# The great OTA debate



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

There was such an uproar over the lack of OTA on the HR21 that someone suggested a poll. So here it is. Black and white:

YES I need/want OTA
NO I am good to go

Cheers


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

$300 for a receiver with OTA
$300 for a receiver without OTA

Otherwise both receivers are effectively the same.

DUH!!! I'll take the one with OTA capability whether I need it now or not.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

No OTA required here. 
(1) I get my locals from Directv, and not interested in the bandwidth hogging subchannels
(2) The local terrain would require one of those 10000' cable runs to a 500' antenna.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Voted yes to OTA requirement.

Louisville DMA#48 still doesn't have HD locals, plus way too many tornado warnings in the spring (and one this morning) to rely on locals through D* 100% of the time.


----------



## Splendor (Apr 17, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> $300 for a receiver with OTA
> $300 for a receiver without OTA
> 
> Otherwise both receivers are effectively the same.
> ...


+1

:dance07:


----------



## Tmax88 (Oct 2, 2006)

OTA needed. Most of my series links are set to OTA because the picture looks better. It's even more noticeable watching sports. Besides, until PBS-HD is available, OTA is a must!


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

Sirshagg said:


> $300 for a receiver with OTA
> $300 for a receiver without OTA
> 
> Otherwise both receivers are effectively the same.
> ...


But if I do not need OTA (and I don't), even if the manufacturing cost of the hr21 is lower, hopefully the increased revenue from h/w will help to offset any need for D* to raise the cost of service which is the real price that we pay. For instance, if D* charged $50 less for the hr21 but then had to raise the sub rates by $5 a month, any savings on the purchase of the hr21 would disappear after 10 months. Conversely, if the price was the same as the hr20 and rates were not raised, after 10 months I would have recovered the $50 and begin to save on the lower rate.
I think we all know that some day D* will have to raise sub rates, but if they can offset some of that need by higher profit on h/w, maybe the increase in rates can be delayed or minimized.


----------



## eibook (Jan 5, 2007)

You Betcha! Lin owns my local CBS station!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I enjoy having OTA and do use it for locals that are not shown in HD over DIRECTV, but I don't "need" it, as I do get 5 locals over satellite.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Don't need (nor am I using) OTA.

So if anyone wants to trade a black HR21 for a silver HR20, let me know


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I enjoy having OTA and do use it for locals that are not shown in HD over DIRECTV, but I don't "need" it, as I do get 5 locals over satellite.


And you voted how? I Purposely made only 2 choices


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

eibook said:


> You Betcha! Lin owns my local CBS station!


+1


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I voted *NO*, I'd put the money into a Media Center PC, which will do my OTA DVRing, which BTW, once Video is setup in the software HR2x's I can forward to the HR2x...the OTAs I'm interested in are already spot beamed to me, so it really doesn't matter. Plus, I've wired my house so that all the televisions have an antenna inputted to them...multiple-redundancy:eek2:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rsblaski said:


> But if I do not need OTA (and I don't), even if the manufacturing cost of the hr21 is lower, hopefully the increased revenue from h/w will help to offset any need for D* to raise the cost of service which is the real price that we pay. For instance, if D* charged $50 less for the hr21 but then had to raise the sub rates by $5 a month, any savings on the purchase of the hr21 would disappear after 10 months. Conversely, if the price was the same as the hr20 and rates were not raised, after 10 months I would have recovered the $50 and begin to save on the lower rate.
> I think we all know that some day D* will have to raise sub rates, but if they can offset some of that need by higher profit on h/w, maybe the increase in rates can be delayed or minimized.


I really hope DirecTV doesn't price its products this way. A company is supposed to maximize profit by keeping costs down while charging the optimum for its product. The optimum is based upon ability to sell versus the price. Cost is not supposed to be associated to the price of a product. If you cannot sell a product for more than it costs you, you do not have a viable business.

This means that if DirecTV could get away with charging double what it does today without impacting its revenue stream, they would/should do so to be a well-run business.


----------



## bt-rtp (Dec 30, 2005)

Source for viewing a program on TV while recording two others on DVR
To get programming from other areas and DMAs
Rain faid avoidance for local in local (LIL) networks
High quality, non-compressed HD sources
Alternative for pre-empted local programming on ATSC main (.1) & the sub-channels versus the nationals out of New York and Los Angeles
I.e High School Football and local events

For some TVs with internal ATSC tuners, a second guide source (TV guide)


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

From another thread loosely based on the same topic/theme:



dbmaven said:


> Where I live, there is no OTA - without putting up an antenna on about an 800 foot tower (I'm guessing that I wouldn't get a zoning variance for that).....
> 
> People like me would welcome it - since I can never use OTA anyway.


I'll take 2 Black HR21's please. Hold the OTA.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

I have three local HD stations that are not carried by D*, like everyone, PBS, My Network and the CW. Until those are carried I have a need for OTA.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Just a thought but I am wondering if DirecTV may just ship the H21 and HR21 to markets that do have locals in HD through DirecTV. 

If this would be the case that would prevent someone receiving one that can only receive their HD locals via OTA.

BTW I voted no. Getting my HD locals through DirecTV was a big plus for me because I don't like using OTA and I think my MPEG4 HD locals look just as good as when I had a OTA hooked up.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

Voted yes for 2 reasons:

1) Still no local CBS in HD for SE WI
2) It's really nice to have the local PBS in HD, as well as the ability to use OTA when the weather is mucking up the DBS signal


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

Don't need it, but want it, so I voted yes. And I only want it in the main room because my apartment has an antenna on the roof with a connection there. My HR21 is perfect for the bedroom.

And if/when I move, I don't think I'll be putting up an antenna. But the OTA for PBS is nice for the handful of times I've watched it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

If I could move that 300' chunk of granite, OTA might be more useful.

Basic choice: OTA or the faster performance without it?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Voted no - I have four locals in HD from Directv and that's all I need; more to the point, in my area I would need a big antenna, signal amp, and a rotor to receive them all since they've chosen to install their towers in different directions from my house. So OTA is basically out for me. I also have cable internet and it's cheaper to maintain a lifeline "basic" subscription in addition to internet service than it is to JUST sub to the internet service (how's that for a way for Comcrap to inflate subscriber numbers ) So if the SHTF in the middle of the night and a tornado is barreling down on my house, I'll know via the internet or basic cable tuned to a local station. 

So in that regard, the HR21 is perfect for me and I will order at least one more ASAP.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gcisko said:


> There was such an uproar over the lack of OTA on the HR21 that someone suggested a poll. So here it is. Black and white:
> 
> YES I need/want OTA
> NO I am good to go
> ...


Let me know when you have about 1.6 million votes out of the potential 16 million D*TV customer responses, so we can know when the poll represents at least 10% of the customer base to make this poll valid for anything... :lol:

Voted NO, as I've had it (by default for equipment in place for over 9 years), but virtually never use it anyway. If it was gone tomorrow, it would be no loss. OTA in any major city is not a necessity. The issue with PBS is all about funding. Unlike commerical for-profit stations, PBS stations have to come up with their own money, so equipment upgrades to digital/HD is not consistent throughout the US station network yet. In some places, you can't get PBS HD with our without OTA, so it doesn't even matter.

Once the new D11 sat goes up, D*TV will have plenty of bandwidth to expand upon the LIL stations, so that more than the big 4 in cities are supported, assuming carriage agreements are in place and the local stations offer HD in the first place.

I wouldn't let a few more months of waiting for 1 local channel drive my purchasing decisions, but that's just me.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

bt-rtp said:


> *Reasons OTA is good - again *
> 
> Source for viewing a program on TV while recording two others on DVR


Well, you can't even do this with the HR20 while recording two shows, so this one doesn't support the argument for having OTA on the HR21, which would arguably have the same functionality. You'd still need the TV's tuner to accomplish this feat.



> To get programming from other areas
> Rain faid avoidance for local in local (LIL) networks
> High quality, non-compressed HD sources
> Alternative for pre-empted local programming on ATSC main (.1) & the sub-channels versus the nationals out of New York and Los Angeles
> I.e High School Football and local events


These don't add much support for the argument for having OTA on the HR21 as you don't need a DVR to do this and can accomplish the same thing with the TV's tuner.



> For some TVs with internal ATSC tuners, a second guide source (TV guide)


Well, this may apply, but it's certainly not much of a reason to add the OTA in the HR21.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

say-what said:


> Well, this may apply, but it's certainly not much of a reason to add the OTA in the HR21.


...or any other one for that matter...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

This is an interesting poll, I guess, but as far as marketing decisions for D*, it is useless. The sample is so small and so non-random that making any inferences based on this data would be dumb as a box of rocks.

In any case, I voted YES, as OTA is a very big deal to me.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> So in that regard, the HR21 is perfect for me and I will order at least one more ASAP.


I'm thinking about doing the same myself, just need to decide whether to replace one HR20 or get it as an addition to my DVR collection.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

say-what said:


> I'm thinking about doing the same myself, just need to decide whether to replace one HR20 or get it as an addition to my DVR collection.


Make that the *three* of us....


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I voted YES for OTA because:

1. No PBS-HD via D*. Can only get this OTA.

2. Can't get Phily stations via D* and I can get some OTA.

3. Only 4 of the local HD stations are carried by D* and no subchannels.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Read an article on NYTimes.com URL:

go to their site under media to see story.

That will potentially allow media owners to buy up more stations in a market area. This will likely make it easier for larger companies to buy up newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations in the same market.


----------



## seagod (May 24, 2007)

I am in a market that is one of the last that received local SD channels and currently those require a separate dish at that. Therefore, OTA in a receiver is very important to me as that is the only way I see I will have local's in HD as D* has not given any hint as to when they will offer my market's HD locals via their main SAT or event the separate SAT. At least with an OTA I do not have to resort to my local cable provider for that content; however, their currently is not a way to position an OTA that will reliably receive all my HD locals as they are in totally separate directions. The best signal strength I can get on an OTA (I have tried about 10 models) is around the upper 40's and that is at the expense my other 4 channels. Not great but then I really do not watch much on FOX and PBS which are the hardest to pick up iat my location and if I do the others are lost. I have tried but can not get national feeds in HD. This is one area where our local cable provider has a definite edge. Due to this I rarely watch anything on NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX these days. It is a shame that the FCC does not allow me to get national HD feeds but then the FCC determined that I should be able to receive local HD with an OTA but no one thought about if you could receive them all at once with one OTA or needed to reposition the OTA in order to watch each channel reliably. I will be glad when D* gets HD locals for my market but until then, I can make due without FOX and PBS and the others which I get about 80% of the time.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hasan said:


> This is an interesting poll, I guess, but as far as marketing decisions for D*, it is useless. The sample is so small and so non-random that making any inferences based on this data would be dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> In any case, I voted YES, as OTA is a very big deal to me.


Voted Yes as well, and agree that this poll, just as with many of the polls here, likely isn't a reflection of entire Directv user base.

Directv should have much better data available to them about how many users actually use OTA, and where they are located.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> Just a thought but I am wondering if DirecTV may just ship the H21 and HR21 to markets that do have locals in HD through DirecTV.
> 
> If this would be the case that would prevent someone receiving one that can only receive their HD locals via OTA.
> 
> BTW I voted no. Getting my HD locals through DirecTV was a big plus for me because I don't like using OTA and I think my MPEG4 HD locals look just as good as when I had a OTA hooked up.


You do know that you can get Washington OTA and you will probably NEVER get them via satellite?

Why do you not like using OTA? You set it up and it is done.

And what about channels not on satellite? Like the CW or PBS? (I don't want to hear they will eventually have them...there will always be some lag.)


----------



## csunflip (Oct 11, 2007)

Voted YES

D* does not offer KCAL - 9 in HD and KCETHD

All Laker games a shown in HD in SOCAL!


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

say-what said:


> I'm thinking about doing the same myself, just need to decide whether to replace one HR20 or get it as an addition to my DVR collection.


Actually, I may hold off until SWMs are generally available too - I will use a second HR21 to move the R15 out of my master bedroom and into my youngest daughter's room. She has only one line in there but my WB68 is full-up. I can't guarantee they'll install a WB6161 with the "standard installation" when they move the DVR in there, and I need an SWM to get dual-tuner functionality out of the HR20 that's currently up in my son's room above the garage (with no easy way to run a second line in addition to the RG6 in the wall already).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

seagod said:


> I am in a market that is one of the last that received local SD channels and currently those require a separate dish at that. Therefore, OTA in a receiver is very important to me as that is the only way I see I will have local's in HD as D* has not given any hint as to when they will offer my market's HD locals via their main SAT or event the separate SAT.


Then you'll be glad to know that once the new sat D11 is up and fully operational early next year, you won't need the extra dish anymore, *and* the bandwidth will be there to support an exponential expansion of the LIL HD channels.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Jaysv said:


> Voted Yes as well, and agree that this poll, just as with many of the polls here, likely isn't a reflection of entire Directv user base.
> 
> Directv should have much better data available to them about how many users actually use OTA, and where they are located.


Use of OTA is a bad statistic as DirecTV is ACTIVELY discouraging people from using OTA. I have had friends be told by DirecTV when they wanted an antenna put up as part of their install "Why would you want that, we have your locals in HD." Two of them were even told they would get the antenna then the installer turned up without one and refused to do it. Only one insisted and got it with another installer coming.

When you refuse a product to your customers then say "Well, our customers don't use this product" that is a very bad statistic.

And, why trust DirecTV marketing? They misunderstood the desire for DLB, too.

Your logic says we should never tell DirecTV what is best because we are not a good sample. Let's just shut dbstalk down, then....


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then you'll be glad to know that once the new sat D11 is up and fully operational early next year, you won't need the extra dish anymore, *and* the bandwidth will be there to support an exponential expansion of the LIL HD channels.


Oh, DirecTV is going to give me Washington, DC locals in addition to my Baltimore ones? I don't think so.....


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

+1 ....and then some.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> You do know that you can get Washington OTA and you will probably NEVER get them via satellite?


I know and I had them but don't need them. There is nothing in Washington that I want to watch.



> Why do you not like using OTA? You set it up and it is done.


I don't like having to use the "-1". It is just that much more to press.

Plus it just adds that much more to the guide and I don't need them.



> And what about channels not on satellite? Like the CW or PBS? (I don't want to hear they will eventually have them...there will always be some lag.)


The only thing I watch on either one of those channels is the few Maryland basketball games that are on CW (54 WBFF) every year and they are not even in HD yet.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> I don't like having to use the "-1". It is just that much more to press.


You are kidding, right? I guess you want all the channels under 100 because anything above it is another button to press?

4-1 is the same number of buttons as 206.

Oh, and the best weather map by far is on 9-2.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Use of OTA is a bad statistic as DirecTV is ACTIVELY discouraging people from using OTA.


Certain installers may (perhaps it's a ladder thing  ), but D*TV doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't be coding their firmware to support it in the HR20 DVRs.


> When you refuse a product to your customers then say "Well, our customers don't use this product" that is a very bad statistic.


I think you mean bad practice, not statistic. That said, the % of D*TV customers using OTA is very small.


> And, why trust DirecTV marketing? They misunderstood the desire for DLB, too.


Oh...I suspect they understand it well, including the fact that only DVR customers would need it, and the demand just isn't there. That said, it's on their radar, so it's more a matter of when then if. A firmware update sent to the 3 HD DVR models they have could activate this capability whenever they decide it's a worthwhile capability for the masses.


> Your logic says we should never tell DirecTV what is best because we are not a good sample. Let's just shut dbstalk down, then....


Not so. Your and all other opinions are welcome here and from D*TV. But also understand that when those represent the minority of users, not all wishes come true.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> You are kidding, right? I guess you want all the channels under 100 because anything above it is another button to press?
> 
> 4-1 is the same number of buttons as 206.
> 
> Oh, and the best weather map by far is on 9-2.


I will go with a Baltimore channel instead.

But I can press 13 with a DirecTV HD local vs. having to press 13-1 to get the same OTA channel.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Anyone not using OTA is cheating themselves of more (FREE) programming. And rationalizing it away. Bet most of you who do so got all excited about new HD channels you don't even watch.....or VOD that you may never use.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Certain installers may (perhaps it's a ladder thing  ), but D*TV doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't we coding their firmware to support it in the HR20 DVRs.


So, you say I am lying when I tell you that DirecTV tries to talk you out of OTA if you try to order it?

This is the truth. Go ahead and try to order it today and see what happens. They will stall you. They will tell you they already have your locals in HD.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not so. Your and all other opinions are welcome here and from D*TV. But also understand that when those represent the minority of users, not all wishes come true.


Well, it is dumb to ignore opinions of people who are well informed. And yet they use our opinions for the GUI and for DOD setups and other items. Hmm, why would they do that if we are so small a group and represent the minority? What good are any of the polls or the wishlists?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> I will go with a Baltimore channel instead.
> 
> But I can press 13 with a DirecTV HD local vs. having to press 13-1 to get the same OTA channel.


And how does that work for 45-2? Or PBS...oh never mind. That isn't on anyway. How about the WBAL weather station?

I guess you will also ignore the FoodHD or the other stations that are being set up on -1 channels.

Very weak argument. Numbers are numbers and the dash is just another number on the remote.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Use of OTA is a bad statistic as DirecTV is ACTIVELY discouraging people from using OTA. I have had friends be told by DirecTV when they wanted an antenna put up as part of their install "Why would you want that, we have your locals in HD." Two of them were even told they would get the antenna then the installer turned up without one and refused to do it. Only one insisted and got it with another installer coming.
> 
> When you refuse a product to your customers then say "Well, our customers don't use this product" that is a very bad statistic.
> 
> ...


I never said that they know how to use the data, or that they even have it, just that they should have it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Anyone not using OTA is cheating themselves of more (FREE) programming.


Sooooo...it's about getting something for free then...I get it.


> Bet most of you who do so got all excited about new HD channels you don't even watch.....or VOD that you may never use.


I'll take that bet. I have OTA and 3 HD DVR's. I virtually never use the OTA. Since the antenna was in place, as well as the cable to it, it cost me *nothing* and took *no* effort to plug it. Otherwise, I could care less.

But its not about *me*...just like its not about *you* either. If you want OTA, get an HR20 DVR or H20 series receiver and be done with it. Repeated rants by a few for OTA don't make it right for the masses.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> And how does that work for 45-2? Or PBS...oh never mind. That isn't on anyway. How about the WBAL weather station?
> 
> I guess you will also ignore the FoodHD or the other stations that are being set up on -1 channels.
> 
> Very weak argument. Numbers are numbers and the dash is just another number on the remote.


Tony I agree that some do need a OTA or want a OTA to get the channels they want.

If there was channels there that I was going to watch it would be a different thing, but I don't. The channels I watch I can get the same thing from DirecTV and I think they look just as good.


----------



## Kentstater (Jun 18, 2004)

Quite frankly I would look for options if I did not have OTA.
I live in Detroit DMA but work, eat, play in Toledo.

