Sinclair Cable Carriage - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 07:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
shuttermaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Are there any statistics to show what the total viewership was of HD viewers during the Superbowl or the Daytona 500?
shuttermaker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 08:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why am I not surprised? Sinclair once again shows what they are made of. I have nothing but contempt for the way this company does business. They are the lowest scum of the broadcasting world.

There, that felt better.

And just when I was starting to get used to watching 24 in HD (the only Fox program I really ever watch, except for sports). Sorry Sinclair, I will NOT be buying an OTA setup just so I can watch your sorry station.
hondo21 is offline  
post #273 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 09:32 PM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna. Give me a break! And again, this goes back to why should Sinclair give it's valuable programming over to Cable companies who turn around and sell their programming but eliminate their advertising revenue by providing DVR's and the like.

I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #274 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 09:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
gtree10's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna. Give me a break! And again, this goes back to why should Sinclair give it's valuable programming over to Cable companies who turn around and sell their programming but eliminate their advertising revenue by providing DVR's and the like.

I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

So is sinclair now providing free OTA HD boxes, where do I get mine?
gtree10 is offline  
post #275 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 09:56 PM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And WHO made that choice when they bought their TV? The purchaser chose Volutantarily to be at the mercy of their programming provider; don't blame Sinclair that he got chinsy when it came to buying their TV! The purchaser chose to buy an incomplete product, Sinclair didn't force it on the purchaser. Like I said, the purchaser chose to be at the mercy of the Cable/Sat provider, big surprise, that you're getting screwed by them, them not being willing to shell out $.50 on your behalf so you can enjoy that programming.

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #276 of 1851 Old 02-23-2005, 11:37 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:


Originally posted by j_buckingham80


I'm still amazed at the level outrage generated over an inability to "splurge" on a $20 antenna...(CM 4221 btw).

Here we again...
Keenan is online now  
post #277 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 12:55 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Of course the "valuable programming" the poor folks at Sinclair don't want to "give away" is, for the most part, programming coming down the line from their network affiliations.

Life would be so much easier if the networks were just allowed to sell us their programming directly. (And I am convinced that not too many years from now, they will be able to do just that.)

Then if Sinclair, or anyone else, wanted to charge us for THEIR programming, they might have to provide some compelling reason for us to pay for it.

They -- and other group owners -- might have to deviate from putting the cheapest programming on their stations to trying, in some manner, to put the best programming on their stations.

What a concept.
fredfa is offline  
post #278 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 03:16 AM
Senior Member
 
BlackwaterStout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It amazes me that after all of the BS Sinclair is pulling there are still people defending them. These people must work for Sinclair or else have a stake in the company somehow.
BlackwaterStout is offline  
post #279 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 04:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:


Originally posted by gtree10
So is sinclair now providing free OTA HD boxes, where do I get mine?

And make my $20 antenna super-duper enough to pull a signal from 90 miles. I don't exactly live in a rural area either. Here in the Myrtle Beach area all the towers are in the middle of the state. You don't see any antennas here.
Gary J is offline  
post #280 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 05:24 AM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Really, a lot of people are frusterated with Sinclair, as though they have done something wrong. Really, they haven't...All the arguements come down to...everyone else gives away their signal for free to Cable, so Sinclair should too; that, just is not persuasive. Go look at www.myfreehdtv.com, obviously, broadcasters think they have some incentive to move people away from Cable and Sat cos to OTA transmissions, I've already presented a couple (I think) good reasons for why this is so.

Look, if you want a bunch of other programming choices (Cable or Sat), and be offered the ability to fast forward through advertising (DVRs) one better be prepared to pay for programming. Because otherwise there's just a lot less ways to generate revenue. And coo, I have no interest in Sinclair, except that I used to be a cable customer and have since gone OTA only. Which is no more or less of an interest than, being a cable customer who doesn't want to see Comcast pay for programming on the broadcast affiliates.

As to the Networks selling their programming directly to cable, that may happen, but will the cable cos really benefit? At that point they really will be paying for Network programming, and you know what, the Network's could probably command much more than $.50, if, for example, ESPN is worth about $3/sub, one can imagine how much CBS would be.

