Binghamton / Elmira, NY - HDTV - Page 46 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1351 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 06:58 AM
Member
 
juventuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Binghamton
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We got some of them, they didn't switch over to HD until mid-season or so.
juventuz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1352 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 07:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Indiana627's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by juventuz View Post

We got some of them, they didn't switch over to HD until mid-season or so.

Right, just before Christmas. I knew Binghamton fell within the Sabres territory, but I wasn't sure if you got the D* feed. Good to know. Thanks.

Mark

"We named the dog Indiana."
Directv since '03
Indiana627 is offline  
post #1353 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 09:17 AM
Member
 
juventuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Binghamton
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yup, it was broadcast on the alternate channel.
juventuz is offline  
post #1354 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ak3883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Newport, RI
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodald View Post

It's great to see all these additions!

I just noticed LMN HD on 839 (Lifetime Movie)

I would also like to see:
NFL HD
NHL HD
HBO2 HD
SHO Too HD
Fox News HD
MSNBC HD
CNBC HD

IMO, NFL Network HD is a huge waste. You get like 13 exclusive games a year, that's it. It's not like this channel has anything else worthwhile on it, just old games, big whoop. Many other HD channels that would be worth adding before that one. Doesn't look like TW is gonna get an agreement with them anytime soon anyway. I guess if you are a diehard football fan all year maybe, but anything less than that, it's the same stuff over and over all year. I think that is a huge reason why TW doesn't want to add that channel, once NFL season is over they have another 9 months that they don't have to worry about complaints from customers.

NHL network is even more of a joke. I don't think they have any live games/events yet. Even bigger waste.
ak3883 is offline  
post #1355 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Newbie
 
westelmirahd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
TW HD channels are still freezing at my home in Elmira. Did it last night during American Idol on Big Fox briefly, and this morning at 8AM I tried to watch the today show and Conan O'Brien was still on my screen on channel 700 from the night before! He was standing there frozen. TW is clueless. Anybody else experiencing this? Any fix or info I should give to TW to help them fix? (Other than switching to sat. ha ha... very tempting!)
westelmirahd is offline  
post #1356 of 3767 Old 04-30-2008, 01:50 PM
Member
 
brives81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by westelmirahd View Post

TW HD channels are still freezing at my home in Elmira. Did it last night during American Idol on Big Fox briefly, and this morning at 8AM I tried to watch the today show and Conan O'Brien was still on my screen on channel 700 from the night before! He was standing there frozen. TW is clueless. Anybody else experiencing this? Any fix or info I should give to TW to help them fix? (Other than switching to sat. ha ha... very tempting!)

Ok .... first of all we have to start from the beginning. Channels 700 WETM and 702 WYDC are local feeds. Both channels freeze on me as well at times, but there are legitimate reason for this and most of them have nothing at all to do with Time Warner.

WETM is not yet at full power for their Digital/HD feed and won't be full power until the digital switch deadline. Their current HD feed is broadcast over the same frequency as analog channel 2. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the information that antennaweb.org gives me. Because of this, there are frequent quality issues with the signal (breaking up, pixelation, etc.). Once the digital switch happens, they will go full power and move the channels to frequency 18. This should clear up most of their problems.

WYDC is not a full blown broadcast station either like WETM or WENY. They just repeat the signal that they get from somewhere else. Again, others can correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. The HD content that they do broadcast looks great, but yes it does skip every now and then. Their non-hd content skips as well. During Seinfeld, for example, the channel skipped so I switched to the regular station on channel 13 and the video was moving, but there was no audio. After a few seconds the audio kicked back in and when I went back to 702 everything was fine. I really think that it's WYDC's issue and not TW's and I'm not sure what can be done about it. Also remember that WYDC is relatively new with the digital/HD thing. They just went on air the week of the superbowl. They too have to deal with the digital switch, so I have a feeling that things will get much better for them after 2/09. They are a very small FOX affiliate compared to others around the country, I give them credit for having an HD feed at all.

As for all the other non-local HD channels through Time Warner, none of them have ever skipped on me. TNT, HDNET, TBS, MHD, etc. have been rock solid. I have subscribed to TW's HD tier since 9/2006 and haven't had any problem with the HD channels except for the lack of channels. This has recently improved greatly with the addition of almost 20 or so new channels.