I am 5 minutes from Toledo, one hour from Detroit. I am sure there are plenty of D* subs in this type of situation. If there was an real way to choose one DMA i could live with that. Or I could "move".

Meanwhile I will enjoy the best of both worlds with my HR20.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Well, it is dumb to ignore opinions of people who are well informed.


Apparently some cannot accept the fact that it is a common business practice in the whole working world that the majority rules decisions. Minority perspectives are not ignored, they are classified as minority opinions - some of those change over time into majority positions, some do not.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Kentstater said:


> Quite frankly I would look for options if I did not have OTA. I live in Detroit DMA but work, eat, play in Toledo.
> 
> I am 5 minutes from Toledo, one hour from Detroit. I am sure there are plenty of D* subs in this type of situation. If there was an real way to choose one DMA i could live with that. Or I could "move". Meanwhile I will enjoy the best of both worlds with my HR20.


Then when the new sat D11 goes up early next year, and reams of new LIL channels are added, you may be a doubly-happy-camper.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Local HD's are not available in my area so I certainly need them OTA right now. Even if we ever get the local HD's via satellite eventually, I'd still want HD locals OTA anyway I think.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

No interest is dealing with OTA here.


----------



## Splendor (Apr 17, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Apparently some cannot accept the fact that it is a common business practice in the whole working world that the majority rules decisions. Minority perspectives are not ignored, they are classified as minority opinions - some of those change over time into majority positions, some do not.


From the looks of the poll results so far, it seems as though you're in the minority bub.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Splendor said:


> From the looks of the poll results so far, it seems as though you're in the minority bub.


The minority of a those who saw the poll on this site and cared to vote, not the minority of Directv subs. If that was the case, cable would already have won.

Oh, wait . . . you mean you CAN'T record OTA on most cable STB's? :eek2: I'm shocked. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Splendor said:


> From the looks of the poll results so far, it seems as though you're in the minority bub.


I'll take the side with the rest of the 15.9 Million customers who have NOT voted. That would be the clear majority and then some. 

These polls of .000001% of the customer base mean nothing.

But they are entertaining. :lol:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

I'm a big OTA fan.

Why? Better PQ, rain-fade, rain-fade, and I did I mention rain-fade? We have lots of big storms here.

Plus, as the number of HDTVs in the home increases, we will see an increase in exclusive sub-channel programming.

It won't kill me to not have OTA in a NON-DVR IRD, since I can flip the input to the antenna. But, I enjoy the seamless program guide integration. It also is less headache for my wife, who only wants to channel up and down, and not learn how to switch inputs.

However, for a HD-DVR I will probably leave D* after my contract expires if an OTA option is no longer available. The ability to DVR OTA HD programming seamlessly along side the satellite delivery was THE big reason I left cable.

But, from what I've read on here, it seems the plan is to have a choice of OTA, or not.

I hope so.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

gcisko said:


> There was such an uproar over the lack of OTA on the HR21 that someone suggested a poll. So here it is. Black and white:
> 
> YES I need/want OTA
> NO I am good to go
> ...


Third choice is no choice available. I and others cannot get OTA signals whether we want them or not.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Oh, wait . . . you mean you CAN'T record OTA on most cable STB's? :eek2: I'm shocked. :lol:


I can't remember the total times the cable failed here. Only once or twice, comes to mind.

I've got rain-fade problems every spring and fall.

Cable here has all the local HD and sub-channels, too. You can DVR them via the STB.

No HD LIL yet from D*.

...love that OTA, baby!


----------



## Splendor (Apr 17, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll take the side with the rest of the 15.9 Million customers who have NOT voted. That would be the clear majority and then some.
> 
> These polls of .000001% of the customer base mean nothing.
> 
> But they are entertaining. :lol:


I'm not sure why you're so confident that the majority of consumers who are asked if they would like to purchase widget A for $300 or widget B (which is missing one feature of widget A) for $300 would choose widget B. Maybe you think that they're just impressed by shiny boxes like you. :kisshead:


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

This is sensible, as we've seen in many other posts where even between the -700 and the -100, by far a more similar box, those boxes seemed to be plentiful in some areas and gone in others (and vice versa) for a much less explicable reason, except for maybe simple distribution/availability/shipping and trucking costs - whatever.



BMoreRavens said:


> Just a thought but I am wondering if DirecTV may just ship the H21 and HR21 to markets that do have locals in HD through DirecTV.
> 
> If this would be the case that would prevent someone receiving one that can only receive their HD locals via OTA.
> 
> BTW I voted no. Getting my HD locals through DirecTV was a big plus for me because I don't like using OTA and I think my MPEG4 HD locals look just as good as when I had a OTA hooked up.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I'm a big OTA fan. Why? Better PQ, rain-fade, rain-fade, and I did I mention rain-fade? We have lots of big storms here.


Uh....perhaps its time to consider a drier climate? OK, just kidding. :lol:

Actually, the only rain fade I've ever seen come into play with use of the sat dish is in torrential rains with lightening....and in those cases....I'm think more about an Ark or heading to the basement for shelter than OTA. The idea of watching TV in a bad lightening storm just doesn't sound prudent. 

By the way, in those storms, my neighbors Comcrap cable goes out every time.


> Plus, as the number of HDTVs in the home increases, we will see an increase in exclusive sub-channel programming.


Not according to recent industry trade publications that indicate the costs for local digital sub-channels is cost-prohibitive except in perhaps the top 15 or so markets. I live in one of those, and the local stations have all been complaining that they actually want to only support 1 OTA HD channel each.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Splendor said:


> I'm not sure why you're so confident that the majority of consumers who are asked if they would like to purchase widget A for $300 or widget B (which is missing one feature of widget A) for $300 would choose widget B. Maybe you think that they're just impressed by shiny boxes like you. :kisshead:


I'm confident because DirecTV (or any other for-profit company) has no intention of supporting any solution when there is no problem. They see no problem, most customers see no problem, the market sees no problem, even the local stations see no problem (except maybe any expansion of digital broadcast to OTA beyond what is there today - that costs *them* money).


----------



## Splendor (Apr 17, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm confident because DirecTV (or any other for-profit company has no intention of supporting any solution when there is no problem. They see no problem, most customers see no problem, the market sees no problem, even the local channels see no problem (except maybe any expansion of digital broadcast to OTA beyond what is there today - that costs *them* money).


So your confidence is based on the infallibility of corporations? :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Voted Yes. And the further story is "but not on every receiver." 

I'm very curious as to these numbers across a wider audience base. My dad and mom (step) would be a yes, my mom and dad (step) would be a no (they live in a locale with almost no OTA nearby.)

A good bit of my family would be "what is HD?" or "I can't afford HD anyway." 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If you want OTA, get an HR20 DVR or H20 series receiver and be done with it. Repeated rants by a few for OTA don't make it right for the masses.


Depends. Perhaps the problem is the masses do not realize what OTA would get them? Don't understand what it really is? Don't realize it is a possibility? If the masses really knew, I would think they would want it.

I am quite surprised as how this poll is going so far. Judging from all the tense posts in other threads I thought it was just a small percentage that wanted OTA. I read many posts with "attitude" that insisted as much. Well???


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Nice work on the first look, guys.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> I just can't believe how much a small number of people continue to *crave* OTA. I've had it for 9 years as a backup plan prior to LIL, but now, if it went away tomorrow...it's not that big a deal. Let it go....let it go.....


The simple fact is, that if satellite reception were as reliable as OTA, we wouldn't "crave" it. But it's not. When it storms (or even just rains heavily), I want to be able to a) check the weather broadcasts on TV and b) be able to record programming.

If I'm setting the unit to record something "critical" on a local channel more than a day or two in advance, it's being set to record on the OTA. Why? Because I've lost recordings due to weather via satellite.

So for some of us, it IS "that big a deal."


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Depends. Perhaps the problem is the masses do not realize what OTA would get them? Don't understand what it really is? Don't realize it is a possibility? If the masses really knew, I would think they would want it.
> 
> I am quite surprised as how this poll is going so far. Judging from all the tense posts in other threads I thought it was just a small percentage that wanted OTA. I read many posts with "attitude" that insisted as much. Well???


Why would you be surprised? (I am not)

This is going to turn into another DLB debate...


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I can't remember the total times the cable failed here. Only once or twice, comes to mind.


Cable is perfectly reliable here too. Overpriced and under-featured as well, but reliable.



> I've got rain-fade problems every spring and fall.


I get a few moments in a torrential downpour a couple times a year. Otherwise not an issue. And if I ever do have issues with Ka MPEG4, I switch over to the Ku SD version and the problem goes away. Ku is MUCH less resistant to rain fade and the AT-9 is much bigger than the old 18" round dishes ever could be.



> Cable here has all the local HD and sub-channels, too. You can DVR them via the STB.


Then I submit you are in the minority. Add in the lack of national HDs, poor PQ on HDs here, the crappiest DVRs known to mankind and the exorbitant costs, I'll stick with Directv, regardless of the fact that my HR21 doesn't receive OTA signals.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> The minority of a those who saw the poll on this site and cared to vote, not the minority of Directv subs. If that was the case, cable would already have won.


Please. The DLB poll has 94,000+ views and 2900+ votes. The OTA poll has 650+ views and 135+ votes. Do the math. This poll is getting a *FAR *higher percentage of votes than the much vaunted DLB.

And... Cable will never win!


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why would you be surprised? (I am not)


You shouldn't be. The vocal minority always trumps the quiet majority - and unfortunately, often dictates the issues and often the "solutions" to those issues.


----------



## Vader14 (Sep 5, 2006)

OTA is nice to have if it's raining


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why would you be surprised? (I am not)
> 
> This is going to turn into another DLB debate...


It has been a DLB type debate for some time right? What this is showing me is a far higher percentage are willing to vote on it (care more). Hope I didn't jinx it :grin:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Please. The DLB poll has 94,000+ views and 2900+ votes. The OTA poll has 650+ views and 135+ votes. Do the math. This poll is getting a *FAR *higher percentage of votes than the much vaunted DLB.


Read my next post regarding vocal minorities.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm think more about an Ark or heading to the basement for shelter than OTA. The idea of watching TV in a bad lightening storm just doesn't sound prudent.
> 
> Not according to recent industry trade publications that indicate the costs for local digital sub-channels is cost-prohibitive except in perhaps the top 15 or so markets. I live in one of those, and the local stations have all been complaining that they actually want to only support 1 OTA HD channel each.


No, heavy rain from non-severe storms is common here, too. No reason to go to the basement for those. But, geez...it's pouring outside. Hey, let's watch some TV.

I'm in a "top 70" market. There are 4 subs on-air now. In Panama City, FL a "top 120" market the CW and My TV networks are sub-channels on the NBCs digital signal.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gcisko said:


> Depends. Perhaps the problem is the masses do not realize what OTA would get them?


Perhaps, just like the majority of Americans have no clue about HDTV in general.


> I am quite surprised as how this poll is going so far. Judging from all the tense posts in other threads I thought it was just a small percentage that wanted OTA. I read many posts with "attitude" that insisted as much. Well???


I'm not....those with strong feelings tend to post repeatedly. The number of voters in this poll are negligible to any sampling of value. Since this attracted those with strong feelings towards OTA, I would have been shocked for any such little sampling *NOT* to favor OTA. :eek2:

But it is all entertaining.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Read my next post regarding vocal minorities.


Yeah I saw it and filed it already


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> You shouldn't be. The vocal minority always trumps the quiet majority - and unfortunately, often dictates the issues and often the "solutions" to those issues.


Exactly...


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But it is all entertaining.


Oh no!!!!! We agree on something :eek2:


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

It seems to me that the HR21 just a stripped down version of the HR20. After reading Earls HR21 review it seemed like DTV just said to the engineers build me a HR20 that cost 20% less and thats how the HR21 was born. I sure am glad I got a HR20-100 before they get discontinued.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Vader14 said:


> OTA is nice to have if it's raining


So is an umbrella..


LameLefty said:


> Read my next post regarding vocal minorities.


 :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dreadlk said:


> It seems to me that the HR21 just a stripped down version of the HR20?


Boy are you WAY OFF. _Stripped down _- you're joking right??

New processor (an upgrade), another new chipset, additional ethernet connectivity, better MPEG-4 handling, and more....

It's more like a fancy dressed cousin of equal stature to the HR20 series...


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

I voted Yes because of Lin owning the local NBC and because of PBS. However, I have several HR20s and so the HR21 is fine for the TV that also has a HR20 connected. So even though I need/want OTA, it is not necessary on every receiver.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> It seems to me that the HR21 just a stripped down version of the HR20. After reading Earls HR21 review it seemed like DTV just said to the engineers build me a HR20 that cost 20% less and thats how the HR21 was born. I sure am glad I got a HR20-100 before they get discontinued.


I didn't write the view... and in fact... I didn't play any part in it...

As to your comments....

Ummm.. yes... that actually is probably what happened... there is no one denying that, the one of the primary reasons that ATSC is not in the box, was the cost of it.

What part of that fact, is everyone missing?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> I sure am glad I got a HR20-100 before they get discontinued.


But don't you REALLY wish you had an HR20*-700*?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Please. The DLB poll has 94,000+ views and 2900+ votes. The OTA poll has 650+ views and 135+ votes. Do the math. This poll is getting a *FAR *higher percentage of votes than the much vaunted DLB.
> 
> And... Cable will never win!


Might I suggest that this poll is way, way to young to start this kind of analysis? 

After the first 2,500 votes, most of the people are viewing the discussion not voting again and again. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## wi6397 (Aug 31, 2007)

I voted yes because I get 30 channels OTA and it gives me a back up when the D* locals are acting up. Even if I had an HR21 I would still run the OTA through my TV.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

I love my 27 OTA channels!

- Craig


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

What's so bad if a "vocal minority" hopes that D* will offer an OTA option?

If they want to manufacturer fewer OTA capable IRDs, and even offer them at a slightly higher cost. Fine.

Just please give us the option.

Or, at least carry ALL local channels and sub-channels, before you eliminate OTA.

Please.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> What's so bad if a "vocal minority" hopes that D* will offer an OTA option?


Ummm... that is the thing.... they do offer an OTA option, 4 of them actually:

HR20-100
HR20-700
H20-100
H20-600


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Ummm... that is the thing.... they do offer an OTA option, 4 of them actually:
> 
> HR20-100
> HR20-700
> ...


I get that. We're cool. 

It just seems that most of these threads are along the "we can get rid of it later and nobody will care" tone.

We're kind of like senior citizens raising cane about Social Security to make sure it's still around.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I don't need OTA. It is a nice to have, but seldom if ever used function for me. Therefore, I voted no.

The only thing I lack by not having OTA is PBS in HD, and a couple of sub-channels, and to be honest, I have not watched any of them. I do get PBS in SD via satellite. I also have an ATSC tuner in my TV, so I am able to watch any of the local OTA channels, just not able to record those that do not come via satellite. For me, as stated, that is not and I don't expect it ever will be, an issue.

Carl


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

But Earl! "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!" The Hx21 series guarantees there will never be ANY OTHER OPTION, right? !rolling 

Seems to me, DIRECTV could always make the HR22 with and the HR23 without. Odds have OTA, evens don't. 

Ah well, until the sky does fall upon me, I'm not going to worry about it. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> It just seems that most of these threads are along the "we can get rid of it later and nobody will care" tone.


Understood, but that's all coming from the people posting here and complaining, not from D*, dbstalk mods, or any of us that were fortunate enough to receive and test an HR21.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> But Earl! "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!" The Hx21 series guarantees there will never be ANY OTHER OPTION, right? !rolling


I hear you, and agree.

But, when I was at Best Buy, earlier this week, and saw a lot of H21s and zero H20s. Plus, no card on the shelf to indicate that it was carried, and just temporarily out of stock. I thought, ooops, I'm too late to get a non-DVR with OTA unit.

I'm glad to hear that it's just a coincidence, since I'm an OTA fan.

After the SWM becomes a reality for the masses, I plan to add a few more HDTVs to the house. I want to know if I need to "stock up" or can comfortably wait, and perhaps get an improved future non-DVR IRD with OTA.

That's all. If D* would put out a statement saying one way, or another, then this would all become moot.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Yes, because:

PBS in HD (e.g., The War, currently occupying 15 hours of the hard drive). In addition, two of the 5 PBS subchannels in this area have interesting HD content that differs from the main channel.

CW in HD


----------



## jwebb1970 (Oct 3, 2007)

Voted yes.

As others have said, mainly due to not having PBS and/or CW HD locals over sat. PBS is the only one I really need, but also like to have my NBC affiliate's 24-hr weather subcchannel as well. The OTA backup is nice, too. Closest thing I get to the local weather channel I used to get via Comcast.

Just split the antenna cable to run to both HR-20 and back of TV, so I can tune HD/SD locals that way while the -20 records 2 shows at once.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Depends. Perhaps the problem is the masses do not realize what OTA would get them? Don't understand what it really is? Don't realize it is a possibility? If the masses really knew, I would think they would want it.
> 
> I am quite surprised as how this poll is going so far. Judging from all the tense posts in other threads I thought it was just a small percentage that wanted OTA. I read many posts with "attitude" that insisted as much. Well???


My retail experience tells me that most consumers have no idea (in our area) that all major networks are available in HD, totally free, and receivable with nothing more than a set of good rabbit ears/uhf loop.

Once they find out, the Cable, Dish and D* customers seem pretty irritated that they were not told this info by their current provider. (I can understand why they weren't, of course)

I would say 90% or greater of the people I talk to who have Cable, Dish or D*, have *no idea* what is there (OTA) for free. Once they know, they want it and they do it. Many of them have or are in the process of buying HD TV sets. Several have HD sets, an no HD material to view on them. The stunned look on their faces when they are told "It's there, it's free, get a set of rabbit ears", is something to behold.

I congratulate the Cable and Satellite providers for an excellent job of brainwashing an already challenged consumer population. (and the retailers of HD sets aren't particularly noteworthy in their aid and advocacy for potential OTA consumers either)

I'm not anti-sat. I've been with D* since 1994 and paid them a kilobuck for my first setup. I am pro-choice. I want OTA in my D* DVR, period. Just one receiver model is fine. I want to be able to record (at *my* discretion, OTA or Sat. I love what D* is doing/has done with HD lately (albeit the cherry picking Tier of HD Extra leaves a bit of an odor in the room).

As long as D* makes available to me ONE model HD-DRV that records OTA-HD, I'm a happy camper and have no complaints. I would even pay a "slight" premium for such a "new" receiver, especially if it had a better OTA tuner in it than the HR20s do.

Give me the choice, (HR20 like HD-DVRs) that's all I ask. Give others the choice (non-OTA HD DVRs, like the HR-21).


----------



## annenoe (Oct 11, 2006)

Voted yes. I can get my locals using small indoor antenna, I watch a lot of PBS, and I like the flexibility in case I lose satellite. Plus, my OTA looks unbelievably good.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Someone left off "Who Cares" as a voting option. :lol:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Someone left off "Who Cares" as a voting option. :lol:


Then the "NOs" would be cut-in half!


