or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Greensboro, NC - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greensboro, NC - HDTV - Page 367

post #10981 of 11121

The current FCC regulation says that for as long as a cable system continues to offer analog service to any of its customers, it cannot encrypt the digital signals that

it carries for the local stations. Only when the system goes completely digital is it allowed to encrypt the locals.

An important thing to remember is that the only reason that the cable systems even deign to offer the cheap ($20 per month) package that contains the local stations

and a few public service stations is that federal law commands it. If that law were not in place, the cable companies would not bother to offer an inexpensive package.

The cable companies regard those low paying customers as something of a nuisance. They want everybody to sign up for a high priced digital package, even if there is not enough good quality programming to warrant having so many channels.

post #10982 of 11121
Eventually most cable systems are going all digital, and all channels will be encrypted. No more clear qam locals in HD. So prepare to get a cable box or an antenna. Charter has already begun eliminating clear qam in the Western Carolinas, as they are going all digital. I'm sure Time Warner will soon follow.
post #10983 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

Eventually most cable systems are going all digital, and all channels will be encrypted. No more clear qam locals in HD. So prepare to get a cable box or an antenna. Charter has already begun eliminating clear qam in the Western Carolinas, as they are going all digital. I'm sure Time Warner will soon follow.

 

What the FCC should do is reverse its ruling and insist that every local station that the cable system carries must be unencrypted. The FCC should be looking out for the interests of poor people who live in areas where OTA reception is not feasible, especially rural areas that are distant from transmitters.

 

I really don't think cable TV has lived up to its promise.

The quality of TV programming is much worse than it was forty years ago.

post #10984 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post



I really don't think cable TV has lived up to its promise.
The quality of TV programming is much worse than it was forty years ago.

I'm not sure what the promise of cable was,; I do know I've had no trouble holding myself back from subscribing.
My recollection is that cable generally began as CATV to provide clean signals to city patrons that had multipath and other reception problems.
They morphed into providing cable specific programming which now seems to reproduce geometrically,
I guess there were those who thought that if Discovery, TLC and CNN were good, then 50 more would be better.
I don't think so, and I doubt many others do, now, either.
Its kinda like taking a cup of coffee, that sells for 10 cents, and, dividing it into 10 other cups, filling the cups with hot water, selling the cups for 7 cents, and, telling everybody how great a bargain they are getting.
post #10985 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post



I really don't think cable TV has lived up to its promise.
The quality of TV programming is much worse than it was forty years ago.

I'm not sure what the promise of cable was,; I do know I've had no trouble holding myself back from subscribing.
My recollection is that cable generally began as CATV to provide clean signals to city patrons that had multipath and other reception problems.
They morphed into providing cable specific programming which now seems to reproduce geometrically,
I guess there were those who thought that if Discovery, TLC and CNN were good, then 50 more would be better.
I don't think so, and I doubt many others do, now, either.
Its kinda like taking a cup of coffee, that sells for 10 cents, and, dividing it into 10 other cups, filling the cups with hot water, selling the cups for 7 cents, and, telling everybody how great a bargain they are getting.

 

 

 

Yes, in the early days, cable was often used to provide service to urban apartment dwellers who might have reception difficulties, but it was also used to provide service to homeowners who lived in small cities that might be too distant from the larger cities that had the broadcast towers.

 

But beyond that, the cable companies, in order to persuade viewers to ditch their antennas and sign up for cable, also touted the niche channels that cable could provide. Bravo! originally emphasized the performing arts, and Discovery was a channel devoted to science programming. Over time, the cable TV content providers and the cable companies (service providers) became very greedy and decided to cater to the very strange tastes that many people apparently have. I mean, have you looked recently at the kind of shows that some of those cable channels are carrying? It is truly bizarre. It makes tabloids and gossip mags look sober by comparison.

post #10986 of 11121
Also, when did antennas become considered so ugly? Until the 1970's they could be found on the top of most homes including in the finest neighborhoods. I have very little patience for people who ask for advice on an antenna who are 50 miles from the broadcast towers but the antenna must be hidden in the attic. I understand that some people do not maintain their antennas properly and they do look trashy, leaning in the wind with broken elements. But the same could be said for broken garage doors and poorly maintained landscaping. If it was not the cable companies behind the campaign to make antennas perceived as ugly then they certainly benefited from the attitude.
post #10987 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister B View Post

