# Lost our HD Local Channels (more like taken away)



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

We have been DirecTV customers for 8 years and live in a very rural area in southeastern Utah. We have had HD service since December 2009 and have an HR23NC-700 DirecTV Plus HD DVR receiver. We had no problems getting our local channels out of Salt Lake City in HD (as well as our other HD channels) from the get-go. However, starting on 10/14/10 (after 10 months of no problems), when we tuned to an HD local, we got a blank screen with a message in the lower right corner that stated "Channel not purchased (721)". Tuning to our other local channels yielded the same error message.

We called customer service and got the automated system and all we had to do at the appropriate prompt was to say "lost local channels", and in less than a minute, all of our HD locals were back. We later found out that what was being done behind the scenes was a "resend authorization" command.

Anyway, in terms of temporarily "losing" our HD locals, it happened a total of 16 times (2x in Oct 2010, 2x in Nov 2010, 1x in Dec 2010, and for 2011, 2x in Jan, 3x in Feb, 3x in Mar, and 3x so far in April). For the majority of these times, we simply called customer service, and the automated system took care of the issues and our HD locals were back.

However, on four occasions, the automated system "resend authorization" attempt did not work, and we were forwarded to a live representative. One fixed the problem, but the second one (on 3/5), said that DirecTV was in the process of moving Salt Lake City local HD channels to a new satellite and that was causing the HD local authorization losses. He added that our issues should hopefully be solved sometime in May. Then after again losing our HD locals on 4/1, another live rep said that we might be on the edge of the "spot beam" and that could possibly explain the authorization issues. Then on 4/2, a new rep had us go through the whole 9 yards of reinitializing, checking our card, checking satellites and nothing worked. She had not heard of the HD local channel reallocation to another satellite, and said her records showed we weren't even supposed to be getting our locals in HD (despite telling her that we had been for over 15 months). She then issued an "activity" number and said the case would be forwarded to "Engineering" for resolution.

Tonight we lost our HD locals again (of course, right before the basketball finals), and the newest rep said we weren't supposed to get our locals in HD for our zip code location. He said there was nothing he could do, and that while he had heard about the re-allocation of our HD channels to the new satellite, he honestly felt that the prior rep getting Engineering involved was a waste of time and that nothing would be done. So, he had us call up a menu item that let us duplicate all standard definition and HD channels in the guide list and were told to select the standard definition channels for our locals and that was the end of that. I made the case that we were paying an additional $10/month for HD, and that now as far as we were concerned, DirecTV was effectively taking away our HD locals that we had for the last 15 months and that wasn't right (especially since our neighbors all have the locals in HD through Dish Network). He then said we could email the corporate level on the main website and file a formal complaint (which I will do).

I don't know what the real story is here, but I am not going to give up and roll over. If DirecTV will not correct this situation in a reasonable amount of time, I am inclined to break the 2 year contract (which is up this December), on the grounds that our HD locals have effectively been taken away while we continue to pay the $10/month for HD. I don't want to have to pay any penalties by doing this, but I feel that DirecTV is the one who essentially broke the contract ... not us. If I can do this, then I will switch over to Dish and out this behind us.

Has this kind of thing happened to anyone else? Beyond that, does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions as to any other things we might try?

TIA,
Don


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

First, YOU will never get out of the EFT if you leave, that's the bad news. The good news is, call back and if you sign up for auto bill pay (use a credit card) then they will waive the hd fee so you will save 10 a month no matter what for 2 years (and I doubt it will ever come back to be honest.)

Now for the real issue...

You are way out there on the fringe. If you got the channels before though, then there is no reason you shouldn't be getting them still, maybe... If they are authorized in SD then they should be authorized in hd, the only issue would be the spot beam foot print and I do know that many people have said that the HD one doesn't hit all the SLC DMA towards the south of the state, but it sounds like it does where your at. SO the question is what is the signal level of your local hd channels. They don't like to give you channels if they know you are on the fringe and will have signal issues all the time, in which case they did make a mistake in the first place, but it doesn't sound like that was ever your issue, so I would defiantly send an e-mail to Ellen Filipiak <[email protected]>, VP of Customer Service and state your issues and ask for them to get these permenatley turned back on. Please keep us informed. This is very interesting about them maybe changing spot beams for that DMA, I think many others would be happy to finally be able to get HD...

Also, can you tell us what the signal levels are for 99s and 103s? This might give us an idea about if you are on the fringe of the spot beam.. might...


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> First, YOU will never get out of the EFT if you leave, that's the bad news. The good news is, call back and if you sign up for auto bill pay (use a credit card) then they will waive the hd fee so you will save 10 a month no matter what for 2 years (and I doubt it will ever come back to be honest.)


Well, I really wasn't intending to just leave unilaterally. I was hoping to prevail upon DirecTV to let me out of the contract due to being a customer in good standing for the last 8 years in conjunction with what has just happened with my local channels. But thanks for the tip on the auto bill pay and the $10/month HD fee ... I will definitely look into that if we end up staying with DirecTV.



> Now for the real issue...
> 
> You are way out there on the fringe. If you got the channels before though, then there is no reason you shouldn't be getting them still, maybe... If they are authorized in SD then they should be authorized in hd, the only issue would be the spot beam foot print and I do know that many people have said that the HD one doesn't hit all the SLC DMA towards the south of the state, but it sounds like it does where your at. SO the question is what is the signal level of your local hd channels. They don't like to give you channels if they know you are on the fringe and will have signal issues all the time, in which case they did make a mistake in the first place, but it doesn't sound like that was ever your issue, so I would defiantly send an e-mail to Ellen Filipiak <[email protected]>, VP of Customer Service and state your issues and ask for them to get these permenatley turned back on. Please keep us informed. This is very interesting about them maybe changing spot beams for that DMA, I think many others would be happy to finally be able to get HD...
> 
> Also, can you tell us what the signal levels are for 99s and 103s? This might give us an idea about if you are on the fringe of the spot beam.. might...


Just before reading your post, I ran across another thread that also mentioned a lot of what you have indicated as what is really going on. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=186199
Absolutely unbelievable!

And you're right, for 15 months now, we have been receiving our locals in HD with nary a problem in terms of any reception issues, pixelation, or anything else (despite our middle of nowhere location). And the funny thing is that we never once lost an HD local channel while we were watching it. The infrequent blank screen and "Channel not purchased (721)" message only occurred if we were on another non-local channel and then later switched back to a local. So again, the problem has never manifested itself as a classic reception or signal strength problem, and has been more like someone at DirecTV turning off our locals from their end (subsequently requiring the "resend authorization" commands to get things turned back on).

Anyway, I really appreciate your giving me the email address for Ellen Filipiak, and believe me, I will definitely send her a message to make an impassioned case for hopefully getting this all straightened out.

In terms of the signal levels for 99s and 103s, here they are:

*99s = 16 total satellite transponders*
1-8 = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A
9-16 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, 0, 0
17-24 = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
25-32 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A

*103s = 16 total satellite transponders*
1-8 = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A
9-16 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, 51, 91
17-24 = 0, 0, 90, 92, 95, 92, 51, 21 
25-32 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A

I also looked at:
*99c = 14 total satellite transponders*
1-8 = 86, 89, 86, 86, 87, 88, 86, 84
9-16 = 88, 87, 86, 84, 89, 87, N/A, N/A
17-24 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A 
25-32 = N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A

I should add that the ultimate irony to all of this, was that we originally went with Dish Network when we first moved here in October 1999. This was just standard definition service, but we completely lost our local SLC channels in early 2003 when Dish went with a spot beam that cut most people out who were in the corners of the state, especially in the south. Dish switched us to the locals for Denver, but we just didn't like that, so we ended up going with DirecTV in late 2003. Now the tables have turned, because Dish fixed their earlier issue and they have no problem broadcasting the local SLC channels in HD in our area (and our neighbors around us have no problems).

With my luck (and assuming DirecTV won't turn us back on to our HD locals), I'll switch to Dish, and then they will do something that knocks the SLC HD locals out. 

Anyway, I will follow-up on this and post back here as to what happens.

Thanks again for the help,
Don


----------



## wall-e (Jul 19, 2009)

Depending on where you are located in Southern Utah, there still is a chance to get your problem solved.

I read a few months ago on this site that certain "fringe" areas might be losing their HD locals. 
HD LiL being removed in parts of some DMAs. (post date: 11-5-2010)http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=186199&highlight=fringe+hd

Salt Lake is listed as one of targeted cities. I am also one with SLC HD Local issues, but mine are because I am too far away from the SLC HD Local spot beam. I have never got them, which was never really an issue since I was still living in the world of SD. The SLC SD Local Spot Beam covers the whole DMA which includes all of UTAH, parts of Southern Idaho, parts of Northeastern Nevada, and Southwestern Wyoming. The SLC HD Local spot beam is much smaller and only covers maybe 50% of the state.

Last August, I did get a HDtv, got the new SL5 Dish, HR22, and was able to watch everything in HD, EXCEPT for SLC HD locals 2,4,5,7,13,14,30. I made countless calls to CS and got many different answers. The main reason I could only watch those SLC locals in SD was because I am in a fringe area of the SLC DMA. Another CS furthered defined "fringe" as both my zip code, and the county I lived in. All other HD, Prefect! My SLC HD locals only work when I am visiting in Salt Lake.

