[Kensmith48]

Two of my local channels (ABC & CBS) affiliates both said they were going HD a few months ago. They advertised places to get HD sets, the advantages of HD, and that they would be broadcasting in HD. Now that they have HD all that they will broadcast in is a digital signal. Not HD at all, even though they could. It seems that they are only willing to do what the FCC has mandated for them to do so far. My local PBS station is going HD also, but now they say they will only broadcast digital. Does this seem right? They say that there isn't enough HD sets to broadcast HD. Sounds like the movie companies when dvd's were getting started.

Can I do anything to change this? Talking with the station managers doesn't help.

All I get is HDnet through Dtv, but that channel is getting old. I need more HD.

 

[Ken H]

Unfortunately there is no federal mandate for stations to provide HDTV. Ask the station managers for the name and address of the station owner and write some letters.

 

[tonyb100]

Very ironic that a station that actually promoted hd at one time ; instead of keeping dtv and hd a secret like the majority of stations, didn't end up doing hd once they went digital.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Time for a hunger strike, dude. Sure it's bad for your health, but you've got to set your priorities.

 

[Don Landis]

The best way to get MORE HDTV is to subscribe to all services you can. While it may not be cost effective by some's definition, it is what we do here and make reasonable attempts to keep costs in line by reducing SD subscription services that I rarely watch anyway.

Here is a smattering on how I "get more HDTV"

1. HBO HD DishNetwork

2. ShowtimeHD DishNetwork

3. Demo Channel DishNetwork

4. CBS HD Dish Network

5. Discovery HD Theater DishNetwork

6. HDNet DirecTV

7. Showtime HD ( redundant on DirecTV but this was by CSR coersion a long story I won't go into here; I just have to have it)

8. PPVHD on DirecTV

9. PPV HD on DishNetwork


You should qualify for the above with fairly low initial setup cost of equipment and sub rates as well as HBO HD redundant channel on DirecTV too. I don't get this anymore but it is available if I want to pay the price DirecTV has asked for it.


For a bit more setup installation and cost you can get more redundancy in the above channels with a 4DTV/HDD200 system and a BUD


Expressvue- Some additional part time HDTV channels

Need to use a bit of deception / brokered service to get this.


So without local broadcast you can have your request of "I Need More HDTV" but the cost will be there.


Now if this still isn't enough, I'd recommend you look into the options of a DVHS VCR and begin recording many of the HDTV channels. Also, although not really legal are the many tape swapping groups that meet on the internet. I cannot recommend you go with D-Theater or JVC DVHS VCR at this time because too many people are having problems with that format for thinking it is a viable product for reliable use. Likewise, DirecTV recording using 169Time AVX is still in first release and suffers operational problems on HBO HD. I can recommend using a Panny DVHS system or Mitsubishi DVHS system with the Dish5000/HDTV modulator and /or the 169Time OTA mod to the DTC-100 for recording. Also there is a new Samsung that people are testing but not much data is in on this for recording yet to know the reliability.


Bottom line- You have many options and the list grows each day for "More HDTV" I believe that eventually you will get your local broadcast stations to offer HDTV. At one time I thought we, in Jacksonville would never have HDTV from our stubborn, lack luster local TV management but then our local NBC affiliate offered the Olympics last winter as a surprise and now all the stations work hard to have HDTV.

WE now get HDTV (sporadic to 90% of all network offerings) for

NBC, ABC, CBS, WB and the station engineer for local FOX says they just received the hardware mods to do FOX widescreen 480P and will soo be offering that. Our PBS local has said they will now also offer HDTV from PBS network while last year they stated they will never offer HDTV. So rest assured, if it can change here it probably will for you to on the local scene. It may just take a little longer.

 

[Marissadad]

If all of the gear is in place, does it really cost any more money to patch through the HD?

 

[Kensmith48]

Don,


Thanks for all the info, but I feel betrayed by my locals because of the way they promoted HD and they backed out.

It will probably be 2006 before these cheap network affiliates offer anything. Fox doesn't even do stereo let alone HD.

After investing in a HD set and STB it doesn't feel right that I should have to pay any more for HD programming. I guess I'll just have to wait.