Also, when did antennas become considered so ugly? Until the 1970's they could be found on the top of most homes including in the finest neighborhoods. I have very little patience for people who ask for advice on an antenna who are 50 miles from the broadcast towers but the antenna must be hidden in the attic. I understand that some people do not maintain their antennas properly and they do look trashy, leaning in the wind with broken elements. But the same could be said for broken garage doors and poorly maintained landscaping. If it was not the cable companies behind the campaign to make antennas perceived as ugly then they certainly benefited from the attitude.

 

There was a period of time, before the advent of digital cable, before broadband internet became dominant, and before the cable companies started bundling video, internet, and phone service, when cable TV actually was a pretty good value. You didn't need a set-top box, and there was no haggling over prices. The cable channels still delivered the type of shows their names implied. Setting things up was simple. You just attached one end of the coaxial cable to the TV set and the other end to the wall jack. No fuss, no muss.

 

Then around the mid 1990's the internet came along, followed by digital cable, then streaming of video from the internet to the TV, and before you knew it, all of the business models were disrupted. And people became obsessed with sports, driving up demand for programming and thereby driving up costs, even for people who don't give a hoot about sports. College conferences started their own cable channels.

 

The industries still haven't figured out where things are heading next.

The only thing that seems certain is that consumers will be overcharged for the poor quality of programming and customer service.

post #10988 of 11121
People's perception of antennas as ugly and unsightly has given rise to these new flat panel style leaf antennas. Which overall have marginal performance at best. Possibly the Winegard Squareshooter and Flatwave Air perform decently for UHF, but not so much for VHF. A real antenna is still most reliably required. But homeowner's associations don't like them either, despite the OTARD ruling.
post #10989 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

People's perception of antennas as ugly and unsightly has given rise to these new flat panel style leaf antennas. Which overall have marginal performance at best. Possibly the Winegard Squareshooter and Flatwave Air perform decently for UHF, but not so much for VHF. A real antenna is still most reliably required. But homeowner's associations don't like them either, despite the OTARD ruling.

I think there's some social class snobbery involved in the negative perceptions of antennas.

 

Reception via an indoor antenna is now, in many places, more feasible than it was in the days of analog broadcasts, but there are some multipath issues with indoor antennas.

 

Outdoor antennas are not any more unsightly than satellite dishes, but having a small dish mounted on the roof is viewed as being more upscale. HOA's may think that outdoor antennas will hurt property values.

 

Unfortunately, in some places there is also still the view that poor people have committed some sort of sin and deserve to be poor as a punishment for that.

 

People have also gotten used to having more than just the Big Four broadcast networks and PBS.

Some people just could not live without the political talking heads on cable TV or without the non-stop sports programming.

 

But, even apart from those concerns, outdoor antennas are just kind of a hassle.

There are not many professional installers around anymore, and if the antenna is mounted on a rooftop, that can be a hassle when roof repairs are needed. Frankly, if a person has the land to do it and the neighbors don't object, the best setup for an outdoor antenna is to mount it on its own tower instead of on a rooftop.

 

I'd love to see a resurgence of OTA, but I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

I wonder what the courts will decide in the Aereo case and how that will affect broadcasters and cable and satellite service providers.

post #10990 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

I think there's some social class snobbery involved in the negative perceptions of antennas.

Reception via an indoor antenna is now, in many places, more feasible than it was in the days of analog broadcasts, but there are some multipath issues with indoor antennas.

Outdoor antennas are not any more unsightly than satellite dishes, but having a small dish mounted on the roof is viewed as being more upscale. HOA's may think that outdoor antennas will hurt property values.

Unfortunately, in some places there is also still the view that poor people have committed some sort of sin and deserve to be poor as a punishment for that.

People have also gotten used to having more than just the Big Four broadcast networks and PBS.
Some people just could not live without the political talking heads on cable TV or without the non-stop sports programming.

