# still no local HD, I'm steamin!



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

Kinda funny, I just moved into a new house and upgraded to HD bronze. Just last week my neighbor who lives about 200 yards from me got all his locals in HD from Directtv, but Dish can't give me mine?


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

projectorguru said:


> Kinda funny, I just moved into a new house and upgraded to HD bronze. Just last week my neighbor who lives about 200 yards from me got all his locals in HD from Directtv, but Dish can't give me mine?


Why not give Direct a try then if they are that important to you.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

you know you say that as if it's just a click of your heels to switch from Dish Network to DirecTV and back again. There are programming commitments, equipment changes, installation schedules and fees, etc. that are related to this. Every issue that compares Dish to DirecTV doesn't always resolve to "well why don't you switch". "Why don't you switch" is because of a ton of reasons for most of us. "Why doesn't Dish try to be competitive" is a perfectly valid question and it's perfectly valid complaint for someone stuck in a contract with Dish Network to want equivalent locals service.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

Mr.72 said:


> you know you say that as if it's just a click of your heels to switch from Dish Network to DirecTV and back again. There are programming commitments, equipment changes, installation schedules and fees, etc. that are related to this. Every issue that compares Dish to DirecTV doesn't always resolve to "well why don't you switch". "Why don't you switch" is because of a ton of reasons for most of us. "Why doesn't Dish try to be competitive" is a perfectly valid question and it's perfectly valid complaint for someone stuck in a contract with Dish Network to want equivalent locals service.


I didn't know Dish had contracts like Directv. Dish advertises no contract all the time. So that is what I based my original post on. Leaving Dish is easeir than DTV.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I am currently in an 18-month contract with Dish. And to switch to DirecTV would involve entering a contract. You can't just check out how it is with DirecTV for a month or two, then switch back. You can blow a few hundred dollars, put up with untold potential headaches of getting it installed, and then try it out for two years. If it doesn't work out then you can pay a few hundred dollars to break the contract and switch back. By the time you break one contract, switch to D*, then break the D* contract, and switch back to E*, you are out $1K+ in fees, setup fees, equipment charges, installation etc. and a ton of headaches to go with it.

Be much easier if E* would just turn on the flippin' channels! But alas we all entered into the contract without the channels there, so I guess they're living up to their end of the bargain. The lesson here is, don't think you are buying something they are not offering.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> "Why don't you switch" is because of a ton of reasons for most of us. "Why doesn't Dish try to be competitive" is a perfectly valid question and it's perfectly valid complaint for someone stuck in a contract with Dish Network to want equivalent locals service.


Avoiding the initial argument for a second...

Your statement here is interesting. You say "Why don't you switch" is not an easy question to answer because there are lots of things involved... but you seem to think "Why doesn't Dish try to be competitive" is easy?

First of all, who says they aren't trying to be competitive? Roughly 13 million subscribers to DirecTV's 16 million seems fairly competitive to me.

Also... there are LOTS of reasons why Dish cannot just snap its corporate fingers and add channels tomorrow: Bandwidth, contracts/permission from the channel, expense of the new MPEG4 encoders that allow more HD per transponder are but some reasons.

What I always find curious about people (not you specifically, but people as a whole)... is that people tend to think their questions are always important and easy to answer, but other people's questions are more difficult. It's part of the me-me society we live in.

Rest assured that if Dish could get a fair agreement tomorrow and light up HD locals tomorrow and they would make money/gain customers by doing so... then it would happen tomorrow. Reality is not that easy though.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I didn't say that question was _easy_, I said it was _valid_. That is, as in, to brush folks off and say "why don't you go try DirecTV then" is a total cop-out that fails to address the validity of the original question.

And BTW, certainly if DirecTV can find a way to offer the channels, so can Dish. it's just a matter of priority. Dish doesn't put a high enough priority on it to make it happen.

