# Channel 240 or 250?



## terfmop (Sep 28, 2004)

Does anyone have either of these two listed in their channel guide? I am a subscriber to the NY DNS ABC affiliate but neither of these channels are listed in my program guide( I have an 811 receiver)


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

Not turned on yet. Suposed to be on sometime on Sunday, NY will see it on 240.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

terfmop said:


> Does anyone have either of these two listed in their channel guide? I am a subscriber to the NY DNS ABC affiliate but neither of these channels are listed in my program guide( I have an 811 receiver)


Regardless of whether you have the NY DNS ABC affiliate, if you don't live in one of the 10 ABC owned-and-operated markets (or the Pittsburgh DMA - they seem to have struck a special deal), you will not see channel 240. For whatever reason, and I have no idea why this is, E* has decided not to make the feed available to DNS subscribers. We've talked about the legal issues under SHREVA (and beat that horse to death) and it appears that it would be perfectly legal to do so (as well as offer HD DNS, but that's a topic for another thread), but it's just not going to happen. I'm one of the many with an ABC waiver, and I see the NYC ABC SD channel, but yet I still have zero options for watching the Super Bowl in HD - I too will not get channel 240 on Sunday. This is a pain shared by many.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> I too will not get channel 240 on Sunday. This is a pain shared by many.


tell me about it. Harrisburg and Johnstown should have made a deal like Pittsburgh. It's not like we're lacking for Steelers fans.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ultimately the real complain should be with the local station in your areas and not Dish. I'm sure Dish would love to put it up in the clear for all of us, since it is no more expensive for them to do that than just for a handful of markets... perhaps it would even be easier for them to manage in the system if it could be enabled for all.

But the locals need to protect their own interests and preserve their local ad revenue... Imagine, if you will, that you were a small business owner and you ponied up for an ad during the Superbowl, but then you found out it didn't air? Or that the local station sold you the airtime, but also agreed to let folks watch via satellite and they would not see your ad that you'd paid based on estimated local viewership. I suspect you'd be mad at that waste of money.

That's the line the local stations have to walk... Pissing off their local viewers who watch the channel vs pissing off the local advertisers who are paying a lot of the costs of operation.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

terfmop said:


> Does anyone have either of these two listed in their channel guide? I am a subscriber to the NY DNS ABC affiliate but neither of these channels are listed in my program guide( I have an 811 receiver)


Saturday and still not up. For those not planning to be home this weekend, it would have been nice if they had it in the guide before now so timers could have been set up.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Or that the local station sold you the airtime, but also agreed to let folks watch via satellite and they would not see your ad that you'd paid based on estimated local viewership. I suspect you'd be mad at that waste of money.


That's the issue - my local station has already agreed to allow folks (at least me, but I suspect many others as well) to watch via satellite in the form of a waiver. Even without the HD feed, I'm choosing the NYC affiliate over my LiL Wilkes Barre affiliate as the PQ for the distant is superior.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would check in the morning. If you're in one of the 11 markets and have HD you will get 240 or 250 by game time. If you're not in one of the 11 markets I'd say still check, but don't expect to find them.


----------



## technoguy (Sep 11, 2005)

James Long said:


> I would check in the morning. If you're in one of the 11 markets and have HD you will get 240 or 250 by game time. If you're not in one of the 11 markets I'd say still check, but don't expect to find them.


Well JL I'am getting my HD feed from one of those markets(NY) and just hang up with the tech support and told me I won't be able to get the HD feed.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> I would check in the morning. If you're in one of the 11 markets and have HD you will get 240 or 250 by game time. If you're not in one of the 11 markets I'd say still check, but don't expect to find them.


I notice 240 on this morning about 1 am. And it is already live carrying the NY broadcast (I am in NY dma).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

technoguy said:


> Well JL I'am getting my HD feed from one of those markets(NY) and just hang up with the tech support and told me I won't be able to get the HD feed.


The qualification isn't that you receive a distant feed from one of those markets - the qualification is that you live in one of the 11 markets.


----------



## terfmop (Sep 28, 2004)

Today, it looks as though my OTA reception will be ok for the Superbowl(it tends to vary). However, for those that qualify for the distants, why would E* be reluctant to let those viewers have access to the HD feed? Seems they could make alot of people happy if they simply let those who qualify to watch it in HD. I assume E*'s hand are tied by some legal reason.(?)


----------



## GeeWhiz1 (Dec 6, 2005)

Just to update, 250 had been on this morning when I turned on my TV. I did check and they are sending the broadcast. I just didn't want to watch LA news that early in the morning. :lol: 

So it looks good to go for the SF Bay Area.