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

The PQ with OTA is superior. I don't lose my picture during thunderstorms. I can record two OTA channels at once while watching a D* channel.

The signal strength is so good I use the RF antenna meant for the remote as my OTA antenna!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Then the "NOs" would be cut-in half!


NOT.

...and more people would have a reason to vote.


----------



## orayzio (Apr 23, 2006)

I voted Yes. I use the Silver Sensor classic to pull in KSWB (The CW in HD) and KPBS (PBS in HD), neither of which is available through D*.


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

Splendor said:


> lol...no OTA? That's just stupid.


Dodge Viper...No room for the three kids??? That's just stupid.
Or....just get a Dodge minivan.

Different products for different needs......


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mopzo said:


> The PQ with OTA is superior.


Another urban myth. There have been countless articles and testimonies that its virtually identical. That said, your miles may vary.


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

mopzo said:


> The PQ with OTA is superior. I don't lose my picture during thunderstorms. I can record two OTA channels at once while watching a D* channel.
> 
> The signal strength is so good I use the RF antenna meant for the remote as my OTA antenna!!!


No rural myth....Just my opinion.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> But, when I was at Best Buy, earlier this week, and saw a lot of H21s and zero H20s. Plus, no card on the shelf to indicate that it was carried, and just temporarily out of stock. I thought, ooops, I'm too late to get a non-DVR with OTA unit.


It would not shock me if DIRECTV were to deemphasize the HR20. After all, they do want to save money. However, availability in Best Buy should not be a determining factor. Perhaps the only way to get an HR20 will be via DIRECTV when it's all said and done. I suspect both styles to be available and the HR21 (and H21 for that matter) to be the default unit.


----------



## boilerjt (Jan 12, 2007)

Yes...

Being in DMA #153, it may take awhile before I see any HD locals on D*. There should be two polls. One with people that can get HD locals from D* and one where HD locals are only available from OTA. If I were to order another HD DVR and they sent me an HR21, I would not be a happy camper.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

rsblaski said:


> Dodge Viper...No room for the three kids??? That's just stupid.
> Or....just get a Dodge minivan.
> 
> Different products for different needs......


Yep, it like ordering a hot dog, with or without relish. The one you like you order...or both, or none. Whatever suites your fancy.


----------



## MeSue (Oct 7, 2007)

hasan said:


> My retail experience tells me that most consumers have no idea (in our area) that all major networks are available in HD, totally free, and receivable with nothing more than a set of good rabbit ears/uhf loop.


I didn't have a clue until two weeks ago after we bought our TV. I fully expected to be watching SD on my new 47" HDTV, but then a friend told me I could get HD over the air and I tried it. Once I saw it, of course, I had to have it with a DVR because we can't watch TV in real-time anymore... so we upgraded our DirecTV service (installation tomorrow... yay!).

We have a big honking antenna on a pole with an amp--was here when we moved here--but the last time we had used it was like 9 years ago when we got D*. I had no idea OTA could look that good! The funny thing is, my hubby had been doing some work on the eaves and was planning to take down the antenna when he got to that part, but he got stalled on the project so the antenna is still up.

I am hoping they bring an HR20 for my installation tomorrow because there have been times I wished I could get the more local stations than what D* gives me, especially for things like evacuation info during storms and such. And I like the idea of having an alternative for times when there is rain fade or when a tree limb falls on my dish.


----------



## brian-ky (Aug 20, 2007)

raott said:


> Voted yes to OTA requirement.
> 
> Louisville DMA#48 still doesn't have HD locals, plus way too many tornado warnings in the spring (and one this morning) to rely on locals through D* 100% of the time.


I'm in Louisville too. Sure wish D* would hurry up Louisville on D10.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Voted no.

I have an antenna on the roof.

The birds use it way more than I do.

Of the OTA channels that I can pull in, I don't care about. Don't care about the programming on the CW or whatever they are calling themselves this week.

Don't care about PBS.

The only one that I cared about was the 24/7 weather radar. But since it seems that the TV must be a babysitter in lieu of proper parenting, that had to go away because of the "need" for educational content. :nono2: 

Don't know how many times it needs to be said.

You want OTA then the H/HR20 is for you. If not the 21 line is for you. It's really a simple concept to grasp.

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## hdfan01 (Feb 1, 2006)

I need OTA. My DMA is non-HD and comes from 72.5. I have no LOS for that position. Thus, NO HD via D* and NO LOS too means I need OTA. Just bought a H20 yesterday at BestBuy before there are none. Got it there because I knew it would be a new one too, as opposed to referbed. FWIW, the H21 was the same price as the H20.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

smiddy said:


> Yep, it like ordering a hot dog, with or without relish. The one you like you order...or both, or none. Whatever suites your fancy.


How about Blonde or Brunette?  


RobertE said:


> Voted no.
> 
> I have an antenna on the roof.
> 
> The birds use it way more than I do.


:gott: :rolling: !rolling


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> How about Blonde or Brunette?
> 
> :gott: :rolling: !rolling


Yes !devil12:

:backtotop


----------



## dchamero (Feb 27, 2006)

There are many reasons why I need/use OTA. Besides the many ones already stated before, not only CW and PBS are missing... 

For instance, I am in Dallas, and right now I am watching the Mavs game on TXA21 (Formerly UPN21) in HD OTA, because D* only gives me Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC

:nono2:


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...or any other one for that matter...


I would not have a receiver without an (ota) I can get about 15 channels with antenna, when I get shoot down with rain just flip off the dish and keep on trucking


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Yes - Directv doesnt offer any type of locals here (HD or SD) and I can pick up my 3 HD local channels (along with 2 more SD channels) using a simple rabbit ear antenna setup on top of my tv.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

We currently get ABC,NBC, and Fox as MPEG4 from sat. But our CBS is owned by LIN so we need OTA. After the analog shut-off 'maybe' LIN will play nice .


----------



## waynebtx (Dec 24, 2006)

Need it dony get my locals in hd on D* yet DMA 129


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> It would not shock me if DIRECTV were to deemphasize the HR20. After all, they do want to save money. However, availability in Best Buy should not be a determining factor. Perhaps the only way to get an HR20 will be via DIRECTV when it's all said and done. I suspect both styles to be available and the HR21 (and H21 for that matter) to be the default unit.


I think that is where some of the sensitivity on this matter springs from: the concern that the HR20 will be "deemphasized," and eventually phased out completely. I know, everyone with firsthand knowledge is stating that it's not in the plan, but it seems a logical evolution.

The other factor that I think is raising people's ire is the repeated contention by some in this thread (and others) that it's silly for us to want OTA:
_"Why would we want it? The sat channels are just as good!"_ IMO, this is true, unless it's raining. In fact, if weather's not an issue, I'd say they're even better than OTA, since the PQ is the same (again, IMO) and the compression takes up less HD space.
_"I have both, and don't use OTA (so why would anyone else)!"_ Riiiight.
And my personal favorite,
_"Rain fade? It's a non-issue, because if it's raining that hard, you should be in the basement!"_ Please. Thanks, mom.

I'm all for product differentiation and choices, and I have nothing against D* wanting to save $$$ on equipment manufacturing. I really don't. And if it turns out that continued availability of receivers with OTA capability isn't a problem, great. Then this thread is a waste of everyone's time.

Until then, I'm going to continue to use and enjoy my OTA, and hope for the best.


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

I need OTA because I'm a geek with no life.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

bakers12 said:


> I need OTA because I'm a geek with no life.


Well, there is that, too.


----------



## philslc (Dec 2, 2006)

gcisko said:


> There was such an uproar over the lack of OTA on the HR21 that someone suggested a poll. So here it is. Black and white:


I'm away from home with my HR20. Far out of the foot print for my local HD networks. I'm getting HD networks from the Phoenix OTA stations. Without OTA, I would not be able to get the networks.


----------



## DarkAudit (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes. The only way I can get PBS in HD is via OTA. And with a secondary market set at that.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

I'm with the group that really doesn't "need" it but I like having it. Not sure where to vote on this one. If I had a choice to have it or not - I'd have it.


----------



## jpercia (Jan 10, 2007)

Tmax88 said:


> OTA needed. Most of my series links are set to OTA because the picture looks better. It's even more noticeable watching sports. Besides, until PBS-HD is available, OTA is a must!


+1


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

Tmax88 said:


> OTA needed. Most of my series links are set to OTA because the picture looks better. It's even more noticeable watching sports. Besides, until PBS-HD is available, OTA is a must!


++

OTA is the king of HD!

Do you want/need OTA
This poll will close on 10-22-07 at 01:19 PM
YES 242 81.21%
NO - I am good to go 56 18.79%
Voters: 298.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

Got to have it especially when more than half the OTA Channels I get D* doesn't carry and probably never will. Not to mentioned all of the PBS Sub Channels. 

The fact that I can record all of these gems on my HR20 is a bonus and a half. I'm sad to see that the new receiver doesn't have OTA Capabilities.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hasan said:


> I love what D* is doing/has done with HD lately (albeit the cherry picking Tier of HD Extra leaves a bit of an odor in the room).


What really burns me is that D* was charging for HD way before they really had it available. Their website also used to say that you could get your locals in HD if you use OTA. The impression was it was through them. Now recently (a year ago) HD locals was through the SAT. I would watch the local channel HD far more than the Discovery Home Theater or TNT-HD or Universal. ANd as I understand it the HD we had been paying for is the latter. Now that they are adding all these channels I feel I am now starting to get what I had been paying for. I feel the way it was presented in the past leaves that odor you refer to 

But hey on the up side, it is all good now :grin:


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> WOW....almost 300 votes....
> 
> Only 15,999,700 more to go to get valid data on this.....


Yep. Like I said do the math - so far. The fact that you keep posting these little snide remarks tells me you are on the side that is loosing this argument. I Never figured you to be that kind of guy. But hey whatever.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gcisko said:


> Yep. Like I said do the math - so far. The fact that you keep posting these little snide remarks tells me you are on the side that is loosing this argument. I Never figured you to be that kind of guy. But hey whatever.


Tough to lose a non-argument.

The point is that this poll is meanless in terms of the market conditions today. I have OTA units and non-OTA units, so consider myself neutral on the subject. But there's nothing wrong with posting the votes either.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Tough to lose a non-argument.
> 
> The point is that this poll is meanless in terms of the market conditions today. I have OTA units and non-OTA units, so consider myself neutral on the subject. But there's nothing wrong with posting the votes either.


Excuse me, but your comments and little jibes do not seem neutral to me. They seem anti-OTA.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Excuse me, but your comments and little jibes do not seem neutral to me. They seem anti-OTA.


...well it appears to me as though with hdtvfan, one thing he's not a fan of is PBS in HD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gcisko said:


> Excuse me, but your comments and little jibes do not seem neutral to me. They seem anti-OTA.


Then you misinterpreted them.

I've stated that I've had OTA for 9 years, but personally find little reason to use it. That's just me. There's nothing wrong with OTA itself....the only issue I have is that its not as popular or widespread as some here would like everyone to think. There are also plenty of parts of the country where it is very poorly executed by local stations for many reasons.

One example Is PBS, in that their funding is inadequate in many places and they simply can't afford to do a quality upgrade of equipment, or in some cases, any upgrade at all.

My glass is not half full or half empty - its completely full - 1/2 air, 1/2 water....meaning...I see things they way they are, not how some think they see them (good or bad).

Your miles may vary. Enjoy your OTA if you like it - nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I feel much the same way, hdtv. I am glad to have OTA, especially for PBS or sporting events but if my living room HR20 died and I got an HR21 I would shrug, mention it occasionally, and move on with my life. I'm lucky to have 5 HD locals.


----------



## TaeOh (Jan 27, 2007)

If Rainfade is an issue, which it seems to be occurring more with HD for me, then OTA is a nice alternative.

I would not want an HR21 because of not having the ability to record OTA. I get 3 more HD channels locally than D* supplies through HD locals and record quite a bit off of PBS.

The quality of my local signal has had me consider dropping Sat/Cble and just getting a Tivo to record OTA. 75% of what I record is availabe OTA anyway. I am really only tied to D* for Sunday Ticket.

And I agree that the OTA picture is noticeably better than the HD locals D* provides, loss of detail is very noticeable with Heroes on my 1080P set. Once I pick up a better OTA antenna, I will likely move all my local channel recording to OTA. At least I think it is the Antenna and not the HR20 that makes my signal not as reliable as SAT during nice weather. I could be wrong though, because sometimes I lose my local signal on the HR20, but switch to my TV's built in tuner and everything is fine. This is another reason a standalone TiVo became a thought.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

911medic said:


> I think that is where some of the sensitivity on this matter springs from: the concern that the HR20 will be "deemphasized," and eventually phased out completely. I know, everyone with firsthand knowledge is stating that it's not in the plan, but it seems a logical evolution.


No problem with that .. It makes sense to voice your concerns now when it is more likely to have an affect. Still, all indications I've seen are that the HR20 will be around and available for some time ..



911medic said:


> The other factor that I think is raising people's ire is the repeated contention by some in this thread (and others) that it's silly for us to want OTA:
> _"Why would we want it? The sat channels are just as good!"_ IMO, this is true, unless it's raining. In fact, if weather's not an issue, I'd say they're even better than OTA, since the PQ is the same (again, IMO) and the compression takes up less HD space.
> _"I have both, and don't use OTA (so why would anyone else)!"_ Riiiight.
> And my personal favorite,
> _"Rain fade? It's a non-issue, because if it's raining that hard, you should be in the basement!"_ Please. Thanks, mom.


Hopefully I'm not one of those people. I may suggest alternate methods, but hopefully I haven't put anyone down for their preferences. As a note, rain fade really is zero problem for me. I do realize that I'm an exception to the rule, but I virtually NEVER get rain fade here in Northern California. The weather here is great most of the time and we rarely get enough rainfall to block out the signal. I'm sure that that is not the case universally, though.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

911medic said:


> The other factor that I think is raising people's ire is the repeated contention by some in this thread (and others) that it's silly for us to want OTA:
> _"Why would we want it?_


_

I agree. It is most likely the main reason I started the poll. When I originally ordered the HD DVR Plus in sept 06, I had no idea that OTA was part of the package. In fact at that time I was one of the people asking all sorts of questions about why I would want it. I figure many of the 16Million subscribers are just as clueless about this as I was. However once I have been using OTA for the better part of a year, I now get it. I see it as bad if the trend is to do away with OTA. People seemingly in the know insist that this is not the case. So I will go with that - for the moment._


----------



## VicF (Sep 5, 2006)

In my area D* caries only 4 of the 8 available OTA digital channels. The OTA is a deal breaker for me. If the HR21 becomes the replacement for the HR20 my time with D* may be limited.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

VicF said:


> In my area D* caries only 4 of the 8 available OTA digital channels. The OTA is a deal breaker for me. If the HR21 becomes the replacement for the HR20 my time with D* may be limited.


Really... What other DVR HD option is there with OTA?


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

YES YES YES ... a thousand times YES (can I vote a thousand times?)


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Really... What other DVR HD option is there with OTA?


The mother of all DVRs (depending on who you listen to) Tivo.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Of course OTA is used by a minority of D* subscribers.

Why? Well, from what I've read posted here. The vast majority of D* customers are receiving/using SD only products. OTA is an option only available on some HD IRDs.

I would like to know what the percentage of D* HD install base (i.e. OTA capable) uses it. Believe, me I know that a poll on this forum doesn't count as being scientific.

Since HD customers pay more for the access, and also additionally for Super Fan, etc., if a significant number of us would consider leaving D* if digital OTA DVR was no longer provided, then it may be of financial benefit to D* to always have that option.

If D* would release a statement, or tell Earl, that an OTA capable IRDs will continue to be developed/leased then this would all go away. 

FWIW...I had Ironwood install my Slimline Tuesday. He ran new cables from the dish to a weather resistant box where I have the BBCs, OTA splitter, and diplexers. The existing single runs then go to the various rooms, from that box.

He told me afterward that he didn't think it would work, and was stunned when all of the new HD and the OTA worked perfectly. I explained why it worked and how I learned about it right here!

He then said that most of his HD upgrade installs have had upset customers, as they removed the OTA (no HD LIL for Wichita, but plenty of HD and sub-channel OTA here).

He was going to share how to diplex downstream of the BBCs with his shop.

Finally, he did know about the SWM, and says they are looking forward to it. But, didn't know when they would have it.


----------



## donshan (Jun 18, 2007)

Without OTA I am without ANY network HD programming in my DMA. The fact that I have all 4 networks with HD via OTA means I cannot get the National HD feeds and D* is many months away from getting our local HD stations on D11.

Many others in smaller DMAs are in the same situation. Even after D11 is successfully launched there are a lot of individual HD local station agreement/ uplink issues to resolve and that will take time.

Finally until D* starts including PBS HD in the HD locals package I still need OTA. Perhaps we are lucky in that our local PBS is affiiliated with Washington State University which has the Edward R. Murrow School of Broadcasting. In any event we get the PBS-HD national feed 24/7 and PBS-HD programs like Ken Burns' "The War", NOVA, and Nature are regulars at our house.

I am not saying everyone needs OTA, so the HR 21 makes sense. However, for me OTA will be a necessity until D* provides all four of our HD networks* plus the PBS-HD national feed as part of the subscription.*


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

OTA needed for locals in HD, and neighboring HD networks that will never be provided by D* to me...... I live between 2 DMA's.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

donshan said:


> Without OTA I am without ANY network HD programming in my DMA. The fact that I have all 4 networks with HD via OTA means I cannot get the National HD feeds and D* is many months away from getting our local HD stations on D11.
> 
> Many others in smaller DMAs are in the same situation. Even after D11 is successfully launched there are a lot of individual HD local station agreement/ uplink issues to resolve and that will take time.
> 
> ...


Got my hopes up there for a minute for the national - unfortunately I get 2 PBS in my area

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_prog_directv_faqs.html

Q. Will the PBS National Satellite Service be included in any existing programming packages if I'm eligible for my local channels package? 
A. No. The PBS National Satellite Service will no longer be available to you as part of any existing DIRECTV programming package.


----------



## donshan (Jun 18, 2007)

bhelton71 said:


> Got my hopes up there for a minute for the national - unfortunately I get 2 PBS in my area
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_prog_directv_faqs.html
> 
> ...


In my case the National PBS-HD comes in OTA on local 31-1 as HD and the regular local/educational PBS that is now on the D* SD locals comes in on 31-2 as SD. They are still giving the lion's share of data bits to the HD feed as it as good or better PQ than the commercial network HD- as good as HD Discovery Theater on D*. I remember seeing some other posts where the local PBS stations also provide the national PBS feed 24/7 too, or at least includes the major HD programs in their local PBS-HD programs.

