel from his basic service and place it on an optional tier. Fair is fair.

On the surface that sounds fair, BUT, the Supreme Court has ruled that local OTA broadcasting is available for free to the general public due to its charter by the FCC, cable doesn't have the right to tier it because that denies LOCALISM to a part of the market. As you very well know, cable has public service responsiblities just like broadcasters do. You tier the locals, you are denying the local population with many things local. All of that came up the first time cable tried to fight must carry in the 1980's and was reaffirmed in the 1990's when cable tried to fight must carry then.

Then we have the Sinclairs who want cable operators to pay extra for their HD service for 100% of their subscribers even when only around 20% of the households have equipment to receive it.

So does Disney with ESPN. So does Discovery with all of their channels. So does every other content distributor. Broadcasters are actually coming late to that party.

With all due respect, if broadcasters expect cash from cable operators, they need to allow cable operators to establish the same revenue model as satellite operators have. The broadcasters, however, somehow still have the mentality that they have the right to must carry AND retransmission simultaneously. And that's where their argument falls apart.

You want cable to be more like sat? NEWS FLASH. The sat ops pay for the signals and they are not even required to carry them like cable. Time for cable for to pony up if they want to be more like sat.

You also don't acknowledge that sat and now Fios do things so not to fall into the same holes cable did and get all of this regulation put on them, like must carry. Cable arrogance has gotten them into lots of regulation that they could have done without, like must carry.

posg

10-18-06, 12:37 PM

On the surface that sounds fair, BUT, the Supreme Court has ruled that local OTA broadcasting is available for free to the general public due to its charter by the FCC, cable doesn't have the right to tier it because that denies LOCALISM to a part of the market. As you very well know, cable has public service responsiblities just like broadcasters do. You tier the locals, you are denying the local population with many things local. All of that came up the first time cable tried to fight must carry in the 1980's and was reaffirmed in the 1990's when cable tried to fight must carry then.

It still sounds like you want all the benefits of both Must Carry and Retransmission Consent.

foxeng

10-18-06, 12:51 PM

It still sounds like you want all the benefits of both Must Carry and Retransmission Consent.

It doesn't matter what I think or want.

The Supreme Court ruled two different times that cable wamted to hold localism back for profit from all of the populous. That is a pretty big indictment from the judiciary. And to further the point, both rulings happened BEFORE consolidation. In the 80's when the first ruling came down, FOX wasn't even a network and owners could only own 7 TV stations. In the 90's when it came down owners could only own 14 TV stations and only own one per market and depending on the market size could only do one LMA. .

posg

10-18-06, 01:17 PM

I have to laugh when someone uses localism and Sinclair in the same sentence.

foxeng

10-18-06, 01:32 PM

To answer your question that you deleted, it is a valid question and does deserve an answer:

foxeng,

Should a Fox O&O be allowed to sell it's signal to DirecTV (which are both controlled by the same parent company) for X, but charge the local cable operator 10X, giving DirecTV a financial advantage? Would it constitute preditory pricing?

Should the Fox O&O allow tiering on one provider, yet require 100% coverage from another, especially when there's some obvious nepitism?

Just curious on your take....

First off, FOX Television Stations Group, which is the division that WGHP is in, is in no way directly connected to The DirecTV Group, that owns DirecTV other than through the 34% ownership that News Corp has in DirecTV. We are in two completely different divisions. While it is true that both FTS and TDG are both in the FOX Entertainment Group both groups act as if they are owned by different owners and both divisions go through the same dance that any other company dealing with DirecTV would. We are cut no slack. How can I say that? As one of the conditions of allowing News Corp to take control of DirecTV was that ANY News Corp property COULD NOT be given preferential treatment or News Corp would loose control and have all kinds of government sanctions levy against it. They are not going to let that happen. Too much at stake for them.

