Las Vegas, NV - HDTV - Page 67 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 8Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1981 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I got another response from the Padres saying that they hope that "some adjustments can be made in the not-too-distant future so that the games will be carried in the Las Vegas area." Hopefully this is not just puffery.

Actually, even if it is puffery, I am happy that I was able to correspond with someone who knows what he is talking about and is not a mindless CSR!
Tallen234 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1982 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 01:13 PM
Member
 
NevadaJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by Tallen234
I got another response from the Padres saying that they hope that "some adjustments can be made in the not-too-distant future so that the games will be carried in the Las Vegas area." Hopefully this is not just puffery.

Actually, even if it is puffery, I am happy that I was able to correspond with someone who knows what he is talking about and is not a mindless CSR!

That's encouraging...at least someone in SD and perhaps LV is talking and discussing the possibility.
NevadaJack is offline  
post #1983 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 01:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by Tallen234
I got another response from the Padres saying that they hope that "some adjustments can be made in the not-too-distant future so that the games will be carried in the Las Vegas area." Hopefully this is not just puffery.

Actually, even if it is puffery, I am happy that I was able to correspond with someone who knows what he is talking about and is not a mindless CSR!

He may not be a mindless CSR, and may truly care about the Padres/HD/LV problem. But I'm a pessimist. And I would suggest that you NOT let your hopes get too high. The "not too distant future" may be as "soon" as 2015. Are you prepared to wait?
Word Maestro is offline  
post #1984 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The entire MLB Extra Innings package (it seems to me) departs 180 degress from sanity.

If a team claims a city as its "terrirory", doesn't that indicate to you, that the population in those cities should enjoy every access to those teams telecasts and not be restricted as to their availability? If Oakland, SF and the Diamonvacks claim LV as its home territory, every single effort should be expended to provide maximum exposure in LV to the games of those teams. Instead they adopt the absolute opposite course and black them out enrtirely. How can you win fans, by NOT allowing them to see your games?

I think the entire MLB package is run by lunatics.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #1985 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 01:55 PM
Member
 
mjwhitay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Okay, I wasn't about to read through 100 pages in this thread.

Does everyone's HD reception of ABC generally suck through COX?? I watched Lost last week and it was awful.

Does anyone use an antenna for the local channels?? if so, which one, and does it work well?
mjwhitay is offline  
post #1986 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 03:28 PM
Member
 
ayanomich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
When ABC broadcasts in HD on cable 732, the picture is usually pretty good. However, if it ain't HD, it is the worst picture imaginable because it appears to be what we call "stretch-o-vision". I'm pretty sure it won't get any better with an OTA antenna.
ayanomich is offline  
post #1987 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Has anyone noticed a degredation in signal quality the last week or so? Last night during both 24 and a PRV'rd Deadwood there were a bunch of stops and starts and dropouts. I am wondering if this is a PVR issue or a broadcast issue. If a PVR issue, perhaps I can exchange my 8000 for an 8300.
Tallen234 is offline  
post #1988 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 08:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I can't find the HD PVR pricing schedule. Do you guys know off hand how much extra the HD PVR service is above the regular basic (no movie channels) HD Service? Thanks!
Tallen234 is offline  
post #1989 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 08:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vegggas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First things first...
Word... I think you tripled your post count in the last 24 hours...
I would totally believe anything Gworkman has to say about the MLB rules and viewing issues. He has been researching it for many seasons and has, in my opinion, been accurate in every post concerning the topic. If we were to ever say opposite things, I would probably concede to his point of view.
For the Fox Sports channels, I do know, and did point out that the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific channels were college based channels. I was making a point that almost all NON-Regional Fox sports channels are available. The ones that are not available are the ones dedicated to regions, in which Vegas is NOT a part of. Go to Foxsports.com for more info on what channels are available.
This is my surmised opinion, based on conversations I have had with individuals in the industry. - There are some broadcasting laws, regarding regions, that cable has to follow, and that DirecTV can easily get away with since they purchase all of them around the country. Cox Las Vegas can't carry other area broadcasting, due to local advertising in BOTH areas, unless there is an agreement made with the station owners and advertisers. Cox 4 San Diego is owned and operated by Cox Business Services, which also operates here in Vegas, so the agreements were easy to get. Agreements with Fox Sports channels and their advertisers in other regions will not be allowed by various individuals for various reasons. I'm not into sales, marketing, or politics, I'm just an engineer So this could all be BS, but I think it's true.

