Richmond, VA - HDTV - Page 17 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #481 of 8857 Old 10-14-2004, 04:56 PM
Member
 
wahoo246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone receiving WCVW 44-1 lately
wahoo246 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #482 of 8857 Old 10-14-2004, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hjriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by riffjim4069
It's sad to see FOX35 trying to charge for their free OTA digital signal. Broadcaster's lease public RF spectrum from the FCC. In return, they agree to abide by government rules and earn a profit (hopefully) by selling air-time to the local business community. You're darn right it's expensive building and maintaining analog and digital broadcast facilities, but that's the business they are in so why not take the matter up with the FCC and not punish the local community? Perhaps a better solution would be for broadcasters to figure out better ways of making money with their DTV channels. I would suggest starting with HD News like WRAL-DT in Raleigh, NC.

Personally, I would require all cable and satellite services to provide both the analog and digital locals free of charge to all subscribers.

FOX-35 is not trying to charge for their "free" OTA signal which you, I and anyone else is free to use. Why should the cable companies charge a fee from subscribers for these local channels and provide no compensation to the broadcaster? Nothing is ever free. WRLH and other broadcasters have invested millions in digital technology and operational costs and none have yet realized on cent of return on their investments. They are not allowed to charge for advertising and depend on the revenue stream from their analog operations to cover the additional costs of digital.

I do agree with you however that cable and satellite companies should provide the local analog, digital and digital sub-channels free of charge to anyone with a set top box or DBS receiver.

Your beef IMO is with the cable company, not FOX-35.

Harold Jackson
hjriver is offline  
post #483 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wittangamo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Didn't Fox provide the hardware for the HDTV upgrade to Sinclair, whose stations were among the slowest to install it?

And let's not let WTVR off the hook. If I understand it correctly, Raycom wants a commitment that Comcast will carry any multicast they may produce in future on any of their stations before they will release their main digital signal to cable.

I know how greedy Comcast is, they send me a bill every month to remind me. But the positions the parent companies of these two stations are staking out are also motivated by bottom-line profits; certainly not in the interests of viewers.

I may have an incomplete understanding of the details of these protracted negotiations, but it looks to me like there's enough blame to go around. All parties can afford to be stubborn as long as they think there are only a few of us squeaky wheels out here in HD land.

The positive side to the T-D article is that it shines a light on the situation and may cause more people to start asking pesky questions. It won't be resolved until all sides feel a little heat to compromise.

Meanwhile, Comcast has an online survey asking how many people own or plan to buy HD sets. Surprisingly, nearly half the people responding say they do or they soon will.

Comcast HDTV survey
wittangamo is offline  
post #484 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 08:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hjriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by wittangamo
Didn't Fox provide the hardware for the HDTV upgrade to Sinclair, whose stations were among the slowest to install it?

And let's not let WTVR off the hook. If I understand it correctly, Raycom wants a commitment that Comcast will carry any multicast they may produce in future on any of their stations before they will release their main digital signal to cable.

I know how greedy Comcast is, they send me a bill every month to remind me. But the positions the parent companies of these two stations are staking out are also motivated by bottom-line profits; certainly not in the interests of viewers.

I may have an incomplete understanding of the details of these protracted negotiations, but it looks to me like there's enough blame to go around. All parties can afford to be stubborn as long as they think there are only a few of us squeaky wheels out here in HD land.

The positive side to the T-D article is that it shines a light on the situation and may cause more people to start asking pesky questions. It won't be resolved until all sides feel a little heat to compromise.

Meanwhile, Comcast has an online survey asking how many people own or plan to buy HD sets. Surprisingly, nearly half the people responding say they do or they soon will.

Comcast HDTV survey

The issue of FOX supplying the HD upgrade equipment is a completly different issue. HD is only a part of the overall digital transistion costs the stations had to bear. There is no mandate to provide HD programming. The mandate is to provide digital programming. HD will be driven by customer demand willing to pay for it and the ability of the broadcasters to realize a profit from providing it.