To take it further, our dealings with the network are based on the same thing. We have a contract for the network that runs X amount of time, just like every other non O & O FOX affiliate. We have to meet the same contractual obligations as all of the non O & O stations. As a matter of fact, as an O & O, we get put on the bottom of the heap if there are non O & O's ahead of us. There are many things we are forced to take from the mothership that really doesn't help us directly, but to keep it fair, we have to so as not to even appear of any improprieties. That is the cost of doing business. We negotiate in fairness with DirecTV for carriage just like we do with TWC. It is to our advantage from a business standpoint to do so. To not do so jeopardizes so much more than our carriage deal with a MSO. Just because you are a large corporation, doesn't let you off the hook. It just makes life tougher. Just ask Enron or WorldCom.

To add to that, we run a lot of 20th Television Property. There is a lot we don't run. We also run a lot of other companies properties. Why? Because we bid for that programming just like every other TV station. Sometimes we win. Often times we lose. Just like everyone else.

foxeng

10-18-06, 01:44 PM

I have to laugh when someone uses localism and Sinclair in the same sentence.

You are not denying my points. Just taking cheap shots at me.

posg

10-18-06, 01:52 PM

I just see the danger of an "Satellite Provider A" and "Group TV Owner B" entering into exclusive marketing agreements which are designed to drive business towards the satellite provider in exchange for cash.

I seem to have read something recently about Sinclair.......

foxeng

10-18-06, 01:54 PM

I can't answer for Sinclair. I have no connection.

posg

10-18-06, 01:56 PM

You are not denying my points. Just taking cheap shots at me.

Seriously not intended. But I do think that if localism is what is driving all these rules there should be some accountablity. A stick in a cornfield is not what the FCC had in mind when they wrote these rules. Is TBN-61 or PAX a local TV channel?

posg

10-18-06, 02:04 PM

Actually the Sinclair issue had to do with collective bargaining for all of their properties which shared coverage footprint with a particular cable MSO rather than on a market by market basis, while steering disgruntled viewers to Dish Network in exchange for compensation. Sleezy.

All I think the cable industry wants in a level playing field. They want the same flexibility in marketing their product as satellite. If they have tp conform to stricter rules, no wonder they adopt a "utility" mentality.

foxeng

10-18-06, 02:04 PM

Seriously not intended. But I do think that if localism is what is driving all these rules there should be some accountablity. A stick in a cornfield is not what the FCC had in mind when they wrote these rules. Is TBN-61 or PAX a local TV channel?

In some minds they could be considered lo be providing a local voice since they show local church programs. It was those type stations that must carry was created. Cable wanted to keep those kind of stations off since they have such small numbers and takes up bandwidth that could be used for channels that brought in money.

I am not saying they do or don't provide localism. The courts ruled they do and there isn't anything I can do about it and it would appear their status will not be changing anytime in the foreseeable future.

foxeng

10-18-06, 02:09 PM

All I think the cable industry wants in a level playing field. They want the same flexibility in marketing their product as satellite. If they have tp conform to stricter rules, no wonder they adopt a "utility" mentality.

They got themselves into those regulations. If they want out of them, they have to give up some things and change some things that I don't think they want to do. Cable still has a long history and perception to overcome and the current tactics aren't helping that history or perception.

But time will tell.

Zane

10-18-06, 02:20 PM

Seriously not intended. But I do think that if localism is what is driving all these rules there should be some accountablity. A stick in a cornfield is not what the FCC had in mind when they wrote these rules. Is TBN-61 or PAX a local TV channel?
WLXI TCT 61 is defiantly a local religious station. A large part of their programming comes from satellite but also includes local church services and in house produced and shot shows. Interestingly enough, WXLI gave up a local spot on DirecTV for network carriage of the TCT network. Pax passes all network programming to my knowledge. What's wrong with that? Are you saying that only cable be allowed to carry Pax? Ch 16 still meets all FCC regs. and sends EAS alerts for it's viewers who choose to get them off air.

posg

10-18-06, 02:22 PM

They got themselves into those regulations. If they want out of them, they have to give up some things and change some things that I don't think they want to do. Cable still has a long history and perception to overcome and the current tactics aren't helping that history or perception.