But, even apart from those concerns, outdoor antennas are just kind of a hassle.
There are not many professional installers around anymore, and if the antenna is mounted on a rooftop, that can be a hassle when roof repairs are needed. Frankly, if a person has the land to do it and the neighbors don't object, the best setup for an outdoor antenna is to mount it on its own tower instead of on a rooftop.

I'd love to see a resurgence of OTA, but I don't think there's much chance of that happening.
I wonder what the courts will decide in the Aereo case and how that will affect broadcasters and cable and satellite service providers.

I'll pitch in with you on this...
However, I like deck mounts, rather than tower mounts, where feasible.
Bare aluminum really is not pretty.
But, paint the antenna blue, and put a sign on the mast like: NATIONAL BLUE NETWORK, and,
objections might fade to subtle curiosity. Maybe envy.
post #10991 of 11121
I was in Wilkes County this past October; and I was once again reminded about the large number of rooftop antennas on homes in that area. Now, granted, that is a rural area and many of the homes are low end and some of the antennas are on mobile homes. But I also noticed a number of big bird antennas on nicer homes in Wilkes County as well. And many of these rooftop antennas looked like they were being very well maintained. Many of these people may not have access to cable; but we know they have access to dish or direct if they've got money in the bank...just like anyone else.

But we all know (an hour away) here in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County area, there are few homes with rooftop antennas....although you will occasionally notice them if you are on the look out. I've even noticed some in the Buena Vista area. And those are certainly not low end homes. Having said that, I suspect some of those antennas in Buena Vista have been around for a while. My home is modest; and I have an outdoor antenna b/c I am an OTA enthusiast and also wanted access to the Charlotte networks in addition to the Triad.
post #10992 of 11121
Yes unfortunately clear qam reception of local HD channels is now being eliminated. As I said previously, it has already happened on Charter Cable systems in the Western Carolinas. And Time Warner will likely follow suit.
post #10993 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

Yes unfortunately clear qam reception of local HD channels is now being eliminated. As I said previously, it has already happened on Charter Cable systems in the Western Carolinas. And Time Warner will likely follow suit.


Cable companies just want to make a lot of money from equipment rentals, and they also hope there are a lot of gullible people who will pay their inflated prices for video-on-demand services.

post #10994 of 11121
I have inlaws in Wilkes county and just like me they have Dish network but they have a antenna two. I watch Ota more than dish . In Grayson county Virginia helped quite a few people get OTA way I always looked at it, you don't like my antennas don't look at em .
post #10995 of 11121
This is my first post on here and I won't try to bother you guys too much. I have been following these informative post and I learn by doing so. I have been using an outdoor antenna for four years when the package from my satellite provider changed the channel lineup, with a price increase of course. Would it be possible if some of the cable / satellite commercial driven channels could find a home on local 'OTA' side channels, HSN & QVC are already using two now. Channels like AMC and some others utilizing local stations as an extra outlet for their programming. Even though the picture quality might not be as good because of bandwidth limitations, still us poor folk like myself could benefit - and might just bring a little more competition between the pay providers too. Outdoor antenna sales would increase, but I am sure a lot of 'red tape' would play a big part and some channels are probably owned by the cable / satellite companies.This was just a thought I had. Is this a bad idea?
Edited by dja1922 - 12/10/13 at 11:58am
post #10996 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dja1922 View Post

This is my first post on here and I won't try to bother you guys too much. I have been following these informative post and I learn by doing so. I have been using an outdoor antenna for four years when the package from my satellite provider changed the channel lineup, with a price increase of course. Would it be possible if some of the cable / satellite commercial driven channels could find a home on local 'OTA' side channels, HSN & QVC are already using two now. Channels like AMC and some others utilizing local stations as an extra outlet for their programming. Even though the picture quality might not be as good because of bandwidth limitations, still us poor folk like myself could benefit - and might just bring a little more competition between the pay providers too. Outdoor antenna sales would increase, but I am sure a lot of 'red tape' would play a big part and some channels are probably owned by the cable / satellite companies.This was just a thought I had. Is this a bad idea?
I like the idea, but the dollars don't.
Shopping Networks survive only by the purchases of the viewers. And, they can pretty much determine how a customer is viewing.
Typically a program provider on cable will depend on subscription fees to assure the production of the programs, which can then be sold to advertisers.
If a cable or dish service is collecting and distributing subscriber fees, then it will not want programs it is charging for free OTA.
To keep an ethical and legal peace between the cable networks on one hand, and the cable and dish servers on the other, there really could not be any free OTA
involved. Right now there is very little ad revenue for OTA subchannels........and the future looks worse.
So, if a cable channel, say, AABB, wound up on a broadcast subchannel, the local cable and dish would probably stop subscription fees to AABB, and use the OTA signal to provide
the channel to its subscribers. Likely AABB loses revenue. That could not extend or continue very far. Just about everybody will be unhappy but a handfull of OTA viewers, who are really not important
to the industry.
post #10997 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