The cable companies are trying to make profits for themselves utilizing a product that costs the broadcasters to provide. I don't blame them for holding out. When the cable companies realize that selling someone else's programming for their own profit is not going to work then they may come to their senses.

Harold Jackson
hjriver is offline  
post #485 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 08:29 AM
Member
 
gibbyscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by wahoo246
Anyone receiving WCVW 44-1 lately

I just tried last nite, and it did'nt come in... is it off the air?
gibbyscott is offline  
post #486 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 10:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
riffjim4069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Formerly Spotsylvania VA now Dallas TX Metroplex
Posts: 849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by hjriver Your beef IMO is with the cable company, not FOX-35.

I have no beef with FOX35 because I receive them free OTA. My only beef would be IF FOX35 or any cable provider would charge the customer, directly or indirectly, for free OTA analog and/or digital programming. I am no fan of cable, but I would assume the FCC, in conjunction with the multitude of local Cable Commissions, regulate the price of cable programming in most areas. Likewise, free OTA should be made available free of charge to DBS providers for retransmission within that specific DMA.

Free TV is Free TV...period! I receive programming fror 4 DMA (DC, Baltimore, Richmond and Charlottesville). If I elect to wire my neighborhood and retransmit all the free OTA broadcast I receive to my neighbors via an IP Network...then so be it. I should be allowed to charge a nominal free to cover my expenses...however, I should be shot if I were to profit 1 penny in doing so. The same standard should apply to cable and DBS providers.

I understand what you are saying in regard to the investments the network broadcasters are making, and I don't mean to sound cold-hearted, but that is a problem between the broadcasters, their trade association, and the FCC. You are correct when you state, "nothing is free." When I purchased my Ford Truck, I was paying the network broadcasters, who have been paid handsomely by Ford Motor Company to advertise on their networks. Likewise, I'm sure I contributed a little something to the broadcasters when I drank that sparkly diet soda a short while ago. The broadcasters need to get busy making money on their digitals by selling baseballs, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolet's...and not charging the cable companies, nor satellite companies, a fee to carry their FREE digital signals. Personally, I am not about to spend one red cent for cable of DBS providers to provide ABC-HD, CBS-HD, FOX-HD, NBC-HD. My local cable company provides them "in the clear" for anyone possessing a box with a digital QAM tuner or a digital cable ready TV. Should the cable company be reimbursed a few pennies each month by their subscribers for the equipment and facilities required to support these network digitals? Yes! But should they profit from them? No! The FCC and their Tennant local Cable Commissions should oversee compliance.

If the broadcasters are losing money maintaining analog and digital facilities, then they again need to address this matter with the FCC. Eventually, the tax-payer and consumer will pay the bills, but it would be very unfair to charge cable and DBS providers (and thus the consumer) for these digital services. Network broadcasters have been leading the way in the HD revolution and I wish them all the success in the world. My viewing habits in the past 2 years have certainly changed; I am now watching 50% of my programming from the major network providers - used to be about 15%...they need to find a way to capitalize on this without charging for the carriage of their digital signals.

I also have no beef with my local cable company because they, as I mentioned before, are not charging for carriage of digital locals. I am no fan of cable (left for a few years), but I recently signed up for a "HD DVR Promo" for the next 6 months because the price was excellent and my DBS provider does not have an affordable (any) HD DVR service at present. However, I would be upset if I were to find out the Cable Co was profiting from free OTA.

Anyway, these are MY OPINIONS and you are free to disagree.
riffjim4069 is offline  
post #487 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
mpark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by riffjim4069
However, I would be upset if I were to find out the Cable Co was profiting from free OTA.

I guess you are going to be upset because they are profiting from free OTA. Here in Richmond Comcast charges $12.71 for lifeline service not including taxes. They are also charging a premium for HD channels of which 2 are free OTA.
BTW, you can't just pick up an OTA TV signal and retransmit it via the internet, OTA, DBS, or cable without an agreement with that station. That would be stealing in eyes of the law. It has nothing to do with whether you make money on it or not. It has everything to do with you or whoever repurposing that broadcast for a use it was not authorized for. This also enters into copyright law but I think you get my point.