With all that, my post said that there is still no word if the Padres will be carried or not. Due to space limitations, it will probably not be carried, but there is always a chance. The removal of the analog cable box return signals could carry that channel, but the removal has been slowed down by various users and customers that need legacy equipment changed out (ahem, Hotels-cough, cough-sportsbooks-cough, cough).
Another thing to point out is that the Padres Games WERE blacked out on INHD, but we could see them on the Padres Channel with no problem. MLB had something to do with the blackout, but Cox did get them to us via a direct feed, that was never broadcast over anything other than direct fiber, bypassing the rules.

my head hurts
vegggas
vegggas is offline  
post #1990 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vegggas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Oh yeah,
Forgot to mention, after the third or fourth Beta test, the DVR software appears to be ready for a next week release. A release was done again last night to fix some more issues that broke during the other beta tests. Expect HUGE improvments on the 8000 and great improvements on the 8300. This software makes the 8000 more comparable to the 8300, and runs the same kernel (AFAIK), with only the hardware differences being a factor.

vegggas
vegggas is offline  
post #1991 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 08:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Cool! So would there be any reason to upgrade to the 8300 after the release?

(sorry for the multiple posts today. I was bored at work...fortunately, I am the boss, so no worries)




Quote:


Originally posted by vegggas
Oh yeah,
Forgot to mention, after the third or fourth Beta test, the DVR software appears to be ready for a next week release. A release was done again last night to fix some more issues that broke during the other beta tests. Expect HUGE improvments on the 8000 and great improvements on the 8300. This software makes the 8000 more comparable to the 8300, and runs the same kernel (AFAIK), with only the hardware differences being a factor.

vegggas

Tallen234 is offline  
post #1992 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 08:37 PM
Member
 
tazlv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I remember last year that the Padre broadcasts began the season on channel 707 (INHD2......which is what that channel is for.....local sports HD broadcasts) however a glitch on Las Vegas' side or San Diego's side flipping the switch to start the broadcast of each game, became a problem and Cox Las Vegas gave Channel 4 San Diego its own channel (708). I think if they solve the problem of flipping the switch.....the games could be shown on INHD2, there would be no need to add channel 708 to the lineup.
tazlv is offline  
post #1993 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 10:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by vegggas
First things first...
Word... I think you tripled your post count in the last 24 hours...
I would totally believe anything Gworkman has to say about the MLB rules and viewing issues. He has been researching it for many seasons and has, in my opinion, been accurate in every post concerning the topic. If we were to ever say opposite things, I would probably concede to his point of view.
For the Fox Sports channels, I do know, and did point out that the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific channels were college based channels. I was making a point that almost all NON-Regional Fox sports channels are available. The ones that are not available are the ones dedicated to regions, in which Vegas is NOT a part of. Go to Foxsports.com for more info on what channels are available.

But the fact REMAINS that Direct TV carries the Fox Sports Regional networks and Cox DOESN'T.. I don't believe that the culprit is advertising because tje commercials on Direct TV are exactly the same as they would be on Cox. The fact therefore ALSO remains, that Direct TV is providing stations to viewers whjih they want and Cox is not doing so.

In addition there are no points of controversy between myself and Mr. Workman. I have not contravened anything he has said, nor has he contravemned anything I've said. It seems to me that you are still making lame excusees for Cox Cables unwillingness (notice I didn't say inability) to carry the Fox Regional Networks.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #1994 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 10:17 PM
Member
 
tazlv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I doubt ANY local cable company in the country carries more than one regional sports network.
tazlv is offline  
post #1995 of 9391 Old 03-08-2005, 10:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by tazlv
I doubt ANY local cable company in the country carries more than one regional sports network.

Well, if they're not UNABLE to carry them because of lawful restrictions, it follows that they are UNWILLING to carry them. THAT does not sit well with me. Especially since so many people want them.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #1996 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vegggas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by tazlv
I doubt ANY local cable company in the country carries more than one regional sports network.

This is what I surmise, but I can't speak for any other system. It would follow the basic broadcast agreements that no region would have any other region's broadcast. Since we are not a region with any teams, it makes sense that we don't have a region available to us. D* can have the regions, because it doesn't fall into the same local broadcast rights (and restrictions) as cable, nor does it pay any local access fees, taxes, or broadcasting subsidies. Instead, D* pays a national blanket fee for rights and services because it covers the entire U.S. Cable (each MSO is a local company) can't pay for broadcast rights in an area it doesn't have carriage in, so you would not get outside regions.