Dish Network is a service provider. We have every right to ask for what service we want to buy. It's shifty and disingenuous for Dish Network or any other TV service provider to imply that they are planning to roll out HD services within a timely fashion and then later just drop the ball, even if their reasons for dropping the ball make perfect sense to them. I think many customers have a reasonable expectation that there is some kind of technical limitation that prevents Dish Network from adding content that exists on dish in SD, and exists on competitor's product lineup in HD, and once Dish overcomes this technical limitation (which others have already aparently overcome), they will promptly turn on the service. Of course, we know that it's not usually a primarily technical limitation, but it's a financial _choice_. It's a calculated risk. How many customers will we lose if we don't turn this on... how many will we gain if we do turn it on... how much does it cost to turn it on... So really until people start to leave Dish in large numbers because they don't offer locals in HD, there is little motivation for Dish to do anything different other than simply the _risk_ that if they fail to anticipate the customer's will then they _may_ lose customers.

Since we're almost all in a contract with Dish, this risk is exceedingly low.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

They did more than imply providing many many more DMAs with HD locals. They stated they would have 60 markets lit by end of 2006. IMO you have a perfect right to be upset about this. Talk about misleading. What's the cause of the delay?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think some DirecTV customers are also locked into contracts. I am not aware of any cable companies (at least not Time Warner where I live) that lock you into a contract. No FIOS available here so I can't compare to that either.

I'm not saying it isn't fair to question a company for not following through on a plan either. Perfectly reasonable to do that.

I just wouldn't sign up with a company based on a plan/expectation and then be disappointed if that doesn't happen and want out because of it.

People should be signing up with Dish or DirecTV based on the services each offers right now. IF you want MLB EI, for instance, go with DirecTV because you know they will have it. Don't sign with Dish and then complain if/when they are unable to get it. If it is important to you, go with who has it now.

Same goes for locals in SD or HD... If DirecTV has those now, honestly, I would sign with them and revisit things in the future. IF neither Dish nor DirecTV have a service you want like locals or whatever... then it's fair to investigate and ask what each company's plans are in those areas... but I would NOT sign up with one based on a promise or a plan for the future because there are so many roadblocks and unknowns that you can't know now.

I'm sure everyone here is 100% on time all the time, never late, never owes anyone else money, always plans ahead AND executes those plans 100% of the time fully and exactly as written when you first made the plan, right? I'm pretty sure not... and while it's fair to question promises or plans and wonder what happened... I would never sign up for a service based on what they say they might have 6 months from now. I would only sign up based on what they have right now.

Anything else is a crapshoot really.


----------



## jarvantgroup (Mar 24, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Avoiding the initial argument for a second...
> 
> Your statement here is interesting. You say "Why don't you switch" is not an easy question to answer because there are lots of things involved... but you seem to think "Why doesn't Dish try to be competitive" is easy?
> 
> ...


And then someone will come up with another DTV offers this/Dish doesn't offer that argument. And using that same argument, why doesn't DTV offer more HD channels. Dish offers X numbers of channels, DTV doesn't. Pick which one has the services that best work for you currently and roll with it. Sheeeeez. :icon_cool


----------



## Gary Noonan (Oct 14, 2005)

Hi, please let me know if I understand the following correctly. 

Might the reason Dish does not have HD locals in most places be that satellite is inherently less able to offer such than cable. For example, I live in a small town about 100 miles from Tucson. Cable company in Tucson offers HD locals and the same cable company in my town is upgrading cable to offer the Tucson locals here in HD and to offer HD in general. The same cable company if present in a different local market could use the same channel numbers and associated bandwidth to offer local HD from that area to just the people in that area.

My point is that cable is more local in nature when it wants to be. If a cable company existed in three major cities or areas, it could easily offer local HD channels in each. HD channel 1 in area 1 would carry for exmple ABC local HD for that area while same channel in area2 could easily carry HD ABC for area 2 and so forth.

Now consider satellite. If it uses channel 1 to broadcast HD locals for area 1, the signal for the channel goes everywhere in the US doesn't it? To offer a ABC HD local in area 2 the satellite company must use a different channel than # 1. 

So a cable company would need no more HD channels dedicated to local HD than the maximum number of local HD stations in one of its various areas. In contrast satellite would need many more because each channel is sent out nationally--although of course satellite receivers are set to block all but local HD content.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Gary Noonan said:


> Hi, please let me know if I understand the following correctly.
> 
> Might the reason Dish does not have HD locals in most places be that satellite is inherently less able to offer such than cable. For example, I live in a small town about 100 miles from Tucson. Cable company in Tucson offers HD locals and the same cable company in my town is upgrading cable to offer the Tucson locals here in HD and to offer HD in general. The same cable company if present in a different local market could use the same channel numbers and associated bandwidth to offer local HD from that area to just the people in that area.
> 
> ...