But time will tell.

Time nevers really tells. Time only replaces old questions with new questions. :)

Zane

10-18-06, 02:25 PM

posg

10-18-06, 02:33 PM

WLXI TCT 61 is defiantly a local religious station. A large part of their programming comes from satellite but also includes local church services and in house produced and shot shows. Interestingly enough, WXLI gave up a local spot on DirecTV for network carriage of the TCT network. Pax passes all network programming to my knowledge. What's wrong with that? Are you saying that only cable be allowed to carry Pax? Ch 16 still meets all FCC regs. and sends EAS alerts for it's viewers who choose to get them off air.

The whole concept of "localism" is to provide a service that has specific benefits to the community of license that could not be otherwise acheived by a regional or national service.

PAX may (or may not:)) provide programming that is of interest to the local population, but it does not satisfy the definition. Syndicated reruns of Seinfeld don't either. Nor does a newscast from Maryland. ;) ;) ;)

foxeng

10-18-06, 02:38 PM

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 02:43 PM

I think it's fair for the local stations to be compensated for their programming to be on cable, but I think it's unfair for them to negotiate with cable for that price when cable can't negotiate with other stations by law.

They already can. As stated, Cable and negotiate with any station in america for retransmission rights already.

If I rent a car from Hertz, I cannot assign you permission to legally drive it - as I don't own the car and Hertz specified only I could drive it.

The STATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE OWNER'S RIGHTS to deliver something THEY DO NOT OWN - the Network rights - outside of their DMA.

They Networks and Syndicators will not remove this any more than McDonalds will let a different franchise owner open the street from each other. Each are franchised certain geographic rights.

So again, TWC can sign retrans with every station in North Carolina - they will just have to blackout any Network and Syndicated programming - just as ESPN does now, for ACC Games for example, where the ACC has sold the local rights to local broadcast stations.

YOU CANNOT SELL OR REBROADCAST TO THE WORLD WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN.

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 02:50 PM

From everything I've read on various forums, within the next year or 2 DirecTV is going to be hard to beat when it comes to the amount of HD content they offer. Once all the new birds are in place and active, they will have more than enough bandwidth to supply their customers with more national HD channels. That's what we all want right? As far as MPEG 4 PQ, I got my first look at it this past weekend at a friends house in Charlotte and it was top notch. To me it's like comparing a song encoded in MP3 format versus CD format. The MP3 sounds just as good but takes up less space.

Too bad for the last 15 years people have listened to music off their computer with $100 speakers or a Walkman/IPOD. Anyone who has ever listened to the 2 on a real stereo system knows there is night and day difference.

Try listening going to a real concert sometime and see how real instruments really sound. The point of impact on the string, the decay of the strings - the sound of air through instruments. On MP3 you are lucky to be able to tell its a piece of metal getting hit which was actually a cymbal. There is no attack or decay.

Pretty sad that people are taking HDTV down the same path.

posg

10-18-06, 03:01 PM

They already can. As stated, Cable and negotiate with any station in america for retransmission rights already.

If I rent a car from Hertz, I cannot assign you permission to legally drive it - as I don't own the car and Hertz specified only I could drive it.

The STATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE OWNER'S RIGHTS to deliver something THEY DO NOT OWN - the Network rights - outside of their DMA.

They Networks and Syndicators will not remove this any more than McDonalds will let a different franchise owner open the street from each other. Each are franchised certain geographic rights.

So again, TWC can sign retrans with every station in North Carolina - they will just have to blackout any Network and Syndicated programming - just as ESPN does now, for ACC Games for example, where the ACC has sold the local rights to local broadcast stations.

YOU CANNOT SELL OR REBROADCAST TO THE WORLD WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN.

