[tknq]

Question:



I understand the reason DirecTV can not do HD NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX, etc. is because the local channels would lose viewers and they dont have the bandwidth for all locals in HD.


Why don't they just offer the NY/LA feeds in HD like channels 380-388 in HD? How come they can do non-HD?


I wouldn't even consider paying for DirecTV as it is now ....


Im obviously missing something here, so can somebody fill me in? Thanks!

 

[mikey mo]

DISH offers CBS HD and DirecTv will soon. See the first thread.

 

[airedale]

I think cable may be winning a lot of people over cause of the local HD Feeds....

 

[Ken Erickson]

Quote:

Originally posted by tknq Question: I understand the reason DirecTV can not do HD NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX, etc. is because the local channels would lose viewers and they dont have the bandwidth for all locals in HD. Why don't they just offer the NY/LA feeds in HD like channels 380-388 in HD? How come they can do non-HD? I wouldn't even consider paying for DirecTV as it is now .... Im obviously missing something here, so can somebody fill me in? Thanks!

You answered your own question by the first statement you made: because the local channels would lose viewers. Lost viewers == lost ad dollars. It's that simple. Since congress passed a law (forget the actual name, something like SHVIA) that prevents you from receiving distant channels unless you get a waiver from your local stations. And that isn't going to happen for 99% of use. There has been some talk of D* offering locals in HD be re-allocating some of the bandwidth on the Spaceway birds but it's just talk at the moment.

 

[jambroni]

I am becoming increasingly tired of waiting. Waiting on Direct and waiting on SBG to come through. As each day passes, I lean closer and closer to BEV.


The only restraint is the 650 dollar initial expense of getting a BEV model 6000. I may be better suited waiting for the BEV model 921.

 

[DrDon]

jambroni..


Isn't everyone in Columbus passing HD OTA? I do know that your CBS affiliate is one of the few putting through a full 19MBs HD signal and it's strong enough to be picked up around Cincinnati.


Doc

 

[jambroni]

DrDon - PBS is scheduled to go live in a week or so. The Fox affiliate (WTTE-DT) is broadcasting, but at a very low power. It is quite annoying and they have stated it will be like this for a long time (another year or so). Where I live, I cannot receive their signal unless meteorological conditions are ideal. And in Ohio, rarely are weather conditions ideal!

 

[airedale]

Sorry... but I don't know what BEV is... could someone enlighten me?

 

[DrDon]

Bell Express Vu is one of the Canadian DBS services that some subscribe to through a "gray market" process. You'll find links up in the Programming Synopsis sticky at the top of the forum.

 

[JIFISH]

Quote:

Originally posted by tknq I wouldn't even consider paying for DirecTV as it is now .... Im obviously missing something here, so can somebody fill me in? Thanks!

What you are missing is the fact that all DirecTv set top boxes are able to receive over-the-air HD signals and transmit them. If you have trouble getting local digital signals, then that's no help. But those of us that don't, it is a very workable and even desirable solution.

 

[Simrdai]

I think someone said majority of viewers get their tv through cable or satellite...so over the air signals isn't that useful to me and many others.


I actually signed up for digital cable so i can get my locals in HD and see what its like. I've only seen a demo reel on HDTV a few years ago in a good guys store.

I have DirecTV but only offering CBS is really lame....

since I watch shows on NBC /ABC/UPN/WB as well

 

[Ken H]

Quote:

Originally posted by Simrdai I think someone said majority of viewers get their tv through cable or satellite...so over the air signals isn't that useful to me and many others.

This is an attitude based in the past, and no longer applies in the age of digital television.


Receiving HDTV over the air is the best use of available TV bandwidth.

 

[rogo]

"I think someone said majority of viewers get their tv through cable or satellite...so over the air signals isn't that useful to me and many others."


See, while the first part of your statement is true, the conclusion does not logically follow. A lot of people -- like myself -- get their TV through satellite or cable but found it trivial to drop a cheap antenna on the room (not a high roof either). We get HD locals for free, even with them running from lousy tower locations at very low power.

 

[brenden]

Wireless is todays cool technology. Wireless phones, Wireless Computer Networking. Nobody wants wires anymore!