And really as to blaming Sinclair, do they really look to be the baddies? They thought they had a deal with Comcast, tentatively allowed the Comcast to carry the biggest event of the year, but ultimately decided that Comcast wasn't being reasonable? What more can they do? Sinclair seemed to be incredibly reasonable esp. in allowing the Super Bowl on Comcast. Forbid that they should try to seek a good deal after allowing the SB on Comcast.

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #281 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 05:34 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:


Originally posted by coomarlin
It amazes me that after all of the BS Sinclair is pulling there are still people defending them. These people must work for Sinclair or else have a stake in the company somehow.

I wonder how much of the outrage about Sinclair is due to their political leanings (please don't expand on that). I don't see the same outrage over Raycom or any other broadcast groups - and it's odd to see a cable company garner this kind of loyalty.

I also don't get the lack of AVS members that would rather absorb $0.50 per major network, than support a deal that promotes multicasting. We've voted with our wallet through this transition and have had very few programming supporters. Yet the one source of the vast amount of HD original programming is when we so "no more" - not gonna pay a penny. But your cable bill will continue to rise and the biggest benefactor will be the cable company and the 100's of SD networks they have and will be adding.

I'd rather see the cable company lock in a long-term deal that assures adequate bandwidth and a flat fee (per HD subscriber). I also would like the 700 or so affiliates who went out on a financial limb to give us HD, see some return on that investment and maybe even be able to fund converting the local studios to HD as well. It would also prompt the affiliates who are not HD to potentially upgrade with some foreseeable payoff date.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #282 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
I wonder how much of the outrage about Sinclair is due to their political leanings (please don't expand on that). I don't see the same outrage over Raycom or any other broadcast groups - and it's odd to see a cable company garner this kind of loyalty.

I had no idea of their political leanings when I was sworn at and hung up on by their engineers in St. Louis just for simpy asking when they would comply with 5/1 deadline in May 2002. From top to bottom since then I've gotten nothing but lies. This frustration was compounded by finding out about the used car lot, helicopter, and prostitute scandals along with the later political leanings crap thrust upon viewers this past 1.5 years.
Joseph S is offline  
post #283 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 06:14 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:


Originally posted by Joseph S
I had no idea of their political leanings when I was sworn at and hung up on by their engineers in St. Louis just for simpy asking when they would comply with 5/1 deadline in May 2002. From top to bottom since then I've gotten nothing but lies. This frustration was compounded by finding out about the used car lot, helicopter, and prostitute scandals along with the later political leanings crap thrust upon viewers this past 1.5 years.

That explains why you hate Sinclair, but it doesn't explain why you would be happy with a multicasting deal, but not a $0.50 per sub deal. What about all your other affiliates, do you hate them as well?

I could not care less about Sinclair or any other group, I'm only looking at it from the perspective of the local affiliate vs. the cable company.

I don't understand the logic behind paying $0.50 for a National network feed, but not the local affiliate's feed of the same network.

I don't understand the logic of the cable subs saying that local HD through cable is passed through "free", then ignoring the $10 - $15 a month for analog SD local networks that they are being charged.

If the arguments are simply because you hate a specific station or group, that's fine - but try and look at the broader view of HD moving forward. If affiliates are paid off with sub-channel carriage, we'll end up with mediocre HD for all the original programming that the networks are generating. We'll all end up paying $1.50 a month for the "20th Century FOX HD" channel and watching "24" in HD 9 months after it's network debut so we can watch it with decent PQ.

Selfishly, I don't want cable to offer a multicasting deal that will end up screwing the 35% (guesstimate) of us who either (paid to) get it free OTA or are willing to pay a DBS company for it. If the 65% of cable subs are the only ones that are not willing to pay to get quality HD, then they will be the ones responsible for HD-Lite network programming that we'll all be complaining about in 5 years.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #284 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 06:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


That explains why you hate Sinclair, but it doesn't explain why you would be happy with a multicasting deal, but not a $0.50 per sub deal. What about all your other affiliates, do you hate them as well?

No, though one is inept at flipping the switch and I would like it addressed.