Not that this has to do much with to your point, but years ago we had to protect our local NBC KRON San Francisco against KCRA, the Sacramento NBC affiliate which enjoyed legacy carriage on our system. This only applied to "simultaneous" NBC network duplication.

Our switching equipment used an audio detection circuit which would shut KCRA down if it detected 60 seconds of synchronized audio between KRON and KCRA. KCRA knew that most S.F. market stations used this technology, so they delayed their NBC feed by seven seconds to trick the detector so they would not be blacked out. KRON was furious. The cable system was owned by the same company that owned KRON. We dumped KCRA. Subscribers went nuts, because KCRA carried a soap that KRON didn't and shuffled the rest of NBC daytime to avoid blackouts.

See, I told you I didn't have much to do with your post. Except that's why cable systems avoid getting into these corners.

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 03:29 PM

Technology has come a long way since then :D

Rudy165

10-18-06, 05:21 PM

MilChad

10-18-06, 11:06 PM

Too bad for the last 15 years people have listened to music off their computer with $100 speakers or a Walkman/IPOD. Anyone who has ever listened to the 2 on a real stereo system knows there is night and day difference.

Try listening going to a real concert sometime and see how real instruments really sound. The point of impact on the string, the decay of the strings - the sound of air through instruments. On MP3 you are lucky to be able to tell its a piece of metal getting hit which was actually a cymbal. There is no attack or decay.

Pretty sad that people are taking HDTV down the same path.

The bottom line is, I would be hesitant to judge the PQ of MPEG 4 video transmission until you have a chance to see it. Like I said, I had the chance to see it this past weekend on my friend's brand new Sony 60' Grand WEGA and the PQ was stunning. I've seen more than my fair share of HD content to know what's good and what isn't and it was very impressive. It would be fun to take the "Pepsi Challenge" to see if anybody could tell the difference between MPEG 4 and OTA. Phillip Swann knows a thing or two about HiDef and if nothing else, he would agree with me.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/dtvpicture101306.htm

atoner

10-18-06, 11:09 PM

I'm glad you find my comments so amusing...

As I mentioned, the HD broadcasts we were watching (football on ESPN, CBS, and FOX) appeared to have MPEG artifacts similar to the difference I see between OTA and TWC. The display itself had problems since it is DLP, but I can discern a display's faults vs. the video feed. Perhaps the network feeds were poor. My point was that Comcast didn't have better PQ than TWC on the HD channels, at least for my short study. I've seen OTA (ABC) and it is much better than what I've seen on TWC or Comcast. Another possibility is that CBS, ESPN, and Fox had poor network feeds and would look just as bad OTA/satellite. I guess I'll have to check this out.

Regarding MPEG4, it is clearly superior to MPEG2. My point was that MPEG4 would be better than the crap TWC is doing with MPEG2. How does DirecTV handle their HDTV feeds? Do they transcode from MPEG2 to MPEG4, or do they get a raw or lightly compressed feed that is then compressed with MPEG4?

Well, I can tell you first hand that Comcast Atlanta passes everything through Native - which I cannot say for the TWC systems which deal with rate shaping and other devices.

So I find it somewhat laughable that you are talking about the mediocre HD Picture Quality (of course, as we all know, not all displays are created equal and perhaps that is where some of your opinions come from) but that is what the stations actually look like OTA or via cable.

Personally, I find it absolutely comical that anyone would WANT to switch to MPEG4 at this stage. I just put another large dish up today so I can get the signals direct and not worry about the low rez and mpeg4 crap that the dbs facilities are dolling out.

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 11:23 PM

The bottom line is, I would be hesitant to judge the PQ of MPEG 4 video transmission until you have a chance to see it. Like I said, I had the chance to see it this past weekend on my friend's brand new Sony 60' Grand WEGA and the PQ was stunning. I've seen more than my fair share of HD content to know what's good and what isn't and it was very impressive. It would be fun to take the "Pepsi Challenge" to see if anybody could tell the difference between MPEG 4 and OTA. Phillip Swann knows a thing or two about HiDef and if nothing else, he would agree with me.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/dtvpicture101306.htm

Phillip Swann is an bumbling dolce who cannot count to 10 as has been proven in the HDTV section in the last month and seldoms gives anything negative comments as he wants to be hired as their "consultant".

http://www.tvpredictions.com/hireswanni.html

I guess you will be known by the experts you respect, lol.