While switching to satellite is a solution, I personly like staying with cable. With sat. you need to have all TV's hooked to a box in order to get any of the HD content. With cable, if you're TV has a QAM tuner, I am able to pick up the local HD feeds that way without a box. I'm not sure if you can do this with sat. or not. Also, while sat. may offer more HD channels, I have read that you end up getting worse quality channels due to compression. Since TW's instituted SDV, this shouldn't be as big of a problem. While TW has been behind the curve as far as quantity goes, I feel they are catching up and not losing the quality while doing so.

I'm curious to know if any other channels (other than WETM and WYDC) have skipped on you?
brives81 is offline  
post #1357 of 3767 Old 05-01-2008, 07:39 AM
Newbie
 
westelmirahd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by brives81 View Post

I'm curious to know if any other channels (other than WETM and WYDC) have skipped on you?

I have had sound issues with all of the Time Warner HD channels. The sound on all of the channels will skip (as if you pressed mute on off on off on off...) Again, this is an intermittent problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And like you noted, sometimes if you switch the channel and switch back it will rectify the problem. The last time I noticed the sound problem on all the channels was probably 3 weeks ago. The picture stalling and skipping continues as an issue. Thanks for the information, I wish the TW techs were as knowledgeable as you! I knew that was likely the problem, and have asked, but they claim to have no idea.
westelmirahd is offline  
post #1358 of 3767 Old 05-01-2008, 08:59 AM
Member
 
brives81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by westelmirahd View Post

I have had sound issues with all of the Time Warner HD channels. The sound on all of the channels will skip (as if you pressed mute on off on off on off...) Again, this is an intermittent problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And like you noted, sometimes if you switch the channel and switch back it will rectify the problem. The last time I noticed the sound problem on all the channels was probably 3 weeks ago. The picture stalling and skipping continues as an issue. Thanks for the information, I wish the TW techs were as knowledgeable as you! I knew that was likely the problem, and have asked, but they claim to have no idea.

Do you use HDMI to connect your Box to your TV? I've heard of some issues with that as well. I use component and L/R audio cables. I know that some people prefer HDMI, but I'm not convinced that's the best idea when it comes to TW. If you do use HDMI, try switching to component and see if anything changes. Also, there are different types of TW boxes depending on some of the services you subscribe to and I'm sure that would affect what you see and hear compared to me. I have a silver Scientific Atlanta 8300HD w/DVR.

Edit:
Also try a cold-boot of your box. When you turn the power off on your box, you aren't really rebooting it the next time you turn in on. I have had some wierd DVR issues clear up by cold-booting my box.

1. Turn off the cable box
2. Unplug it for 30 seconds
3. While holding the power button down, plug the box back in. Keep holding the power button in until the display says 'boot'.
4. Give it a few minutes to boot back up and see if anything changes.
brives81 is offline  
post #1359 of 3767 Old 05-01-2008, 12:16 PM
Member
 
awdorrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't want to raise a false alarm, but I noticed that I can no longer get to the TWC-STNY website (www.twcstny.com) - and that if I go to the main Time Warner Cable website that 'STNY' or 'Binghamton' is no longer listed. Only: Albany, Buffalo, Central-NY, NYC and Rochester.

Could STNY have merged with Central-NY ?
awdorrin is offline  
post #1360 of 3767 Old 05-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Member
 
ender868's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Upstate New York, Greater Binghamton area
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdorrin View Post

I don't want to raise a false alarm, but I noticed that I can no longer get to the TWC-STNY website (www.twcstny.com) - and that if I go to the main Time Warner Cable website that 'STNY' or 'Binghamton' is no longer listed. Only: Albany, Buffalo, Central-NY, NYC and Rochester.

Could STNY have merged with Central-NY ?

It is my understanding that they have been in the process of merging the two divisions for quite some time now.
ender868 is offline  
post #1361 of 3767 Old 05-03-2008, 10:49 AM
Member
 
awdorrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ender868 View Post

It is my understanding that they have been in the process of merging the two divisions for quite some time now.

Cool, perhaps that will mean more HD channels. Now if we could only get a CBS-HD feed from Syracuse rather than being forced to wait on WBNG.
awdorrin is offline  
post #1362 of 3767 Old 05-03-2008, 09:10 PM
Member
 
brives81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdorrin View Post

Cool, perhaps that will mean more HD channels. Now if we could only get a CBS-HD feed from Syracuse rather than being forced to wait on WBNG.