I like the idea, but the dollars don't.
Shopping Networks survive only by the purchases of the viewers. And, they can pretty much determine how a customer is viewing.
Typically a program provider on cable will depend on subscription fees to assure the production of the programs, which can then be sold to advertisers.
If a cable or dish service is collecting and distributing subscriber fees, then it will not want programs it is charging for free OTA.
To keep an ethical and legal peace between the cable networks on one hand, and the cable and dish servers on the other, there really could not be any free OTA
involved. Right now there is very little ad revenue for OTA subchannels........and the future looks worse.
So, if a cable channel, say, AABB, wound up on a broadcast subchannel, the local cable and dish would probably stop subscription fees to AABB, and use the OTA signal to provide
the channel to its subscribers. Likely AABB loses revenue. That could not extend or continue very far. Just about everybody will be unhappy but a handfull of OTA viewers, who are really not important
to the industry.

Thank you for explaining how the money gets circulated between the channels, providers, and the consumer. I thought the commercials paid for the programing content, while providers charged it's customers for operational cost and maintenance, paying only the 'premium' non commercial channels a fee to carry on their systems. Well, I just learned more from you guys. Thank you for your answer and I will keep reading and following.
Edited by dja1922 - 12/10/13 at 8:50pm
post #10998 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dja1922 View Post

This is my first post on here and I won't try to bother you guys too much. I have been following these informative post and I learn by doing so. I have been using an outdoor antenna for four years when the package from my satellite provider changed the channel lineup, with a price increase of course. Would it be possible if some of the cable / satellite commercial driven channels could find a home on local 'OTA' side channels, HSN & QVC are already using two now. Channels like AMC and some others utilizing local stations as an extra outlet for their programming. Even though the picture quality might not be as good because of bandwidth limitations, still us poor folk like myself could benefit - and might just bring a little more competition between the pay providers too. Outdoor antenna sales would increase, but I am sure a lot of 'red tape' would play a big part and some channels are probably owned by the cable / satellite companies.This was just a thought I had. Is this a bad idea?

I wish that they would provide online channels and let you purchase them individually. I pay $7.99 for Netflix. I would gladly pay that for HBO shows (HBO Go)... but right now the system is tied up in the structure it is - I think HBO would make more money just making premium shows and ditching the movies entirely and just have HBO Go or an HBO network with that kind of programming. Same is true for the few other shows scattered throughout - normally I just wait and watch on Netflix, or just get the season via rental.

Doing this via OTA doesn't work because of the content these shows have (imagine the cuts required on Walking Dead) - and the huge overhead. Online, however, its' already been done. These networks already have this stuff ready to go - but it is usually tied up in proving you are a cable or satellite customer.
post #10999 of 11121
post #11000 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

FCC Approves NPRM On Sports Blackout Rule


http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/fcc-approves-nprm-sports-blackout-rule/147296

 

Well, I'm sure glad that Congress and the FCC are focusing on the vital mission of promoting the proliferation of sports channels on cable TV. Everybody should watch at least two dozen sporting events on TV every week, and if they're not paying at least a hundred dollars a month to do so (after their promotional discounts expire), then they are not true sports fans and should hang their heads in shame.

 

I'd be really upset if the legislators and the commission instead spent time rolling back corporate consolidation in the media industry or creating incentives for educational and informational programming on the licensed public airwaves and the cable public access channels and government channels.