And btw, we did the "Pepsi Challenge" with mp3s and CDs in LA with the LA Times in attendence. 100% chose correctly.

Pretty sad that you think MPEG4 in today's enviroment looks good on a Sony 60" WEGA. You've set the bar pretty low.

HDTVFanAtic

10-18-06, 11:27 PM

I'm glad you find my comments so amusing...

As I mentioned, the HD broadcasts we were watching (football on ESPN, CBS, and FOX) appeared to have MPEG artifacts similar to the difference I see between OTA and TWC. The display itself had problems since it is DLP, but I can discern a display's faults vs. the video feed. Perhaps the network feeds were poor. My point was that Comcast didn't have better PQ than TWC on the HD channels, at least for my short study. I've seen OTA (ABC) and it is much better than what I've seen on TWC or Comcast. Another possibility is that CBS, ESPN, and Fox had poor network feeds and would look just as bad OTA/satellite. I guess I'll have to check this out.

Regarding MPEG4, it is clearly superior to MPEG2. My point was that MPEG4 would be better than the crap TWC is doing with MPEG2. How does DirecTV handle their HDTV feeds? Do they transcode from MPEG2 to MPEG4, or do they get a raw or lightly compressed feed that is then compressed with MPEG4?

At this point in time, .h264 only works well between 15Mbps and 20 Mbps. At that point you loose more in conversion than its worth - and no MPEG4 provider is giving it 15Mbps.

Clearly you've never worked with real time MPEG4 encoders to know where the state of the industry is.

And yes, Comcast Atlanta is one of the better quality systems out there and as stated, the pass 100% of what is delievered on all their HD Channels - they do not limit or rate shape - unlike TWC.

What the source transmits, the Comcast Atlanta system delivers. All viewers should be so lucky.

GSOcanesfan

10-19-06, 08:46 AM

MilChad

10-19-06, 08:55 AM

Phillip Swann is an bumbling dolce who cannot count to 10 as has been proven in the HDTV section in the last month and seldoms gives anything negative comments as he wants to be hired as their "consultant".

http://www.tvpredictions.com/hireswanni.html

I guess you will be known by the experts you respect, lol.

And btw, we did the "Pepsi Challenge" with mp3s and CDs in LA with the LA Times in attendence. 100% chose correctly.

Pretty sad that you think MPEG4 in today's enviroment looks good on a Sony 60" WEGA. You've set the bar pretty low.

It doesn't matter what I think about MPEG4, I'm just reporting on what I've seen. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject of HDTV. So, what's your opinion on the current best way to receive HDTV broadcasts into your home? Also, what's the best current HDTV display and HDTV tuner out there right now? Apparently we all need to set our standards a little higher so I'd like to know which programming provider to call and which TV I need to go out and buy so I can be among the elite. I had no idea that what I've been watching the past couple of years was so inferior. Thanks for pointing that out.

uncrph90

10-19-06, 11:29 AM

I noticed it twice last night during Lost, both times were towards the end of the show. It didn't lose audio, but the video froze for a second.

Was it during Locke's speech on the beach? It might have been a network issue--I recorded it on NY MPEG2 HD and had a freeze there.

ee1993

10-19-06, 09:16 PM

OK, on a different note. I have seen a few post from a few viewers who have had some video stuttering on the WXLV signal. Is that still happening? When do you notice it? I have a very early Samsung receiver in my office that seems to have a problem with audio stutter sometimes but it only happens during a commercial break. I can find nothing wrong here, so I am hoping it is a quirk of a very early chipset. If some of you are having problems I would like to know so I can address it.