----------



## STXJim (Apr 22, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Ultimately the real complain should be with the local station in your areas and not Dish. I'm sure Dish would love to put it up in the clear for all of us, since it is no more expensive for them to do that than just for a handful of markets... perhaps it would even be easier for them to manage in the system if it could be enabled for all.
> 
> But the locals need to protect their own interests and preserve their local ad revenue... Imagine, if you will, that you were a small business owner and you ponied up for an ad during the Superbowl, but then you found out it didn't air? Or that the local station sold you the airtime, but also agreed to let folks watch via satellite and they would not see your ad that you'd paid based on estimated local viewership. I suspect you'd be mad at that waste of money.
> 
> That's the line the local stations have to walk... Pissing off their local viewers who watch the channel vs pissing off the local advertisers who are paying a lot of the costs of operation.


I saw in the other thread that you were enabled to receive the Superbowl in HD in Raleigh.
I bet you wouldn't be singing that song if E* kept you from viewing the Superbowl in HD like myself who has been a distant viewer for years.:nono2:


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

STXJim said:


> I bet you wouldn't be singing that song if E* kept you from viewing the Superbowl in HD like myself who has been a distant viewer for years.:nono2:


I've seen you post your diatribe of Dish in other threads. Too bad you have no clue about what you're talking about. Dish isn't preventing you from getting the Superbowl. Dish would like nothing better than to let you have the Superbowl. But only viewers in ABC O&O areas can receive Dish's HD broadcast on 240 or 250. Blame ABC or anyone else you want to, but it's not Dish's fault. They are simply following the rules.

Now, apologize to Dish for your own ignorance of the rules.


----------



## terfmop (Sep 28, 2004)

Not trying to be inflammatory, but how does DirecTV broadcast the networks in HD to it's DNS subs?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe they use satellites way up in the sky in orbital slot 110°.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

STXJim said:


> I saw in the other thread that you were enabled to receive the Superbowl in HD in Raleigh.
> I bet you wouldn't be singing that song if E* kept you from viewing the Superbowl in HD like myself who has been a distant viewer for years.:nono2:


Ummm... Dish isn't the bad guy here. The local stations are the ones who aren't granting permission for you to receive the HD feed from Dish. So my original statement holds.

And for the record... I get my local OTA in HD just fine so I'm not even watching the Dish satellite feed except I was using it to compare how Dish quality was vs my free OTA.

Also for the record, IF my local station wasn't owned by ABC and IF I couldn't get it OTA in HD.... my complaint would be directed at my local affiliate and not Dish, since the local affiliate would be the roadblock.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

James Long said:


> I believe they use satellites way up in the sky in orbital slot 110°.


You're usually better than that, James.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Ummm... Dish isn't the bad guy here. The local stations are the ones who aren't granting permission for you to receive the HD feed from Dish. So my original statement holds.


I'm not sure that I agree with that. According to the FCC's "SHREVA Consumer Facts" page, found here:

Under *Digital Distant Signals*, we see the following line:
_Subscribers who are "unserved" with respect to analog service are eligible for distant digital signals. _

"Unserved" with respect to analog service is defined above under *Distant Signals->Unserved Households*. One of the definitions of an unserved household is:
_is subject to a waiver granted by the television network station._

While DBS providers are not required to provide HD DNS to those with waivers, there is nothing in SHREVA that stops them from doing so. If ABC proper is stating that they're not allowed to do so, I suppose I could understand that, but the actual local affiliates shouldn't have a say either way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> While DBS providers are not required to provide HD DNS to those with waivers, there is nothing in SHREVA that stops them from doing so. If ABC proper is stating that they're not allowed to do so, I suppose I could understand that, but the actual local affiliates shouldn't have a say either way.


The local stations should have the same amount of say with regards to their digital and/or HD transmissions as they do with their analog transmissions.

The way I understood it... the current waiver that most people get approval allows Dish/DirecTV to give a distant network to someone who gets a waiver with regards to their local analog transmission. I suspect it would require an additional and entirely different waiver approval from the local station to get that approval extended to cover a distant HD signal.

In many markets there are folks who can get the digital signals locally but cannot get the analog. In my area, for instance... with an indoor antenna I can easily get all my locals digital transmissions and most are in HD... but to get all the same analog stations I would have to put up an outside antenna as those signals are harder to get for me. Hence a waiver they might grant me to get a distant for the analog they would not grant me for their digital because I can get the latter but not the former.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

HDMe said:


> The way I understood it... the current waiver that most people get approval allows Dish/DirecTV to give a distant network to someone who gets a waiver with regards to their local analog transmission. I suspect it would require an additional and entirely different waiver approval from the local station to get that approval extended to cover a distant HD signal.


Read the factsheet. This is not how the FCC is interpreting this. Basically the FCC is saying that an analog waiver is good for digital as well, no other waiver necessary.


----------



## SteveinDanville (Jun 26, 2002)

GeeWhiz1 said:


> Just to update, 250 had been on this morning when I turned on my TV. I did check and they are sending the broadcast. I just didn't want to watch LA news that early in the morning. :lol:
> 
> So it looks good to go for the SF Bay Area.


Same info here: turned on Ch. 250 at gametime and there it was, in beautiful HD! I'm in the Bay Area and have DNS, so I shouldn't have gotten the channel, but I most emphatically did.


----------