No the local channels can be spotbeamed to a local region only. That is how most of the channels are done now that the not allowing just anyone to watch any of the locals have taken effect. Some are still sent in a Conus beam but most are not. As far as the locals in the guy sho started this thread is we don't even know where that is. He doesn't list where he lives. He might be one of those that doesn't even really need them over sat if he put up the right OTA to pick them up. He never states if he can get them OTA. Makes me wonder if all the big 4 nets are delivered in HD in his area.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

projectorguru said:


> Kinda funny, I just moved into a new house and upgraded to HD bronze. Just last week my neighbor who lives about 200 yards from me got all his locals in HD from Directtv, but Dish can't give me mine?


*So, to ask the big question: Where do you live?*
Then, we can give you some real help.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I don't think it matters. There's no real help. Either they are offered, or not. If they are "planned" then that is meaningless. I guess if you could find they are not planned then you could let them know, forget it you'll never have it.


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> *So, to ask the big question: Where do you live?*
> Then, we can give you some real help.


Ken, I live in Harrisburg pa area, and now that my thread has been jaked off subject, so can you give me some real help, again Direct has all the locals 200 yards from me, but dish does not, i want to know why, and even dish doesn't know, I asked them, they couldn't give me an answer, other than we are working on getting locals in the near future, which they always say


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

You can always "move" or setup an OTA rig. I prefer the OTA rig...if you can locals reach you...as they cut out the middle man.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well, yeah but if you get them OTA without them being provided by Dish, you may not get any guide data.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Receiving them OTA was what I was getting at.

I'm not sure how the E* receivers work the EPG stuff, with OTA reception. You might research the threads related to your particular receiver, here and on other forums (especially AVSForum).

And, each provider has their own way of determining which markets they will carry, and how they do it. I guess D* figured your market was higher in importance. E* put it further down their list.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

projectorguru said:


> Ken, I live in Harrisburg pa area, and now that my thread has been jaked off subject, so can you give me some real help, again Direct has all the locals 200 yards from me, but dish does not, i want to know why, and even dish doesn't know, I asked them, they couldn't give me an answer, other than we are working on getting locals in the near future, which they always say


If I had to guess it's because E* doesn't have the capacity at the current time to add a bunch of local HD channels. D* is using the two Spaceway satellites that they launched to do nothing but provide HD local channels via spotbeams, which increases the number of markets that they can service. IIRC, E*'s been using satellites for their HD local service that is CONUS which cuts down on the number of cities that they can serve due to capacity issues. Now if you're asking a E* CSR for the reason what this is that city doesn't have HD locals they don't know and the folks that do aren't going to be talking.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

projectorguru said:


> Ken, I live in Harrisburg pa area, and now that my thread has been jaked off subject, so can you give me some real help, again Direct has all the locals 200 yards from me, but dish does not, i want to know why, and even dish doesn't know, I asked them, they couldn't give me an answer, other than we are working on getting locals in the near future, which they always say


The have been awfully quiet regarding their HD local roll out plans.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> The have been awfully quiet regarding their HD local roll out plans.


That is one comment that has always perplexed me, alot of people complain if they announce plans and then don't fullfill them and complain that if they couldn't do it they shouldn't have announced, and then on the other hand i hear people complaining when they "D* or E*" don't say anything and wondering what is going on? When will X happen? Then very few comments i heard along the line that Why do they wait until the Channel, or service etc happens to launch to make an announcement. It seems to me D* and E* are d*mmed if they do and d*mmed if they don't. No matter what they say or do someone is always complaining.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

projectorguru said:


> Ken, I live in Harrisburg pa area, and now that my thread has been jaked off subject, so can you give me some real help, again Direct has all the locals 200 yards from me, but dish does not, i want to know why, and even dish doesn't know, I asked them, they couldn't give me an answer, other than we are working on getting locals in the near future, which they always say


The simple answer is E* does not offer HD locals in your area. It doesn't matter what D* does or your local cable company (if you have one). E* is not at this time offering locals in your area. Their decision process is not controlled by D*.