Zane,

I still have a video problem with ch 45 on one TV only. The 811 receives ch 45's ABC evening programming fine but the new ViewSonic N3251w has video stuttering on the ABC HD drama programms only. No other stations show this problem. Same antenna for both. Note that the ESPN on ABC HD sports programs have been fine on the TV. I looks like I am stuck with an $800 TV that has sub par performance on OTA. I bought the 32" set from an online discounter and it is was sold non-returnable. My options are to use it with a sat set top box, buy an OTA HD set top box (they are now made from unobtainium) or don't watch ch 45 on that TV. COuld it have something to do with the frame rate?

gregchak

10-19-06, 09:31 PM

HDTVFanAtic

10-19-06, 11:10 PM

Has anyone that has gotten the 6.3 software upgrade for their HR10-250 D* receiver had any problems with their Dolby Digital? I'm getting inconsistent audio dropouts. I notice a lot on WGHP, but I notice it on all channels that I am running DD through my receiver. It did not start happening until I got the TiVo 6.3 software update. They had originally delayed the upgrade because of recording problems, but I guess they got that fixed and were able to continue sending the update. I have not read anywhere that anyone had any audio problems with it.

Foxeng might want to jump in here, but its interesting you say that you see it the most on WGHP - since Fox keeps their 5.1 encoding on all the time - where the other networks do not.

I wonder if you are hearing it only during 5.1 flagged broadcasts.

Do you hear the same frequency of dropouts with UHD as they are another network that keep the 5.1 flags on all the time regardless of source.

Bronco70

10-20-06, 01:58 AM

My 10-250 just got the 6.3 upgrade a few days ago. I have had audio dropouts through the toslink connection to my pre-pro since installed back in Dec. 05. The problem seems to be increasing in both frequency and duration since v. 6.3. I have not called D* up to this point. Based on my knowledge of their CSR's expertise going back to 1995 they would not be of any help with what amounts to a configuration problem. Yes, Foxeng might be able to shed some light. While watching the Mets end their season tonight, a sad event for me since I remember Mr. Coleman and the '64 team as well as what occured in 1969 while living in Queens, NY. So GO TIGERS.

Anyway, my point is, that while watching WGHP audio dropouts occurred many times with a duration of up to 5 seconds. The video was rock solid during the audio dropouts. OTA is certainly a different issue for the 10-250 then SAT, or is it? What makes me curious is that a sony sat-a4, still in use along with a sony T-60 have never had this problem.

Thanks for the discussion of cable v. broadcasters etc. Great people here.

Joe

HDTVFanAtic

10-20-06, 03:34 AM

I think the real question you need to answer to narrow down this problem is how often do you get the drop out on a station when its in 2.0? If WGHP has more drops than most, then it sure sounds like its a problem when the 5.1 flag is on as opposed to 2.0. That is where I would start troubleshooting.

foxeng

10-20-06, 08:51 AM

Are you seeing the dropouts when it changes from net to local/local to net or is it random? If it is net to local/local to net, there are different 5.1 encoding between net and local so the upgrade may not like that. If it is during non network programming, that is the same 5.1 stream and that might indicate the upgrade may still have a bug in it.

Zane

10-20-06, 10:05 AM

Zane,

I still have a video problem with ch 45 on one TV only. COuld it have something to do with the frame rate?
Well, I really am not sure. It could be the set or our signal. When I measure our signal on the streamscope, only consistant error I get is "PCR audio buffer out of bounds", I think this is why Fox Eng is experiencing the momentary audio blip every 5 or 10 minutes. I do not see the video stuttering on any of the receivers or sets we have here. The samsung I have in my office stutters both audio and video during a commercial break then locks up. If I leave the signal stregenth meter up all the time the receiver will not lock up or stutter. We are continuing to analyze the stream to figure out if we do indeed have a problem. We can send recordings to Triveni for their engineers to break down and determine where a problem may be. I appreciate the input to help us track down these issues.