Because local funding support for your local PBS is important, I doubt a blanket PBS-HD channel would be allowed to compete, but I see no reason for D* not to include the *local PBS-HD channel in every LIL HD package*.


----------



## HaRrrgh20! (Jan 22, 2007)

I really only need OTA until local PBS is available in HD.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Voted yes.

Rain fade not an an issue in Southern California.

PBS-HD is an issue. So is channel 9-1, which carries Dodgers games but is not one of the DTV locals.

Also like the sub-channels. Spent too much time watching the Phil Spector trial on an NBC sub-channel.

I'm using a 30-year-old rooftop antenna. Replaced the twin lead with coax and signal levels for OTA are fine. It helps that most transmitters at located on Mt. Wilson, about 30 miles away.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Odd that we should be debating this, as D* has already chosen not to incorporate it into their upcomming DVR...

My vote was an unequivocal "YES", soley because of PBS (Ken Burns' "The War" was awesome). Besides, one must think, when have LESS features ever been better then MORE?


----------



## khoyme (Jul 4, 2007)

I voted "yes" though it is more "want" than "need".

I like having access to the non-carried HD subchannels, as well as PBS HD. For catching local weather when D* is washed out (heavy rain or snow) I want access to OTA, but I can live with switching the HDTV to the OTA tuner for that. Right now, non e of my DVR recordings are aimed at the OTA channels.

I would hope that D* does not discontinue the H(R)20 models in favor of only the H(R)21's. If they offered both and charged $25 more for the OTA option, I would buy only the OTA versions anytime I was adding equipment. If they make the choice for me and remove the OTA option, I would be annoyed. 

Ken


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

Statistical scholars will know you don't need 10% of the total D* users to get an accurate sample. With the 470 votes we now have, survey accuracy would be approximately 90-95%. 

Dave


----------



## jcurrier31 (Dec 15, 2006)

I would say a must have, in my opinion KNTV11 in the SF bay looks bad over D*. It is much better OTA. I also like my PBS.


----------



## tunce (Jan 19, 2006)

With D* not carrying our CBS, CW, MY Network, and PBS. I will need an OTA option!

When they carry them maybe, but I do like some of the sub channel my locals have.


----------



## Ruffread (Nov 4, 2004)

I hope everyone who wants PBS HD added to their local listings will write an email to D* and request it. The more requests the better. I told them my OTA signal is intermittent, even with a large roof mounted antenna, and PBS HD is a must have channel. I also mentioned that the local cable and phone companies are offering it. Their answer was non committal.


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Really... What other DVR HD option is there with OTA?


TiVo HD DVR works with OTA and Cable.


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

As I said in another forum.....NO OTA means NO GO for me. I am a television engineer for a local tv station....the only people I trust in severe weather to keep the signal working are the local tv engineers. Plus with OTA it means that I can watch other TV markets than my own (I have a 50 foot tower out back) therefore I can watch Detroit sometimes.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

TaeOh said:


> If Rainfade is an issue, which it seems to be occurring more with HD for me, then OTA is a nice alternative.
> 
> I would not want an HR21 because of not having the ability to record OTA. I get 3 more HD channels locally than D* supplies through HD locals and record quite a bit off of PBS.


Are you saying that the HR21 will not be able to record OTA?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Que said:


> Are you saying that the HR21 will not be able to record OTA?


The HR21 does not have a OTA tuner.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

60 miles from the transmitters in Reno, so I don't have access here.


----------



## fhedrick (Sep 18, 2007)

Tmax88 said:


> OTA needed. Most of my series links are set to OTA because the picture looks better. It's even more noticeable watching sports. Besides, until PBS-HD is available, OTA is a must!


Absolutely agree with this. I get 25 HD/digital channels OTA that I don't get from D*. Also close captioning from D* leaves something to be desired. On some local channels I need OTA for cc that is not jumbled.


----------



## axg9504 (Oct 19, 2007)

Yes for OTA. As someone else noted, a local PBS station that carries ETV programming is NOT the selected PBS station in DTV's locals. I have an antenna for just that one station.


----------



## axg9504 (Oct 19, 2007)

drded said:


> Statistical scholars will know you don't need 10% of the total D* users to get an accurate sample. With the 470 votes we now have, survey accuracy would be approximately 90-95%.
> 
> Dave


My recollection of estimating a sample proportion is that the sample size depends upon the proportion that you are estimating.


----------



## bcowan12 (Oct 4, 2006)

I would drop D* in a heartbeat if they didn't have OTA. They don't offer HD locals in Tucson, so missing OTA would kill about 90% of my viewing. I didn't buy a 50" TV to watch standard def.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

How many HD Yankee Games would I not have been able to pause this season on My 9? Several.

Without OTA, I would not have been able to recored "The War" in HD from PBS.

Those 2 reasons are enough.


----------



## shoelessjoe (Apr 11, 2007)

Tonight we finally got some rain here...my locals via D* have been interrupted with ...searching for signal...about 5 times in past half hour...OTA is clear...OTA wins out and is needed.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

i voted yes just because of where i currently live
it is handy to have the local OTA content
listed in the menu & i already had it installed beforehand....
but should D* not support it someday then i would
just use the TV tuner...a few more buttons to press
but i would manage


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

ccr1958 said:


> but should D* not support it someday then i would
> just use the TV tuner...a few more buttons to press
> but i would manage


I work during prime-time.

No OTA = no DVRed HD or sub-channels. For now, anyway. We'll see how quickly D* is able to put my market up on the bird.

No OTA HD-DVR = No D* subscriber. 

Let's hope this is all just paranoia over the H21 and HR21 and that some future IRDs will still have OTA.


----------



## natops (Oct 20, 2007)

I want the ota. I have it now with the old hr10-250 and love it. When storms are in the area and the sat goes out, I still have the local and they are integrated into the guide. However my T.V has a built in tuner so it's just a matter of hitting a button on the remote to view OTA channels. Major downfall is recording The OTA programs that D does not offer. Having said this I just brought home the HR21-700 from the store so I guess I will live with it for now.l


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

natops said:


> Having said this I just brought home the HR21-700 from the store so I guess I will live with it for now.l


is the hr21 all that they sold...or could you have 
bought a hr20


----------



## natops (Oct 20, 2007)

ccr1958 said:


> is the hr21 all that they sold...or could you have
> bought a hr20


On my first trip to B B. I found 0 HD DVR's on the shelf other than the display. I asked if I could order one and was told that I could order the HR20 but their system would not allow me to order he HR21. I found this confusing as the tag on the shelf for the HR 20 had been replaced with the HR21. Anyway they told me the projected arrival date was 10/21. 2 days later I went to another B.B. store and found the same situation. Again I inquired and the sales guy explained to me that they had pulled all the HR20's of the shelf because they are being replaced with a new model and it's offical release date was not until 10/21. He did a check on all local stores and the inventory was 0. Tonight I went to the first store I checked and again 0 on the shelf. I walked through the store and noticed a stack of 4 on the upper level, asked someone to get one down and brought it home. So I do not know if they offer both but the web site shows the HR20.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

natops said:


> On my first trip to B B. I found 0 HD DVR's on the shelf other than the display. I asked if I could order one and was told that I could order the HR20 but their system would not allow me to order he HR21. I found this confusing as the tag on the shelf for the HR 20 had been replaced with the HR21. Anyway they told me the projected arrival date was 10/21. 2 days later I went to another B.B. store and found the same situation. Again I inquired and the sales guy explained to me that they had pulled all the HR20's of the shelf because they are being replaced with a new model and it's offical release date was not until 10/21. He did a check on all local stores and the inventory was 0. Tonight I went to the first store I checked and again 0 on the shelf. I walked through the store and noticed a stack of 4 on the upper level, asked someone to get one down and brought it home. So I do not know if they offer both but the web site shows the HR20.


hmmmm...interesting....

ok thanks


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> The HR21 does not have a OTA tuner.


WOW! Why are they going backwards on every DVR they make?

This poll will close on 10-22-07 at 01:19 PM
YES 373 83.63%
NO - I am good to go 73 16.37%
Voters: 446.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Que said:


> WOW! Why are they going backwards on every DVR they make?
> 
> This poll will close on 10-22-07 at 01:19 PM
> YES 373 83.63%
> ...


No one is a bigger OTA freak than me. That said, I don't see a problem with the HR21 being offered without OTA, *as long as they keep one receiver/dvr in their lineup that the customer can choose that does properly implement OTA (and allow it to record, of course).*

I'm very glad to see so many of the respondents want OTA kept in one form or another. It stops me from feeling like a red-headed step child.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Please note that this kind of a thread heading and poll attracts OTA supporters and gives a forum to vent. The votes of a few hundred do not necessarily represent those of the main user population.

If you did a poll of this for DLB, wireless networking, or a variety of other capabilities, you would also get a favorative sampling.

OTA is great for those who use it. Right or wrong, however, most people don't.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

This poll really does not help much because the majority of the people on here are into this stuff way more than the average DirecTV customer is and wants to use everything possible.

I am sure DirecTV did some research before deciding to do this and realized not to many people us the OTA to make it worth it to them to add it again if they have another receiver that has it already. 

If I had to guess I would say less than 20% if even that high actually use OTA.

I have about 20 friends and family members that have DirecTV and none of the use OTA. They just don't care the much and feel like dealing with mounting a antenna. What they get from DirecTV is good enough for them.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> This poll really does not help much because the majority of the people on here are into this stuff way more than the average DirecTV customer is and wants to use everything possible.


Then perhaps they should remove the polling capability from the website.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Please note that this kind of a thread heading and poll attracts OTA supporters and gives a forum to vent. The votes of a few hundred do not necessarily represent those of the main user population.
> 
> If you did a poll of this for DLB, wireless networking, or a variety of other capabilities, you would also get a favorative sampling.
> 
> OTA is great for those who use it. Right or wrong, however, most people don't.


However the percentages "in favor of" for OTA seem to be greater than in the DLB poll. But I am sure you think in both cases it is all garbage and does not represent the customer base, yada, yada, yada. You guys are quite funny.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> If I had to guess I would say less than 20% if even that high actually use OTA.


A million is alot. Please get your calculator out and calculate your best estimate versus the 16 million user base. How many would want OTA? Just 3 or 4 individuals like you nay-sayers imply? Or 3 or 4 million?



BMoreRavens said:


> I have about 20 friends and family members that have DirecTV and none of the use OTA. They just don't care the much and feel like dealing with mounting a antenna. What they get from DirecTV is good enough for them.


Get new friends, can't do anything about family


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Guess all we want, we don't know how many OTA users there, nor does D*.

I'm sure more than one "non-OTA" HD install had a customer later flip through the manual and discover/use OTA.

But we do know that every OTA user is also an HD subscriber, paying more to D* for service than SD only viewers.

If D* does research and finds out that x% uses OTA, maybe they'll consider manufacturing x% of the HD IRDs to be OTA capable and sell (...I mean lease) them at a premium.

l wish D* would see all this brouhaha and simply release a statement, or tell Earl, what the future of OTA and D* will be.

Then we could stop these threads.


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

Of course if the bill linked below, which is currently in committee should become law, D* could provide both your DMA and a neighboring DMA in HD regardless of significantly viewed status. Then many would no longer require OTA to recieve neighboring DMA's.

http://washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_2821.html


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Shad said:


> Of course if the bill linked below, which is currently in committee should become law, D* could provide both your DMA and a neighboring DMA in HD regardless of significantly viewed status. Then many would no longer require OTA to recieve neighboring DMA's.


Still doesn't stop rain fade.

Still doesn't mean better PQ than OTA.


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Still doesn't stop rain fade.
> 
> Still doesn't mean better PQ than OTA.


Agree totally. But it would be nice to have two sources available.

The vote on that page that I linked used to run about 94% to 6% in favor, but recently has been dropping fast. Not sure who is voting against it, but someone is working to derail its popularity.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

Who needs OTA for network HD access?

According to current data, if you define not needing OTA access as being able to receive the local broadcast of the 4 major networks in HD via satelite, then 64% of households in the US would not need OTA. Leaving 36% (over 40 million) who would need OTA.

Obviously, if you add PBS in HD to the mix, we all need OTA.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> I am sure DirecTV did some research before deciding to do this and realized not to many people us the OTA to make it worth it to them to add it again if they have another receiver that has it already.


Even if that % is low. Why not just add it? Does it cost that MUCH more? Take way too much more time.

OR 

Do they don't want people to change back and forth to see that the PQ is a hell of a lot better OTA then what D* has.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Please note that this kind of a thread heading and poll attracts OTA supporters and gives a forum to vent. The votes of a few hundred do not necessarily represent those of the main user population.
> 
> If you did a poll of this for DLB, wireless networking, or a variety of other capabilities, you would also get a favorative sampling.
> 
> OTA is great for those who use it. Right or wrong, however, most people don't.


You dizzy yet?

If not, I'd be amazed with all that spinning.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

it's nice to have a backup in case of inclement weather, especially during the downpours, and thunderstorms that may temporarily interfere with satellite reception.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Que said:


> Do they don't want people to change back and forth to see that the PQ is a hell of a lot better OTA then what D* has.


A valid question if it were true. Obviously you do not have HD via the SAT and HD via OTA to compare. So to be honest your comment looks a little _[insert flame here]._


----------



## waynenm (Oct 31, 2006)

Without OTA offered in *some* D* DVR, I would have to record it on another DVR. Locals via satellite here are missing CBS, CW, and more. Seems silly to even think about a separate machine to record HD OTA, but, I'll do what I have to...


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> You dizzy yet?
> 
> If not, I'd be amazed with all that spinning.


Except he's not spinning, he's correct.

Please note, however, that I voted yes.


----------



## 1953 (Feb 7, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> As has been stated numerous times in this thread, DIRECTV is trying to save money on the production of the box. It seems that the HR20 will remain in production for now allowing both options for folks.


*To All Members, Moderators and Administrators*

_Given that the new HR21 will lack OTA capability I would like to make the following statement.

With the long, long history of poor DTV customer service how pray tell will DTV determine if the customer understands their true need for an OTA and corresponding HD receiver. My statement my seem simplistic until you read the following.

Here in the North Texas (Dallas) market, DTV provides the local Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC HD channels via satellite. Now, not counting -3,-4,-5 and -6 variations there are an additional twelve, that is "12", other SD/HD OTA broadcast channels in Dallas!

No one in their right mind would NOT want an OTA in this market. Now with that said, the entire region, N. Tex, OK, Kansas, etc. etc. are highly prone to very severe weather. Granted it doesn't occur on a regular basis but occasionally we do lose our DTV signal. With a simple press of the remote control we move from a "searching for satellite" to a tremendous variety of SD and HD programming.

Does anyone really expect the DTV call centers in Iowa, Idaho, North Carolina, Alabama, Canada, Philippines or India to know or care about the true need for OTA capability. Do not get me wrong over the past 14 years I have spoken to many good CS agents, especially in North America but unless one has been living in a cave, there are as many or more CS agents who lack true compassion for what to best offer DTV customers.

Taking the cheap way out is not always the best way to improve the bottom line.

This is just one man's opinion. 
*1953* _


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

They don't want you to have OTA channels so you can't tell how bad the compressed crap they are sending you looks. I guess if I am going to stick with DTV I better get HR20s while I can.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Elephanthead said:


> They don't want you to have OTA channels so you can't tell how bad the compressed crap they are sending you looks. I guess if I am going to stick with DTV I better get HR20s while I can.


   

A new wrinkle on an old set of pants. :eek2:

Actually, with the MPEG-4 broadcasts, the new D10 (and soon D11) sat, as well as the upgraded processor in the HR21, that compression rhetoric is waaaaaaay past obsolete. Sorry to disappoint you, but with the HR21-700, local channel HD here is pristine. (It also is with the HR20-700).

I do like your ID name though...


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Elephanthead said:


> They don't want you to have OTA channels so you can't tell how bad the compressed crap they are sending you looks. I guess if I am going to stick with DTV I better get HR20s while I can.


Yeah, right. Like it's so difficult to connect OTA to your TV and switch inputs to compare PQ. You're going to have to try harder than that.

Besides, the new mpeg4 locals are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from the OTA signal.


----------



## pendragn (Aug 20, 2007)

say-what said:


> Yeah, right. Like it's so difficult to connect OTA to your TV and switch inputs to compare PQ. You're going to have to try harder than that.


Not everyone's TV has an ATSC tuner. Mine doesn't. So I can't connect OTA to my TV and compare PQ.

My local Best Buy only carries the HR21 now. That stinks because my HR10-250 just died. It's under support and all they can give me for it is an HR21. I have to get my HD locals OTA as they aren't provided by DirecTV and I can't get a waiver being 14 miles from the antenna. So now I have to wait a few days for them to get an HR20 from another store before I get my other TV back up and running.

tk


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

say-what said:


> Yeah, right. Like it's so difficult to connect OTA to your TV and switch inputs to compare PQ. You're going to have to try harder than that.
> 
> Besides, the new mpeg4 locals are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from the OTA signal.


+1! I have a 102" screen paired with a front projector. I can see absolutely no difference. Yes, there was a difference (still is) with the legacy MPEG2 HD channels. You can see it in comparing HBOH (channel 509) and HBOHD (channel 501). But I have a/b'd my OTA channels with the 4 corresponding MPEG4 LiL's many times, trying to see a difference. In fact, if anything, the MPEG4 channels may be superior! Don't forget, the OTA channels are also compressed, and in some cases bit-starved from splitting the bandwidth with 2 to 5 sub-channels


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I posted this in another thread... but re-posting it here... as well.

-------

MDU's and TownHomes and other "controlled" residences....

ATSC is not usually an option in those enviornements...
And yes.. you have the FCC rules that say you can have it.

But... have you ever tried to fight your homeowners association? 
It often isn't worth the effort and/or cost to do so....

So as many of you that think having the H21/HR21 without ATSC, is a MONSTER deal.....

What about in an MDU, that has say 500 units in one building....
And say the ATSC hardware in there costs... $20/$40 (just as an example).

That is $10,000 - $20,000 of savings... just in 1 building... multiple that by the possible number of MDU units out there?
And that is just the MDU angle, not even touching the homeowners out there that want nothing to do with an ANTENNA...
If I tried to retro fit an antenna into my house (I planned for it)... it would be nearly impossible, unless I ran the cable on the outside of my house....

----------------------


Provided that the HR20 is out there an available... somewhere in quantity... what is the issue? Thos that must have an ATSC/OTA connection, have that option...

May you have to be a little more deligent... yes, but someone that "KNOWS" they are going to need that connection, is going to know about it... and make plans for it... as they are going to have to plan for the antenna install already.

The H21... non-issue... as since it is not a DVR... just get another box, or use the ATSC built into the TV. So if the H20's are no longer there, you have options out there... and will have even more options at 2008 moves along and cheaper ATSC tuners come along.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

ShiningBengal said:


> +1! I have a 102" screen paired with a front projector. I can see absolutely no difference. Yes, there was a difference (still is) with the legacy MPEG2 HD channels. You can see it in comparing HBOH (channel 509) and HBOHD (channel 501). But I have a/b'd my OTA channels with the 4 corresponding MPEG4 LiL's many times, trying to see a difference. In fact, if anything, the MPEG4 channels may be superior!