Quote:


Originally posted by Word Maestro
Well, if they're not UNABLE to carry them because of lawful restrictions, it follows that they are UNWILLING to carry them. THAT does not sit well with me. Especially since so many people want them.

That doesn't make sense. Unable and unwilling are to different things. I am Unable to get Edy's Ice Cream in the West, but I am Unwilling to drive to the East coast to get any; Instead, I have to get Dryer's brand (look it up).

Also, I'm not trying to make excuses for Cox. I'm not their PR person. I have been in the affiliated industries (cable and sat RF communications) for a very long time on both coasts and have a good working knowledge how they work, and what to reasonably expect from a broadcaster or service. With that knowledge, and a lot of friends in the business, I try to offer explanations instead of doing any political bashing on any product or service, including Sat and cable (well, except maybe USDTV once or twice)


Quote:


Originally posted by Tallen234
Cool! So would there be any reason to upgrade to the 8300 after the release?

I would see the release first and then decide. If the 8000 has been ok for you and changing it out is a pain, then the release will be good news and there may be no need to change. The 8300 IS a newer, better unit, but they are currently running the same basic software with the new patch. The biggest benifits of the 8300 are dual outputs for SD and HD at the same time (downres to SD via video out), more memory (slightly better pq at 1080i - less fog affect) and faster processor (faster channel and resolution changes) . It also has HDMI instead of DVI out, which can be varible depending on the display type used, but typically equal in PQ versus component. I run both, but don't use or need any of the newer features of the 8300, but tend to watch that more often because of the lessened "fog affect" over the 8000.

vegggas
vegggas is offline  
post #1997 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 07:59 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
trevor_2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
vegggas-

I, for one, would just like to say thank you for all the work that you are doing and have done for this Las Vegas HDTV community on the AVS Forum. I am actually getting sick of the people who just bitch and moan all day, and don't actually try to learn about what is going on. Thank you for your efforts in explaining so many of the intricacies of the telecommunications industry to those who feel they know it all, but don't know squat.

For those who will be angered by this post, before you start typing up your response, go back and read through all 100 pages of this thread and tell me who has contributed more useful information to this community than any other party?

Thanks.
trevor_2k is offline  
post #1998 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 08:14 AM
Member
 
NevadaJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by trevor_2k
vegggas-

I, for one, would just like to say thank you for all the work that you are doing and have done for this Las Vegas HDTV community on the AVS Forum. I am actually getting sick of the people who just bitch and moan all day, and don't actually try to learn about what is going on. Thank you for your efforts in explaining so many of the intricacies of the telecommunications industry to those who feel they know it all, but don't know squat.

For those who will be angered by this post, before you start typing up your response, go back and read through all 100 pages of this thread and tell me who has contributed more useful information to this community than any other party?

Thanks.

I second that! When I want an answer or have a question, it is the Vegggas entires I look for. He is always accomodating and thoroughly explains the details. I have yet to get the 8300 (or any DVR for that matter) but based on the recent Vegggas threads, I will get down to MLK and pick one up.

Just wish he could get the Padres games on local HD...:-)

Jack
NevadaJack is offline  
post #1999 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 09:11 AM
gvc
Advanced Member
 
gvc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Las Vegas NW
Posts: 706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


Originally posted by mjwhitay
Okay, I wasn't about to read through 100 pages in this thread.

Does everyone's HD reception of ABC generally suck through COX?? I watched Lost last week and it was awful.

Does anyone use an antenna for the local channels?? if so, which one, and does it work well?


I usually cannot watch ABC through the 8300 due to the poor pic quality as compared to the other HD channels, but I can watch ABC HD through the direct cable signal going into my built in HD tuner in the tv. The pic quality is better...not perfect...but definitely better and watchable. My tv wont accept 720p native resolution so I just figured something was getting screwed up with the box upconverting to 1080i.
gvc is offline  
post #2000 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 09:37 AM
Senior Member
 
bcoombs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
WM,

It appears that you are frustrated with Cox, and maybe rightfully so. And so are others. But you really come off as bitter when you start attacking the intentions of someone like Vegggas, who has been nothing but helpful to this community (I've been lurking on these forums for a couple of years, now).

Sometimes in life, you have to accept what you get. Some things you can change, and some you can't. Those that you can't, you either settle (which many of us don't like to do), or you find another alternative (which it appears that you have). But relax. After all, it's only baseball (just kidding!)...
bcoombs is offline  
post #2001 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by bcoombs
WM,

It appears that you are frustrated with Cox, and maybe rightfully so. And so are others. But you really come off as bitter when you start attacking the intentions of someone like Vegggas, who has been nothing but helpful to this community (I've been lurking on these forums for a couple of years, now).