How about wireless HDTV? Yes it really exists!

 

[bbodin]

Quote:

"I think someone said majority of viewers get their tv through cable or satellite...so over the air signals isn't that useful to me and many others." See, while the first part of your statement is true, the conclusion does not logically follow. A lot of people -- like myself -- get their TV through satellite or cable but found it trivial to drop a cheap antenna on the room (not a high roof either). We get HD locals for free, even with them running from lousy tower locations at very low power

Some of us don't even need it on the roof. I'm 35 miles from the towers and have a $30 silver sensor antenna in my attic attached to my DirectTV STB that pics up every local station fine (and these towers likely aren't even pushing full power yet)

 

[DP1]

Quote:

Originally posted by tknq Question: I understand the reason DirecTV can not do HD NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX, etc. is because the local channels would lose viewers and they dont have the bandwidth for all locals in HD. Why don't they just offer the NY/LA feeds in HD like channels 380-388 in HD? How come they can do non-HD? I wouldn't even consider paying for DirecTV as it is now .... Im obviously missing something here, so can somebody fill me in? Thanks!

Well when they do get around to offering a full compliment of HD feeds for NY and LA it will because they finally have enough bandwidth to do it for the sake of people living in those huge 2 markets, not because of what it's mean to people in white areas that qualify for those same distant SD feeds as it stands now.


If they cant justify the bandwidth required to offer them to potentially all the people living in those 2 markets yet, they certainly cant justify it by what it would mean to people in white areas because the percentage of people that a) live in those areas to begin with is so small, and b) even of those who do, the percentage with HD receiving eqipment is smaller still.

 

[Skyboss]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken H This is an attitude based in the past, and no longer applies in the age of digital television. Receiving HDTV over the air is the best use of available TV bandwidth.

And less problematic as analog goes off line, and digital bumps up transmission power. A lot of the problem today is the lack of full power signals. Plus, who knows. 16-VSB, maybe it will help things too.

 

[gunzour2]

Quote:

Originally posted by rogo "I think someone said majority of viewers get their tv through cable or satellite...so over the air signals isn't that useful to me and many others." See, while the first part of your statement is true, the conclusion does not logically follow. A lot of people -- like myself -- get their TV through satellite or cable but found it trivial to drop a cheap antenna on the room (not a high roof either). We get HD locals for free, even with them running from lousy tower locations at very low power.

That's very easy to say when you are one of those who are able to pull down an OTA signal. Many people, like myself, are not able to get OTA HD even when living in a metro area with several stations broadcasting HD. And from the discussions I have seen on the local HD email list, even those than can get an OTA HD signal suffer frequent dropouts.


To me it is just not an acceptable solution. I want to be able to watch network programming in HD. I want to be able to record it on my HD Tivo (when available), without having to make sure the antenna is pointed in the right direction. I don't want to have to worry about weather conditions affecting my reception.

 

[cpcat]

Gunzour,

I can't imagine why you wouldn't be able to receive OTA HD in a metro area.

I'm in SE KY and receive ABC,NBC,CBS, WB and PAX all OTA. The towers are

between 40-60mi away. Dropouts are basically non-existent for me although I do have an occ. glitch which I assume to be multipath related on the VHS station I get which is CBS from Hazard, KY.


I would describe any "dropouts" that I experience as very infrequent and really not enough to interfere with enjoyment of the program.


Sure, we'd all like it to be perfect absolutely all of the time but I'd say the vast majority of OTA viewers are extremely happy overall with the signals

they are receiving.


Whatever has prevented you from being able to receive OTA HD I'm sure there are alot of folks around here who'd be happy to help (myself included )if you'll provide some info regarding your location and what you've tried so far.


Charles

 

[cpcat]

According to antennaweb.org, from Owings Mills, MD. you have ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX and WB all broadcasting from the same tower 9 miles from you at 140 degrees. This means you could likely set your antenna and forget it once it's dialed in. I don't know what the various power levels of all of those stations are but most likely you can receive them via either set-top antenna or certainly with an attic antenna. With a rooftop antenna you could probably receive 2 or 3 stations for each network.


Go to antennaweb.org and punch in your zipcode and you'll see what I mean.


Charles