foxeng

10-20-06, 10:18 AM

Zane,

Could it be that the PCR buffer error translates to different problems on different receivers depending on the vintage and age of the software in the receiver? We know for a fact that each receiver manufacturer has molded the protocol to fit "their" interpretation of what the code is suppose to be, not what ATSC says.

ee1993

10-20-06, 10:48 AM

Well, I really am not sure. It could be the set or our signal. When I measure our signal on the streamscope, only consistant error I get is "PCR audio buffer out of bounds", I think this is why Fox Eng is experiencing the momentary audio blip every 5 or 10 minutes. I do not see the video stuttering on any of the receivers or sets we have here. The samsung I have in my office stutters both audio and video during a commercial break then locks up. If I leave the signal stregenth meter up all the time the receiver will not lock up or stutter. We are continuing to analyze the stream to figure out if we do indeed have a problem. We can send recordings to Triveni for their engineers to break down and determine where a problem may be. I appreciate the input to help us track down these issues.

Zane,

Thanks for looking into this. I should note that the picture quality on my ViewSonic 32" LCD is excellent from your station, no pixelization or dropouts, only the constantly occurring momentary freezing of the video. Seems to be only on 16 by 9 HD network (but not sports). This set has no signal quality meter but the 811 on the same antenna is reading 90 or better. ViewSonic makes good monitors but they don't yet have a reputation for producing complete television receivers. I went cheep on this one, should have paid up for a Sony.

gregchak

10-20-06, 11:20 AM

Glad to know its not just me this time. Misery loves company!

This is what is happening to me. The audio drop outs are very random. I get them most noticeably on WGHP during network programs. Like Bronco70 mentioned, it was happening quite often during the game last night. I have also had similar problems before the upgrade with my digital optical audio output to my receiver, but it has never come close to being this bad. Then it was only when switching from DD to LPCM when I changed channels. I had to switch over to LPCM last night because it was becoming too annoying. I would say 3 minutes on, 20 secs off. I did notice that every once in a while, the video would freeze for a split second right before the audio came back on. I do not think, however that this is a 5.1 or WGHP problem, I think its a DD problem. The problem exists both on live and recorded programs. It does not happen as much on ESPN, ESPN2 and the other HD tier channels from D*, but it does happen. WFMY gives me the same problem along with WXLV more so than the D* channels but less than WGHP. I tried changing the DD output option on the receiver to go to LPCM and had a couple of hiccups there too; though it was when I first changed it over and then it never happened again. I do not have any problems with 2.0 audio from the other sat channels. So it seems like it only happens with DD is being processed.

I too was thinking about calling customer service, but wanted to see if it was just me or if others were having similar issues.

MilChad

10-20-06, 11:58 AM

For what it's worth, I watched the baseball game on Fox last night and didn't have any DD issues other than a couple of audio and video dropouts that happened about 11:00. I think that was due to a little wind in my area more than anything else. I have an old Samsung SIR-TS360 receiver. I switched to the Fox feed out of NY and no problems there either. I wonder if this could be an issue with specific DTV tuners?

Zane

10-20-06, 12:00 PM

I think the PCR buffer overflow can manifest itself differently on various receivers. The LG"S and the Samsung DLP set in our lobby have no problems. The old samsung in my office has the problems. I notice pcr errors with others stations broadcasting 5.1, but they do not always translate into noticable reception problems. Probably due to newer advances in receiver chipsets. I agree with Fox Eng that the wide range of "standards" between transmission and reception is a problem. I had great reception last night with my antenna pointed at level cross, I was able to get 9-1 out of charlotte without moving the antenna. I compared signal back and forth and noticed just a slight difference. 9-1's 5.1 seemed just a tick clearer on the surround but there was an annoying snap in the audio every couple of minutes. We use the same Dolby equipment and have it set to ABC recommendations. I have a cheap 5.1 system so I may not be making the best judgements.