I was under the impression that local coverage areas trump cable subscriptions. Meaning that WBNG rules the airwaves as far as CBS coverage in the southern tier goes and TWC has no say what feed we get to see. This differs from satellite subscribers where the satellite company decides what feed is shown. If it was the other way around....we would have seen the digital/HD feed from Syracuse a long time ago. I'm not sure what can be done to change this.....
brives81 is offline  
post #1363 of 3767 Old 05-04-2008, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Indiana627's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by brives81 View Post

I was under the impression that local coverage areas trump cable subscriptions. Meaning that WBNG rules the airwaves as far as CBS coverage in the southern tier goes and TWC has no say what feed we get to see. This differs from satellite subscribers where the satellite company decides what feed is shown. If it was the other way around....we would have seen the digital/HD feed from Syracuse a long time ago. I'm not sure what can be done to change this.....

Actually I think it's the opposite. I know TW customers in Batavia get both the Rochester and Buffalo local stations, but if someone in Batavia switched from TW to D*, they'd only get one set of locals (not if Buffalo or Rochester) even though the same service address would get both with TW.

In order to get an out of market network feed, a satellite customer first has to get a waiver from each local affiliate before D* will give them access to either NY or LA network feed. And then I believe you have to pay $1.50/mo for each out of market network feed you get.

Mark

"We named the dog Indiana."
Directv since '03
Indiana627 is offline  
post #1364 of 3767 Old 05-05-2008, 07:33 AM
Member
 
awdorrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by brives81 View Post

I was under the impression that local coverage areas trump cable subscriptions. Meaning that WBNG rules the airwaves as far as CBS coverage in the southern tier goes and TWC has no say what feed we get to see. This differs from satellite subscribers where the satellite company decides what feed is shown. If it was the other way around....we would have seen the digital/HD feed from Syracuse a long time ago. I'm not sure what can be done to change this.....

Oh I know, I was just 'wishful thinking'. I realize that WBNG is the one that is keeping the HD version of CBS off of TWC-STNY (or I guess I should say TWC-CNY, now)

Granted most people just watch the standard analog signal (which is why WBNG's parent company doesn't care) - but some of us actually go to the Net and watch the shows, either streaming from CBS.com or downloaded from various sources.

Its kind of sad actually, that people can download tv episodes that are better quality than what WBNG is broadcasting.

I guess from a 'what can be done about it' - probably nothing, I guess we'll just have to wait until Feb 2009 when the FCC forces the hand of the 'hold-outs' like WBNG. Once they have to turn off their analog signal, their only choice is to give TWC the HD signal. (Unless they actually put out another crappy digital channel like what was at TWC Ch750 for awhile... which I wouldn't put past them at this point.)
awdorrin is offline  
post #1365 of 3767 Old 05-05-2008, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ak3883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Newport, RI
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdorrin View Post

I guess from a 'what can be done about it' - probably nothing, I guess we'll just have to wait until Feb 2009 when the FCC forces the hand of the 'hold-outs' like WBNG. Once they have to turn off their analog signal, their only choice is to give TWC the HD signal. (Unless they actually put out another crappy digital channel like what was at TWC Ch750 for awhile... which I wouldn't put past them at this point.)

I not so sure that Feb 09 nessesarily means WBNG will be forced to provide TWC the HD signal. TWC can get the digital signal and downconvert to analog to send out over their cable system(which they probably will). Analog networks will still exist on CABLE for longer, till at least 2012.

There is a rule about a cable system has to provide the digital feed after 2/09, but that only applies to must-carry stations. WBNG is not a must carry station.
ak3883 is offline  
post #1366 of 3767 Old 05-05-2008, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jdspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ak3883 View Post

...
There is a rule about a cable system has to provide the digital feed after 2/09, but that only applies to must-carry stations. WBNG is not a must carry station.

How did you find out that the major network WBNG isn't a must carry station?
jdspencer is offline  
post #1367 of 3767 Old 05-05-2008, 03:09 PM
Member
 
shovelhead13746's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Greene
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ak3883 View Post

I not so sure that Feb 09 nessesarily means WBNG will be forced to provide TWC the HD signal. TWC can get the digital signal and downconvert to analog to send out over their cable system(which they probably will). Analog networks will still exist on CABLE for longer, till at least 2012.

There is a rule about a cable system has to provide the digital feed after 2/09, but that only applies to must-carry stations. WBNG is not a must carry station.

wbng does fall under the must carry laws. heres a link to some general information:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/...ustcarryru.htm
shovelhead13746 is offline  
post #1368 of 3767 Old 05-05-2008, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by shovelhead13746 View Post

wbng does fall under the must carry laws. heres a link to some general information:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/...ustcarryru.htm

Perhaps the point of confusion is that a qualified station (in regards to cable) has their choice of two paths:
1) Grant permission to cable to carry their signal. Often this is withheld (as I believe is the case here) in an attempt to gain concessions (read payment, as in extortion) from the cable company in exchange for that permission.
2) Where cable just doesn't want to carry the station, assert their "Must Carry" rights.