But there are two things that are not making sense to me about your situation&#8230;

1)	SLC HD locals transmit mainly on 103s TP 21 for ch2-KUTVcbs, ch4-KTVXabc, ch5-KSLnbc, ch7-KUEDpbs, ch13-KSTUfox, ch14-KJZZind, ch30-KUCWcw . According to your signal strength for TP21 (95), those channels should be on.

2)	Secondly, if it was a spot beam issue, your ird should display the message "Searching for signal in Satellite IN 2&#8230;" (771) [771 refers to peaking, line of site, connections, distribution systems, and/or hardware]if transponders are being moved around as customer care has indicated to you on your phone call. "Channel not purchased (721)" is usually what comes up when there is a sports blackout *OR* if you are not authorized to view that channel because of your programming package *OR* your location zip code.

From what I have read in the above link from 11/5/2010, this problem maybe on the DTV side. You have plenty of signal to get the SLC HD local, BUT your receiver location zip code might have been added to the FRINGE list and therefore giving you the 721 error. 
Next time you lose a HD local channel with 721 messages, verify the signal strength on 103s for TP21. If it is 85+ you have everything setup correctly and the problem is on the directv side because of your zipcode/county being on the fringe list.

also, look at the map of UTAH on this post
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=180503&highlight=hd+locals

Blue = SLC HD Locals, Yellow = SLC SD Locals. If you are in yellow, regrettably, you will only have SD. If you were getting HD, you were one of the lucky ones.

I am hoping that directv will be able to offer a resemble solution to your situation. You have been a loyal customer for years which I hope they take into consideration. It might take a few calls because you are already seeing that you are getting different answers. Try asking to speak to a supervisor, this might also help get past the entry level script readers who do a great job on basic trouble shooting, but your situation does require knowledge and skills of someone who has dealt with this specific situation before.

I hope your problem can be corrected and i hope it is done in a timely manner.

Good Luck!
Walle


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Good post from wall-e.
This is a complicated issue. First, if HD locals are not authorized for your zip code, you will see a 721 message if you try to tune them. The authorization has nothing to do with signal strength. Second, it does not matter what your own signal strengths are on these transponders. The issue is, what is the signal strength across the whole of your zip code/county? Basically, unless EVERY customer in the zip code can receive signal strengths on HD locals that are above a certain threshold (I assume that would be DirecTV's installation verification levels), no-one in the zip code is allowed HD locals, because these are authorized on a zip code/county level. When HD locals were previously authorized in these "fringe" zip codes, there were problems at installation with customers in the most distant part of the zip code, and also repeated service calls because of poor reception on the HD locals. 
The OP reported repeatedly losing HD locals and having them switched on again by a CSR. This is because the zip code was NOT authorized for HD locals, and DirecTV's automated system kept detecting HD locals were switched on and then switched them off. A CSR who did not understand then switched them on again, and so it went.
If you are in one of these fringe areas that has lost HD locals, there is basically nothing that can be done. Just because you have acceptable signals for the HD local transponders, because you are not in the part of the zip code furthest from the center of the spotbeam, does not mean you can have these locals. Some of the zip codes in the SLC area are VERY large so there can be a major difference between your signals on the HD local transponders and those of someone in the furthest corner of the zip code. 
It's unfortunate but I don't see an easy solution.


----------



## Ted M (Mar 18, 2010)

I have the same exact problem as the OP, but I live in northern New Hampshire.

The HD locals get a 721 error roughly twice a month.

Before January 2011, it happened three times, but I didn't keep track of the dates. Since then it happened on 1/14, 1/22, 2/7, 2/21, 3/6, 3/10, 3/17, and 3/26.

Reauthorization gets them back, but I'm tired of it. Calling support was no help. They think I'm not supposed to get Locals in HD at all. I've been getting them for over a year before this happened. 

I've been a customer of DTV for 15 years, but am ready to switch to Dish.
However, my wife likes DTV. Sigh.

The neighbor across the street has the exact same problem, so that rules out equipment failure at the customer level.

Signal strengths are not a problem either. 85 to 100 mostly.

The last time I called DTV, about nine days ago, they said they had 20 engineers working on the problem of people losing locals. AND, I could not be reauthorized at that time (it didn't work on the Internet either) because then the engineers would have to start their "fixing" all over again.

I called the neighbor and they said they just reauthorized over the phone using the auto-voice method, just saying "721." Did that and got reauthorized at once.

Ted


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

ted m - what's your zip code??


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

wall-e said:


> Depending on where you are located in Southern Utah, there still is a chance to get your problem solved.


I hope you're right, and I am going to pursue it as best I can.



> I read a few months ago on this site that certain "fringe" areas might be losing their HD locals.
> HD LiL being removed in parts of some DMAs. (post date: 11-5-2010)http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=186199&highlight=fringe+hd


Yes, that is the same thread I ran across and put the link in my first response to inkahauts above.



> Salt Lake is listed as one of targeted cities.
> The SLC HD Local spot beam is much smaller and only covers maybe 50% of the state.


Oh, lucky me! 



> Another CS furthered defined "fringe" as both my zip code, and the county I lived in.


I think this is the key thing that is going on in my case as well.



> But there are two things that are not making sense to me about your situation&#8230;
> 
> 1) SLC HD locals transmit mainly on 103s TP 21 for ch2-KUTVcbs, ch4-KTVXabc, ch5-KSLnbc, ch7-KUEDpbs, ch13-KSTUfox, ch14-KJZZind, ch30-KUCWcw . According to your signal strength for TP21 (95), those channels should be on.
> 
> 2) Secondly, if it was a spot beam issue, your ird should display the message "Searching for signal in Satellite IN 2&#8230;" (771) [771 refers to peaking, line of site, connections, distribution systems, and/or hardware]if transponders are being moved around as customer care has indicated to you on your phone call. "Channel not purchased (721)" is usually what comes up when there is a sports blackout *OR* if you are not authorized to view that channel because of your programming package *OR* your location zip code.


As for #1 (and as I previously indicated), we have never had any problems getting all of the SLC locals in HD from the get-go, other than the infrequent 721 issues. I am convinced as you mention in #2 that it is a zip code issue that is screwing us.



> From what I have read in the above link from 11/5/2010, this problem maybe on the DTV side. You have plenty of signal to get the SLC HD local, BUT your receiver location zip code might have been added to the FRINGE list and therefore giving you the 721 error.


Again, I think this hits the nail on the head. I believe we were somehow below the radar as to our location/zip code, and since the resend authorization commands by the automated system or a CSR temporarily resolved the 721 issues, we were just cruising along until we hit the wall earlier this month.



> Next time you lose a HD local channel with 721 messages, verify the signal strength on 103s for TP21. If it is 85+ you have everything setup correctly and the problem is on the directv side because of your zipcode/county being on the fringe list.


Unfortunately, I don't believe there is going to be a "next time". Somewhere between 4/2 and 4/4, DirecTV apparently shut down our HD local access for good and all we see are 721 messages for the HD local channels and the resend authorization commands by the automated system or on-line have no further effect.



> also, look at the map of UTAH on this post
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=180503&highlight=hd+locals
> 
> Blue = SLC HD Locals, Yellow = SLC SD Locals. If you are in yellow, regrettably, you will only have SD. If you were getting HD, you were one of the lucky ones.


That map is very interesting. What it shows is that we are located right at the northernmost boundry of the HD/SD local channel split. It looks like all of Grand County (Moab, etc.) are in the HD local spot beam, but essentially all of San Juan County, is out of luck. Our location and 84530 zip code put us in the extreme northern section of San Juan County, but we are only ~20 miles from Moab (84532 zip) as the crow flies, so my guess is this is why we actually have good signal strength on 103s TP 21 (95). So, it looks like despite good signal strength for the SLC HD locals, we are unfortunately being lumped-in with the majority of San Juan County.



> I am hoping that directv will be able to offer a resemble solution to your situation. You have been a loyal customer for years which I hope they take into consideration. It might take a few calls because you are already seeing that you are getting different answers. Try asking to speak to a supervisor, this might also help get past the entry level script readers who do a great job on basic trouble shooting, but your situation does require knowledge and skills of someone who has dealt with this specific situation before.
> 
> I hope your problem can be corrected and i hope it is done in a timely manner.


I also hope we can get something resolved here as well. But I am first going to start with Ellen Filipiak (VP of Customer Service) that inkahauts provided me with her email address. But if we can't get satisfaction with DTV (either through Ellen or CS calls), then I am going to request that DTV let us out of the remainder of our contract so we can switch over to Dish. If that fails, then we will stay with DTV through December when the contract period is over and then switch to Dish.

Thanks so much Walle for all of the really great information and help ... it's really appreciated.

Don


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

When HD locals first started up in the 'far west' (including both SLC, Seattle, Portland, Spokane) and probably the upper New England as reported by a user here, DirecTV was utilizing the Spaceway Ka sats that had much wider spot beams. 

I know from personal experience (being an rv'er) that the Seattle signal stretched far up into Canada with only minor drop-off (like Whistler, BC skiing area) but still well above 90 or so. As soon as the signal was changed out to 99s the beam width 'shrank'. Same with the 'southern' edge, the strength as far south as Coos Bay, OR, basically disappeared.

Of course, both those areas were far, far, outside the DMA, but the SLC problems for those on the 'edge' of statewide DMA's like SLC/Utah (really wider than statewide as the DMA does go into 3 other 'adjoining' states), really can't be 'fixed' unless they switch back to the Spaceway sats with their much more flexible (and tunable) spot beams. 