There is capacity available ... there are also other concern. If it makes you feel better just believe that E* is refusing to carry your locals (HD or SD) because they hate you. If you want the truth, it isn't personal --- just business.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> They stated they would have 60 markets lit by end of 2006.


And DirecTV promised 67... what's your point? If you go back far enough, you can find that DirecTV promised to have four or five Ka satellites in the air by now serving up "up to" 1500 HD LILs and 150 nationals.

The party line when these people signed up was 50% of the households. This was the number given at the 2006 CES and later.


> IMO you have a perfect right to be upset about this.


I disagree. If they had been promised locals, they would have a right to be upset.


> Talk about misleading.


Dish Network has probably met their EOY 2006 goal. Can you say the same for DirecTV?


> What's the cause of the delay?


That's a good question. Perhaps they're waiting for the satellite that went up yesterday.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

projectorguru said:


> ...they couldn't give me an answer, other than we are working on getting locals in the near future, which they always say


Would you prefer that they told you "June"?

There might be numerous reasons why they aren't offering you HD LIL:

No (or not enough) carriage agreements
Unable to get the kind of signal they want
Currently in testing and almost ready to uplink
Suffice it to say that they don't have an answer. This is, in my mind, is a whole lot better than promising you the entire spread at some time in the near future and not delivering on the whole package.

I'm jaded about the DirecTV versus Dish Network HD LIL issue because DirecTV only offers the "lesser two" of my big four locals.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> And DirecTV promised 67... what's your point? If you go back far enough, you can find that DirecTV promised to have four or five Ka satellites in the air by now serving up "up to" 1500 HD LILs and 150 nationals.
> 
> The party line when these people signed up was 50% of the households. This was the number given at the 2006 CES and later.I disagree. If they had been promised locals, they would have a right to be upset.
> Dish Network has probably met their EOY 2006 goal. Can you say the same for DirecTV?That's a good question. Perhaps they're waiting for the satellite that went up yesterday.


Seems your idea of DISH doing ok is that since another compnay did something than DISH can do it also. Poor attempt at deflecting valid criticism IMO. Neither reached their goal as I see it. And your point is?


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

cb7214 said:


> That is one comment that has always perplexed me, alot of people complain if they announce plans and then don't fullfill them and complain that if they couldn't do it they shouldn't have announced, and then on the other hand i hear people complaining when they "D* or E*" don't say anything and wondering what is going on? When will X happen? Then very few comments i heard along the line that Why do they wait until the Channel, or service etc happens to launch to make an announcement.


You know the alternatives are not limited to either a) make announcements promising services people demand, and then fail to deliver or b) never make announcements about services people demand, and then surprise customers when you deliver.

They could work to anticipate what the market is asking for, make a plan to roll out a service or product offering on a particular timeline, and make an announcement in advance for something that they can indeed deliver. Then deliver the product or service on time. There are hundreds of companies that execute this successful marketing plan to perfection day in and day out.

The problem is, customers (at least the vocal ones on this forum) have a certain list of services and products (in this case, channels etc.) that they demand, and that they expect should be widely available because other competitors offer it. These are not mysterious demands. So these customers would like to give E* the benefit of the doubt, but they are having a tough time doing it because #1 often times E* seems oblivious to the demands of their customers, and #2 when they make promises or announcements, often times they do not make good on it. So they have essentially trained their customer base to be skeptical.

So presuming E* is going to fail to deliver the services that their customers demand, then yes, you are right. It's a no-win for them. Either they are going to announce plans to deliver that which they will fail to deliver, or they will not announce plans for it and also fail to deliver. Either of which is a totally unsatisfactory alternative from the customer's perspective.

I think what the people here want is, specifically, a clear answer from E*:

1. Are you aware of the customer demand for X
2. What are your plans for addressing customer demand for X

Not, "someday", "soon", "planned" or whatever, but answers like, yes we know customers in Austin demand their locals in HD, and we do not plan to offer that service at the present time. Or maybe, no we didn't know that customers in Austin demand locals in HD, so we will now develop a plan to address that need. Or maybe something like, yes we know of the demand for locals in HD in Austin, and we will be turning on that service on August 1 2007 and so forth.