It can't be better than the source, that's silly. As good as...maybe.

A lot of customers still don't have thier market in HD via D*, yet.

I don't care that D* makes some HD IRDs without OTA. I will care if they stop making them, as an option.

If D* would just say what their future plan is for OTA, then we could stop this bickering.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Earl, You're right about the H21/H20. There probably is no longer a need for the H20 going forward. Folks that really want OTA HD in that scenario can run right into their television and use that input .. The only place that it is of remote concern is in a DVR. So DIRECTV could, in fact, shut down the entire assembly line of H20s without any adverse affect. The HR20s could be reduced to a single manufacturer with a more limited run and still provide this service to everyone that needs it .. In that scenario, Customer wins and DIRECTV wins - resulting in yet another customer win, IMHO.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ShiningBengal said:


> +1! I have a 102" screen paired with a front projector. I can see absolutely no difference. Yes, there was a difference (still is) with the legacy MPEG2 HD channels. You can see it in comparing HBOH (channel 509) and HBOHD (channel 501). But I have a/b'd my OTA channels with the 4 corresponding MPEG4 LiL's many times, trying to see a difference. In fact, if anything, the MPEG4 channels may be superior! Don't forget, the OTA channels are also compressed, and in some cases bit-starved from splitting the bandwidth with 2 to 5 sub-channels


The good news is that HBO is going to start sending MPEG4 to DIRECTV at some point. Since the shows can be pre-encoded by HBO (they'll have plenty of time before they start sending a movie stream), you should actually have the best possible quality ever available from HBO on any service (cable, DISH or DIRECTV).


----------



## 69hokie (Sep 23, 2006)

If D* had rolled out the H21 first I bet there would have been a push from we customers for the convenience of OTA to be included and a new box, H20, would have rolled out. Wives generally don't seem to like the gadgetry we husbands seem to like and mine doesn't even want to know about selecting sources for the television.


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

A Honda Accord with a manual transmission is the same cost as one with an automatic transmission. So long as both are available, just buy the one you want. Why would I care if the HR21 doesn't have OTA so long as the HR20 does and I can choose?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Earl, You're right about the H21/H20. There probably is no longer a need for the H20 going forward. Folks that really want OTA HD in that scenario can run right into their television and use that input.


Then your more techno challenged members for the household will need to know how to switch TV inputs, etc.

Plus, loss of program guide for the sub-channels, and no autotune for OTA.

If x% of subscribers use OTA, then manufacture x% of OTA capable IRDs, and sell them for a premium to cover the tuner cost.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

View Poll Results: Do you want/need OTA

YES 441 84.00%
NO - I am good to go 84 16.00%
Voters: 525. 


Look like "YES"


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

If x% of subscribers use OTA, then manufacture x% of OTA capable IRDs, and sell them for a premium to cover the tuner cost.[/QUOTE]

The cost, when bought in quanity, isn't a factor. It's negible. There is one in every TV made now. Mass production has brought the cost down to almost nothing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Que said:


> View Poll Results: Do you want/need OTA
> 
> YES 441 84.00%
> NO - I am good to go 84 16.00%
> ...


IMHO... It would be intresting to split the 441 into those that "need" vs "want"

And then out of those two: The "why" for each answer.

Is it because the channels are not available yet via SAT?
Is it because you must have the sub-channels?
Is it because your area hasn't had it's hardware upgraded, to improve the picture of the MPEG-4 HD LiL's
Is it because you are terrified of rain-fade, or is your dish so out of wack that just a sprinkle looses signal.

Ect.... to me the raw number ultimately means nothing... it is the basis and reasons for the vote which is the core of what needs to be known.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> It can't be better than the source, that's silly. As good as...maybe.
> 
> A lot of customers still don't have thier market in HD via D*, yet.
> 
> ...


It can be better if they are not splitting the feed to DirecTV with a bunch of sub channels. The sub channels would not be part of the feed. Remember, it isn't the network that is splitting the signal--it is the local stations. Not so silly.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ShiningBengal said:


> It can be better if they are not splitting the feed to DirecTV with a bunch of sub channels. The sub channels would not be part of the feed. Remember, it isn't the network that is splitting the signal--it is the local stations. Not so silly.


perhaps, but much of the time, DIRECTV gets the feed via an antenna themselves.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If I tried to retro fit an antenna into my house (I planned for it)... it would be nearly impossible, unless I ran the cable on the outside of my house....


Actually the OTA antenna you would need to get WBBM-DT would fit nicely in your attic. Nothing outside.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Actually the OTA antenna you would need to get WBBM-DT would fit nicely in your attic. Nothing outside.


Not so.... I have a VX-120 (120" at it widest point)... that has difficulty getting WBBM-DT (it is installed in my attic).

It will get it, if I unplug (not just turn off), my son's computer...
Aka at 35 miles (As the crow flies), my attic mounted and properly pointed antenna... with a direct cable run to the HR20... is border line with WBBM-DT...

And this was just as true with the HR10-250 as well... (I was so happy when I got NY DNS feeds)

But.....

I am lucky... I had a 3rd attic in my home... that is useless for any type of storage... but happen to point in the correct direction, and was perfect for the antenna.... and I also "built" my house.

So I was able to have them run the necessary cables to that attic... so that I wouldn't have to try to find a way to get it past the I-Beams for the upper floors... or try to fish it down exterior walls, in a space so small and tight.

If it wasn't for that... I wouldn't be able to consider inside mounting, as if I was to punch the hole outside, to run the cable... I would just mount the antenna outside... (which I didn't want in the first place)


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

86% in favor and 14% against says it all. 

Thanks for voting everyone!

 :lol:  :sure: :hurah: :grin:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> 86% in favor and 14% against says it all.
> 
> Thanks for voting everyone!
> 
> :lol:  :sure: :hurah: :grin:


IMHO... it doesn't say "it all":

Re my post just a few higher:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1233019&postcount=209

There is a lot more to "all"... then just the raw count number.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not so.... I have a VX-120 (120" at it widest point)... that has difficulty getting WBBM-DT (it is installed in my attic).
> 
> It will get it, if I unplug (not just turn off), my son's computer...
> Aka at 35 miles (As the crow flies), my attic mounted and properly pointed antenna... with a direct cable run to the HR20... is border line with WBBM-DT...


You are about the same distance as I am from the towers. Try a Phillips MANT-90 instead (with the best signal amp ACE hardware has).


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... It would be intresting to split the 441 into those that "need" vs "want"
> 
> And then out of those two: The "why" for each answer.
> 
> ...


From my point of view it does not matter. I should not have to justify the need. The hardware is there, I want it I should be able to get it. I have the extra $$$ to pay the difference.

And lets not get too crazy with the need thing. No one *NEEDS* to watch TV.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

ShiningBengal said:


> It can be better if they are not splitting the feed to DirecTV with a bunch of sub channels. The sub channels would not be part of the feed. Remember, it isn't the network that is splitting the signal--it is the local stations. Not so silly.


Yes, still silly.

D* gets the digital feed from the locals that the local station is also feeding their transmitter.

Do you really think a local station has a separate feed just for D* and cable, minus the subs?

No.

In fact most D* local receive sites simply "pluck" the digital signal OTA, just like some of us do. The only reason they don't have all of the subs via D* is bandwidth.

This may become moot. sThe last time the new head of the FCC spoke before Congress, he mentioned the importance of "must carry" for cable of sub-channels. So, we may see yet another regulation change in the future, that could led to D* being required to carry all subs, too.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> From my point of view it does not matter. I should not have to justify the need. The hardware is there, I want it I should be able to get it. I have the extra $$$ to pay the difference.
> 
> And lets not get too crazy with the need thing. No one *NEEDS* to watch TV.


So then no one "needs" ATSC. 

But for this particular argument... I do think the reason for the votes is very important.

As noted.... is it because 1 local isn't available (aka those markets with LIN).
Is it because none of them are available, but maybe there in a few months when D11 goes up?

Is it because you are inlove with the sub-channels.
Is it because you feel you get a better picture..

No, one has to justify it....

But if/when the argument is actually put on the table... and decisions have to be made... If you have hard reasons on WHY to eliminate it... but just have "I want it" on the other side of the scale... what argument can be made...


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Do you really think a local station is going to have a separate feed just for D* and cable, minus the subs?


Some actually use a fiber link, believe it or not.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Yes, still silly.
> 
> D* gets the digital feed from the locals that the local station is also feeding their transmitter.
> 
> ...


Actually... yes.. DirecTV does have "seperate" feeds for the SD content... and are actively working to setup methods to get the locals, not via OTA.

So while most are via ATSC, uplink centers today... that isn't part of their long term goal... as they do want to get the content BEFORE it is converted to MPEG-2 at the affiliate.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... It would be intresting to split the 441 into those that "need" vs "want"


How would you define "need"?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So while most are via ATSC, uplink centers today... that isn't part of their long term goal... as they do want to get the content BEFORE it is converted to MPEG-2 at the affiliate.


True dat.

But, they will need to convince the locals that is in their best interest to do so.

Until D* agrees to carry the subs, don't count on all of them jumping on the bandwagon, and providing more than the multiplexed feed.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

say-what said:


> Some actually use a fiber link, believe it or not.


Yes, some...not most, yet.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually... yes.. DirecTV does have "seperate" feeds for the SD content... and are actively working to setup methods to get the locals, not via OTA.


Some inside information, perhaps?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So while most are via ATSC, uplink centers today... that isn't part of their long term goal... as they do want to get the content BEFORE it is converted to MPEG-2 at the affiliate.


Good plan - better quality control.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> Some inside information, perhaps?


No... not really.

DirecTV wants to get the source image at the best possible point to get it...
And in the case of the LiL's... that would be BEFORE it is converted to MPEG-2 and sent out via OTA.

This holds true for any channel...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jaysv said:


> How would you define "need"?


How would I define Need?
-) I want to watch CSI in HD
-) CSI is not available in HD via SAT in my area.

So I NEED to have ATSC to be able to watch CSI in HD..

How would I define Want?
-) I want to have the option to watch a sub-channel for the weather.. (I don't need that since I get it via the internet)
-) I want to have the option to access via OTA, in case of RainFade (I don't need it, since I get it via SAT)

Yes, there is a fine line between Need and Want... and hence part of my reasoning on why I would like to see the reasons people vote the way they did.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually... yes.. DirecTV does have "seperate" feeds for the SD content...


Which is nothing more than a fiber feed of what's going to the transmitter, too.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... It would be intresting to split the 441 into those that "need" vs "want"
> 
> And then out of those two: The "why" for each answer.
> 
> ...


That is reasonable from an engineering/technical point of view, but from a marketing point of view, it may not be. (the "reason' OTA is desired). I say this because in this day and age, perception among consumers is reality. If 86% of your consumers want "x" retained, it doesn't matter one whit, why. You have to deal with the stated preferences of the consumer, and not try to convince them that they shouldn't want what they want. (By the way, that tactic nearly always fails, and ends up peeving the customer) It's one thing not to add a feature or function, it is entirely another to take it away. This is a perceptual issue and a "real" issue for reasons I note below.)

There are lots of reasons for people wanting OTA to be retained as "an" option, not necessarily in every receiver. Lumping "terrified" and rain-fade together is a bit judgmental, don't you think? Loss of service is loss of service, being terrified is just a pejorative to discredit the other person's position.

Sub-channels are an issue.

PBS is an issue.

Precip-Fade is an issue (it is notorious in central Iowa, even with proper alignment)

PQ may or may not be an issue. I think it is, but since we've been waiting for nearly a year past promise for HD-LIL I have to rely on reports of others, and those are mixed.

HD LIL _is_ a potential issue here, we were promised HD-LIL by the end of *last* year. We still don't have it, and not a peep as to why or when. Lousy customer relations.

It's obvious by the replies here that people in this sample want OTA retained in at least one receiver model. The reasons have been stated over and over and over again. Disputing the reasons is like teaching a pig to sing: you annoy the pig and frustrate yourself....when it really isn't necessary.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Then why debate? 

If it is just going to be a "I want" ... "I don't want" argument...

As I can have that with my 6 year old, who also doesn't care on the reason why I won't give him something that he "wants"


----------



## JBernardK (Aug 16, 2006)

I thought I read that D* MPEG4 was 1440 x 1080. If this is correct, then why did so many complain about HD-lite (1200 x 1080?) but now accept this downrezed picture? Of course, most TVs won't show the difference anyway, especially the 720p channels.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

JBernardK said:


> I thought I read that D* MPEG4 was 1440 x 1080. If this is correct, then why did so many complain about HD-lite (1200 x 1080?) but now accept this downrezed picture? Of course, most TVs won't show the difference anyway, especially the 720p channels.


then it behooves DirecTV and other carriers (Carriers=Comcast, Dish Network, AT&T, Verizon FiOS) to use the technology that uses the least amount of bandwidth to allow more HD. It appears to only be a concern if carriers go 1080P. 

If individual networks (HBO) transmit the signal to the carrier (DirecTV) in true HD or full HD, then the carrier will certainly do the same, just reflect it back to the end user.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then why debate?


To let D* know (via this proxy site) that there is a number (what that number is...who knows?) of their customers that will likely explore other options (possibly leave at the end of their current commitment) if OTA is no longer an option.

That's why.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> To let D* know (via this proxy site) that there is a number (what that number is...who knows?) of their customers that will likely explore other options (possibly leave at the end of their current commitment) if OTA is no longer an option.
> 
> That's why.


But shouldn't that part also include the "why" you want/need it?


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then why debate?
> 
> If it is just going to be a "I want" ... "I don't want" argument...
> 
> As I can have that with my 6 year old, who also doesn't care on the reason why I won't give him something that he "wants"


Because if you interpolate


Earl Bonovich said:


> How would I define Need?
> -) I want to watch CSI in HD
> -) CSI is not available in HD via SAT in my area.


 into not having all four major networks available in HD via satellite from Directv, then 36% of the US population currently falls into that category.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then why debate?
> 
> If it is just going to be a "I want" ... "I don't want" argument...
> 
> As I can have that with my 6 year old, who also doesn't care on the reason why I won't give him something that he "wants"


That was my point: we already have OTA, just keep it in one model, and there is no need to teach the pig to sing. Want/Need would be more of an issue, if it never was there. Once it's there, taking it a away is a BIG deal.

....and I've listed the reasons for OTA (many times and so have others). What is the typical response?, "Oh, you *really* don't need OTA for that reason, because....<fill in the blank with further fallacious reasoning>.

Unfortunately, should D* be dumb enough to follow the HD Extra cherry picking repackaging debacle with elimination of OTA, it would only further encourage existing and potential customers to develop a BFA....and it is entirely unnecessary.

Keep one model of the HD-DVR OTA capable and the problem is solved. Nothing new is required. In other words, I don't mind being told I can have any color HD-DVR I want as long as it's black (thank you Henry Ford), but I do mind being told and sold OTA-HD recording on the come, only to have it withdrawn on someone's whim, because *they think, in all their intra-corporate wisdom* I don't really need it.

I would NEVER have purchased an HR20 if it didn't have OTA-HD recording capability. When I got it and it wasn't turned on, I was miffed. Now we have it, and a debate starts up (and furthered by people who ought to know better) about why we don't need it. When reasons are provided, they are dismissed. When reasons aren't provided, the position taken by the consumers is discredited, asking for reasons, that when provided are dismissed.

Gee, anyone see a circular argument here?

My advice to D*, if there are front people (not referring to Earl) here making your case for you: When you're in a hole, stop digging. You're surrogates are not convincing anyone.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes, there is a fine line between Need and Want... and hence part of my reasoning on why I would like to see the reasons people vote the way they did.


Well in my perticular case the only way I can get PBS HD (WTTW-DT 11-1) is via the OTA. Is PBS HD even on the list to be rolled out? When it is will it be the HD from each local PBS affiliate. If not I still need OTA


----------



## Fahtrim (Sep 26, 2006)

The poll is closed, but I do want/need OTA. For example CW in HD I only get OTA currently.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How would I define Need?
> -) I want to watch CSI in HD
> -) CSI is not available in HD via SAT in my area.
> 
> So I NEED to have ATSC to be able to watch CSI in HD..


Need.

-) I want to watch PBS in HD.
-) PBS is not available in HD through D* ANYWHERE in the country.

So I NEED to have ATSC to be able to watch PBS in HD.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hasan said:


> Now we have it, and a debate starts up (and furthered by people who ought to know better) about why we don't need it. When reasons are provided, they are dismissed. When reasons aren't provided, the position taken by the consumers is discredited, asking for reasons, that when provided are dismissed.


I guess this is what frosts me the most. I do see it as somewhat... um what is the right word... it isn't hypocritical... it is um... well something no very cool, and leaves the experience with a bad taste


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Well in my perticular case the only way I can get PBS HD (WTTW-DT 11-1) is via the OTA. Is PBS HD even on the list to be rolled out? When it is will it be the HD from each local PBS affiliate. If not I still need OTA


PBS we could have an entirely different thread on...
As part of the issues with PBS... is PBS wants their entire signal carried, or nothing at all.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But shouldn't that part also include the "why" you want/need it?


Sure.

But, if there are enough (again...I don't know the number) that may leave regardless of being able to tell you "all of the whys". Does it matter?

If D* never had OTA, from the beginning, then this wouldn't be an issue. The seamless DVRing of OTA HD and satellite was the factor in my dumping cable.

If they don't carry all of the subs, it will still be an issue. Some small markets are using the subs for CW, My TV, etc. Some places are getting a local FOX via sub, for the first time locally OTA.

Here in tornado alley, we need local TV the most during bad weather. Which is also the time when we are most likely to lose it via D*.

What is D* position? We can end the debate if they will make known their position on the future of OTA.

Then the market will decide, if it's a good call, or not.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> PBS we could have an entirely different thread on...


 And debate 'til we're blue in the face...:eek2:

Right now, though, PBS is firmly intertwined with the OTA issue.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> PBS we could have an entirely different thread on...
> As part of the issues with PBS... is PBS wants their entire signal carried, or nothing at all.


Don't know nothing about that. Sounds like something lawyers would care about. But I do know I need OTA to currently get PBS-HD.

_Also, I really hope you are not suggesting this as some sort of excuse to make the need for OTA seem lessened._


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Don't know nothing about that. Sounds like something lawyers would care about. But I do know I need OTA to currently get PBS-HD.
> 
> _Also, I really hope you are not suggesting this as some sort of excuse to make the need for OTA seem lessened._


Why would the issues behind PBS... be an excusse to lessen the need for OTA?

Or I hope you are not suggesting that my points are not valid and don't matter to the OTA aspects either?


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

How about if the user could choose the HR20 or HR21 and would have to pay say $20 extra for the HR20?