Baring that, the real solution is an antenna upgrade to the 1.2m dish. Your spot-beam readings are above 90 or so, and going from the slimline to the Alaska/Hawaii dish would get you more than enough gain to max out those spot beams. It doesn't take '20 engineers' to figure that one out, the 'space segment' (the sats) aren't going to change any time soon, and I'll bet DirecTV doesn't want to switch back to the Spaceways for some reasoning (unknown as to why, for the price they paid for them including retrofitting the Ka package into them in the first place).

Now if those 'engineers' can't figure this out in a couple of seconds, it confirms my thinking of DirecTV engineering circa 2011; you either widen the spot beam or upgrade the dish for those folks on the 'edge'. That's it, there's no other option if you want a specific 'minimum' signal level to the customers equipment.

Of course, in re-reading some of the posts, it appears that this problem has more to do with 'politics' between the engineers at DirecTV, the 'management', and the wish to, as one poster said 'the lowest common denominator' ('one size fits all'), then actual engineering fixes are moot. They don't care if one or the other actually 'fixes' the problem. Going 'outside the box' to do so is 'not allowed'.

If so, then the problem will never be fixed, period. Or maybe then think that DirecTV14 will eventually (4 years + from now) be the 'politically approved' cure with perhaps more flexible spot-beams.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DEC said:


> I hope you're right, and I am going to pursue it as best I can.
> 
> Yes, that is the same thread I ran across and put the link in my first response to inkahauts above.
> 
> ...


I sincerely hope that this problems gets resolved for you. I must say, you have handled this incredibly well. Very level-headed, mature, and calm. Hopefully it gets fixed, otherwise...do what you have to do. Either way, folks should look at your posts as an example of how issues like this should be handled.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

texasbrit said:


> Good post from wall-e.
> This is a complicated issue. First, if HD locals are not authorized for your zip code, you will see a 721 message if you try to tune them. The authorization has nothing to do with signal strength. Second, it does not matter what your own signal strengths are on these transponders. The issue is, what is the signal strength across the whole of your zip code/county? Basically, unless EVERY customer in the zip code can receive signal strengths on HD locals that are above a certain threshold (I assume that would be DirecTV's installation verification levels), no-one in the zip code is allowed HD locals, because these are authorized on a zip code/county level. When HD locals were previously authorized in these "fringe" zip codes, there were problems at installation with customers in the most distant part of the zip code, and also repeated service calls because of poor reception on the HD locals.
> The OP reported repeatedly losing HD locals and having them switched on again by a CSR. This is because the zip code was NOT authorized for HD locals, and DirecTV's automated system kept detecting HD locals were switched on and then switched them off. A CSR who did not understand then switched them on again, and so it went.
> If you are in one of these fringe areas that has lost HD locals, there is basically nothing that can be done. Just because you have acceptable signals for the HD local transponders, because you are not in the part of the zip code furthest from the center of the spotbeam, does not mean you can have these locals. Some of the zip codes in the SLC area are VERY large so there can be a major difference between your signals on the HD local transponders and those of someone in the furthest corner of the zip code.
> It's unfortunate but I don't see an easy solution.


Ouch! As with wall-e's post, your input puts my situation in total perspective and I am definitely getting the picture ... just not in HD. 

I don't know who came up with this arcane system of defining go/no-go reception areas based on zip codes and county boundaries (as if satellite signals pay any attention to such arbitrary delineations), but I guess it is what it is. What galls me is that I got my HD locals from day one, had them for 15 months with no signal strength or reception problems, never bothered DTV with any service call requests, and now we have our HD locals yanked away because someone else is apparently having a problem or can't receive their HD locals in our county (which, by the way, is the largest county in Utah ... it's as large as the country of Israel). It just seems like DTV is reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and subjects everyone else who is doing fine to the worst case situation. :nono2:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I sincerely hope that this problems gets resolved for you. I must say, you have handled this incredibly well. Very level-headed, mature, and calm. Hopefully it gets fixed, otherwise...do what you have to do. Either way, folks should look at your posts as an example of how issues like this should be handled.


+1.....No ranting, entitlement, etc. Good luck, OP.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

It sounds like what DirecTV did was make a business decision that providing customer/tech support for customers on the spotbeam fringe (or increasing the spotbeam itself, which was probably prohibitively expensive or not even technically possible) was no longer cost effective. So, they decided it was "worth it" to their bottom line to tick off a portion of their customer base instead of continuing to field costly customer service calls. (This apparently happened in several areas of the country.)

I feel lucky we were not in that group as we, too, are on the "edge" of our spotbeam, and edge of our DMA, though we've never actually lost service (just more susceptible to rain fade and the like, where the locals will go out but everything else is fine).

That may be a valid business decision, but I also think you would have a VERY good case to your State's Attorney and credit card company (assuming you, hopefully, autopay via CC and not check), to get out of the ETF due to a massive change of service. Yes, I'm confident that DirecTV covers that in their "contract"--probably to the point that they don't have to provide you with any channels and you still owe them money--but terms that don't make sense are often overturned if state agencies get behind consumers. (Cell phone companies have already had to abandon such policies due to state lawsuits. If their service area changes, they must let you out of contract without penalty.) And it's happened before (states suing, and winning, against DirecTV for onerous and unenforceable contract terms), in different circumstances, with DirecTV, so they might be more willing to listen IF you can actually speak to someone in the corporate sphere and not just a customer service drone. Of course, this is not an easy task (lots of legwork would be required on your part) and there is no guarantee of success in pursuing it.

That being said, I know that last year Dish was sending out offers to pay ETFs for DirecTV customers willing to switch. Might also be worth a call to see if they're still doing that. I know I was tempted.

Best of luck. I agree that no locals in HD would be a dealbreaker. As much as we worry about getting every single channel out there probably 80% of our regular viewing/recording is still the major networks. SD-only wouldn't cut it for us either.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

:rant:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> +1.....No ranting, entitlement, etc. Good luck, OP.


Yes, best of luck to the OP.


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

susanandmark said:


> That may be a valid business decision, but I also think you would have a VERY good case to your State's Attorney. . .


Yeah, a State AG would likely be very interested in a case like that if those affected can put together a group of affected customers to make that complaint to the AG's office. . . assuming D* refuses to let you out without an ETF on first discussion, which should be your first avenue of recourse.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

georule said:


> Yeah, a State AG would likely be very interested in a case like that if those affected can put together a group of affected customers to make that complaint to the AG's office. . . assuming D* refuses to let you out without an ETF on first discussion, which should be your first avenue of recourse.


Absolutely! Never meant that should be first step. First just trying to move up food chain at DirecTV, then writing a hard copy letter to corporate explaining situation (or both of those at same time), and only after you've exhausted all those (or any other) options to take the step of contacting outside agencies.

I think the OP, and others in his situation, have a very reasonable and logical reason to want to go with another provider, and hopefully DirecTV, who made the business decision to remove their HD coverage (which is their right, I know), will agree and allow them to leave if they wish, fee free without all the hassle above.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DEC said:


> Ouch! As with wall-e's post, your input puts my situation in total perspective and I am definitely getting the picture ... just not in HD.
> 
> I don't know who came up with this arcane system of defining go/no-go reception areas based on zip codes and county boundaries (as if satellite signals pay any attention to such arbitrary delineations), but I guess it is what it is. What galls me is that I got my HD locals from day one, had them for 15 months with no signal strength or reception problems, never bothered DTV with any service call requests, and now we have our HD locals yanked away because someone else is apparently having a problem or can't receive their HD locals in our county (which, by the way, is the largest county in Utah ... it's as large as the country of Israel). It just seems like DTV is reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and subjects everyone else who is doing fine to the worst case situation. :nono2:


You got friends or family in a zip code nearby that gets HD channels? Billing and service addresses don't have to match. That is all I can say by the rules of this board.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

1948GG said:


> When HD locals first started up in the 'far west' (including both SLC, Seattle, Portland, Spokane) and probably the upper New England as reported by a user here, DirecTV was utilizing the Spaceway Ka sats that had much wider spot beams.
> 
> I know from personal experience (being an rv'er) that the Seattle signal stretched far up into Canada with only minor drop-off (like Whistler, BC skiing area) but still well above 90 or so. As soon as the signal was changed out to 99s the beam width 'shrank'. Same with the 'southern' edge, the strength as far south as Coos Bay, OR, basically disappeared.
> 
> ...


Wow ... that's quite the post. It's interesting in that a number of things you mentioned were pet theories of mine that I had been sharing with my wife, and you have largely confirmed them. As such, we are probably out of luck, but I'll give it a shot anyway and see what happens. If all else fails, we'll likely get over to Dish at some point.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> I sincerely hope that this problems gets resolved for you. I must say, you have handled this incredibly well. Very level-headed, mature, and calm. Hopefully it gets fixed, otherwise...do what you have to do. Either way, folks should look at your posts as an example of how issues like this should be handled.


Thanks for the kind words. I guess I'm old enough (or possibly run through the mill enough), to realize that ranting isn't going to do much to really change anything for the better. I really was looking for some educational input as well as the experiences of others, and the response posts in this thread have been exemplary IMO.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> +1.....No ranting, entitlement, etc. Good luck, OP.


Thanks!


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

susanandmark said:


> It sounds like what DirecTV did was make a business decision that providing customer/tech support for customers on the spotbeam fringe (or increasing the spotbeam itself, which was probably prohibitively expensive or not even technically possible) was no longer cost effective. So, they decided it was "worth it" to their bottom line to tick off a portion of their customer base instead of continuing to field costly customer service calls. (This apparently happened in several areas of the country.)