Sometimes in life, you have to accept what you get. Some things you can change, and some you can't. Those that you can't, you either settle (which many of us don't like to do), or you find another alternative (which it appears that you have). But relax. After all, it's only baseball (just kidding!)...

On the contrary.
If you had bothered to read my posts you would have read that I THANKED Vegggas repeatedly for his work in providing us with technical information regarding set-top boxes and their operation. That aside , I still feel that (consciously or inadvertently) he has been making excuses for Cox Cables lack of responsiveness to viewer requests and complaints.
My point was that unless Cox Cable offers programming which is at least comparable to that of Direct TV, Cox Cable will eventually be the loser.
Right now, the ONLY advantage that Cox enjoys is their offerings of the local network channels (and the movie channels) in HD.
Believe me, if I owned my own home (instead of renting an apartment because of physical disabilities), I would change to Direct Tv on a moments notice. Because then I would be able to use an outdoor antenna to receive my local HD programming. Right now, that is an impossibility because of line-of-sight incompatabilities
Coxs BIG LACK is that of sports programming. And unless they are SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED BY LAW from carrying the Fox Regional Sports Networks, they ought to do so, REGARDLESS OF THE COST. I know it won't BREAK 'EM That action alone would eliminate the major advantage that Direct TV has, and would INCREASE Cox subscribers by huge numbers, thus turning even more profit for Cox.

In conclusion, I want to say that no man is above criticism. Vegggas' work in providing technical and user information for us is enormously appreciated by the members of this forum (myself included). But when he expresses a view that I find to be excessively defensive of Cox Cable, I am not afraid to say so, even though I may eventually be proven mistaken.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #2002 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 11:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by gvc
I usually cannot watch ABC through the 8300 due to the poor pic quality as compared to the other HD channels, but I can watch ABC HD through the direct cable signal going into my built in HD tuner in the tv. The pic quality is better...not perfect...but definitely better and watchable. My tv wont accept 720p native resolution so I just figured something was getting screwed up with the box upconverting to 1080i.

I don't wish to be placed in the peculiar position of actually praising or defending Cox Cable. But what's fair, is fair,

When ABC broadcasts a true HD signal (such as the one they use for Desperate Housewives, NYPD, Boston Legal, some episodes of the Practice, Monday Night Football and last weeks Academy Awards) the PQ as provided by Cox Cable is exemplary. Clearly the equal of any other stations signal, with no visible artifacts or distortions. And this is true whether you are using the 8000HD or the 8300HD. And my signal is always upconverted to 1080i.

Its stretch-o-vision mode, on the other hand , is thoroughly disgusting. But that's ABCs fault, not the fault of Cox.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #2003 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ALthough I am a bit ticked at Cox due to the Padre fiasco. IMO the only reason to get Direct TV is for the NFL Sunday ticket. I love the fact that you do not need to go out of pocket (I know, you "rent" it with cox) for the hardware. The Direct TV HD Tivo originally came out at $1000. You can rent the Cox SA8000 for $10 a month. Then if you want to upgrade to the 8300 you can do that with no penalty. When the next great Direct TV tuner comes out, you will have to buy that. I like the flexibility with Cox and the lack of a year contract. Granted they have their problems, but overall, I have been happy with their service.

However, I must say, I am happy I know someone with Direct TV to get the NFL Ticket. Otherwise, I may need to get both Cox and DirecTv
Tallen234 is offline  
post #2004 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tallen234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What is the current standard non-PVR HD Converter being used by Cox?

A friend of mine may need to get one. Does it have a DVI or HDMI connection?
Tallen234 is offline  
post #2005 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 06:29 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
trevor_2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by Tallen234
What is the current standard non-PVR HD Converter being used by Cox?

A friend of mine may need to get one. Does it have a DVI or HDMI connection?

The SA3250HD. Check out the link in vegggas' signature for full info on the unit.
trevor_2k is offline  
post #2006 of 9391 Old 03-09-2005, 08:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lvthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by Tallen234
ALthough I am a bit ticked at Cox due to the Padre fiasco. IMO the only reason to get Direct TV is for the NFL Sunday ticket. I love the fact that you do not need to go out of pocket (I know, you "rent" it with cox) for the hardware. The Direct TV HD Tivo originally came out at $1000. You can rent the Cox SA8000 for $10 a month. Then if you want to upgrade to the 8300 you can do that with no penalty. When the next great Direct TV tuner comes out, you will have to buy that. I like the flexibility with Cox and the lack of a year contract. Granted they have their problems, but overall, I have been happy with their service.