It's weasely to just ignore the customer and provide no information. It's a cop out. Like, as long as we don't commit to deliver the product, we're off the hook. Well unfortunately, it's not a commitment to deliver that the customer wants. It's actual DELIVERY and so far, in many ways, you're blowing it.

IMHO.

I work for a company where we announce what we intend to release in terms of products and features and then we work like mad to make sure we deliver it. We are accountable to our customers, and transparent with our customers. We know what they want, and we have an aggressive plan to provide it. When we know about bugs, we make those bug reports available to the customer. This is why it is the most successful company in our industry.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> You know the alternatives are not limited to either a) make announcements promising services people demand, and then fail to deliver or b) never make announcements about services people demand, and then surprise customers when you deliver.
> 
> They could work to anticipate what the market is asking for, make a plan to roll out a service or product offering on a particular timeline, and make an announcement in advance for something that they can indeed deliver. Then deliver the product or service on time. There are hundreds of companies that execute this successful marketing plan to perfection day in and day out.
> 
> ...


This is true however there are many variables that can affect your plans to do what you announce or intend to do that will affect the outcome. This past year is a great example with the explosion of the sea launch vehicle. That has all sea launch bound payloads thrown for a loop, including 1 of D*'s satellites they are banking on to fullfill their HD content goal and promises. Another thing which seems to be a large stumbling block for E* and D* getting local HD channels launched is the demands being made by the owners of the individual stations some of which are holding up the launch of certain markets. So lets say for instance a market was scheduled to be launched at the end of 2006 which some were but were not, if D* or E* had an agreement in place with 1 or 2 of the providers do you think the customers would have been happy with just 1 or 2 of the possible 4 coming, i bet they would be happy that they got something but i have read plenty of rumblings in various forums from customers complaining "why can't they just get the ABC or NBC etc to go with the others. The bottom line is in the perfect world your senario would exist with all businesses, i highly doubt D* or E* are happy that they didn't meet their goals for expansion or the possible ramifications of the sea launch explosion but sometimes things happen or get in the way business stated goals.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

It's not smart business to bank on things you cannot control.

To be clear with customers would alleviate a lot of these issues. Certainly failing to launch a satellite due to a failure of the launch vehicle is easy to explain but it's just a delay in plans, not a change in plans so to speak.

So yeah there are gradients. In this case, _we don't know!!!_ And that's the point.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> It's not smart business to bank on things you cannot control.
> 
> To be clear with customers would alleviate a lot of these issues. Certainly failing to launch a satellite due to a failure of the launch vehicle is easy to explain but it's just a delay in plans, not a change in plans so to speak.
> 
> So yeah there are gradients. In this case, _we don't know!!!_ And that's the point.


What can they bank on that they couldn't control in reguards to this?


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

what they can control is what they communicate to the customer. They are in absolute control of whether the customer has unrealistic expectations.

So when they say they are planning to turn on X number of local channels by a certain date, and then that date comes and goes and X number have not been turned on, that's a problem. That's not a problem of not launching a satellite. That's a problem of them promising something so that customers would sign up, and then not delivering it. This is a variant of the "bait and switch".

So, since they do not KNOW they will be turning on channels by X date, DEPENDING on whether or not satellites get launched and that sort of thing, then they should not announce anything. However, the toothpaste is already out of the tube!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is also a problem (that they can't control) when people take an off hand statement as a promise ... forgetting all the IFs stated at the same time and refusing to read that little "forward looking statement" disclaimer if it is in print.

E* said they will be the leader in HD ... are they? Seems like they are at the moment. Will that change? Possibly, but all we have are promises to compare. This year E* has few "promises" to keep or break. And people are yelling that they have not made promises. Well, some people are complaining.

We have to remember that we represent a vast minority of E* and D* customers. The other 99.99% are simply enjoying TV or finding something else.

It's only TV ... watch and enjoy!


----------



## rustamust (Feb 22, 2006)

When I signed up for dish I signed for what they had at the time not promised in the future. When they add features its another perk. Since 2000 its gone up and I'm still happy with the service. Am I disappointed in not having my locals in HD..No as OTA is great on my 622 with Ant on roof. When and if they come to my DMA it will be great because I can record 2 locals in HD at the same time. Just my 0.2 cents.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> It's only TV ... watch and enjoy!