I think you're completely on target with this as the likely scenario.



> That may be a valid business decision, but I also think you would have a VERY good case to your State's Attorney and credit card company (assuming you, hopefully, autopay via CC and not check), to get out of the ETF due to a massive change of service. Yes, I'm confident that DirecTV covers that in their "contract"--probably to the point that they don't have to provide you with any channels and you still owe them money--but terms that don't make sense are often overturned if state agencies get behind consumers. (Cell phone companies have already had to abandon such policies due to state lawsuits. If their service area changes, they must let you out of contract without penalty.) And it's happened before (states suing, and winning, against DirecTV for onerous and unenforceable contract terms), in different circumstances, with DirecTV, so they might be more willing to listen IF you can actually speak to someone in the corporate sphere and not just a customer service drone. Of course, this is not an easy task (lots of legwork would be required on your part) and there is no guarantee of success in pursuing it.


It's not my intention to get political here, but Utah is a highly conservative state, and our Attorney General has amply demonstrated that he is very business friendly and not very consumer friendly. There is even a citizens group that is currently suing him in court for questionable voting rights interpretations and ethical behavior issues. So, trying to involve the AG's office will probably be counterproductive for my problems with DTV.

As for our bill paying, we don't use a CC and instead do electronic bill paying through our bank, which equates to a check to DTV.

And as I have previously indicated, I am going to start my corporate level communications with Ellen Filipiak, DTV's VP of Customer Service, as I agree, trying to work up the ranks by phoning customer service is probably going to be an exercise in futility.



> That being said, I know that last year Dish was sending out offers to pay ETFs for DirecTV customers willing to switch. Might also be worth a call to see if they're still doing that. I know I was tempted.
> 
> Best of luck. I agree that no locals in HD would be a dealbreaker. As much as we worry about getting every single channel out there probably 80% of our regular viewing/recording is still the major networks. SD-only wouldn't cut it for us either.


I was unaware that Dish has paid for ETF's in some areas/circumstances. If I can't get satisfaction from DTV, I will definitely look into that possibility ... thanks.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

georule said:


> Yeah, a State AG would likely be very interested in a case like that if those affected can put together a group of affected customers to make that complaint to the AG's office. . . assuming D* refuses to let you out without an ETF on first discussion, which should be your first avenue of recourse.


Here's the problem. Not only would our state AG likely not be interested in this as I already mentioned, but the affected county is as big as Israel, but only has 14,000 people in it in a remote and very rural area. And the majority of the people are Navajo Indians on a reservation to the south of us. There is just no cohesiveness, no political/consumer activism, or other motivation to get the far flung customers together. In any regard, it looks to me like most everyone has gone Dish over DTV, so I don't even have that many neighbors in my immediate area that have DTV to even complain about the issues we are experiencing.

But I agree, our first attempt is going to be trying to get the situation resolved through DTV or to at least be released from the contract, so we can move over to Dish.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> You got friends or family in a zip code nearby that gets HD channels? Billing and service addresses don't have to match. That is all I can say by the rules of this board.


No, unfortunately we don't. We originally moved here from out of state and with the remote/rural nature of the area (mostly ranching, mining, and wide open spaces), people tend to mind their own business and interests. Interestingly, this area still represents a bit of the rugged individualism of the old West ... which presents both upsides & downsides.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

DEC said:


> Wow ... that's quite the post. It's interesting in that a number of things you mentioned were pet theories of mine that I had been sharing with my wife, and you have largely confirmed them. As such, we are probably out of luck, but I'll give it a shot anyway and see what happens. If all else fails, we'll likely get over to Dish at some point.


Back a few years ago (again on the HD SLC Ka spots, but I seem to vaguely remember some probs with the Ku as well) St. George was the subject of various threads here; the Las Vegas siginal was much stronger than the SLC, yet of course St. George was SLC DMA, and that the 'cure' for folks was the 1.2m dish.

This was before DirecTV simply 'turned off' reception to folks, though. for 'low signals', or determination (from actual tech visits or simply from someone plotting at a disk in L.A.?) that some location was possibly or potentially 'in error' due to signal drop-off.

We're not talking about just one customer here, there might potentially be thousands. The cost differential between the slimline and the 1.2m is not zero, but in the scope of doing business with a lot of folks, a couple hundred is the equivalent of what, an additional HD-DVR per account free?

Give me a break. They're trying to minimize tech visits to these out of the way places to begin with, doing the job 'right' in the first place (1.2m rather than slimine as determined by the install tech initially at this point or with one single visit now), is a pretty low-ball cost to solve the problem.

IF that's what they're in the business of doing, solving the problem. That remains to be seen as, like I said, the fix is so simple if they want to go that route (1.2m dish). We shall see, I guess.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Very good set of posts from DEC - I know how he must feel. But it's good to see a well-reasoned calm set of posts about things like this, we often see posts that are just rants and are completely non-productive. Just FYI, the reason for using zip codes and county boundaries is because that's how the DMA is defined - DMAs are the areas used by the FCC in determining which local channels you should receive. DirecTv does not define the DMAs. Each zip code/county has data in DirecTv's system defining which local stations the FCC has determined can be delivered. That's what DirecTV uses to set the authorizations. So either no-one in a county/zip gets the HD locals, or everyone does. That's a problem with these very large zip codes/counties at the edge of the spotbeams, because as DEC says, someone at the edge of the county closest to the spotbeam center has decent signals but someone at the southern edge does not. 
1948GG has an interesting idea, although I'm not sure that even a 1.2m dish would solve the problem at the far edges of the spotbeams. 
Having wider spotbeams does not necessarily solve the problem either, since the signal strength would drop for everyone (same power signal but spread over a wider area).
Faced with a similar problem in Colorado a few years ago, DirecTv allocated two spotbeams, one for the north and one for the south. But there they had major population centers to cover. I suspect there are not enough people affected by this in the SLC DMA to warrant the investment. Remember there is no entitlement to HD locals, some parts of the country don't even have SD locals yet and there are many still with only SD. One of the main reasons for that is lack of spotbeam capacity. If there were an available spotbeam, I suspect it would be directed at one of the larger population centers that still has no coverage.
That's one problem in trying to get out of the contract. If you still get SD locals, it's difficult to make a very strong case. But making some loud noises might get you heard, I doubt that the state AG can take it very far but a well-reasoned letter to the DirecTV VP customer service might produce results. It's certainly worth a try.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Very good set of posts from DEC - I know how he must feel. But it's good to see a well-reasoned calm set of posts about things like this, we often see posts that are just rants and are completely non-productive.


+1


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Very good set of posts from DEC - I know how he must feel. But it's good to see a well-reasoned calm set of posts about things like this, we often see posts that are just rants and are completely non-productive. Just FYI, the reason for using zip codes and county boundaries is because that's how the DMA is defined - DMAs are the areas used by the FCC in determining which local channels you should receive. DirecTv does not define the DMAs. Each zip code/county has data in DirecTv's system defining which local stations the FCC has determined can be delivered. That's what DirecTV uses to set the authorizations. So either no-one in a county/zip gets the HD locals, or everyone does. That's a problem with these very large zip codes/counties at the edge of the spotbeams, because as DEC says, someone at the edge of the county closest to the spotbeam center has decent signals but someone at the southern edge does not.
> 1948GG has an interesting idea, although I'm not sure that even a 1.2m dish would solve the problem at the far edges of the spotbeams.
> Having wider spotbeams does not necessarily solve the problem either, since the signal strength would drop for everyone (same power signal but spread over a wider area).
> Faced with a similar problem in Colorado a few years ago, DirecTv allocated two spotbeams, one for the north and one for the south. But there they had major population centers to cover. I suspect there are not enough people affected by this in the SLC DMA to warrant the investment. Remember there is no entitlement to HD locals, some parts of the country don't even have SD locals yet and there are many still with only SD. One of the main reasons for that is lack of spotbeam capacity. If there were an available spotbeam, I suspect it would be directed at one of the larger population centers that still has no coverage.
> That's one problem in trying to get out of the contract. If you still get SD locals, it's difficult to make a very strong case. But making some loud noises might get you heard, I doubt that the state AG can take it very far but a well-reasoned letter to the DirecTV VP customer service might produce results. It's certainly worth a try.


I refuse to watch SD anything if I can avoid it, especially center cut TRASH. SD isn't good enough, and if D* ever pulled my HD locals, I'd drop them quickly.

And the fact that SD is dying a slow and painful death is a dilemma D* will have to deal with sooner than later.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Terry K" said:


> I refuse to watch SD anything if I can avoid it, especially center cut TRASH. SD isn't good enough, and if D* ever pulled my HD locals, I'd drop them quickly.
> 
> And the fact that SD is dying a slow and painful death is a dilemma D* will have to deal with sooner than later.


The real dilemma is that this is a big country with some sparsely populated areas.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

Terry K said:


> I refuse to watch SD anything if I can avoid it, especially center cut TRASH. SD isn't good enough, and if D* ever pulled my HD locals, I'd drop them quickly.
> 
> And the fact that SD is dying a slow and painful death is a dilemma D* will have to deal with sooner than later.