 

TV has declined so much. The wasteland is far more wasted than it was fifty years ago when Newton Minow bemoaned the sad quality of programming.


Edited by veedon - 12/18/13 at 5:03pm
post #11001 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

Well, I'm sure glad that Congress and the FCC are focusing on the vital mission of promoting the proliferation of sports channels on cable TV. Everybody should watch at least two dozen sporting events on TV every week, and if they're not paying at least a hundred dollars a month to do so (after their promotional discounts expire), then they are not true sports fans and should hang their heads in shame.

I'd be really upset if the legislators and the commission instead spent time rolling back corporate consolidation in the media industry or creating incentives for educational and informational programming on the licensed public airwaves and the cable public access channels and government channels.

TV has declined so much. The wasteland is far more wasted than it was fifty years ago when Newton Minow bemoaned the sad quality of programming.
From a technical standpoint, the situation may be critical.
The recent decision by the FCC to delay the incentive auction a year suggests the government isn't really sure what it is doing..
The auction was always a jigsaw puzzle that started with pieces rather than a whole.
I get the idea that the FCC is not sure it can make a whole.
Google is coming to the rescue, and, may allow the private sector to decide who will keep OTA service:
http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2013/12/google-offers-tv-signal-study-fcc-incentive-auction

The FCC might be able to proceed by putting the "industry" on the point and make it conceivable that the government will not be
responsible for the results, but was just following the paths created by those whose technology was involved.
Or something.
post #11002 of 11121
Nobody in the industry seriously thought it would happen in 2014 anyway. That deadline was set by the former chairman Genachowski more or less when he was on his way out the door. This delay just makes official what everyone already thought.

- Trip
post #11003 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Nobody in the industry seriously thought it would happen in 2014 anyway. That deadline was set by the former chairman Genachowski more or less when he was on his way out the door. This delay just makes official what everyone already thought.

- Trip
I believe you.
I also think there was always doubt as to the practicality of the incentive auction as put in place by Congress.
I'm sue there are those that still hope some technical innovations intervene and cause a reconsideration.
And, there are some who are afraid innovation will intervene.
If the letter of the mandate is to be executed, then it should be done now. That, so everybody involved will know where
they stand as soon as possible.
post #11004 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

I believe you.
I also think there was always doubt as to the practicality of the incentive auction as put in place by Congress.
I'm sue there are those that still hope some technical innovations intervene and cause a reconsideration.
And, there are some who are afraid innovation will intervene.
If the letter of the mandate is to be executed, then it should be done now. That, so everybody involved will know where
they stand as soon as possible.

Questions from Australia
http://www.zdnet.com/this-isnt-what-digital-tv-was-supposed-to-be-7000024157/
post #11005 of 11121
They say that quality shows take a lot of money. I am not disputing that.... where does all the money go?
Cable channels have outrageous fees AND ads AND paid programming.
Local channels have ignorant retransmission fees AND TONS of paid programming and ads, too.
Where does all the money go? To the SEC so it can pay Johnny football? To the Robertsons so they can spread racism and call it Christianity?

My biggest hesitations to cord cutting:
1. Sports. I feel like the days of using watchESPN, etc are numbered. TWC already blocks it unless you pay the TV rate. AT&T allows access now.
2. How do you find things? It seems that Netflix, Amazon, Roku, etc all have their own things and you'd need all of them to watch shows. The search options are worthless since you can't search for something that you don't know exists.
3. Are regular shows like The Daily Show, etc available on there when they're supposed to be? Like 11pm on the day of or is it all in seasons?
post #11006 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

They say that quality shows take a lot of money. I am not disputing that.... where does all the money go?
Cable channels have outrageous fees AND ads AND paid programming.
Local channels have ignorant retransmission fees AND TONS of paid programming and ads, too.
Where does all the money go? To the SEC so it can pay Johnny football? To the Robertsons so they can spread racism and call it Christianity?

 

 

The money goes to the top executives, the big shareholders, and a few of the on-screen talent.