I own four OTA devices, none of which can pick up both of Sinclair's underpowered stations with the antenna in one position because they are drowned out by the other affiliates broadcasting at much higher power. There's no way I should have to pay or will pay for QAM when they aren't paying for a signal and are only upconverting/HD on one of two stations.
Joseph S is offline  
post #285 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
shuttermaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I pay $6.95 a month for TWCs HD tier. I would have no problem paying an additional 50 cents or 2 dollars more per month in order to get FOX HD without multicasting.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #286 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 08:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
beaudot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If we receive fox by cable, what do we care if they are multicasting?

I'll pay 50 cents or take multicasting. I don't care, just give it to me
beaudot is offline  
post #287 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 08:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's been said before, but let me repeat. I have no problem with the general concept of paying an "al a carte" fee for the Fox HD signal. And I would have no problem with Sinclair getting that money. But that isn't the way the system is set up right now. If I'm going to pay a la carte then I want to be able to choose ALL my stations individually instead of the cable tier system. If I could do that then I would be able to greatly reduce my overall bill while paying for what's important to me.

However, given the system that is existing the precedent has already been set that local broadcasters in general are not getting paid by the cable companies in this way. So to me, when Sinclair wants to change that paradigm and I can't get their HD signal via cable, Sinclair is the bad guy. Sorry if you disagree, that's just the way I as the consumer see it. If it's good enough for the other stations, it should be good enough for them. Period.

Don't forget too, we're talking about more than $0.50, because if Sinclair gets it then all the rest will want the same deal, and may even be entitled to demand it under "most favored nation" clauses in their contracts. So now we're talking about several dollars a month more.
hondo21 is offline  
post #288 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 08:43 AM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It should be noted Hondo, there's nothing that prevents you from purchasing channels a la carte, but the Cable Cos. The Cable Cos consistently argue that bundling is a total necessity in the cable business.

Don't forget that this system was created when ATSC didn't even exist. The signal most would receive would be plagued by snow and ghosting. Those concerns now abating, gives the broadcasters a little more leverage than before.

And really, it's not just Sinclair, a number of the broadcast groups are trying to get some kind of per cash fee. Sinclair just has more numerous desirable affiliates.

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #289 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 08:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by j_buckingham80
...
And really as to blaming Sinclair, do they really look to be the baddies? They thought they had a deal with Comcast, tentatively allowed the Comcast to carry the biggest event of the year, but ultimately decided that Comcast wasn't being reasonable? What more can they do? Sinclair seemed to be incredibly reasonable esp. in allowing the Super Bowl on Comcast. Forbid that they should try to seek a good deal after allowing the SB on Comcast.

Yes, Sinclair really does look to be the bad guy to me. None of us really know what went on in these negotiations, so it's all speculation. But observing what I will say is the less than exemplary "character" of Sinclair over the past few years my suspicions are that this was all a ploy by them from the beginning, and they intended all along to eventually pull the stations back to try to make a statement.

Allowing Comcast to have the signal for a few weeks, conveniently covering the Super Bowl and Daytona 500, was something that would deflect heat from the public for those high profile events. It would also get people used to receiving it on cable so they would then "know what they're missing," then hopefully it would put Comcast in a bad light as the ones who didn't do what it took to keep the station on. I think Sinclair is desparate and realizes that their hokey "freehtv" campaign is a loser that isn't earning them a cent.

I'm not a fan or defender of Comcast and it's prices and policies in general, but Sinclair is a number of rungs below them in my opinion.

BTW, others have already pointed out the stupidity of your uninformed statements about a "$20 antenna" -- not everybody can receive the OTA signals, and not everyone wants to pay for an OTA box which costs a lot more than $20 and would take up another input on the TV they may not want to use. We're very happy that you're happy with Sinclair OTA, but we don't need you telling us we should suck it up and be happy too.
hondo21 is offline  
post #290 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:05 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:


Originally posted by hondo21
BTW, others have already pointed out the stupidity of your uninformed statements about a "$20 antenna" -- not everybody can receive the OTA signals, and not everyone wants to pay for an OTA box which costs a lot more than $20 and would take up another input on the TV they may not want to use. We're very happy that you're happy with Sinclair OTA, but we don't need you telling us we should suck it up and be happy too.