When it is said that WBNG is not Must Carry, that means that they have taken path 1, and is not asserting their "Must Carry" rights.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #1369 of 3767 Old 05-06-2008, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ak3883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Newport, RI
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you look closely, that link says this:

More confusion resulted when, in October 1994, the FCC gave stations a choice of being carried under the must-carry rules or under a new regulation requiring cable companies to obtain retransmission consent before carrying a broadcast signal. The retransmission consent ruling gave desirable local stations increased power to negotiate the terms of carriage the cable company would provide, including channel preference.

There is definetly some sort of money agreement going on with TWC carrying WBNG, TW doesnt' just pick it up for free. Since they don't, then it is not a must carry station. TWC would love to carry WBNG under the must carry rule, but WBNG won't let that happen because they know they can get money out of TWC because the viewers won't stand for not having a CBS affiliate on cable(it could even be in the franchise agreement that TWC has with the area, that they have to provide the major network affiliates).
ak3883 is offline  
post #1370 of 3767 Old 05-06-2008, 10:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jdspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I still think this is backwards. If WBNG HD wants more viewers then they should pay TWC for that privilege. It really isn't any different than advertisers paying to have their ads on a channel or printed in magazines and newspapers. In fact, I think those same advertisers would want WBNG HD to be on TWC.
jdspencer is offline  
post #1371 of 3767 Old 05-07-2008, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Here is an interesting article on the "Retransmission Consent"/"Must Carry" situation: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...=SUPP&nid=2228

While the focus of the article (and petition) relates to the DTV transition, it does touch on the issue of retransmission consent.

Quote:


Broadcasters can either elect must-carry, which means cable operators have to carry their station but don't have to pay for it, or they can choose to negotiate terms but with no requirement of carriage if the negotiations fail. Owners of stronger TV stations opt for retransmission consent because their stations are must-have programming in a local TV market.


Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #1372 of 3767 Old 05-08-2008, 01:56 AM
Member
 
bakntime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I still don't understand what a broadcast channel has to lose by giving their signal to time warner cable. If nothing else, they reach a wider audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenue, etc.

Why on earth would WBNG hold out for more money? Could the amount Time Warner will pay them actually turn out to be more than the amount of money they've already missed out on over the past year or two by not having their channel available in HD on cable?
bakntime is offline  
post #1373 of 3767 Old 05-08-2008, 02:03 AM
Member
 
bakntime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
By the way (I didn't see this mentioned but I might have missed it), the TWC site says "coming soon" for the Biography channel HD and National Geographic HD.
bakntime is offline  
post #1374 of 3767 Old 05-08-2008, 06:40 AM
Member
 
brives81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakntime View Post

I still don't understand what a broadcast channel has to lose by giving their signal to time warner cable. If nothing else, they reach a wider audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenue, etc.

Why on earth would WBNG hold out for more money? Could the amount Time Warner will pay them actually turn out to be more than the amount of money they've already missed out on over the past year or two by not having their channel available in HD on cable?

What money have they missed out on?

The digital/HD channel would just be the same thing that would be simulcast on channel 12....with some content in HD. All the same advertisements are being shown on their analog channel.

In my opinion WBNG isn't losing anything by not putting their HD channel on. If you subscribe to TWC and you want to watch something on CBS....what are you going to do? You're going to watch WBNG....just in analog. MOST people don't care and will watch it anyway. There are only a few people...like all of us on this forum that avoid WBNG only because it's an analog station. They really have nothing to lose, and that's why they are holding out for the money....because they can without losing viewers.

The conclusion that I've come to is it's about business. It's not about the viewers. They don't care about us...they care about the money. If WBNG gives in and puts the signal on TW's lineup....what they will lose is the money they know they could have gotten from TWC if they were to keep holding out. WBNG knows that most customers will complain to TWC and not them. That puts the pressure on TWC to give in.

I understand where they are coming from. I don't at all think it's right, but I at least understand......
brives81 is offline  
post #1375 of 3767 Old 05-08-2008, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jdspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Then it's time for the viewers to start complaining to WBNG.

I won't complain to either company since I don't use TWC and haven't for almost 8 years now.

I do watch WBNGDT via OTA when multipath isn't interferring with reception. This may all change when DirecTV gets around to provide local HD here. Hmmm, I wonder how the negotiations between WBNG and DirecTV will go?
jdspencer is offline  
post #1376 of 3767 Old 05-08-2008, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdspencer View Post

Then it's time for the viewers to start complaining to WBNG.