Michael Park
Creative Services Manager
WWBT NBC 12
mpark is offline  
post #488 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 12:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
riffjim4069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Formerly Spotsylvania VA now Dallas TX Metroplex
Posts: 849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by mpark I guess you are going to be upset because they are profiting from free OTA. Here in Richmond Comcast charges $12.71 for lifeline service not including taxes.

If they are profiting then it is wrong! Of course, I do not feel $12.71 is an outrageous fee for lifeline service considering they have to maintain the cable headend and wiring structure. A number of Cable Companies charge $20-$30, which is indeed outrageous.
Quote:
BTW, you can't just pick up an OTA TV signal and retransmit it via the internet, OTA, DBS, or cable without an agreement with that station. That would be stealing in eyes of the law. It has nothing to do with whether you make money on it or not. It has everything to do with you or whoever repurposing that broadcast for a use it was not authorized for. This also enters into copyright law but I think you get my point.

I understand your point, but your point is moot. I made no mention of the using the Internet, nor any other commercial or interstate communications provider. I apologize for not making this point clear. Instead, I am referring to a privately owned IP Network in which to distribute the signal for personal use...much like a cable splitter or signal booster. Anyway, I was simply making a point that cable and DBS providers should not profit by providing their customers with digital locals - it's a public service.
riffjim4069 is offline  
post #489 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 12:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
blb1215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Is anyone having trouble with the audio on WTVR-DT. I have noticed the audio does not sound quite right. I don't know exactly how to explain, just not smooth, like there is some stuttering in the audio or something.
Barry
blb1215 is offline  
post #490 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 03:40 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
4 thumbs up for FOX 35-1 on the baseball last night, have not watch TV for a few days, what a change, is the skins games on HD this weekend
docchak is offline  
post #491 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by blb1215
Is anyone having trouble with the audio on WTVR-DT. I have noticed the audio does not sound quite right. I don't know exactly how to explain, just not smooth, like there is some stuttering in the audio or something.
Barry

It's fine here on my ATI HDTV wonder, no 5.1 though.
docchak is offline  
post #492 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 03:48 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
FOX 35 , I love your 720p format, I have ATI HDTV wonder, this little (cheap) PCI card allow me to record the HDTV on my pc just like the $1000 HDTIVO will do w/o hiccups, stations with 1080i , still give a lot of A/V drop out on this card. None, whatsoever with 720p.

Honestly, do we really see any difference between 1080i and 720p, I think the 720p runs better on the less sophisticated machine.

Should we debate on 1080i or 720p? why don't all the station comes together and decide which format? I'll vote for 720p , here we go.
docchak is offline  
post #493 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 05:00 PM
Member
 
Addicted2HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by blb1215
Is anyone having trouble with the audio on WTVR-DT. I have noticed the audio does not sound quite right. I don't know exactly how to explain, just not smooth, like there is some stuttering in the audio or something.
Barry

WTVR 6-1 does indeed have an audio problem. I've also noticed constant audio breakups the last couple nights. They had this problem a while back. When WTVR was coming in on 25-1, the sound was okay but had trouble locking onto station. Now that 6-1 is back, there is definitely an audio problem.

WWBT 12-1 looked good last night. Glad they're back up and running with solid audio and video.
Addicted2HD is offline  
post #494 of 8857 Old 10-15-2004, 09:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
secstate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by docchak

Honestly, do we really see any difference between 1080i and 720p, I think the 720p runs better on the less sophisticated machine.


Actually 1080i is easier for CRT based devices (due to the need to scan at a significantly higher rates for 720p). Very few consumer oriented CRT based HDTV sets can scan at 720p.
secstate is offline  
post #495 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 06:27 AM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
12-1 was off the air this am around 0630??
docchak is offline  
post #496 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 06:29 AM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by secstate
Actually 1080i is easier for CRT based devices (due to the need to scan at a significantly higher rates for 720p). Very few consumer oriented CRT based HDTV sets can scan at 720p.