I hate to say it (especially since we were late entries into the HD thing), but we have totally been spoiled by HD broadcasts and Blu-Rays. We too pretty much go yuk whenever SD stuff comes on. I realize some folks in the country don't have locals at all, but it frankly would have been "better" if someone from the very beginning had simply said, "we can deliver SD locals to you, but not in HD due to your location". But to have had HD locals for 15 months with no problems, and to now have DTV yank them out from underneath you (when the signal is still there and plenty strong), that's what hurts.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> The real dilemma is that this is a big country with some sparsely populated areas.


That's very true, and believe me, there's even a very noticeable bias in Utah itself when it comes to the sparely populated southern half of the state. It's like we're second class citizens or poor relations down here.


----------



## Ted M (Mar 18, 2010)

I'm in ZIP Code 03582.

Lost the Locals again sometime last night.
Reauthorizing on the Internet didn't work, even though it said it did.
Guess I'll let the wife call DTV again.

Ted


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Ted M said:


> I'm in ZIP Code 03582.
> 
> Lost the Locals again sometime last night.
> Reauthorizing on the Internet didn't work, even though it said it did.
> ...


In zip code 03582 you are not authorized to get HD locals. It does not matter how many times someone reauthorizes the locals in error, the DirecTV automated system will just remove them again.


----------



## zuf (May 25, 2007)

I expect that Ted M is in a situation similar to what DEC and I (and others) have experienced here in the Southern Utah area, prior to Monday's shutdown. Even a year and a half ago when I upgraded to HD, DIRECTV's web page indicated that HD locals are not available in my area. I upgraded anyway, because I wanted HD even if only the national channels. Sure, I would have loved my locals in HD not SD, but at the time I accepted that as the price of living in rural Utah. I was pleasantly surprised when, during the installation of my Slimline dish and new receivers, the installer told me that I would indeed get my locals in HD (according to him, the HD locals worked for everyone in this part of the county).

Likely, Ted M is in a similar situation: even though DIRECTV's web page doesn't officially promise HD locals in his area, they work well enough that DIRECTV has turned them on. Who knows, in the future he may find himself in the situation that we in Southern Utah are facing now where they get turned off completely. Hopefully not.

Just like both Ted M and DEC mentioned, I have had to periodically refresh services (the web page worked great for that) to clear a 721 error on my HD locals. As of Monday of this week, that no longer works. DEC has clearly outlined the situation in the first post of this thread (I also started a thread at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=191773 before I saw this thread).

I think this thread has provided a very logical explanation as to what happened. Because DIRECTV can't provide HD locals to everybody in our counties (incidentally, DEC, I'm in Iron County), they have made the business decision to turn off HD locals for the entire counties affected. Sure, I'm not pleased with losing my locals, but I get where they are coming from. Combine that with the fact that the DIRECTV web page has *never* promised HD locals in at least my area (I can't speak for DEC on that one) it's not like they have taken away anything that they had promised me. At this point I think my options are to just accept it, get a couple AM21s, or switch to Dish. I really do not want to go back to Dish, and I have my doubt that the AM21 will work well here since they are tied to the database of channels and don't scan; when I've looked at the listing pages referenced in other posts, it appears that the database likely will not know about most of the translators in my area.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes, we have seen several situations like this over the past couple of years. An installer somehow manages to get HD locals switched on in a county/zip which is not supposed to receive them. For a while this worked, so long as the signal was good enough, because no-one at DirecTv bothered to check to see if people were receiving HD locals who should not be. But then DirecTv introduced an automatic system which goes through the accounts and makes sure that only those people in a zip/county that is authorized for HD locals actually get them. This is what we are now seeing.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

AT some point, DirecTV has to decide which 'explanation' they are going to stick with.

Way back 4-5 years ago, before there were tons of Ka/HD national bandwidth (like, zero?) and the Spaceways were operational (providing Ka/HD service to a fair number of 'top 50' or so markets), the YES network was given several channels worth off several spotbeams so that a majority of YES markets could receive the channel.

As others have noted (I haven't confirmed this myself), apparently the Denver DMA is utilizing dual beams worth of bandwidth, a 'north I25' and 'south I25' configuration. 

Now, I'm sure some bean counter somewhere decided that the handful of customers in those out of the way Utah counties/zipcodes, could go 'pound sand' on HD locals because their DMA is 'too large' or something, and (my opinion) their narrow thinking figured what the hey, we won't loose much if these customers will just 'go away' and 'stop bothering us'.

What kills me, is that the solution is very inexpensive, either from DirecTV's pocket or the subscribers (a goodly number of which I'll bet would simply buy the equipment up front), but that the shut-offs are being done without regard to.... the customer! They jumped through multiple hoops a few years back, just to placate YES/Yankees fans, at a pretty large expense and engineering hoops, but it was done. This fix here is next to nothing. 

I would think the best thing to do is to get in contact with either the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, or perhaps one of the SLC network TV Stations and let them know what's going on, and try and get some basic coverage. Let them know that the 'problem' is easily and cheaply fixable, and that DirecTV refuses to upgrade the customer equipment to do so (the cheap fix) or change their beam pattern (unknown cost). 

In short, make sure that nobody in rural Utah will get or keep DirecTV without full knowledge that the 'service' is (or can be) truncated in this manner. What kills me is that any current or potential customer, in a similar rural area of the U.S., or large DMA's, , could potentially be put in the same situation, 'out of the blue'. 

DirecTV needs to get their head out of the 'dark place' and fix this pronto.


----------



## Ted M (Mar 18, 2010)

Well, we found out from DTV that we will no longer have HD Locals in 03582, northern NH. Reauthorizations, via the Internet or calling will not work.

I don't know if DTV ever "promised" HD Locals here, but we had them for a long time.

DTV started, last Sunday, to turn off all HD service for Locals in our ZIPcode. It's back to SD for Locals. That means using the 119 satellite, which my 3 LNB will not "see."

I could put my 5 LNB back in, but I have major tree trouble with 119, and estimates are about $3,000 to cut them down.

Therefore, we decided to switch to DISH after 15 years with DTV. We have a very clear view of the sky for DISH's eastern arc. Installation will be early next week.

Ted


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

zuf said:


> I really do not want to go back to Dish


Just curious, but why don't you want to go with Dish? Is it programming choices, cost, or ?


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

The solution in Utah is not easy or cheap. Setting up an additional spot beam for southern Utah is not profitable.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

adkinsjm said:


> The solution in Utah is not easy or cheap. Setting up an additional spot beam for southern Utah is not profitable.


That's my read on this as well, and it wouldn't surprise me that at some corporate level in DTV, someone already made the calculation that those adversely affected in some under-populated rural areas are "acceptable losses" and likely lack the clout or numbers to cause much trouble.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Ted M said:


> Well, we found out from DTV that we will no longer have HD Locals in 03582, northern NH. Reauthorizations, via the Internet or calling will not work.
> 
> I don't know if DTV ever "promised" HD Locals here, but we had them for a long time.
> 
> ...


Before you decide to leave for Dish, be advised that if your HD locals are turned off due to the fringe area policy and SD locals are really blocked because of LOS issues to 119 and OTA antenna reception is not possible or either impracticle. You should be eligible for DNS service and may at least acquire HD locals of the big four networks from N.Y. (as well as PBSnet and the CW in SD from other DNS sources)

Whether you would consider this an adequate replacement for your actual home locals though is another story of course.


----------



## zuf (May 25, 2007)

DEC said:


> Just curious, but why don't you want to go with Dish? Is it programming choices, cost, or ?


Personal preference, mostly. I didn't care for the equipment when I was with Dish before (though I never tried the VIP series of receivers as those were after I left), and I really got tired of losing channels due to spats with the programming companies. I understand that both sides need to negotiate pricing that is in their best interests, but Dish seemed to really like using the customers as pawns in those negotiations.

The main reason, though, is the DIRECTV Cutting Edge program here at DBSTalk. The ability to provide direct feedback to the engineers that are creating/maintaining the equipment that we use is unprecedented. I signed up for the CE program here at DBSTalk a week or two before I even signed up with DIRECTV. I've participated ever since (3 1/2 years now) and I think it's fantastic.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

'


adkinsjm said:


> The solution in Utah is not easy or cheap. Setting up an additional spot beam for southern Utah is not profitable.


If (read more, a BIG IF) the 'problem' is technical in nature, the cost differential between putting in a Slimline v. an Alaska/Hi 1.2m dish is about $200/per customer. Damn cheap.

HOWEVER, the problems appear NOT to be 'technical' in nature, as a state/DMA MUCH smaller than Utah (New Hampshire) is also under the gun. In tracking these problems down, it appears (according to some) that it's a PROGRAMMER error at DirecTV.

Now, I don't know if you realize that I've had several threads 'locked' down by the 'powers that be' on this forum for pointing out extreme PROGRAMMING errors by DirecTV in the past, to put it bluntly (in my mind) programmers in general are the lowest form of life on the planet.

But part of the problem has been, according to many on other sites, with the DirecTV authorization/billing computer, NOT anything 'technical'. Every person that has posted either here on on a wide variety of other sites were having NO problem whatsoever, had never called in to complain about reception problems, they simply woke up one morning to 'no service'.

IF indeed this turns out in x days/weeks/months to have been yet another pathetic error by DirecTV 'programmers', it will be yet another example that I'll put in my file of 'people that should find another profession'.