I'm sure that a big star of one of the scripted shows on the major networks makes a lot of money, but I doubt that the "stars" of the so-called reality shows make much. The writers for most shows certainly don't make much. Things seem to have gone downhill since the early 2000's, when content producers figured out that viewers would be willing to watch a whole lot of low-quality programming. The content producers have been successful in slapping down the writers' guild, depriving the writers of decent compensation for their labor.

 

The Supreme Court, having been on a roll with extremely bad decisions for the past twenty years, has decided to curtail the power of the FCC to regulate content. Years ago, the low-quality programming was mindless stuff like Gilligan's Island. Sure, it may have insulted the viewers' intelligence, but at least it was not smutty and did not feature gruesome violence, drug abuse, and the other vices that are now commonly celebrated on broadcast TV, basic cable, and premium cable.

post #11007 of 11121
Goodness gracious - you leave a forum for a while (a few years!) and suddenly you are lost again!
Several questions to get me back up to speed:

I am searching this thread to find current OTA channels in the Triad area. Is there a sticky somewhere? Zip Code 27408

We are probably cutting the cord very soon. Indoor antennas are working, but I have to place them in the middle of the room to receive all channels (that is NOT pretty or safe!). Looking into outdoor antennas but I don't want to put it on the roof - too steep if I need maintenance, plus DH will have to be the installer since I cannot seem to find any in the area. I want to keep him around for another 30 years, thank you! Suggestions or ideas?

Currently a D***TV customer - dish on roof with cable to every TV. No problems with service, just tired of paying the price! OTA, Hulu Plus, and Netflix seem to be the way to go. Just a girl trying to save money!

Thank you all in advance.
Pam

**UPDATE - On TVFool right now, so I should be able to figure out reception.
Edited by PamW - 12/31/13 at 5:38am
post #11008 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

My biggest hesitations to cord cutting:
1. Sports. I feel like the days of using watchESPN, etc are numbered. TWC already blocks it unless you pay the TV rate. AT&T allows access now.
2. How do you find things? It seems that Netflix, Amazon, Roku, etc all have their own things and you'd need all of them to watch shows. The search options are worthless since you can't search for something that you don't know exists.
3. Are regular shows like The Daily Show, etc available on there when they're supposed to be? Like 11pm on the day of or is it all in seasons?

1.If you are a sports nut, cutting the cord is not for you. That is absolutely 100% true. If you only watch one game a week and it happens to not be on the major networks, you can always go to a bar/restaurant, have a drink/meal and still be head and richer for the experience. Sort of.

2. It does take work - the more you use and rate things in Netflix, it really does start offering you suggestions of things you would like - there are blogs that are great, there is even a roku channel that shows you all the new content added so you can keep up ($2 or so I think to buy the channel). The worst thing that could happen is you watch less tv. That hasn't really happened in our house since we cut the cord two + years ago, both being avid TV watchers (and used to work in the industry).

I should also note, if you don't have young kids - this also makes things pretty hard and maybe not worth the hassle.

3. Some shows show up the day after, some show up as seasons. But I would suggest to do what we did - we lived a month as if we had cut the cord but didn't. We figured it out first. We had an antenna, but we built a DVR system. We built an in-house movie channel on the roku so we could have access to our favorite movies any time. The hiccups of what do you do when you want to watch the news kind of things. Once we got it figured out, it was stress free and we have saved $1200 a year, so roughly a vacation a year. One we really couldn't afford before. I think all of us will agree TV is a drug - and not all drugs are bad, but too much of anything is never good. We use our TV antenna and the DVR to record bunches of stuff - we finally got around to watching "The Blacklist" - we have other shows that come on - we record the whole season sometimes and get around to when there are breaks in the TV seasons. Olympics are coming soon - so there is another highlight for us. To me, a DVR is critical to cord cutting (unless you really only watch 1 or 2 hours a day).
post #11009 of 11121
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamW View Post

I am searching this thread to find current OTA channels in the Triad area. Is there a sticky somewhere?

Not that I know of. I have a list on my website though: http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?mktid=59

Click "Expand/Contract All" to see all of the subchannels.

- Trip
post #11010 of 11121
All the championship games are still OTA and I get MLB online any other package anywhere else most of the games are blacked out or they cost a small fortune .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Greensboro, NC - HDTV