Don't 1080i has more pixel than 720p , hence more power of the machine to process video signal??
docchak is offline  
post #497 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 08:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
mpark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by docchak
12-1 was off the air this am around 0630??

I dunno about it being off the air this morning, it's on now at 10am.
Concerning, 1080i vs 720p- I agree with you 100% about there being no discenable difference between the two. I wish all the networks were 720p because it does require less bandwidth. Unfortunately, it's the networks who decide not the local affiliates. NBC & CBS decided 1080i - ABC & FOX went 720p. It is basically that simple.

Michael Park
Creative Services Manager
WWBT NBC 12
mpark is offline  
post #498 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
secstate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by docchak
Don't 1080i has more pixel than 720p , hence more power of the machine to process video signal??

Yes but CRTs are analog devices and thus don't have pixels. They draw continous lines. So a cheaper CRT device may or may not be able to resolve all the information in 1080i but will generally have an easier time syncing to it. CRTs unlike LCD/DLP have to redraw the image continously. The redrawing or scanning is often the most signficant limitation of the CRT device.

Here are the refresh rates for various NTSC/ASTC standards:

720 x 480i NTSC 15.75H 59.94V (good old NTSC)
720 x 480p 480p 31.47H 59.94V (progressive NTSC)
1080i HDTV NTSC 33.72H 59.94V (notice how it is only marginally higher than the scan rate for 480p)
720p HDTV NTSC 44.95H 59.94V (notice the large jump in horizontal scan rate compared to 1080i that is what causes lesser CRT display devices problems).
secstate is offline  
post #499 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Anamorpheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is anyone else having reception problems this afternoon with the playoff game on FOX 35? The signal keeps dropping out for me about once a minute or so.
Anamorpheus is offline  
post #500 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 03:34 PM
Senior Member
 
tmcck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlottesvile, VA
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
no video problems with Fox for me. Rock solid reception.
tmcck is offline  
post #501 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 03:43 PM
Member
 
wahoo246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Its the wind. They are all doing that at my house.
wahoo246 is offline  
post #502 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's 6:57 pm , the wind is probably @ 10-15 MPH here in Hopewell, my antenna is in the attic reception on FOX 35-1 playoff game is beautiful, again 720 P rock man!!
docchak is offline  
post #503 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by mpark
I dunno about it being off the air this morning, it's on now at 10am.
Concerning, 1080i vs 720p- I agree with you 100% about there being no discenable difference between the two. I wish all the networks were 720p because it does require less bandwidth. Unfortunately, it's the networks who decide not the local affiliates. NBC & CBS decided 1080i - ABC & FOX went 720p. It is basically that simple.

Hello Michael,

Now, It's the fact that ABC 8-1 here in Richmond is 720p, if it's the network decision then how come 13-1 ABC in Hampton road is 1080i ?? or may be each affiliate is different??

My only problem is because I have an ATI HDTV wonder, it is super-sensitive to CPU usage, it just does not like 1080i since it hogs a lot of bandwidth.

Is there any future plan to consolidate format be it 720p or 1080i in the horizon that you know of?
docchak is offline  
post #504 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 05:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hjriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
WOOHOOOOO!!!!

I now have FOX HD from Directv, east and west. Only ABC not on board...

Harold Jackson
hjriver is offline  
post #505 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 06:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
mpark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by docchak
Hello Michael,

Now, It's the fact that ABC 8-1 here in Richmond is 720p, if it's the network decision then how come 13-1 ABC in Hampton road is 1080i ?? or may be each affiliate is different??

My only problem is because I have an ATI HDTV wonder, it is super-sensitive to CPU usage, it just does not like 1080i since it hogs a lot of bandwidth.

Is there any future plan to consolidate format be it 720p or 1080i in the horizon that you know of?