I'd still recommend that news media in every area where this is occurring should be notified unless and until DirecTV issues a press release identifying the problem, with or without any solutions.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Although 1948GG makes some interesting points, the cost of upgrading everyone in a county/zip to the Alaska/Hawaii 1.2m dish can be a lot more than $200. In those areas where the SD locals come from 119, or where people want 119 for other reasons, you would need two 1.2m dishes, plus an SWM8 multiswitch to tie the two dishes together. That's apart from finding somewhere to mount two 1.2m dishes. 
It might be a programmer error for the NH case, but I suspect not. The size of the state/DMA has an impact here, but it's not the only factor. In this case, the DMA is not NH, Ted is in the Portland/Auburn Maine DMA. As he says, his county has NEVER been authorized for HD according to the DirecTv web site, it's just that his installer managed to find a CSR who would do the authorization. And it seems only the activation by DirecTv of the automatic checking has discovered the error. He has had HD channels for some time, even though it seems he was not supposed to have them.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

1948GG - just for completeness, DirecTV did not allocate spotbeams to YES. What they did was add YES to the local channels on several existing spotbeams, essentially as another local channel.This meant that people in those areas who were already receiving HD locals had YES added to their channels. When enough national transponders (CONUS) became available, they put YES on one of those and removed it from the "locals".


----------



## Ted M (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: 03582, northern NH and Locals.

Just for clarification, the installer did NOT authorize my receivers. I did. He would change $49 to authorize them. He put up the new required dish for free.

As far as getting DNS channels from NY or LA, we had those before we bought HD receivers about a year ago. However, DTV will NOT allow us to get them again. If Locals are available in an area, even if only SD, then you cannot get DNS anymore.

This morning I put my 5-LNB back in, so I could get 119 again. The signal is weak, and shows a big red X on the setup screens. However, the signal is strong enough to see the Locals in SD.

This will do until DISH comes early next week. Then I'll never have to bother with 119 again, and I'll save $3000 not getting trees cut down. I'll get hit with an early termination fee, but that will be but a fraction of the above amount.

Ted


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Ted M said:


> .... Then I'll never have to bother with 119 again, and I'll save $3000 not getting trees cut down. I'll get hit with an early termination fee, but that will be but a fraction of the above amount.
> 
> Ted


Ummm, doesn't Dish use 119ºW?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

litzdog911 said:


> Ummm, doesn't Dish use 119ºW?


Not if your fully on the eastern arc which is 61.5, 72.7, and 77 degrees AIUI. The western arc though does use 119 in a 110, 119, 129 degree arc.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

DEC said:


> That's my read on this as well, and it wouldn't surprise me that at some corporate level in DTV, someone already made the calculation that those adversely affected in some under-populated rural areas are "acceptable losses" and likely lack the clout or numbers to cause much trouble.


Where there is a will, there is a way to do it, without spending to much money.. But maybe brain power to figure it out. I am surprised that they don't use the Spaceway and get all the SLC DMA with HD... I also wonder if it might be more advantageous for them to just kill all LIL SD in the SLC area, and go to just HD off of their SD LIL Transponders.. Although there may not be enough bandwidth on them for all the channels. I'd have to look into that to figure it out.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

DEC said:


> the second one (on 3/5) said that DirecTV was in the process of moving Salt Lake City local HD channels to a new satellite and that was causing the HD local authorization losses. He added that our issues should hopefully be solved sometime in May.


That is an interesting possibility if it is indeed true. The 103(s) TP21 is also used in the SoCal DMA and I would think that possible interference between the beams in Southern Utah has resulted in limitations on power output in this transponder. There may also be some possible interference beween the beams east of Utah (I haven't checked).

So if a different satellite / transponder is used for the SLC DMA it possibly could be higher power output allowing reception in the current "fringe" locations. I would think that D* has an incentive to make it available for these fringle locations - for a few months last year as D12 was being rolled out the zip code HD locals app on the D* web site was indicating that St. George UT was able to receive SLC HD locals. Perhaps the D12 output / D10 rework was unsufficient to provide acceptable signals levels - the web site now indicates no SLC HD locals for St. George.

I would wait a few weeks and give it a try to see if the satellite / transponder for UT has indeed been changed and possibly your location would be authorized for SLC HD locals.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

DirectMan said:


> That is an interesting possibility if it is indeed true. The 103(s) TP21 is also used in the SoCal DMA and I would think that possible interference between the beams in Southern Utah has resulted in limitations on power output in this transponder. There may also be some possible interference beween the beams east of Utah (I haven't checked).
> 
> So if a different satellite / transponder is used for the SLC DMA it possibly could be higher power output allowing reception in the current "fringe" locations. I would think that D* has an incentive to make it available for these fringle locations - for a few months last year as D12 was being rolled out the zip code HD locals app on the D* web site was indicating that St. George UT was able to receive SLC HD locals. Perhaps the D12 output / D10 rework was unsufficient to provide acceptable signals levels - the web site now indicates no SLC HD locals for St. George.
> 
> I would wait a few weeks and give it a try to see if the satellite / transponder for UT has indeed been changed and possibly your location would be authorized for SLC HD locals.


What you describe is very interesting, and I would of course be most appreciative if at the end of the effort, we could regain our HD locals. But the key to this is just like you started out with, and that is, if this story is true (and not some mis-information or subterfuge on the part of DTV). However, after everything I have seen in this and other threads on DBS Talk, other forums, and on the Internet in general, I am afraid that my faith in DTV has taken a major hit and I am not holding my breath for a positive outcome.

In the meantime, I am waiting to hear back from Ellen Filipiak, DTV's VP of Customer Service from the email I recently sent to her attention about all of this.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

OK folks, I got a phone call late today from someone representing Ellen Filipiak, DTV's VP of Customer Service late today and the official news isn't good.

The person was very polite and initially apologized for the the problems we had been going through as well as the conflicting explanations we had received from Customer Service. After some further discussion, she stated that the reason we were no longer receiving our HD locals was that we were located in a zip code and/or county that had some issues with reception of the Salt Lake City locals in HD and had been put on a list to have our HD locals turned off. 

As I had already explained in my email and reiterated again, I told her that we had never had a problem with receiving our HD locals for the last 15 months, but this made no difference, as she said that the SLC HD locals signal strength was not up to DTV's "quality standards", and as such, everyone in our zip code and larger county had our HD locals taken away. I then asked if there was any chance for reconsideration on a case-by-case basis, and she politely but firmly responded no. I also asked if there was any truth to the reassignment of SLC HD channels to a different satellite or transponders that might improve the situation in the future, and she said she had no information that would indicate that.

Since at this point in the conversation it became entirely clear that we (as well as a lot of other people) were out of luck and with no recourse, I said that we felt it was only fair to be released from the remainder of our contract with DTV (and without any early cancellation fees), so we could avail ourselves of HD service with Dish Network and regain our HD locals. She then tried a number of things to dissuade me from this course of action (e.g., we still could see our locals in SD, we could sign up for the autopay option to get $10 knocked-off our monthly bill, etc.), but I respectfully rejected those points with the same arguments I had already made in my email.

I again pressed the issue of getting out of the remainder of our 2-year contract (with ~8 months to go), and she then offered to meet us half way and reduce the pro-rated early cancellation fee by 50%. I tried to make the case that we felt no early cancellation fees were justified, but that ended up going nowhere, so I agreed to her 50% reduction offer (figuring in the final analysis, that something was better than nothing).

I then contacted Dish and they were not willing to pay anything towards the reduced early cancellation fee, even if we signed up for a 2 year contract with America's Top 250 and a ViP 922 HD DVR receiver. By the way, the chat session that I went through with Dish was something to behold in terms of hard sell techniques. If it wasn't so long, I'd post the transcript for the sheer entertainment value. 

Anyway, once I got Dish's best deal, I told them that I wanted to call my phone company (that I also get my DSL service through and who have a partnering relationship with Dish) to see if I could get a better deal by going the route of a phone/DSL/Dish bundled package, and the rep in the chat session said she wanted to keep the chat session active and that she would wait during my phone call to my phone company. Well, I made the call right then and there and the bundled package was a much better deal. That's when the hard sell approach from Dish just went off the map with every horror story thrown my way for all of the truly horrible things that were going to happen to me if I went the bundled route. It was almost comical. Anyway, after asking the chat rep if Dish was willing to match the pricing from my phone company (no less than four times), she finally gave up and said that she understood and respected my position (but she never once responded to my query as to whether Dish wanted to match the pricing from my phone company). 

So, I subsequently left a voice mail message with the phone company rep who was helping me to move forward with the bundle, so my guess is that we'll start the ball rolling in earnest on Monday to make the switch from DTV to Dish. It might sound funny to say at this juncture, but I honestly would have rather stayed with DTV, but not under the circumstances of permanently losing our HD locals.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm wondering if Dish might have the same problem with the HD locals or if the quality will be good?

Did you ask the DirecTv rep if you could get the NY/LA DNS HD channels?


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

jdspencer said:


> I'm wondering if Dish might have the same problem with the HD locals or if the quality will be good?


At least three of my closest neighbors have Dish, and they all get their HD locals with no problems. And from some additional input from others in our zip code who also get Dish, they too have not suffered any issues with HD local reception or picture quality.



> Did you ask the DirecTv rep if you could get the NY/LA DNS HD channels?


Yes, I should have mentioned that. While getting other area locals in HD was really not what we wanted, I did ask about this possibility towards the end of the conversation, and the rep said that as long as we could get our locals in SD, that such an arrangement would not be in the cards for us.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

DEC said:


> At least three of my closest neighbors have Dish, and they all get their HD locals with no problems. And from some additional input from others in our zip code who also get Dish, they too have not suffered any issues with HD local reception or picture quality. ...