However, I must say, I am happy I know someone with Direct TV to get the NFL Ticket. Otherwise, I may need to get both Cox and DirecTv

That's not entirely true. Nobody knows exactly the future of the Directv HD STB's since they are switching to the new sats and MPEG4. Most people think they will be replaced free. Plus if you have a receiver that works great why would you want to trade. I personally like Directv better because I want lower monthly fees (IE no rental fees) and because when I have called Directv their CSR's were nice to me (this is definatly not true with Cox on a couple of occasions.) Now I know for some people it is the other way around. That's what makes having choices so good .
lvthunder is offline  
post #2007 of 9391 Old 03-10-2005, 02:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Once again, a technical question.

I have made the decision to add Direct TV to my system, even though I already have Cox Cables 8300HD. The reason for this is the increased availability of sports networks and packages which Direct TV has and Cox doesn't.

I already own a Direct TV HD Satellite receiver A "Hughes" model, which I was satisfied with (and have storaged) before I moved to my previous location where a satellite could not be used because of apartment positioning, facing north. I am going to retain Cox simply for its local HD network and movie channel service. Thus there will be some redundancy in which a given broadcast can be found on each system. But the Network HD transmissions are not available on Direct TV, so for them amd the movie channels only, I must retain the Cox package.

However, I have some connectivity questions.
1. My satellite receiver does NOT have an HDMI or DVI output. I will have to use the Component Video jacks for that unit. No problem there

2. I will now be connecting the Cox 8300HD to my TV via the HDMI output/input connection ports. My question is ....using those ports will I be able to use the "Upconvert 1" setting on the 8300HD so that I can receive the HD stations in 1080i and the SD stations in 480p? I use that setting right now with the box (using the Component Video ports) and much prefer that to SD stations being upconverted to 1080i.

I look forward to satisying my sports cravings. Especially for baseball. I will get the MLB package, the Fox Sports Networks, and (if I choose in the fall--the NFL package). If I don't purchase the NFL package, Direct TV has informed me that I may suspend service after the baseball season is concluded in early November (at the latest) and will be charged NOTHING until I reactivate service in late March 2006. This is different from what I was previously told regarding a $12.95 suspension fee during the months of Nov to Mar. But even if that fee applies, it's OK with me.

If more people took this kind of action, you would see just how fast Cox Cable would carry the Fox Sports Networks, and make EVERY CONCEIVABLE effort (within the parameters of legality) to obtain the NFL package as well.
Word Maestro is offline  
post #2008 of 9391 Old 03-10-2005, 02:13 AM
Senior Member
 
gworkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by Word Maestro
I am going to retain Cox simply for its local HD network and movie channel service. Thus there will be some redundancy in which a given broadcast can be found on each system.

If more people took this kind of action, you would see just how fast Cox Cable would carry the Fox Sports Networks, and make EVERY CONCEIVABLE effort (within the parameters of legality) to obtain the NFL package as well.

What message does that send to Cox? They're still getting your money!

The NFL package is exclusive to DirecTV for many years to come.
gworkman is offline  
post #2009 of 9391 Old 03-10-2005, 02:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Word Maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by gworkman
What message does that send to Cox? They're still getting your money!

The NFL package is exclusive to DirecTV for many years to come.

The message it sends is that people are dissatisfied and are searching for alternatives to Cox. True, they are still getting my money. But when Direct Tv gets ITS act totally together and begins to offer local network and movie channel programming in HD, Cox Cable is gonna be left "grabbing its groin". And with the promised launch of several new satellites by the end of the year, Direct TV is well on its way to that position.
Methinks, Mr. Workman, that you are far too ready to accept the status quo. In order to get a system to change and update, agitators, must agitate.

Do you have an answer to my question??

Thanks
Word Maestro is offline  
post #2010 of 9391 Old 03-10-2005, 07:06 AM
Newbie
 
Goldyoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Valley
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have both Directtv HD and Cox HD DVR's. I can tell you that unless Cox improves it's software to

1) make it more customer friendly - especially when watching a recording of a program that is still running real time and
2) eliminate all the dropouts and HD/SD switches in the middle of programs

that once DTV gets local HD programming, there will be no reason to get COX HD and plenty of reasons not to.

Question for Vegass........anything I have to do special to get the upgrade on the 8000 or does it import automatically?
Goldyoda is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

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