There's nothing uninformed about the $20 antenna. It may not apply to all, but I put a $5 (now $15) RS double-bowtie antenna on my TV and picked up all 7 HD networks in Charlotte. My TV, and an increasing number of them moving forward, have a digital tuner built-in and a cheap antenna is all that's needed. I upgraded to a $26 (rooftop) antenna and now get HD channels from 3 markets. And are you really saying that the fact that you do not want to use an input on your TV means that the local affiliate should not get a retransmission fee

Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may take, and that doesn't impact you at all. But your choice to go with cable doesn't mean you're entitled to anything specifically either - and really has no bearing on what is a fair resolution.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #291 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
j_buckingham80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks CPanther,

Lol...I don't think my comments are stupid or uniformed ;-), people who don't want to go the OTA route, which for one channel for something like 85% of the population would be really pretty easy are entitled to make that decision, but really, I've been amazed at how easy getting reception is. Heck in the Walnut Creek-HDTV thread people in the hilly East bay have been able to get ATSC signals from Sacto and Sutro tower. But, if that's not you, it sucks, I know it sucks and I'm sorry, but sometimes, life just sucks, and that's not Sinclair's or the broadcaster's fault.
And like I said about the OTA box, you have the right not to pay for one, but then you're going to have to buy from Comcast or DBS, and that puts you at the provider's mercy. That's just life; however, demanding Sinclair give away it's product for free really isn't right.

OTA Only since 2/05!
j_buckingham80 is offline  
post #292 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
GoIrish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote]Originally posted by j_buckingham80
[b]It should be noted Hondo, there's nothing that prevents you from purchasing channels a la carte, but the Cable Cos. The Cable Cos consistently argue that bundling is a total necessity in the cable business.

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

The cable co's say it's impractical as the only way to do this is to scramble all channels so that you can then unscramble only those that a customer wants. That would force more than half of all US cable households to have to have a box, which they don't currently have, to keep receiving what they already have. This doesn't include all those other outlets in the homes that would have to have a box as well.

Independent studies support that the cost would be higher and channel choice would decline. The FCC and the GAO also agree that this would be the outcome.

And, there does not exist a channel today that is advertiser supported that contractually allows a cable co. to sell it independently. They require tier carriage.

Your statement is not accurate and I wanted to offer this rebuttal. My intention is not to get this thread off-track as this issue is well worn on AVS.

GoIrish
GoIrish is offline  
post #293 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:41 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:


Originally posted by CPanther95
Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may take, and that doesn't impact you at all.

"Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may (be able to, if they can) take"


I told you, I have a program that searches for remarks like this...
Keenan is online now  
post #294 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:46 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Right, GoIrish - this is not an a la carte issue. The assumption is that this fee would be incorporated into the cable rates. You would also have to assume that this fee would be (x4) plus something less for UPN and WB.

I happen to think it is actually the best thing for high quality HD, and the best thing for expansion of HD in the smaller markets. I would really like to hear the details though. For instance, is this fee for HD subs only, or are they trying to get this fee for ALL subs.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #295 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:47 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:


Originally posted by keenan
"Bottom line is going the OTA route is a choice some may (be able to, if they can) take"


I told you, I have a program that searches for remarks like this...

Crap...I'll have to add the Keenan clause to my sig.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #296 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:54 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:


Originally posted by j_buckingham80
Thanks CPanther,

Lol...I don't think my comments are stupid or uniformed ;-), people who don't want to go the OTA route, which for one channel for something like 85% of the population would be really pretty easy are entitled to make that decision, but really, I've been amazed at how easy getting reception is. Heck in the Walnut Creek-HDTV thread people in the hilly East bay have been able to get ATSC signals from Sacto and Sutro tower.

What 85%? OTA reception is easy for some people and for you, living in one of the flattest places on earth, the California San Joaquin Valley, I can understand why you thinks it's so easy. Fact is roughly only 19% of the nation gates their TV OTA. In the SF bay area is as low 12%. Yes, some folks in the Walnut Creek-easy bay have been able to get OTA, but the overwhelming majority who have tried cannot.

Quote:



But, if that's not you, it sucks, I know it sucks and I'm sorry, but sometimes, life just sucks, and that's not Sinclair's or the broadcaster's fault.

It is if they are not broadcasting at full power, or not putting as much effort into propagating their digital signal as they do with their analog signal.

Quote:



That's just life; however, demanding Sinclair give away it's product for free really isn't right.