HINT: Start complaining to the ADVERTISERS on WBNG! Particularly to high end car dealers and stores selling TVs.

Those not supporting YOUR viewing of HD, don't deserve YOUR BUSINESS.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #1377 of 3767 Old 05-09-2008, 09:06 AM
Member
 
cusechamps2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Endicott, NY
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdspencer View Post

Then it's time for the viewers to start complaining to WBNG.

I won't complain to either company since I don't use TWC and haven't for almost 8 years now.

I do watch WBNGDT via OTA when multipath isn't interferring with reception. This may all change when DirecTV gets around to provide local HD here. Hmmm, I wonder how the negotiations between WBNG and DirecTV will go?

This is an interesting question, does anyone know about negotiations between WBNG and DirectTV? Infact does anyone know when DTV viewers in the Binghamton area will get there local stations in HD? I have been a DTV customer for 5 years and they have promised me for the last 5 years that locals are coming...thats a fat lie!!!
cusechamps2003 is offline  
post #1378 of 3767 Old 05-09-2008, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ak3883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Newport, RI
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cusechamps2003 View Post

This is an interesting question, does anyone know about negotiations between WBNG and DirectTV? Infact does anyone know when DTV viewers in the Binghamton area will get there local stations in HD? I have been a DTV customer for 5 years and they have promised me for the last 5 years that locals are coming...thats a fat lie!!!

Ummm, Directv doesn't even offer BGM market in SD yet do they? I thought I remembered hearing they would be able to with their latest sat becoming operational, earlier this year. I guess it won't be until the next one, slated to become operational in Q3 2008, I believe it's already been launched or is going to be soon.

*EDIT* Checked it out, Directv claims to have local service to 150 markets. BGM is Neilson #156. So they should be very close to Binghamton market. The latest news says they just added them to Bangor market(#152), so it would appear they are right on the doorstep. Although I don't know if/how negotiations go/are going with the local stations. I think if they want at least one, they have to include all of the local affiliates.

The new sat, Directv 11 claims to be able to offer local HD to over 100 markets when operational. So looks like awhile longer for HD locals on Directv! But SD appears to be very close from a technical capacity standpoint.
ak3883 is offline  
post #1379 of 3767 Old 05-09-2008, 11:27 AM
kaw
Member
 
kaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Upstate, New York
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

HINT: Start complaining to the ADVERTISERS on WBNG! Particularly to high end car dealers and stores selling TVs.

Those not supporting YOUR viewing of HD, don't deserve YOUR BUSINESS.

Not a bad idea.

We should start compiling a list with email/mailing addresses for the advertisers on WBNG and send letters that state WBNG is not catering to the fast growing demographic of HDTV owners.

Their advertising dollars would be better spent on Southern Tier television stations that cater to the HDTV install base since they tend to be the customers with the highest amount of disposable income.
kaw is offline  
post #1380 of 3767 Old 05-09-2008, 12:36 PM
kaw
Member
 
kaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Upstate, New York
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll even get the ball rolling. These are just a few advertisers I got from the WBNG Web site, I'll add more to this list if I'm watching WBNG over the weekend.

Coral Isle Pools & Spas - coralisle@stny.rr.com
2535 Vestal Parkway East
Vestal, NY 13850

Century 21 John Burns - JohnBurnsJ@aol.com
4747 Vestal Parkway East
Vestal, NY 13850

Computer Emergency Room - info@785help.com
229 Vestal Parkway East
Vestal, NY 13850

Homeowner Resource Center - contact@hrchelp.com
120 Monahan Ave.
Dunmore, PA 18512

Auchinachie - boba@auchinachie.com
42 Frederick Street
Binghamton, NY 13901

Laser Eye Center of the southern Tier - http://www.lasikdoctors.biz/contact.html
48 Harrison Street
Johnson City, New York 13790

Southern Tier Hearing Services - http://www.sthearingservices.net/contact.html
300 Main St.
Vestal, NY 13850

OGGI Concrete Forms & Accessories - sales@oggiconcrete.com
128 OAK HILL AVE.
ENDICOTT, NY 13760

Southern New York Neurosurgical Group
46 Harrison St
Johnson City, NY 13790

Matthews Auto Group - imanager@matthewsauto.com
320 N Jensen Road
Vestal, NY 13850

Probably should copy or blind copy WBNG so they have some awareness the effort is underway:
wbngsales@wbngtv.com
kaw 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