Our survey shows that 85% of us want OTA. But of typcial customers, would even 50% be willing to pay $20 extra?

I certainly would.

I recorded the Bears game in OTA and via satellite HD. OMG. The difference was so great. Put them up side-by-side in PIP. OMG.

Once people see what their HD TV's are capable of, you never want to Sunday downres again.

I think that some of those not wanting OTA just not know what they are missing. Others like my wife could truly care less. Others can't get OTA.

So let people vote with their wallets.

- Craig


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> I recorded the Bears game in OTA and via satellite HD. OMG. The difference was so great. Put them up side-by-side in PIP. OMG.


Then we have some seriously different configurations... or TVs. So maybe I am missing something... As I have done the comparison so many times... that I am surprised my TV hasn't broken.

And I can not tell the difference between the two... And I can see the stuck pixel on my plasma from 15ft... so it isn't my eyes.

How did you put them side by side in PIP? to do the comparison.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why would the issues behind PBS... be an excusse to lessen the need for OTA?
> 
> Or I hope you are not suggesting that my points are not valid and don't matter to the OTA aspects either?


Well it just seemed odd you are asking for reasons and needs. I give you one - PBS-HD. Next thing I know you mentioned why there will not be a PBS HD any time soon. Because they want their whole signal or nothing at all. It just seemed like an attempt to cheapen my need. Or did you point it out as an affirmation to the need for OTA and I completely mis read? If so my apologies.

I guess the bottom line is we now have OTA. To take it away would be a big deal as others have stated. The HR21 does not have it. I have not seen any official or semi official (that would be you Earl) that stated that the HR20 will always be an option. I have read much speculation of what the deal is. Can anyone that knows something say something?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> I guess the bottom line is we now have OTA. To take it away would be a big deal as others have stated. The HR21 does not have it. I have not seen any official or semi official (that would be you Earl) that stated that the HR20 will always be an option. I have read much speculation of what the deal is. Can anyone that knows something say something?


As of this moment... there is no information to derive tha the HR20 is not going to be an option...

Will it "always" be an option... no... as eventually the HR20 will cease production. But until we know anything about the "next" receiver post HR21... any speculating that DirecTV is dropping all support of the ATSC signal...

Is just that.... You can derive it from what you want... but unless someone knows something else.... it is all just speculation.

If you must have OTA... there are solutions for you...
If you must have OTA... there are still 3rd party DVRs for you as well, if DirecTV ultimately decides to pull all ATSC support
If you must have OTA.... there are other carriers...

It's all about making your choices as a consumer.

But the posts that get me are those that find the SIZE button here on the forum, and make this seem like this is the worst possible decision DirecTV could have made in their history...

------

As for my PBS comment... yes... 
What if PBS drops their demand to carry all the sub-channels as well... and the primary channel is carried on DirecTV via HD?

So yes... it does go into the "why's"


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> How about if the user could choose the HR20 or HR21 and would have to pay say $20 extra for the HR20?
> 
> Our survey shows that 85% of us want OTA. But of typcial customers, would even 50% be willing to pay $20 extra?
> 
> ...


Craig, you hit the nail right on the head. It's about CHOICE, and if we need to pay a "reasonable" premium to retain the OTA-HD recording choice, *it's fine by me*. As you said, we get to vote with our wallets...if it is necessary for D* to charge a small premium for retaining OTA-HD in a DVR, then those of us that want it, would pay it (whether we *need it* or not.

Choice is King. Taking it away would be a profound mistake (since it's already there). It would be another argument entirely if it weren't there and we were campaigning to add it (like DLB...shudder). The "need" debate would still be valid, but design costs would start playing a big part. In this case, all the work is done. The receivers exist and are still in a state of maturation (or we wouldn't be doing CE's every week). Keep one HD-DVR with OTA-HD recording functionality, and all this back and forth becomes idle chatter.

It does concern me that people who should know better are so invested in the contra-OTA position. (Hence my "front" comment in an earlier post). I hope this isn't testing the water for withdrawing the feature from the entire line.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Just think they should:
1. add the question "ota needed/wanted?" to csr script for ordering, and have the abillity to specify which will be delivered...
2. if need be they could charge 20-30$ more for the OTA capable box..


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> make this seem like this is the worst possible decision DirecTV could have made in their history...


No...that would be the massive kiosks they used to have in Circuit City stores (along with USSB) circa 1994. Those we an enormous PAIN to install!


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Just think they should:
> 1. add the question "ota needed/wanted?" to csr script for ordering, and have the abillity to specify which will be delivered...
> 2. if need be they could charge 20-30$ more for the OTA capable box..


Precisely!

Eventually, there may be another non-D* choice (not involving cable), that would be an OTA-HD receiver with Hard Drive recording in HD. I'm not aware of any at this time, but I'll admit, I haven't been looking.

It seems silly that existing D* customers would need to abandon (or add on to) D* in order to get something that we already had, but group non-think is notorious in corporations.

It is a pity that D* may be taking an indirect, but very public beating on this issue, not of their own making. A statement from them (not very likely) indicating their commitment to OTA-HD recording in at least one of their models for the "forseeable future", would put all this speculation (as Earl noted it) to bed. I'm not holding my breath (and not because I think they are going to dump OTA), but because corporations are loath to promise anything that limits their "flexibility".


----------



## REDSKINSFAN47 (Sep 2, 2007)

i vote yes on ota its a must, for wb,my network,pbs,sub channels and washington dc channels.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

One more reason for OTA
Yesterday, channel 7 in LA was showing brush fire coverage practically all day long on their main channel. If you wanted to see NASCAR racing, they offered that on a sub-channel not carried by D*. 

However, they did put up a screen shot showing the local cable channels where the sub-channel was being carried.

Now I suppose that cable option could be considered as an alternate to D*; however, the cable systems don't have nearly the breadth of HD coverage that D* now has -- no Big 10 network, for example.

Bill


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hasan said:


> Precisely!
> 
> Eventually, there may be another non-D* choice (not involving cable), that would be an OTA-HD receiver with Hard Drive recording in HD. I'm not aware of any at this time, but I'll admit, I haven't been looking.


Tivo HD or Tivo Series 3 can do OTA and/or cable.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

so I am pleased with my HR20's OTA tuner performance. It's great having redundancy because of bad heavy storms, downpours, thunder etc... usually OTA still works fine during inclement weather.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Jaysv said:


> Tivo HD or Tivo Series 3 can do OTA and/or cable.


Do either require a cable subscription to work OTA? We have no cable out here....and never will. Will the Tivo HD work without any subscription at all, or do you need to subscribe to a 3rd party in order for it to work?

(PM me....this isn't the proper thread...or just ignore my question...when I have time I'll google and see what's there)


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> One more reason for OTA
> Yesterday, channel 7 in LA was showing brush fire coverage practically all day long on their main channel. If you wanted to see NASCAR racing, they offered that on a sub-channel not carried by D*.
> 
> However, they did put up a screen shot showing the local cable channels where the sub-channel was being carried.
> ...


We can't get cable in rural Iowa, and never will...the population density won't support it. (it is beside the point that I consider cable an instrument of the devil), based on customer reports in central Iowa.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hasan said:


> It does concern me that people who should know better are so invested in the contra-OTA position. (Hence my "front" comment in an earlier post). I hope this isn't testing the water for withdrawing the feature from the entire line.


I do know better -- and have almost puked over the exorbitant and redundant dialog and whining about OTA. It has been explained, re-explained, and re-re-explained. To read some of these posts....if we don't love OTA, we are made to look like bad guys in the eyes of some here. Misguided to say the least.

It's right for *some*, but not all. Yelling in a post about how great it is, how someone *needs* its it, someone *wants *it, or that its the *catch-all *for some doesn't change the fact that *it is not an offering that the majority of viewers care about or in fact require*. Some here are either in denial or plain disregard that fact.

I have had OTA for 9 years, and currently have 2 DVRs with it connected only because the antenna was in place from the "olden days" when it served a purpose. Now, I virtually don't use it - ever. The only use it got in the past was pre-LIL and also for a brief period to do comparisons between D*TV's HD locals and OTA. Once I repeated saw for many months of testing that they were virtually identical, that testing stopped. As far as I'm concerned, they could discontinue OTA tomorrow and there would be no loss. I could care less about PBS - whenever I've turned it on (SD), the only thing I ever see on it are fund-raisers. But that's just me.

By the way, when my D*TV locals are affected by terrible lightening storms (rain doesn't stop anything here for a signal), guess what, my OTA is affected too. When the weather's bad enough to have that kind of impact either way, I'm busy heading for cover, not flipping channels.

All of this means nothing to those who are passionate for their use of OTA. I equally respect the counter-views and see the value to those in areas when it is the only local channel HD option, and also to those who may prefer to watch PBS or some other channel not included in "the big 4" carried by D*TV.

That said, posting 1000 times just to make the same point over and over on why the sky is falling over not having it is pure lame. The point has been made here hundreds of times in more than just this one thread. *We get it *- some of you want OTA and you think its the best thing since sliced bread. And you know what....that's perfectly fine....for you.

But that doesn't make it right for *everyone* - fact is - it isn't requested or "needed" by the majority of people. If you can't accept that or understand that, then I guess some here will just never "get it".

There is no right and wrong here - just 2 views, and clearly, one side or the other will not change the other's opinions. This is just a perpetual debate with no winners and no losers.

What's nice is the fact that we have these choices and have alternatives to fulfill them.

If you love OTA - great - get an OTA receiver or DVR and knock your socks off.

If you don't, you must already enjoy the HD you have from these other channels.

This is a win-win, not lose lost, like some would have you think.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

"This is a win-win, not lose lost, like some would have you think."

That's absolutely true as long as D* continues to offer at least on model with OTA-HD functionality. With that, the potential problem is solved, and it is all I have ever asked for in the discussion.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hasan said:


> "This is a win-win, not lose lost, like some would have you think."
> 
> That's absolutely true as long as D* continues to offer at least on model with OTA-HD functionality. With that, the potential problem is solved, and it is all I have ever asked for in the discussion.


Agreed. I certainly hope that those who wish to have OTA continue to have the equipment and availability to use that resource.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But that doesn't make it right for *everyone* - fact is - it isn't requested or "needed" by the majority of people. If you can't accept that or understand that, then I guess some here will just never "get it".


Yeah, there's only 40 million people in the US who would currently need OTA HD access for one or more their "Big 4" networks, if you're one of that 40 million, oh well...

Yes I know today, the HR20 is still available to us, but for how long? What evidence do we have that Directv will continue to develop products that integrate OTA HD access? What evidence do we that they won't? Obviously the latest Directv hardware doesn't support it, and nothing indicating that the next one will either.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jaysv said:


> Yeah, there's only 40 million people in the US who would currently need OTA HD access for one or more their "Big 4" networks, if you're one of that 40 million, oh well...
> 
> Yes I know today, the HR20 is still available to us, but for how long? What evidence do we have that Directv will continue to develop products that integrate OTA HD access? What evidence do we that they won't? Obviously the latest Directv hardware doesn't support it, and nothing indicating that the next one will either.


Interesting numbers - I'm sure you'd be glad to share the source of this "research".

As far as your second points - you seemed to have answered your own questions....what proof either way - so why worry if there is no proof it's being discontinued? Answer - there's no reason. The sky is not falling.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jaysv said:


> Yeah, there's only 40 million people in the US who would currently need OTA HD access for one or more their "Big 4" networks, if you're one of that 40 million, oh well...
> 
> Yes I know today, the HR20 is still available to us, but for how long? What evidence do we have that Directv will continue to develop products that integrate OTA HD access? What evidence do we that they won't? Obviously the latest Directv hardware doesn't support it, and nothing indicating that the next one will either.


So if you are one of those 40 million... (which i still 24.5 million more then DirecTV entire customer base)....

What technology are they using today? or going to use tomorrow?

I know everyone wants to have 1 solution for everything...
But the fact is.... there are options out there if one product doesn't contain it all...

So long as you know...then you can make your choices as a consumer.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting numbers - I'm sure you'd be glad to share the source of this "research".
> 
> As far as your second points - you seemed to have answered your own questions....what proof either way - so why worry if there is no proof it's being discontinued? Answer - there's no reason. The sky is not falling.


http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...oid=bc0e47f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD#

Cross referenced with

http://hr20.dbstalk.com/html/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html

Total US households: 112,798,170.00 
Those with all 4 big networks: 72,144,830.00 
Those without 1 or more: 40,653,340.00


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jaysv said:


> http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...oid=bc0e47f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD#
> 
> Cross referenced with
> 
> ...


Those are all *eligible* households from *all* providers combined - not all even have HD - grossly misleading.

By the way.... I guess these are just a figment of our imagination....

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7959051&type=product&id=1155071079972

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/DIRECTV-Plus-HD-DVR-HR20S/sem/rpsm/oid/159819/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

For those that are hung up on the must have OTA for PBS. Do two things.

1) Call or write your local PBS station and complain to them about not being available on D*.

2) Call or wirte D* and complain about not having PBS HD available via the sat.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

RobertE said:


> For those that are hung up on the must have OTA for PBS. Do two things.
> 
> 1) Call or write your local PBS station and complain to them about not being available on D*.
> 
> 2) Call or wirte D* and complain about not having PBS HD available via the sat.


3) Call or write D* and complain about not having a plan for all local channels/sub-channels available via the sat.

Then the only "whys" left are rain fade, and PQ. (If that's an issue with MPEG4...assuming that the smaller markets will not be distributed with less bandwidth.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> 3) Call or write D* and complain about not having a plan for sub-channels available via the sat.


4) Call and write to PBS... and remind them if they get their HD product out there, they may be able to generate more revenue....

DirecTV could offer the sub-channels (As they can do the -1 nomenclature)... but at what "bigger" cost.... if they say yes PBS we will carry all your sub-channels...

What do they say to ABC affiliates, that just have additional weather maps?
Do they take up all that bandwith for content that may or may not be used?

What is more important to DirecTV in their bigger picture...
Getting another entire DMA up and running with primary channels... or adding weather map-sub channels....

I wish bandwith was bottomless... but it isn't... and with must-carry laws that are in place... a LOT of the bandwith is already used to broadcast the same thing hundreds of times...

It's not like DirecTV is getting any money from these affiliates to carry THEIR stations... and in fact... some of those affiliates (Like LIN) are demanding payment from DirecTV to carry their stations... (for a signal that is normally "free" to the customers).....


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those are all *eligible* households from *all* providers combined - not all even have HD - grossly misleading.


LOL, how can the total population of potential directv customers not be relavent, I'm sure Directv is interested in acquiring and maintaining as many of those customers as possible.

I just love how any data that supports the need for continued support for OTA is total discounted by you as irrelevant.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jaysv said:


> LOL, how can the total population of potential directv customers not be relavent, I'm sure Directv is interested in acquiring and maintaining as many of those customers as possible.
> 
> I just love how any data that supports the need for continued support for OTA is total discounted by you as irrelevant.


Those numbers mean nothing pertaining to OTA - nothing.

All they mean is how many people have TV sets as potential viewers. They don't even represent HD potential viewers (own HD sets), which according to the latest numbers represent about 32 Million people - and many of those don't even watch HD.

You can try to manipulate numbers any way you want, but yours are pure bogus to represent much of anything relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 4) Call and write to PBS... and remind them if they get their HD product out there, they may be able to generate more revenue....
> It's not like DirecTV is getting any money from these affiliates to carry THEIR stations... and in fact... some of those affiliates (Like LIN) are demanding payment from DirecTV to carry their stations... (for a signal that is normally "free" to the customers).....


PBS can't generate revenue...it's non-profit, non-commercial. It's about delivering all of their products to the local audience.

If D* keeps OTA then it doesn't worry about the sub-channel bandwidth then, does it?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jaysv said:


> LOL, how can the total population of potential directv customers not be relavent, I'm sure Directv is interested in acquiring and maintaining as many of those customers as possible.
> 
> I just love how any data that supports the need for continued support for OTA is total discounted by you as irrelevant.


It's all relevent....

The other "portion" of that 70,000,000 you quoted...
Why don't they have DirecTV? I mean their Big 4 are carried?

So even if they decided to completely drop the 40,000,000 customers...
And focus on the 70,000,000 and get all 70,000,000 to subscribe.

That would be nearly a 450% increase in subscribership... 
(yes this is a fictious theoretical discussion)

All of this... the removal of ATSC support in the latest two products...
The customer bases they are targetting ect...

It is not as simple as a point A vs point B comparison...
There are so many factors that go into this...

DirecTV knows they are not going to capture every subsriber...

But if on a block... they can get 5 of the 6 people, with the 6th choosing not to go with DirectV because of ATSC.... then will be happy with the other 5...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> PBS can't generate revenue...it's non-profit, non-commercial. It's about delivering all of their products to the local audience.
> 
> If D* keeps OTA then it doesn't worry about the sub-channel bandwidth then, does it?


What about all those people that can't install OTA.... We have a TREMENDOUS amount of townhomes, condos, and communities that actively fight against antenna installs.

What about all those people that would like PBS-HD content, and would be willing to donate if they could get it....

And yes, they can generate REVENUE... they just can't profit from it..
They have to pay for all that programming and equipment somehow.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> If D* keeps OTA then it doesn't worry about the sub-channel bandwidth then, does it?


Actually... yes... they do...

As they have to deal with the support calls, for people that don't have antennas properly installed.... or the signal is week..

Or the box is not able to tune in the channel....

As those people are not calling PBS for help... they are calling DirecTV... for a signal they are not the source provider for it.

DirecTV has to worry about the equipment failure of those ATSC tuners, maintaining the software and drivers for that equipment...

Any changes to encoders or broadcast data streams? DirecTV also has to be aware of those as well....


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> PBS can't generate revenue...it's non-profit, non-commercial. It's about delivering all of their products to the local audience.
> 
> If D* keeps OTA then it doesn't worry about the sub-channel bandwidth then, does it?


owned by the public, and those donations they solicit mostly line the wallets of the people you see during those fund raisers. So we the people own PBS since our tax paying dollars fund most of the operations. PBS has lost respect when they take advantage of ill people and try to get them to sign their homes over as donations, it's all head games, if they got no donations from you or I, they would continue to exist. Being non-profit, doesn't mean people who work for them don't get great pay checks. It also means they don't need to tell us what they are paying these executives and others who may be taking advantage or PBS.:eek2:


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## 69hokie (Sep 23, 2006)

Why do you want a red car?!?! I can't believe or understand why you don't want a blue car!!:bonk1:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

69hokie said:


> Why do you want a red car?!?! I can't believe or understand why you don't want a blue car!!:bonk1:


Huh?

I could understand if this is a debate about the black or silver case...

But a more accurate analogy would be:
Do you want FM/AM/XM support or just XM


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually... yes... they do...
> 
> As they have to deal with the support calls, for people that don't have antennas properly installed.... or the signal is week..
> 
> ...