It's not right for Sinclair to subsidize their digital signal by forcing people who cannot get it OTA(cable-sat) to pay for it so that OTA viewers can get it for free.
Keenan is online now  
post #297 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 09:55 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:


Originally posted by CPanther95
Crap...I'll have to add the Keenan clause to my sig.

Yes, I'll have my attorneys see if that will be acceptable..
Keenan is online now  
post #298 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 10:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I do not dispute the price of an OTA antenna. Your statements were "stupid and uninformed" because they simplistically implied that all anyone needs is a $20 antenna to get their Sinclair HD channel and all would be rosy. What a bunch of idiots we all are for not just spending that $20, huh? I'm sorry, but you insult me by implying that. Please note these points:

1. My HDTV, like many others, does not have a built-in OTA tuner. Thus, to get just this one station in HD OTA I would have to buy an OTA tuner. At least $200 I believe. Unless you know of some $20 box/antenna combos I haven't heard about.

2. I cannot use just a simple set-top OTA antenna, such as the "silver sensor" or whatever. I have tested this by borrowing a co-worker's OTA box and small antenna when he had it disconnected for a time. My HDTV (a Pioneer Elite 610) is in a family room that is below ground level, towards the front of the house. The local stations are located in the direction of the back of the house. I couldn't get a good enough signal on any of the stations with a small antenna on top of my set. I would need to at least put a larger antenna in my attic and somehow run the wire up through two floors with finished ceilings and walls. Alternately, I could come out the side of the house and install a rooftop antenna (not the most attractive thing). I *think* then I could probably get the local Fox HD channel, but I'm not certain of their signal strength. I also would then possibly face issues receiving some of the other weaker local digital stations, such as PBS.

3. I want my DVR. The ability to time-shift HD material is something I really want. I have the Motorola 6412 HD-DVR, which I rent from Comcast for $10 a month. If a newer HD-DVR model with more capacity or features is released all I'll need to do is exchange it. If I want DVR capability with satellite/OTA right now I have to buy a box that costs close to $1000. Plus, no upgrades in the future without paying again.

4. I want my ESPN-HD, Discovery HD, plus some others. So I need either cable or DBS HD capability. Fortunately for me I have a clear view of the southern sky for satellite should I ever decide to do that. But many others don't have that choice, so they have to use cable.

5. I have my broadband internet via Comcast (no DSL at my location, plus I don't like it as much as cable anyway). If I dropped cable TV the cable internet price would increase by about $15 a month. (Yes, I know that Comcast is to blame for that, but it's the reality.)

6. I am running out of component inputs on myTV. I currently have a progressive-scan DVD player on Input 1 and the cable box on Input 2. Input 3 is all that I have left with HD-component video on my TV has to use an RGB input for HD-component video. That's another expense for a converter cable, and another input to calibrate on the TV.

For the reasons above, cable TV makes the most sense for me at this time. To get just a single HD channel through a different means (OTA), with the ability to record/time-shift it, would be a significant hassle and additional expense. At the end of the day, to me, Sinclair is the one preventing me from having a single, integrated means of receiving and recording all the available HD content.
hondo21 is offline  
post #299 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
raidbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bel Air, MD
Posts: 1,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is what I feared and mentioned in other threads. I was just sort of not feeling like Sinclair was so bad (I'm trying to be nice now) and now poof!

So an agreement in principle is not an agreement until it is signed.

I guess we'll never know what's going on. No more NFL (NFC) and World Series in HD. I guess there is some reason to hope, though, I'm sure the principal principles are still valid and it is just getting the fine points down.
(Of course, it was the fine points that killed the NHL too.)

Rich N.
raidbuck is offline  
post #300 of 1851 Old 02-24-2005, 11:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 386
There has been a lot of debate over the past several hours about the wisdom of one of our member's unqualified remark that "Gosh there are a lot of people whining about putting up a freaking $20 antenna [to watch Fox on Sinclair stations]." There seem to be two schools of thought about the comment: (1) that it was appropriate, or (2) that it was ill-advised because of it's willful refusal to account for those who would have to buy a several hundred dollar tuner or, worse, are in locations where they couldn't watch Fox on Sinclair even with an OTA tuner. I am rather firmly in school (2).
gwsat is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off