James are you sure it is only TV and not life or death????


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> what they can control is what they communicate to the customer. They are in absolute control of whether the customer has unrealistic expectations.
> 
> So when they say they are planning to turn on X number of local channels by a certain date, and then that date comes and goes and X number have not been turned on, that's a problem. That's not a problem of not launching a satellite. That's a problem of them promising something so that customers would sign up, and then not delivering it. This is a variant of the "bait and switch".
> 
> So, since they do not KNOW they will be turning on channels by X date, DEPENDING on whether or not satellites get launched and that sort of thing, then they should not announce anything. However, the toothpaste is already out of the tube!


I guess im confused as to what you expect E* and D* to do then. Sit around and not make any announcements that of what to expect or what might be coming up? Howw would you think they should have handled it??


----------



## ScottsFJ40 (Feb 27, 2007)

I signed up for Dish a few months ago. The main reason was that the cable company in Tucson only offered 2 locals in HD. Their DVR would not allow me to hook up an OTA antenna, and I watch 99% of everything on TV off of the DVR. 

When I signed up, I was hopefull that the Tucson locals would be added to the feed soon, but after I had the 622 up and running with my roof mounted OTA antenna, I could not be happier. I can record 3 channels at once, and the 622 works perfectly with the OTA feeds. It is certainly worth the $5 a month for the locals to have the program guide data.

At this point, I would rather see Dish get more national HD channels as they come online, and also Fox Sports AZ.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> They did more than imply providing many many more DMAs with HD locals. They stated they would have 60 markets lit by end of 2006. IMO you have a perfect right to be upset about this. Talk about misleading. What's the cause of the delay?


Oh, nothing important - only Satellites, Transponders and Bandwidth


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> E* said they will be the leader in HD ... are they? Seems like they are at the moment. Will that change? Possibly, but all we have are promises to compare. This year E* has few "promises" to keep or break. And people are yelling that they have not made promises. Well, some people are complaining.


Seems thats the biggest promise of all to keep or break - not to be shuffled off as a few promises.

They have already deserted the position the could win on - PQ - so now its all over except the fat lady singing.


----------



## TechniKal (Nov 4, 2003)

I don't understand why Dish even bothers with retransmission of locals. Seems to me that it would be a much more efficient and productive effort to develop the best OTA/QAM/whatever tuners they possibly could, maybe get creative and add features like automatic antenna rotation based on channels being watched/recorded for locations without a centralized antenna farm, train their installers on antenna selection and installation and include that as part of the standard install. For folks who can't get a signal OTA, then Dish have proof that they were in a white-area and could provide access to a national network feed in HD. Then, they could use all of the satellite capacity for national HD feeds.

Everyone would end up with locals where they were available, a national feed where they weren't, better PQ, access to all locals in HD (not just the ones Dish can get a retransmit agreement with), less dishes on their roof, more capacity for national HD channels and it would probably be cheaper and more technically sound. Dish wouldn't get sued for providing out-of-market feeds and we wouldn't have any more posts on 'moving' or 'when are my locals going to be in HD'.

It just seems silly to take something that's transmitted locally, send it 1/2 way across the country, degrade the signal, send it up into space, and bounce it back down back into the same area you started in.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Technikal, I'm with you man. That is the simplest solution and clearly the best, and I pointed it out in another thread some time ago but the response from the old-timers was something like, the perception from Dish is that customers would not warm up to the idea of putting up an antenna.

Furthermore, given the known quantity of what local OTA stations are being transmit in each local area, and at what frequency, Dish could (through local installers) provide localized antenna solutions that would greatly reduce the "eyesore" feature of a typical UHF/VHF "big" roof antenna. They're already mounting something on the roof, and pulling wire into the home. You just have to stick a diplexer and a $30 antenna up on the mast with the dish and be done with it for like 90% of all installations. If you're slick about the way the antenna is designed, customer may never even know there's an OTA antenna there to begin with. As far as they would be concerned, the local channels would just "be there" as if they were provided by dish.