Dish uses the lower frequency Ku band for all their SD and HD local channels (national as well) which have broader beam widths and therefore produce larger spots for more complete territorial coverage than the narrower higher frequency Ka band beams primarily used by virtually all DirecTV HD programming.

This is why you can receive DirecTV SD programming which also uses the same Ku band in HD fringe areas like the SLC DMA. For the same technical reasons you can receive Dish's.

Bottom line: DirecTV's decision to move HD to the higher frequency Ka band has its drawbacks ....



> ...Yes, I should have mentioned that. While getting other area locals in HD was really not what we wanted, I did ask about this possibility towards the end of the conversation, *and the rep said that as long as we could get our locals in SD, that such an arrangement would not be in the cards for us.*


True;

However, in fairness the federal government and their cornball regulations on DNS service are to blame for this one here, not DirecTV.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> However, in fairness the federal government and their cornball regulations on DNS service are to blame for this one here, not DirecTV.


This is the biggest reason they cannot just "leave you turned on"...In essence, the wording is something like: "If all in area can't get it reliably, then noone can", so D* decided it needed to remove some HD locals from a few areas that due to size and/or shape were very hard to provide spot beam coverage to economically or otherwise.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> Dish uses the lower frequency Ku band for all their SD and HD local channels (national as well) which have broader beam widths and therefore produce larger spots for more complete territorial coverage than the narrower higher frequency Ka band beams primarily used by virtually all DirecTV HD programming.
> 
> This is why you can receive DirecTV SD programming which also uses the same Ku band in HD fringe areas like the SLC DMA. For the same technical reasons you can receive Dish's.
> 
> ...





CCarncross said:


> This is the biggest reason they cannot just "leave you turned on"...In essence, the wording is something like: "If all in area can't get it reliably, then noone can", so D* decided it needed to remove some HD locals from a few areas that due to size and/or shape were very hard to provide spot beam coverage to economically or otherwise.


Understood, but all I know is a lot of people had their HD locals turned off that were previously receiving them just fine. At this point, I don't particularly care what the distinction is in terms of whether DTV turned them off on their own, or whether something from the Federal government triggered it ... it's still a case where we can actually receive our DTV HD locals with no problem, did so for 15 months, and now they're gone for good.

I'll be starting the process to switch over to Dish starting Monday.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

OK, the deal's done at this point. We decided to go the bundled route with Frontier (our local phone/DSL company). The installation appointment for our new Dish set-up is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon and DirecTV is turning off our current service with them as of midnight tonight. We are going with the America's Top 250 HD package, a ViP 922 SlingLoaded HD DVR, and free Showtime for 3 months. (And of course, we'll be getting our HD local channels back that DirecTV took away from us as of 4/4).

Thanks for all the input everyone!


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Please keep us informed on how things are going.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

DEC said:


> Since at this point in the conversation it became entirely clear that we (as well as a lot of other people) were out of luck and with no recourse, I said that we felt it was only fair to be released from the remainder of our contract with DTV (and without any early cancellation fees), so we could avail ourselves of HD service with Dish Network and regain our HD locals. She then tried a number of things to dissuade me from this course of action (e.g., we still could see our locals in SD, we could sign up for the autopay option to get $10 knocked-off our monthly bill, etc.), but I respectfully rejected those points with the same arguments I had already made in my email.
> 
> I again pressed the issue of getting out of the remainder of our 2-year contract (with ~8 months to go), and she then offered to meet us half way and reduce the pro-rated early cancellation fee by 50%. I tried to make the case that we felt no early cancellation fees were justified, but that ended up going nowhere, so I agreed to her 50% reduction offer (figuring in the final analysis, that something was better than nothing).


While I don't disagree on bit with your decision (cut your loses and put it behind you), and likely would have done the same thing, the part quoted above really bugs me. I just don't know any other business that can change service substantially--for whatever reason--and that not be enough to exempt you from Early Termination Fees. Cell phone companies, following class action lawsuits, have had to release customers who show that coverage doesn't meet their needs (can't use cell phone at home, for example), so I just can't imagine the same wouldn't apply to DirecTV if challenged.

Not that I'm suggesting anyone sue--what a huge hassle, not to mention waste of money and energy!--but you'd think DirecTV's legal team would be telling them to waive fees in these cases simply to avoid that, if not for basic customer goodwill and loyalty, which apparently is not very valuable (based on these and other actions).

I don't know about the customer above, but if I was in this situation and later moved to a new locale and was once again looking for TV service, I would write DirecTV off BECAUSE of their response, no matter how polite. So, they would have my $50-$100, or whatever it was, ETF, but I wouldn't use them again because of the experience. On the other hand, a company that had done the right thing and waived the fee, would be on my radar for future use in a different situation.

To the original poster: I'm sorry for your experience and hope you have a better one from now on. While no provider is perfect, I know how trying and what a hassle all this back and forth and running down things can be. Best of luck!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> While I don't disagree on bit with your decision (cut your loses and put it behind you), and likely would have done the same thing, the part quoted above really bugs me. I just don't know any other business that can change service substantially--for whatever reason--and that not be enough to exempt you from Early Termination Fees. Cell phone companies, following class action lawsuits, have had to release customers who show that coverage doesn't meet their needs (can't use cell phone at home, for example), so I just can't imagine the same wouldn't apply to DirecTV if challenged.
> 
> Not that I'm suggesting anyone sue--what a huge hassle, not to mention waste of money and energy!--but you'd think DirecTV's legal team would be telling them to waive fees in these cases simply to avoid that, if not for basic customer goodwill and loyalty, which apparently is not very valuable (based on these and other actions).
> 
> ...


Loss of a few channels is not a good enough reason to disallow ETF. Yes, they were his locals and networks are important to a lot of people but, as pointed out, they still had service (SD) and they did give him back half of his ETF, which is a good gesture.

If you start disallowing ETF for channel losses, where do you hold the line? One channel (Versus?), two? Networks? Premiums? Basic? HD only? HD/SD combined?

Look at it this way....there are still markets that do not get HD locals. They are treated the same way as those that do in price and service.

The vast majority of his service was still in place. So, even halving the ETF is a good compromise.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Loss of a few channels is not a good enough reason to disallow ETF. Yes, they were his locals and networks are important to a lot of people but, as pointed out, they still had service (SD) and they did give him back half of his ETF, which is a good gesture.
> 
> If you start disallowing ETF for channel losses, where do you hold the line? One channel (Versus?), two? Networks? Premiums? Basic? HD only? HD/SD combined?
> 
> ...


I disagree. :nono2: We watch and record local HD channels more than any other channels. I'd sure fight to get out of my ETF agreement if DirecTV took these channels away.

I realize it's not likely to happen in the LA area.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"billsharpe" said:


> I disagree. :nono2: We watch and record local HD channels more than any other channels. I'd sure fight to get out of my ETF agreement if DirecTV took these channels away.
> 
> I realize it's not likely to happen in the LA area.


And they compromised at half. And what you watch means nothing to an agreement. Sure you try to get what you can but the OP did it reasonably and well. Took what he could get without public rancor an moved on. I wish him well.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

I was posting over in the General Dish Network Discussion forum, and thought I would post this here as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed Results with our New Dish HD Service ...

On the positive side, the Dish installer (Tony) was hands down the very best installer of any service or equipment we have had installed in the past. He was patient, thorough, knowledgeable, and extremely helpful. And the ViP 922 HD DVR is magnificent, particularly the user interface (and it's likely going to take us a while to learn all of its capabilities). And of course, we are very happy to get our HD locals back that we lost through DirecTV.

That said, my wife and I are pretty disappointed in the HD picture quality from Dish. It has noticeably less resolution, clarity, and fidelity than we had from DirecTV, across every HD channel we have looked at so far. And the SD resolution is significantly worse than DirecTV. Tony did a great job setting-up our HD dish & system and we are set to 1080i HD, so all we can conclude is that we are seeing what could be referred to as "HD Lite". There are many of the classic signs and compression artifacts of rate-shaping and down-sampling yielding a degraded resolution HD picture over what we were previously seeing through DirecTV. This is not to say that DirecTV doesn't employ these same HD re-compression and bitrate/bandwidth reduction techniques to their HD programming, but there is just no doubt to us that the Dish HD picture quality is more compromised in comparison.

I don't think there is likely anything that can be done to improve this situation in the short-term. Beyond that, we are earnestly hoping we can somehow get used to the reduced picture quality over time.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Although it's well known that the Dish HD signal on at least some HD channels (all??) compresses to a lower resolution than DirecTV, (1440x1080 as compared with 1920x1080) I am surprised you see the same issues on SD. Most people seem to think that Dish has a better SD picture than DirecTV, although for locals the PQ can vary a lot between different locations.


----------



## Rob (Apr 23, 2002)

I would think for large area zip codes, Directv would be using the full 9 digit extended zip code to zero it in a little better to determine authorization. But that is using common sense.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

Rob said:


> I would think for large area zip codes, Directv would be using the full 9 digit extended zip code to zero it in a little better to determine authorization. But that is using common sense.


Well, in our case, it is a very small zip code area (~300+ people with one rural and very small post office for a single zip code). It's the very large county our zip code is within that killed us (it almost the size of Israel with only ~15,000 people in it). Our zip code gets the DTV HD locals just fine, but if anyone in the larger county can't get the HD local signal perfectly, then everyone in the entire county (and all included zip codes) gets zapped. It doesn't seem fair or logical, but it is what it is.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DEC said:


> Well, in our case, it is a very small zip code area (~300+ people with one rural and very small post office for a single zip code). It's the very large county our zip code is within that killed us (it almost the size of Israel with only ~15,000 people in it). Our zip code gets the DTV HD locals just fine, but if anyone in the larger county can't get the HD local signal perfectly, then everyone in the entire county (and all included zip codes) gets zapped. It doesn't seem fair or logical, but it is what it is.