 

[spwace]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kensmith48 Don, Thanks for all the info, but I feel betrayed by my locals because of the way they promoted HD and they backed out. It will probably be 2006 before these cheap network affiliates offer anything. Fox doesn't even do stereo let alone HD. After investing in a HD set and STB it doesn't feel right that I should have to pay any more for HD programming. I guess I'll just have to wait.

Does it feel right that somebody else should have to pay for it?

 

[dynamohum1]

Quote:

Originally posted by spwace Does it feel right that somebody else should have to pay for it?

If they said they were going to do it then how it feels in meaningless, he did his part in purchasing the equipment needed to receive the commercial broadcast promised by the local station. Is it right that I cannot get a license from the FCC to open up a better station with proper equipment and cut a better deal with the national network to broadcast in the same market as this station? These stations are protected as well as regulated... live by the sword....

 

[spwace]

Quote:

Originally posted by dynamohum1 If they said they were going to do it then how it feels in meaningless, he did his part in purchasing the equipment needed to receive the commercial broadcast promised by the local station. Is it right that I cannot get a license from the FCC to open up a better station with proper equipment and cut a better deal with the national network to broadcast in the same market as this station? These stations are protected as well as regulated... live by the sword....

The fact that somebody bought an expensive receiver doesn't obligate the broadcaster to become a non-profit organization. I read a report a few days ago that said that 95% of the population is within the reach of a digital signal, and 62% can receive at least 5 stations. The amount of HD programming is increasing at a rate that is several orders of magnitude faster than the consumer acceptance of the format. All of this is happening in spite of the fact that broadcasters are unable to make any return on their investment in DTV.


The broadcasters are doing their part, and if you'd like to contribute, there is no reason why you can't apply for a license and start your own HDTV station. There is also no reason why you couldn't outbid the local affiliate for the network rights. Go for it.

 

[Ken H]

Quote:

Originally posted by spwace The fact that somebody bought an expensive receiver doesn't obligate the broadcaster to become a non-profit organization.

Agreed, but your missing the point.


It's a different story when a local station says 'Were going to do HDTV', then doesn't, which I believe is what's being described above.


You can bet I'd be all over them, regardless of the other circumstances, especially after making a financial commitment based on their public misinformation.

 

[spwace]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken H Agreed, but your missing the point. It's a different story when a local station says 'Were going to do HDTV', then doesn't, which I believe is what's being described above. You can bet I'd be all over them, regardless of the other circumstances, especially after making a financial commitment based on their public misinformation.

True enough, but being on the leading edge of a new technology is still a risky investment, for broadcasters and consumers alike.

 

[Kensmith48]

spwace,


Get real. Like I'm going to start my own station! Who do you think I am Bill Gates?

I think it would be in the broadcasters best interest to display HD after paying for it. They should be able to attract a sizable audience and therefore make more money in advertizing. But I guess that would make too much sense for management to understand.

 

[greeno]

Quote:

Originally posted by spwace [snipped] All of this is happening in spite of the fact that broadcasters are unable to make any return on their investment in DTV.

I completely agree with your first comments about the rate at which DTV programming is becoming available, but I just don't buy your statement above (with all due respect.) The stations include commercials during HDTV programming. Isn't this how stations make money; they sell commercial spots? Don't kid your self, they are generating revenue albeit not at the levels they would like. My Dad made this arguement to me that HD will not catch on until the stations can make money at it. If the broadband providers took this attitude then we'd still all be using dial-up lines to connect to the internet. They realize (even in a down high-tech economy) that it's all about providing better, faster service to their customers. In fact my Dad now (finally after 4 years in his new house) has access to DSL and his life has changed dramatically and for the better.



It is clear to me (and to the CE companies - look around any BB and see what sets are for sale) what the trend is. Just give us more HD to watch!


Best,

jeff

 

[mmost]

Quote:

Originally posted by greeno I completely agree with your first comments about the rate at which DTV programming is becoming available, but I just don't buy your statement above (with all due respect.) The stations include commercials during HDTV programming. Isn't this how stations make money; they sell commercial spots? Don't kid your self, they are generating revenue albeit not at the levels they would like. My Dad made this arguement to me that HD will not catch on until the stations can make money at it. If the broadband providers took this attitude then we'd still all be using dial-up lines to connect to the internet. They realize (even in a down high-tech economy) that it's all about providing better, faster service to their customers. In fact my Dad now (finally after 4 years in his new house) has access to DSL and his life has changed dramatically and for the better.