If D* wants to "replace cable" locally. Then carry ALL of the local channels and sub-channels, period.

If not, provide an OTA option, even if I must pay a slight premium.


----------



## 69hokie (Sep 23, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Huh?
> 
> I could understand if this is a debate about the black or silver case...
> 
> ...


My only point was to each his own....


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

If we assume that Directv's customer base is at least loosely related to overall national distribution of households, then 36% of their current customers "need" OTA today for big 4 HD access. 

(Granted I don't know how sound that assumption is, as their market penetration could vary from DMA to DMA. Larger DMAs, consumers have more options, compared to smaller markets, some areas of the country have more line of sight issues than others, etc.)


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> If D* wants to "replace cable" locally. Then carry ALL of the local channels and sub-channels, period.
> 
> If not, provide an OTA option, even if I must pay a slight premimum.


Cable doesn't always provide all the locals in HD. There are many markets where the cable company is engaged in contract disputes with the local stations, so those signals are unavailable. And guess what, cable doesn't provide an OTA solution.....


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

say-what said:


> Cable doesn't always provide all the locals in HD. There are many markets where the cable company is engaged in contract disputes with the local stations, so those signals are unavailable. And guess what, cable doesn't provide an OTA solution.....


Understood.

Here in Wichita, served by Cox (also serving most of KS), cable has all locals that provide HD and sub-channels (4 subs on-line, now).

D* only has SD.

I dare say that, today, there are more cable systems providing HD and subs in more markets that D*.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those numbers mean nothing pertaining to OTA - nothing.
> 
> All they mean is how many people have TV sets as potential viewers. They don't even represent HD potential viewers (own HD sets), which according to the latest numbers represent about 32 Million people - and many of those don't even watch HD.
> 
> You can try to manipulate numbers any way you want, but yours are pure bogus to represent much of anything relevant to this discussion.


DBS talk's survey is too small and focused, Nielson is too broad and all inclusive.

And exactly were to do think Directv's next HD customer is going to come from?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I dare say that, today, there are more cable systems providing HD and subs in more markets that D*.


Well you would expect that...

As that is how the CABLE system is designed... it is regional/local based...
Even within the same DMA, you can have multiple "head ends" to get it very localized...

DirecTV on the other hand... is national based, with local added on top of it...
So yes... it is going to be national focused, with locals added on top...

Vs the other way around, in the cable model.

As if you look at the two:

DirecTV: National channels set... pretty much identical everywhere in the country.
DirecTV: Local offerings... different based on local (and I am not talking about different channels... but the sake that one market has ABC, the other doesn't)

Cable: National channel set... not equal accross the country... as shown recently that some markets are getting new HD channels while most of the others are not...
Cable: Local.... pretty much they carry every local channel that is available, that is because they don't have to worry about the limitations of repeating it everywhere (even withn in the same DMA, other offices do different segments).


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl,

I get it.

I'm a D* customer and fan.

But, I'm also an OTA fan, too.

Just give me the option, today and tomorrow, that's all.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Earl, after reading through this voluminous thread and the various discussions related to the sub-channels, do you foresee D* carrying not just the sub-channels like 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 32.2, 32-3, etc. here in Chicagoland, but also all the other non-network digitals like those in the 26's, 38's, 50's, etc.?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> Earl, after reading through this voluminous thread and the various discussions related to the sub-channels, do you foresee D* carrying not just the sub-channels like 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 32.2, 32-3, etc. here in Chicagoland, but also all the other non-network digitals like those in the 26's, 38's, 50's, etc.?


I sure hope not, as then we'll have a new thread started by someone about the terrible waste of bandwidth... :lol:


----------



## JBernardK (Aug 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's right for *some*, but not all. Yelling in a post about how great it is, how someone *needs* its it, someone *wants *it, or that its the *catch-all *for some doesn't change the fact that *it is not an offering that the majority of viewers care about or in fact require*. Some here are either in denial or plain disregard that fact.
> 
> But that doesn't make it right for *everyone* - fact is - it isn't requested or "needed" by the majority of people. If you can't accept that or understand that, then I guess some here will just never "get it".


Could you give us a reference for this supposed "fact"?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

LOL this thread is funny.

$200 for a receiver with OTA and a Silver case VS $200 for no OTA and a black case! Is this even a debate?

If you go into a Best Buy and the sales guy says would you like an HR receiver with or without an OTA tuner for the same price. Which of you is going to say "Heck no, I don't want the Tuner" gimme the one with less options for the same price.

So how do we get into 12 pages of a debate on why Less is better than more 

IMO even if I never use the OTA I think having the OTA port is better than not having it!! What if I move and end up living 1 mile away from a group of OTA HD locals? I would be screaming for the OTA tuner.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

RobertE said:


> For those that are hung up on the must have OTA for PBS. Do two things.
> 
> 1) Call or write your local PBS station and complain to them about not being available on D*.
> 
> 2) Call or wirte D* and complain about not having PBS HD available via the sat.


Why? I am getting it now just fine with OTA


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

JBernardK said:


> Could you give us a reference for this supposed "fact"?


Yes I have been wondering about this as well. Up until now I just figured they were right. The vast majority for whatever reason does not need or want OTA. But I have never seen any proof at all of this. So I will wait and see what shows up


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I sure hope not, as then we'll have a new thread started by someone about the terrible waste of bandwidth... :lol:


Seriously, though, with next year's launch of D11, I'd love to see them add the subchannels, at least in the major DMAs. Whether they'd have the bandwidth to do this is another question, of course.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Earl, after reading through this voluminous thread and the various discussions related to the sub-channels, do you foresee D* carrying not just the sub-channels like 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 32.2, 32-3, etc. here in Chicagoland, but also all the other non-network digitals like those in the 26's, 38's, 50's, etc.?


I don't see any of those subchannels being carried. (5.2, 7.2 are the weather maps... and I would put money down)

And 26, 38, 50, ect... are already carried.... in the SD band.
Those are already picked up (IIRC) in Chicago, via direct connection to the stations..

If not they will be converted to be received via their digital broadcasts.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Seriously, though, with next year's launch of D11, I'd love to see them add the subchannels, at least in the major DMAs. Whether they'd have the bandwidth to do this is another question, of course.


Highly Highly doubtfull... they want to continue the covering of the "big 4" in other DMAs... expand the carrying of other HD broadcasting locals in the existing DMAs... and continue their expansion of at least SD converage in additional DMAs


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Speaking of Big 4 - has anyone heard any Lin updates in regard to Directv carrying their digital channels? They are the lone holdout of the major networks (not counting CW, MyNdy or PAX) here in Indy.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

I have another reason to stick with OTA. My wife called me at work (I work 2nd shift) and said that CH30 (abc) was out. Said that the channel shows that D* knows of the problem and not to call. I told her to go in the living room and check it on OTA. It worked in there but not from D* I surprise no else has a thread about "Dancing with the Stars, out on D*" If anyone know anything let me know. 63376 area. She sent an email to D* [Reference #: 071022-007869]


----------



## KSbugeater (Feb 17, 2005)

I don't have time to wade through 12 pages of posts, but let me give you a stark example of why OTA makes a HUGE difference in some places:

From DirecTV only, I would get
the Big 5, in SD only, all from the Topeka market

On my HR20, I get those plus
4 of the 5 Topeka stations in HD (the FOX affil isn't digital yet), plus
6 subchannels including CW and MyTV, plus
the Big 5 from Kansas City in HD, plus CW, MyTV in HD, plus 2 indy stations with a total of 5 channels

On my HR10 with the ability to SCAN FOR CHANNELS, I get all of the above plus
a local weather sub that D* hasn't added to the HR20
and a Christian station out of Kansas City with 5 channels that technically isn't in the KC DMA (St. Joe, MO)

Do you think the average Topeka customer would prefer 5 SD channels (maybe someday 5 HD), or 21 channels with redundancy of the Big 5 that is desperately welcome during storm season ("We interrupt this broadcast...")?

Now, I did have to install a pretty good OTA antenna that some would consider tacky (the CM 4228). This would require additional support/installation.

Of course, if D* would ever implement Significantly Viewed Channels, thereby adding the KC stations to those provided via SAT, that would satisfy MOST people, but I will always want the local option in case of weather.


----------



## 1953 (Feb 7, 2006)

KSbugeater said:


> I don't have time to wade through 12 pages of posts, but let me give you a stark example of why OTA makes a HUGE difference in some places:
> 
> From DirecTV only, I would get
> the Big 5, in SD only, all from the Topeka market
> ...


Well stated................


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :backtotop :backtotop


You quoted my post without including its (IMHO) very relevant conclusion. The post concluded with my statement that I felt OTA capability was important, and that I felt it should remain at the very least, an option.

You neglected also my statement that OTA channels looked no better than MPEG4 images.

If this isn't on topic, what is?

The elimination of OTA capability is the major difference of the HR21 in comparison to the HR20--and with no offsetting price reduction.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

ShiningBengal said:


> You quoted my post without including its (IMHO) very relevant conclusion. The post concluded with my statement that I felt OTA capability was important, and that I felt it should remain at the very least, an option.
> 
> You neglected also my statement that OTA channels looked no better than MPEG4 images.
> 
> ...


The cost of the HR21 is supposed to be $50 less. Is it not? Also it is not surprising your posts quoted reply was edited like that. Anything to minimize OTA...


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As for my PBS comment... yes...
> What if PBS drops their demand to carry all the sub-channels as well... and the primary channel is carried on DirecTV via HD?


YES what? YES you mention this as a pro OTA point?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> YES what? YES you mention this as a pro OTA point?


You are commenting on something two days old already?

But the: "Yes" was in response to your question, if you were mis-interpreting my comments about PBS


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You are commenting on something two days old already?
> 
> But the: "Yes" was in response to your question, if you were mis-interpreting my comments about PBS


I was trying to figure out how to word it without offending anyone. I am a simple person so it takes time 

Anyway thanks for the quick reply.


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

ShiningBengal said:


> You neglected also my statement that OTA channels looked no better than MPEG4 images.
> .


Was/Is there a study performed comparing OTA HD vs MPEG4? To my eyes I think OTA looks better.

Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't using compression and decompression, whether audio or video, degrade picture quality?


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

mopzo said:


> Was/Is there a study performed comparing OTA HD vs MPEG4? To my eyes I think OTA looks better.
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't using compression and decompression, whether audio or video, degrade picture quality?


OTA is compressed as well. It uses MPEG2 encoding. All broadcast HDTV is compressed. It doesn't necessarily visibly degrade the video. The better the compression algorithm, the less likely you are to notice anything. The algorithm analyzes changes that are occuring in the picture and compresses everything that is not changing.

If you have a still picture, it takes virtually no bandwidth, since nothing is changing. Something like a sports event, on the other hand, takes a comparatively large amount of bandwidth, as very little of an action shot can be compressed without degradation.


----------



## Jaysv (Nov 15, 2005)

Happened to be at our local Best Buy today, 3 HR21s on the shelf, no HR20s, it will be interesting to see how they sell here where OTA is required for local HD.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How would I define Want?
> -) I want to have the option to access via OTA, in case of RainFade (I don't need it, since I get it via SAT)


In this example, the "want" turns into a "need" when rain fade occurs. To modify your "need" definition:
-) I want to watch CSI in HD
-) CSI is not available in HD (or SD, for that matter) via SAT when it's raining.
So I NEED to have ATSC to be able to watch CSI in HD when it's raining.


Earl Bonovich said:


> Provided that the HR20 is out there an available... somewhere in quantity... what is the issue? Thos that must have an ATSC/OTA connection, have that option...


IF it's still available, then you're right, there is no issue. It's the "if" that is worrisome.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> There probably is no longer a need for the H20 going forward. Folks that really want OTA HD in that scenario can run right into their television and use that input ..


Assuming the TV has a built-in HD tuner.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

911medic said:


> In this example, the "want" turns into a "need" when rain fade occurs. To modify your "need" definition:
> -) I want to watch CSI in HD
> -) CSI is not available in HD (or SD, for that matter) via SAT when it's raining.
> So I NEED to have ATSC to be able to watch CSI in HD when it's raining.IF it's still available, then you're right, there is no issue. It's the "if" that is worrisome.


How often does it rain by you? 
How often does it rain so much... that you lose your signal for a significant period of time?
How often does it rain, and you know about it ahead of time... to adjust your series links... to go off the OTA instead of the MPEG-4 stream?

I have had my AT9 for almost 2 years now... with snow and rain... and we have had some seriously massive rain storms this year in Chicago...

Not one of the rain fade situations have affected my recordings for any extended length of time... nor do I think I have lost my signal for more then a few minutes...

So while rain fade is an issue for some.... if your dish is properly pointed, and peeked out... rain fade should be as worrysome as a power outage.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How often does it rain by you?
> How often does it rain so much... that you lose your signal for a significant period of time?
> How often does it rain, and you know about it ahead of time... to adjust your series links... to go off the OTA instead of the MPEG-4 stream?
> 
> ...


All my signals are in the high 80's to mid-90's. Many times when we have major thunderstorms to the south, there will be loss of signal for at least 30 seconds to a minute. If this is acceptable to you, fine. Many of us find it objectionable, when a perfectly reasonable, *reliable* and functional alternative (OTA) is available.

Power outages: straw man, that's what a ups is for. I've never lost a recording due to a power outage.

I don't need to forecast the weather....I record everything OTA when possible, and I have NEVER lost or gotten a corrupted OTA recording due to weather. Since all prime time recording is done OTA here, there is nothing to switch. The vast majority of my recordings are major networks (including PBS), during prime time.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

I have seen some post where people have requested an HR20 be installed and told that they would get the HR20. But, the installer is showing up with HR21 and people don't want it because of no OTA. Has Directv phased out the HR20? I have been told and seen post that the HR20 has no plans of being phased out at this time. Is it that in certain area's the HR20 is out of stock and they are using the HR21 in it's place. Maybe.

I hope they keep the HR20 in production for at least a couple of years. I am one of the lucky one's. I can get my HD locals thru Directv. But, if I go one county to the south they don't and there is a need for the OTA and the HR20. It will be some time before they get HD thru Directv because that is a small market. But, if I didn't have one and got the HR21, not all is lost. My TV has a HD tuner built into it and I can watch OTA on that. Doesn't all new HD TV's now have to have a HD tuner built into them?

I just checked Best Buy's web site and they still have HR20-700s in stock.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hate to disappoint everyone, I have HR20's with OTA and an HR21 without, and when the storms get bad enough to briefly cut out a signal on D*TV (which is very rare - rain alone doesn't do it)....then both OTA and D*TV signals are interupted and pixelation occurs. OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think.

I'll also bet that the majority of people who have regular problems do not have their dishes properly aligned. I just had mine redone about 3 months ago. Again, rain fade is not something I experience - more like thunderstorm with lightening fade - and then finding cover is more important that what's on TV at that moment.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hate to disappoint everyone, I have HR20's with OTA and an HR21 without, and when the storms get bad enough to briefly cut out a signal on D*TV (which is very rare - rain alone doesn't do it)....then both OTA and D*TV signals are interupted and pixelation occurs. OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think.
> 
> I'll also bet that the majority of people who have regular problems do not have their dishes properly aligned. I just had mine redone about 3 months ago. Again, rain fade is not something I experience - more like thunderstorm with lightening fade - and then finding cover is more important that what's on TV at that moment.


I have never lost OTA due to weather on the HR20 (or any other HDTV tuner) in nearly 14 months of use. I'll bet (mocking your second paragraph), most people who have signal problems OTA during storms don't have their antennas aligned properly, have too much feedline loss, or have otherwise tubed their OTA installation.

Both assertions sound equally lame to me.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

hasan said:


> The vast majority of my recordings are major networks (including PBS), during prime time.


Pray tell, what's the point of having DirecTV? You could have an SA TiVo and spare the expense of satellite service.

I do watch some OTA, mostly sports on commercial networks and some PBS HD programming. I find nearly everything else on commercial TV to be banal and foolish, what with all the silly "reality" programming and sitcoms.

(Can't imagine having a UPS and DVR to make sure I didn't miss those.  )


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

1. PBS
2. Lin TV owned WTNH(ABC)

I have two SLs for PBS & ABC-HD I have to get from RI OTA.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hate to disappoint everyone, I have HR20's with OTA and an HR21 without, and when the storms get bad enough to briefly cut out a signal on D*TV (which is very rare - rain alone doesn't do it)....then both OTA and D*TV signals are interupted and pixelation occurs. OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think.
> 
> I'll also bet that the majority of people who have regular problems do not have their dishes properly aligned. I just had mine redone about 3 months ago. Again, rain fade is not something I experience - more like thunderstorm with lightening fade - and then finding cover is more important that what's on TV at that moment.


No, it's not the "end-all" but I have SLs for PBS that I can record in HD. In my area PBS has always had a terrible picture via D* so even the SD OTA for PBS is better than D*.

I can't get the local Lin owned station via D* or OTA but can recieve the RI ABC-HD OTA.

Untill D* carries Lin stations and PBS in HD, I need OTA to keep my current level of service. For me, and others, not having OTA would be a downgrade from what I have now.

I gladly made some compromises leaving TiVo behind to get the HR20. I would hate to have something go wrong with my HR20 and not be able to get another one. As long as both are avaliable it's really a non-problem...however....

Mike


----------



## dcmidnight (Jul 6, 2007)

hasan said:


> I have never lost OTA due to weather on the HR20 (or any other HDTV tuner) in nearly 14 months of use. I'll bet (mocking your second paragraph), most people who have signal problems OTA during storms don't have their antennas aligned properly, have too much feedline loss, or have otherwise tubed their OTA installation.
> 
> Both assertions sound equally lame to me.


Agreed. I've had OTA for two years now and not once lost a signal. I have a great rooftop antenna installed by the previous owner so I'm just lucky I guess. But not once have I lost or had a distorted OTA signal. I can also pick up 6 local subchannels that include local weather channels and radar feeds that are very useful.

Contrast that with my dish, where my worst signal is 92 but I still lose signal in moderate rain. Thankfully we havent had much rain this year but last summer was terrible. I have all my recordings set to OTA so its not affected but its the main reason I wont go to a DVR that doesnt have OTA.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How often does it rain by you?
> How often does it rain so much... that you lose your signal for a significant period of time?
> How often does it rain, and you know about it ahead of time... to adjust your series links... to go off the OTA instead of the MPEG-4 stream?
> 
> ...


You don't live in the Plains...I do.

Please, don't tell me my dish isn't peaked. I have +90%, some at 100%, on all the the xponders that matter (i.e. I don't count the spot beams that are not pointed at me).

Please don't tell me about the weather. I'm a meteorologist.

You live in Chicago. As you approach the source areas for moisture, the Gulf, the Pacific, and the Atlantic, on average, there is more moisture and the moisture is deeper through the depth of the atmosphere. As you move south from "Big Chi" thunderstorms and rain showers can have a larger total volume of water (in all three phases), and can be higher into the atmosphere, on average.