As is true for all the areas that have your problem. The area covered is so large that the spot beams don't cover it all so well and zip codes are large.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

What needs to happen is go back to how it used to be. Let anyone in a particular location re dive whichever market they want to subscribe to even 3 or more.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Rob said:


> I would think for large area zip codes, Directv would be using the full 9 digit extended zip code to zero it in a little better to determine authorization. But that is using common sense.


How is that common sense? How does the last 4, which is used for postal routing only by the way, change the primary zip code? How would it help differentiate it for this scenario? How do you even know his zip code has multiple extensions?

What people lost track of here is that while these customers did receive HD locals they were not supposed to per DIRECTV. So while they did lose something they didn't lose anything that DIRECTV said they should have. It doesn't make the situation any better for these people but on the same side losing something you said you weren't supposed to have is much different then losing something you should have had.

The OP is now with another company and hopefully his picture issue gets resolved. Personally I would have gone the OTA route if possible I didn't read everything to see if it was or not.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

It's not just by zip code, it also goes by county. For example in my home town of Rock Falls the zip code (61071) covers 2 counties, Lee and Whiteside. If you live in Whiteside county you get local stations from the Quad Cities Market. If you live in Lee county you get local stations from the Rockford market. There can literally be houses across the street from each other that have different local channels.

The annoying thing is that Comcast customers there get both Rockford and Quad Cities local channels (both markets can also be received OTA). I wish DirecTV could (or would) do the same.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> What people lost track of here is that while these customers did receive HD locals they were not supposed to per DIRECTV. So while they did lose something they didn't lose anything that DIRECTV said they should have. It doesn't make the situation any better for these people but on the same side losing something you said you weren't supposed to have is much different then losing something you should have had.


It's a moot point now, but I did legitimately have HD locals when I signed up in 2009 for DirecTV HD service. In fact, after what happened the first time around with Dish (where we completely lost our locals in 2003 due to a change in their Utah spot beam coverage), we never would have upgraded to DirecTV HD without being able to legitimately receive our locals in HD from the get-go. Apparently, some time after we already had our HD service is when we got put on some list that we weren't supposed to get our HD locals, but we were never informed about this development until the roof fell in earlier this month. (And no, I don't make a habit of going on DirecTV's website to put my zip code in to see if I still have a service that I am paying for and was receiving with absolutely no issues whatsoever).



> The OP is now with another company and hopefully his picture issue gets resolved. Personally I would have gone the OTA route if possible I didn't read everything to see if it was or not.


OTA for us is virtually impossible in our mountainous and very remote location. We live at 7000 feet on the end of a fairly substantial mountain chain, with a series of ridges and a portion of another mountain chain in the way to the nearest OTA tower that is about 60 miles distant from us. This was simply not an option for us. Moreover, in our very rural area with very little population, cable will never come out here, so it's either DirecTV or Dish and that's pretty much it.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

if I were to lose my HD locals, I'd be wanting out of my commitment without the ETF on the grounds that SD isn't good enough. I paid for HD, I signed a contract expecting HD, and if they want to take them, they can take my gear back and let me move on to someone who WILL give me HD. 

I refuse to watch SD locals because I don't do SD programming. Center cut GARBAGE is unacceptable, and I, for one, would raise a storm if I was forced to it. 

And don't give me the SD is there excuse. If its not HD, its not for me.


----------



## alaskanaking (Jul 29, 2007)

In Juneau Alaska, where I live, I can't get any locals over the air. ABC, CBS, & NBC locals are available on DirecTV channels 5,8, & 13, but they are in crappy fuzzy SD, partial screen. So for many years I have had a waiver and was able to pay $2/mo for the distant locals (I think that's what they are called) from Los Angeles. About once a year they are taken away and I have to fight to get them back. A real pain in the A. I lost the LA feeds again (channels 391,393, 397) a week ago. Tech support told me that their computer takes them away automatically when they detect that l am able to get locals (whether HD or SD I guess). They told me that I am grandfathered in and they would give them back within 72 hours. It has been a week and they are not back. Yesterday they told me that they are working as fast as they can to give everyone back their distant locals but are swamped with work orders. I'm getting really tired of having to go through this every year.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

alaskanaking said:


> In Juneau Alaska, where I live, I can't get any locals over the air. ABC, CBS, & NBC locals are available on DirecTV channels 5,8, & 13, but they are in crappy fuzzy SD, partial screen. So for many years I have had a waiver and was able to pay $2/mo for the distant locals (I think that's what they are called) from Los Angeles. About once a year they are taken away and I have to fight to get them back. A real pain in the A. I lost the LA feeds again (channels 391,393, 397) a week ago. Tech support told me that their computer takes them away automatically when they detect that l am able to get locals (whether HD or SD I guess). They told me that I am grandfathered in and they would give them back within 72 hours. It has been a week and they are not back. Yesterday they told me that they are working as fast as they can to give everyone back their distant locals but are swamped with work orders. I'm getting really tired of having to go through this every year.


Sounds like a load of crap to me. Send me a PM and I can provide a few contacts that may be able to assist in you getting them back.


----------



## alaskanaking (Jul 29, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Sounds like a load of crap to me. Send me a PM and I can provide a few contacts that may be able to assist in you getting them back.


Looks like I need one more post to be able to PM you. Thanks!


----------



## alaskanaking (Jul 29, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Sounds like a load of crap to me.


Well, I just got off the phone with a DirecTV supervisor. It's been two weeks since they took my distant Los Angeles locals away (and had told me that they would get them back to me in 72 hours). They just told me that I can no longer, EVER, get the distant Los Angeles locals. The FCC is forcing me to watch horrible fuzzy standard definition, small picture feeds of the ABC, CBS, NBC Alaska locals (our Alaska Fox local is HD). Not to mention that our Alaska "locals" come from Anchorage & Fairbanks, 568 and 825 miles away. You wouldn't believe how poor the picture quality is on my 62 inch Toshiba. Think 1950's. They told me that I have lost my waiver and grandfather rights. Suck it up, dude, THIS IS AMERICA where big corporate money trumps citizens' rights.


----------



## DEC (Jan 7, 2008)

Would switching to Dish allow you to get your locals in better shape than with DirecTV (even if they were still in SD)?


----------



## alaskanaking (Jul 29, 2007)

DEC said:


> Would switching to Dish allow you to get your locals in better shape than with DirecTV (even if they were still in SD)?


I don't know anything about the quality of locals on Dish. I get DirecTV because of MLB Extra Innings. I don't think Dish offers that.


----------



## blackhawkzone (Nov 30, 2007)

alaskanaking said:


> Well, I just got off the phone with a DirecTV supervisor. It's been two weeks since they took my distant Los Angeles locals away (and had told me that they would get them back to me in 72 hours). They just told me that I can no longer, EVER, get the distant Los Angeles locals. The FCC is forcing me to watch horrible fuzzy standard definition, small picture feeds of the ABC, CBS, NBC Alaska locals (our Alaska Fox local is HD). Not to mention that our Alaska "locals" come from Anchorage & Fairbanks, 568 and 825 miles away. You wouldn't believe how poor the picture quality is on my 62 inch Toshiba. Think 1950's. They told me that I have lost my waiver and grandfather rights. Suck it up, dude, THIS IS AMERICA where big corporate money trumps citizens' rights.


so why are you not *****ing at the local stations for broadcasting in sd. that is where the problem is. They are blocking you from getting out of market signals, so that is where your fury should be pointed to.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

alaskanaking said:


> I don't know anything about the quality of locals on Dish. I get DirecTV because of MLB Extra Innings. I don't think Dish offers that.


No but MLB.tv does. Do you have decent internet? You can pay $24.99 a month to use a PS3 as a DVR for HD MLB games. Works great and the season price is like $100 cheaper then DirecTV.


----------



## alaskanaking (Jul 29, 2007)

joshjr said:


> No but MLB.tv does. Do you have decent internet? You can pay $24.99 a month to use a PS3 as a DVR for HD MLB games. Works great and the season price is like $100 cheaper then DirecTV.


I had MLB.TV for one season. It's not for me. I do work on the computer while watching the games. It's too much hassle trying to do both on one screen, constantly re-sizing screens. I've got a nice setup where I can be working on the computer and shift my eyes to the left to the big TV, which is 12 feet behind and just to the left of my computer monitor. I wear a custom pair of vertical bifocal executive lens glasses. I don't have to move my head, just shift my eyes left or right to be in perfect focus for the TV or computer. Works great.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

alaskanaking said:


> I had MLB.TV for one season. It's not for me. I do work on the computer while watching the games. It's too much hassle trying to do both on one screen, constantly re-sizing screens. I've got a nice setup where I can be working on the computer and shift my eyes to the left to the big TV, which is 12 feet behind and just to the left of my computer monitor. I wear a custom pair of vertical bifocal executive lens glasses. I don't have to move my head, just shift my eyes left or right to be in perfect focus for the TV or computer. Works great.


So get a PS3 and stream the games in HD to your TV instead of on the laptop. Thats what I do. Still on the laptop but watching the games as well.


----------