High speed Internet service is a specific item that you pay a specific price for. It does not come "free" with your basic phone service. Television stations cannot get higher rates for advertising over HD feeds at this point in time, therefore their additional costs in transmitting that feed are not being covered in any way. In essence, advertisers pay for the analog broadcast and the HD version goes out "for free." This is not a business model that can succeed.


Listen to your Dad. He sounds very wise.

 

[MikeKO]

Quote:

Originally posted by mmost Television stations cannot get higher rates for advertising over HD feeds at this point in time, therefore their additional costs in transmitting that feed are not being covered in any way. In essence, advertisers pay for the analog broadcast and the HD version goes out "for free." This is not a business model that can succeed. Listen to your Dad. He sounds very wise.

This is NOT true. This is a totally bogus argument. The broadcasters are being "paid" by not paying rent for their spectrum. If they want to start paying for their spectrum, then they have a right to refuse to provide digital and HD. The alternative is to totally reject the concept of govenment regulated commons. I wouldn't necessarilly object to this, but the broadcasters are not getting screwed here. Small market folks might have some issues coming up with the capital.


Mike

 

[spwace]

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeKO This is NOT true. This is a totally bogus argument. The broadcasters are being "paid" by not paying rent for their spectrum. If they want to start paying for their spectrum, then they have a right to refuse to provide digital and HD. The alternative is to totally reject the concept of govenment regulated commons. I wouldn't necessarilly object to this, but the broadcasters are not getting screwed here. Small market folks might have some issues coming up with the capital. Mike

There are many requirements that accompany the ownership of a broadcast license. Doing HDTV is not one of them. You may not like it, but that is the law.

 

[greeno]

Quote:

Originally posted by mmost High speed Internet service is a specific item that you pay a specific price for. It does not come "free" with your basic phone service. Television stations cannot get higher rates for advertising over HD feeds at this point in time, therefore their additional costs in transmitting that feed are not being covered in any way. In essence, advertisers pay for the analog broadcast and the HD version goes out "for free." This is not a business model that can succeed. Listen to your Dad. He sounds very wise.

My Dad is a pretty smart guy, but this arguement you (and he is making) is just bogus. If they don't make money selling the commercial time, then delete the commercials. In fact, I know the local stations here have different commercials on the analog and digital feeds (two tv's on the same station with one tuned to analog and one to the digital feed). So if the commercial spots are different, didn't they pay for the time on the digital feed? If so yourargument does not stand up to close scrutiny.

 

[MikeKO]

spwace,


I'm aware that HD is not required by the FCC. My point was, and is, that the "no revenue" argument to support the broadcasts industry lack of action on digital broadcasts is bogus.


Mike

 

[mmost]

Quote:

Originally posted by greeno My Dad is a pretty smart guy, but this arguement you (and he is making) is just bogus. If they don't make money selling the commercial time, then delete the commercials. In fact, I know the local stations here have different commercials on the analog and digital feeds (two tv's on the same station with one tuned to analog and one to the digital feed). So if the commercial spots are different, didn't they pay for the time on the digital feed? If so yourargument does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Well, if you're referring to prime time, what you're seeing is a national spot on the digital feed and a local spot on the analog feed, which actually supports what I said. This happens because it is more trouble than you think to constantly switch the digital feed to an upconverted version of the local feed, so it is left on the network feed and you see whatever the network sends. However, the local spot is the only one that the local station is getting paid for - and it isn't even reaching the few digital viewers the station might have, let alone generating additional revenue. You really need to realize that the world of television, as well as the rest of the world, operates on business principles, not on personal needs and emotions. As much as you may like the idea of an HD world, it's not going to happen just because you happen to think it's a nice idea. You (and others here) should be thankful that you're getting as much programming as you are, because quite frankly, there's no financial justification for it at the present time, or in the foreseeable near future.