There can be a thunderstorm (50,000+ feet tall) not impacting me, but moving south of my location that will block satellite signals as it passed through my LOS to the birds. There is no safety concern nor power outage issue when this occurs.

All of my SLs are OTA whenever possible. (I don't have HD LIL locals, yet. Even if I did, I would DVR OTA, due to reliability) I've had to tell the HR20 to grab the next replay of Dexter, on SHO HD, among others, due to rain fade for up to 30 minutes. It isn't trivial, for me.

THE reason I moved the entire house from cable to D* was the ability the DVR HD OTA, period. Previously, I had D* only in the basement for Sunday Ticket. But, was so pleased with the OTA DVR functionality that I've gone to some expense to cut the cable cord.

I've said this more than a few times, if D* would just come out and announce their intentions over OTA, we can end the debate, and I can plan accordingly.

You are clearly in the "you may like it...but, you don't NEED it" camp. Which is fine. The debate is stimulating. However, since you are the primary liaison to D* it's hard for me to tell when you may be expressing a personal opinion, versus making statements/arguments knowing D*'s future plans.

I'm in NO way saying you are, or are not, but, for me anyway, it's hard to guess. I understand this unfairly puts you in this position. Sorry.

This discussion notwithstanding, I can't thank you enough for the work you do for this forum and the D* user community.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Unless I "state" I am saying something for DirecTV... or it is clearly obvious (like the announcement threads for something).

My comments are my own.

-------------

There is absolutely now doubt that OTA is vital to some people.

But just like you said... I am in Chicago... there are customers in LA, NY, and other areas... not in the "plains"...

Areas that may not have more "total volume" of water... so yes... you may have issues with it....

As with everything else... what do you expect DirecTV to come out state.

NO WE ARE NEVER GOING TO SUPPORT ATSC AGAIN...
But then later change their minds... and then have people screaming asking for credits for all the equipment they purchased to get their ATSC signal.

WE MIGHT HAVE ATSC IN OUR NEXT SYSTEM THAT IS SEVERAL YEARS AWAY.
Then you have people compalining that they need to know NOW if it is ever going to be there. Or demanding an extact date on when that system will be there.

Bottom line: The H21 and HR21 do not have ATSC.... 
That is all we know...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm just yearning for D11 to get up and be operational, so they can flip the magic switch to turn on more locals including PBS...then 90% of this redundant OTA bantor will go away (finally).


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Unless I "state" I am saying something for DirecTV... or it is clearly obvious (like the announcement threads for something).
> 
> My comments are my own.
> -------------
> As with everything else... what do you expect DirecTV to come out state.


Understood now, and thank you.
-----------------------------------
D* could say that:

1) We believe that consumer demand for OTA is so small that support is only planned for the next X years.

2) We know there is a small, but very loyal base, for OTA HD DVR, so we plan to produce smaller numbers of those IRDs in the future. Perhaps at a higher cost to the end user. But, will continue to support replacement of the existing installed base, due to failure.

3) We plan to develop both IRDs that do and do not support OTA.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm just yearning for D11 to get up and be operational, so they can flip the magic switch to turn on more locals including PBS...then 90% of this redundant OTA bantor will go away (finally).


You're just guessing at a number, that none of us really know.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

ShiningBengal said:


> Pray tell, what's the point of having DirecTV? You could have an SA TiVo and spare the expense of satellite service.
> 
> I do watch some OTA, mostly sports on commercial networks and some PBS HD programming. I find nearly everything else on commercial TV to be banal and foolish, what with all the silly "reality" programming and sitcoms.
> 
> (Can't imagine having a UPS and DVR to make sure I didn't miss those.  )


Gee, maybe, just perhaps it's because I can record in HD the OTA stuff, *and* watch the sat stuff I like as well?

Don't try to make it an either/or discussion. We want both. We have both. We want to continue having both. We have good reasons (not involving HD-LIL), which have been stated ad nauseum.

There is no accounting for people's taste, no matter how poor it is, and you can spare us your provincial attitude about others' viewing habits.

I find whatever you watch banal and foolish. Now we can both go have a cup of coffee....


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm just yearning for D11 to get up and be operational, so they can flip the magic switch to turn on more locals including PBS...then 90% of this redundant OTA bantor will go away (finally).


Hey no one is forcing anyone to read it.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I've said this more than a few times, if D* would just come out and announce their intentions over OTA, we can end the debate, and I can plan accordingly.


In my mind the fact that nothing has happened on this front says volumes. Also the fact that inspite of a crushing result in the poll, people that "should know better" still continue the anti-ota banter.

So this leads me to believe the following may be true:

I would not be shocked if the current ota software state was frozen. No more work on it. Who ever has it has it. It does work fine now.

I also would very much like to know the source of the statement that so little of the D* user base would want OTA. I have heard that many times, but never seen it challenged.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As with everything else... what do you expect DirecTV to come out state.


The truth about the current state of affairs with regards to the HR20 would be a great start IMHO.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

hasan said:


> I have never lost OTA due to weather on the HR20 (or any other HDTV tuner) in nearly 14 months of use.


Make that nearly 3 years, without OTA weather issues, for me.


----------



## JBernardK (Aug 16, 2006)

Clearly, D* is a satellite TV provider. The only reason they ever offered OTA is because they had to since they were unable to provide locals in HD. Now that they can provide them for the majority, there is less reason for an OTA capability. As they get most of the country on satellite, they will phase out OTA in their equipment. Not only saves money on equipment, but also on support cost. Think about what you would do if you were CEO of a satellite company.

That being said, I am clearly in the camp of wanting, but not needing OTA. The reason I did not switched to FIOS when it came in my neighborhood is because the DVR did not do OTA, even thought FIOS has all locals, no rain fade, PBS, and sub channels. Also no HD access fee or DVR fee. But now that the HD TiVo is a resaonable choice, I will probably leave D* in the next six months.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

hasan said:


> Gee, maybe, just perhaps it's because I can record in HD the OTA stuff, *and* watch the sat stuff I like as well?
> 
> Don't try to make it an either/or discussion. We want both. We have both. We want to continue having both. We have good reasons (not involving HD-LIL), which have been stated ad nauseum.
> 
> ...


But you don't know what I watch, do you? PBS has a wide variety of programming. Perhaps you find PBS programming and sports banal and foolish. Certainly your right to feel that way. I'm not offended. 

I just told you what I don't watch. No need to get your panties in a bunch over my statement about what I personally do or don't like to watch on TV. Made no value judgement about what you watch on OTA, since I really don't know what that might be. It could just as easily as not be what I watch on OTA.

The sentence I started with was an honest question. If I primarily watched OTA television as you stated, I personally would find the cost/benefit of subscribing to DirecTV to be wanting. I personally DO want to have OTA available for the reason I stated, sports and PBS. Now we can have coffee.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Who's buying?:lol:


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

ShiningBengal said:


> But you don't know what I watch, do you? PBS has a wide variety of programming. Perhaps you find PBS programming and sports banal and foolish. Certainly your right to feel that way. I'm not offended.
> 
> I just told you what I don't watch. No need to get your panties in a bunch over my statement about what I personally do or don't like to watch on TV. Made no value judgement about what you watch on OTA, since I really don't know what that might be. It could just as easily as not be what I watch on OTA.
> 
> The sentence I started with was an honest question. If I primarily watched OTA television as you stated, I personally would find the cost/benefit of subscribing to DirecTV to be wanting. I personally DO want to have OTA available for the reason I stated, sports and PBS. Now we can have coffee.


+++ Why can't we have both?


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

Remember PBS-HD in the "old days" ?
Here in Norfolk, VA. WHRO (15-1) They broadcasted nothing but scenic flyovers with music all in HD. All day long.

When I first got my HDTV, that's all I watched.

Sorry for the off-topic ... Back to the fight ....DING!


----------



## ShiningBengal (Jan 24, 2003)

Que said:


> +++ Why can't we have both?


Who said we can't? I certainly didn't.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hate to disappoint everyone, I have HR20's with OTA and an HR21 without, and when the storms get bad enough to briefly cut out a signal on D*TV (which is very rare - rain alone doesn't do it)....then both OTA and D*TV signals are interupted and pixelation occurs. OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think.
> 
> I'll also bet that the majority of people who have regular problems do not have their dishes properly aligned. I just had mine redone about 3 months ago. Again, rain fade is not something I experience - more like thunderstorm with lightening fade - and then finding cover is more important that what's on TV at that moment.


Yet another of your "it's not a problem for me, so it won't affect others posts."

I have had rain fade every time we get more than moderate rain. RAIN. I have never lost signal simply due to lightning. Unless it's raining with the lightning. And when this occurs, I ALWAYS have OTA reception. I have NEVER lost it. Ever. And since when does a thunderstorm with lightning require one to take cover? We frequently get run-of-the-mill thunderstorms (not severe thunderstorms). These can have a lot of lightning. I want to check the TV to see if there IS severe weather approaching.

Additionally, I live in an area that is prone to high winds. I have even lost reception due to it being extremely windy (40 MPH winds). I've looked at my dish during these conditions, and have seen it "vibrating" in the wind. Again, I have OTA reception to fall back on.

So, I hate to disappoint YOU, but OTA is an excellent, reliable fallback option for me (and others here).


hasan said:


> Both assertions sound equally lame to me.


Indeed.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How often does it rain by you?


It varies. Sometimes it can go weeks without issue, sometimes we have a full week of rainy weather.


> How often does it rain so much... that you lose your signal for a significant period of time?


Again, it varies. Light to moderate rain is usually not an issue, but once it starts raining moderately, it becomes one. And it can stay that way for 10 minutes or more.


> How often does it rain, and you know about it ahead of time... to adjust your series links... to go off the OTA instead of the MPEG-4 stream?


I don't adjust any series links (I don't have that many), but I am VERY aware of it when it comes to football. If there's rain in the forecast for gameday, I definitely set the DVR to record from OTA. I try to check as close to gameday as possible.


> I have had my AT9 for almost 2 years now... with snow and rain... and we have had some seriously massive rain storms this year in Chicago...
> 
> Not one of the rain fade situations have affected my recordings for any extended length of time... nor do I think I have lost my signal for more then a few minutes...
> 
> So while rain fade is an issue for some.... if your dish is properly pointed, and peeked out... rain fade should be as worrysome as a power outage.


I have rain fade WAY more frequently than power outages. It's not even close.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

911medic said:


> It varies. Sometimes it can go weeks without issue, sometimes we have a full week of rainy weather.
> Again, it varies. Light to moderate rain is usually not an issue, but once it starts raining moderately, it becomes one. And it can stay that way for 10 minutes or more.
> I don't adjust any series links (I don't have that many), but I am VERY aware of it when it comes to football. If there's rain in the forecast for gameday, I definitely set the DVR to record from OTA. I try to check as close to gameday as possible.I have rain fade WAY more frequently than power outages. It's not even close.


Hate to say it (I'm on your side I need ota for several frequently watched locals) but rain fade should not be that bad.. The only time I get any fade is one notch off a tornado warning.. I would have to say either your dish isn't aimed right or it's not mounted solid.. It should not be moving in the wind...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

911medic said:


> So, I hate to disappoint YOU, but OTA is an excellent, reliable fallback option for me (and others here).Indeed.


Glad for you, but that is not that case for many other users of OTA. There are tons of variables involved in OTA reception that have been covered in another OTA thread.

The whole point is that OTA may or may not be a reliable 2nd reception path, just like users may or not chose to use it in the first place. It's nice to have the choice, but if having it for storm backup purposes alone is the only reason, and it doesn't even work for that purpose in a number of cases, than that reason is weak.

I can certainly understand that loyal PBS viewers (of which I am not one) would desire a means to see that channel, if available in their area via OTA. That is a short term issue, as the PBS feed will be added to the D*TV MPEG-4 LIL list after the D11 sat us up and fully operational 1Q 2008.

I also understand that for those who cannot get their LIL feeds currently, OTA is another way of getting them for the time being. Again, more LIL will be fed after D11 is operational, so many of those obstacles go away in the months ahead.

What I don't agree with, even with having my own OTA access, is the *lust* for OTA if one of those 2 reasons above are not applicable. That said, I'm happy for those who have it, and the fact that they have this option available to them.

By the way - I have dozens of HD D*TV customers as personal friends, and only 2 ever had rain fade issues of any significance. Both had their dishes realigned at my suggestion and their problems went away. I'm always curious how many people with this problem actually have their dish properly aligned (or had it checked in the past 1-2 years).

Since *there is not one single piece of tangible evidence *that OTA will be discontinued, the whole "sky is falling" premise of this thread is misguided. In addition, the fact is most people don't have, don't need it, or don't want it - the majority, not everyone. D*TV has both groups of viewers covered with equipment, so there really is little to debate.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

houskamp said:


> The only time I get any fade is one notch off a tornado warning.. I would have to say either your dish isn't aimed right or it's not mounted solid.. It should not be moving in the wind...


I'm with you on that observation!


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

JBernardK said:


> Clearly, D* is a satellite TV provider. The only reason they ever offered OTA is because they had to since they were unable to provide locals in HD. Now that they can provide them for the majority, there is less reason for an OTA capability. As they get most of the country on satellite, they will phase out OTA in their equipment. Not only saves money on equipment, but also on support cost. Think about what you would do if you were CEO of a satellite company.


Perhaps a word to their customers about why they provided OTA support in the first place would help. So far I have heard nothing either way from D* about OTA. It was not mentioned when I bought the HR20. I certainly have nothing to complain about with the way you put it. Unfortunately since I do have it and it works great I certainly would want to keep it.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Hate to say it (I'm on your side I need ota for several frequently watched locals) but rain fade should not be that bad.. The only time I get any fade is one notch off a tornado warning.. I would have to say either your dish isn't aimed right or it's not mounted solid.. It should not be moving in the wind...


Hey Mr. Northern Latitude:

You didn't this from a previous post, huh?

"You don't live in the Plains...I do.

Please, don't tell me my dish isn't peaked. I have +90%, some at 100%, on all the the xponders that matter (i.e. I don't count the spot beams that are not pointed at me).

Please don't tell me about the weather. I'm a meteorologist.

You live in Chicago. (original response...for you MI) As you approach the source areas for moisture, the Gulf, the Pacific, and the Atlantic, on average, there is more moisture and the moisture is deeper through the depth of the atmosphere. As you move south from "Big Chi" thunderstorms and rain showers can have a larger total volume of water (in all three phases), and can be higher into the atmosphere, on average.

There can be a thunderstorm (50,000+ feet tall) not impacting me, but moving south of my location that will block satellite signals as it passed through my LOS to the birds. There is no safety concern nor power outage issue when this occurs.

All of my SLs are OTA whenever possible. (I don't have HD LIL locals, yet. Even if I did, I would DVR OTA, due to reliability) I've had to tell the HR20 to grab the next replay of Dexter, on SHO HD, among others, due to rain fade for up to 30 minutes. It isn't trivial, for me.

THE reason I moved the entire house from cable to D* was the ability the DVR HD OTA, period. Previously, I had D* only in the basement for Sunday Ticket. But, was so pleased with the OTA DVR functionality that I've gone to some expense to cut the cable cord.

I've said this more than a few times, if D* would just come out and announce their intentions over OTA, we can end the debate, and I can plan accordingly."


----------



## pendragn (Aug 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I've said this more than a few times, if D* would just come out and announce their intentions over OTA, we can end the debate, and I can plan accordingly."


I think that's exactly the reason they haven't said anything. They don't want you to plan accordingly. They want to keep you on their service and not thinking about changing. If they say "no more receivers will support" OTA some number of customers greater than zero will start making plans that might not include DirecTV. They're taking the safe route by being quiet.

tk


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

pendragn said:


> I think that's exactly the reason they haven't said anything. They don't want you to plan accordingly.


....or maybe....just maybe.....there is nothing to announce because nothing has changed......


----------



## mdernst (Dec 24, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ....or maybe....just maybe.....there is nothing to announce because nothing has changed......


But it has changed.

When people can no longer get an HR20 (or H20 for that matter) from their local Best Buy or specify an HR20 when ordering over the phone from DirecTV (as has been reported in another thread here) the change is that OTA support from DirecTV is no longer there.

Mike


----------



## feets (Jan 27, 2007)

i get over 30 ota channels off my antenna........... that 's why i want ota channels D* would not be able to offer all channels........


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mdernst said:


> But it has changed.
> 
> When people can no longer get an HR20 (or H20 for that matter) from their local Best Buy or specify an HR20 when ordering over the phone from DirecTV (as has been reported in another thread here) the change is that OTA support from DirecTV is no longer there.
> 
> Mike


I think this is where Tatoo yells "hey boss, da plane, da plane....." :lol:


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Hate to say it (I'm on your side I need ota for several frequently watched locals) but rain fade should not be that bad.. The only time I get any fade is one notch off a tornado warning.. I would have to say either your dish isn't aimed right or it's not mounted solid.. It should not be moving in the wind...


Well, I have a service call set up for a week from Monday (for another reason, actually), and I'll have the dish alignment checked when they're here. But honestly, even when I had my E* dish (and now with my D* dish) I had great signal strength, but still had/have rain fade issues.

As far as being solidly mounted, it is locked down pretty tight, with the 2 support rods firmly attached to both the mast and the roof. I'm not talking about jackhammer vibrating here, but you can see vibrating during gusty windstorms (which can last a full day here). With that big sail of an AT9/sidecar dish up there, I can't imagine being able to make it not move a bit during such conditions.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There is an encouraging annoucement from DIRECT that they will have an OTA solution. Discussion can be found here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106995

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Glad for you, but that is not that case for many other users of OTA. There are tons of variables involved in OTA reception that have been covered in another OTA thread.


While I appreciate your quality response here (for once not mocking or condescending), the point is that you contradict yourself, repeatedly arguing that because of your OTA reception/usage situation that "OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think."

I could just as easily respond to such a satement with another quote of yours: "Glad for you, but that is not that case for many other users of OTA." You contend that my (and others) situations don't justify OTA wants/needs, then turn around and apply your particular situation to support the opposite position.


----------



## 911medic (Aug 28, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> There is an encouraging annoucement from DIRECT that they will have an OTA solution. Discussion can be found here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106995
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


That is an encouraging, if extremely non-specific, statement. Glad to hear it.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

911medic said:


> While I appreciate your quality response here (for once not mocking or condescending), the point is that you contradict yourself, repeatedly arguing that because of your OTA reception/usage situation that "OTA is not the end-all some would like you to think."
> 
> I could just as easily respond to such a satement with another quote of yours: "Glad for you, but that is not that case for many other users of OTA." You contend that my (and others) situations don't justify OTA wants/needs, then turn around and apply your particular situation to support the opposite position.


I agree 100% This is why I starting loosing it and using unfortunate choices for words when describing my dear dear friends.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Also since I am the OP on this thread. Can I ask that it be locked? I think we are done here


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Your wish is my command.


----------