I can't answer why 13-1 is 1080i. It just makes a lot more sense to stick with the format that your network is using so that you can just pass through the HD signal from the network. I don't know of any plans to consolidate 720p and 1080i. They were the formats that were given to us when ATSC came about. I thought it was crazy to have all these different formats (480p, 720p, 1080i) because tuners have to be able to interpret all of them. No one could settle on a format and it delayed HD for years and years. The FCC wanted the marketplace to decide which is great but it stalled the rollout. Every manuafactuer had a dog in this fight and none of them would back down from their format. So that is why we have this today.

Michael Park
Creative Services Manager
WWBT NBC 12
mpark is offline  
post #506 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hjriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by mpark
I can't answer why 13-1 is 1080i. It just makes a lot more sense to stick with the format that your network is using so that you can just pass through the HD signal from the network. I don't know of any plans to consolidate 720p and 1080i. They were the formats that were given to us when ATSC came about. I thought it was crazy to have all these different formats (480p, 720p, 1080i) because tuners have to be able to interpret all of them. No one could settle on a format and it delayed HD for years and years. The FCC wanted the marketplace to decide which is great but it stalled the rollout. Every manuafactuer had a dog in this fight and none of them would back down from their format. So that is why we have this today.

I would think if the broadcasters settled on one standard then the manufacturers would have to conform and manufacture their products to work with that standard. After all it's the consumer that buys the product and if...they don't have a viable product then they lose out on sales (profit). It doesn't matter if they have a different agenda. They would be forced to play the game or get out of the business.

Harold Jackson
hjriver is offline  
post #507 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
docchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hopewell, VA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by hjriver
WOOHOOOOO!!!!

I now have FOX HD from Directv, east and west. Only ABC not on board...

Since Friday all directv premium are free until sunday night
docchak is offline  
post #508 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 07:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I popped in here to complain about how long it was taking Fox-35 to get their HD gear up and running. Guess I should check the forum more often.

p.s. At the moment, I must say I'm on Comcast's side when it comes to paying a premium for carriage of HD locals. Remember, if Comcast has to pay, these costs will be transferred to us as consumers. While I don't mind paying my own way, I believe the locals will benefit greatly from carriage on the cable system and may be cutting their own throats by insisting on a premium. The result is that their HD feeds are not being carried, and the reality is that more and more people are getting HD equipment and are not seeing Fox-35 and WTVR unless they have antenna equipment. These guys need to sit down and settle this matter.
JohnFR is offline  
post #509 of 8857 Old 10-16-2004, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hjriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by docchak
Since Friday all directv premium are free until sunday night

Yea I know, I'm getting HBO and Showtime HD. I subscribe to the rest. I have the regular ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox national feeds and the locals. The CBS, NBC and Fox HD are on separate channels.

Harold Jackson
hjriver is offline  
post #510 of 8857 Old 10-17-2004, 01:05 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
Quote:


Originally posted by hjriver
Yea I know, I'm getting HBO and Showtime HD. I subscribe to the rest. I have the regular ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox national feeds and the locals. The CBS, NBC and Fox HD are on separate channels.

I've read what you just wrote several times, and I cannot make any sense of what you are trying to say.

I must ask, why must you bother trying to insert your opinion into a thread that really has no bearing on what you watch on your tv? I've read through your posts on other threads, and it seems your only point is to try to incite. Please leave our little Richmond thread alone and go on elsewhere.

The point of this thread is to allow for fellow Richmonders to share with each other (and as a side benefit, share with some station engineers) their experiences receiving Richmond DTV signals. I can't find a single post of yours in this thread that adds value to this conversation. Please don't come back, you are not welcome. If anyone else disagrees, please speak up, and I will recant this little rant. This is a harmless thread designed to help out this community, I don't understand your need to inflict your troll-like attitude upon us. If you feel like you need to continue to be a participant here, please explain yourself. Otherwise, please go away.
beaudot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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