Of course there are a lot of business planning things that I think Dish could do differently and save money, improve the customer experience, make more profit and expand their customer base.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IF the dish hd dvrs could have an antenna port that would split it into two antenna ports for recording up to 2 ota stations at the same time like Directv does, it would be nice. Then the tribune media services could provide the guide data for all the ota channels that Dish loads into the sat system. I would like it if the dvr could record up to 4 things at a time 2 ota & 2 sat channels while I am wishing. But then they wouldn't need to include the ota stations up on the satellite in the first place. They should of done this from the start of the company and they could of saved a lot of bandwith. Voom had the right idea including the ota antenna with the installation of their receivers . They didn't need duplicate hd stations. IF Dish had done this from the start they could of still been able to do distant networks and possibly hd distant networks for all who couldn't receive ota stations due to line of sight etc. INstead they sold distants to anyone and locals too, causing the lawsuit that now limits them from doing ANY distants at all. It is still not to late to include the other ota antenna port in the newer models. NOw if we could just get sub guide channel information we could have it all.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TechniKal said:


> ... train their installers on antenna selection and installation and include that as part of the standard install.


Seems like some other company tried that approach ... what was that service, Voom? What ever happened to the Voom HD satellite service? 



TechniKal said:


> It just seems silly to take something that's transmitted locally, send it 1/2 way across the country, degrade the signal, send it up into space, and bounce it back down back into the same area you started in.


Once they perfect the process it will be better. Perhaps that is the best reason (if not the real reason) why E* is not adding new markets as fast as predicted last year. The technology available was not meeting their standards (live encoders) and now better encoders are available they have to look at the cost/benefit of buying them.

It is all math ... math with dollar signs.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

TechniKal said:


> Seems to me that it would be a much more efficient and productive effort to develop the best OTA/QAM/whatever tuners they possibly could, maybe get creative and add features like automatic antenna rotation based on channels being watched/recorded for locations without a centralized antenna farm,


The problem would be only being able to record one local at a time, whereas current I can record 3 if I want to because I can use the 2 satellite tuners.

Sure, Dish could make a 5 tuner box (extra money), and add in your antenna rotator... but then if the signals are from 2 different directions then you'd still be unable to record one or the other directions unless you had dual-antennas also that could be controlled independantly.

And even if you had all that, at some people people are going to rebel against having so much metal hanging off of their roof and looking like NASA control. 

While having satellite based locals isn't elegant in one sense, it's more elegant in others.


----------



## TechniKal (Nov 4, 2003)

Mr.72 said:


> ... the response from the old-timers was something like, the perception from Dish is that customers would not warm up to the idea of putting up an antenna.


I could see not wanting a giant metal monstrocity on the roof, but I can't see a customer complaining about a small antenna when they're already mounting a bigger antenna to pick up the sat signals to begin with. And like you mentioned, if they engineered it smartly, I doubt most customers would even know it was there.

The idea of a consolidated antenna for a community is interesting, too. They could rent space on cell phone towers, then find some way to deliver the signal to users. Probably have some interesting retranmissions issues there with most practical (read - non-direct wired) deliverey methods...


----------



## TechniKal (Nov 4, 2003)

James Long said:


> Seems like some other company tried that approach ... what was that service, Voom? What ever happened to the Voom HD satellite service?


I'd argue that Dish is more successful than VOOM because of the content Dish offers, not the delivery mechanism. I think most customer couldn't care less how they get their TV shows delivered - they just want them delivered in a simple, reliable and cost effective manner. With the current 622 OTA implementation, the integration is pretty much seemless. I think they'd be better served improving on that than trying to broadcast 1500+ hd locals back into local markets via sat.


----------



## TechniKal (Nov 4, 2003)

koralis said:


> The problem would be only being able to record one local at a time, whereas current I can record 3 if I want to because I can use the 2 satellite tuners.
> 
> Sure, Dish could make a 5 tuner box (extra money), and add in your antenna rotator... but then if the signals are from 2 different directions then you'd still be unable to record one or the other directions unless you had dual-antennas also that could be controlled independantly.
> 
> And even if you had all that, at some people people are going to rebel against having so much metal hanging off of their roof and looking like NASA control.


This is where Dish needs to get creative. Have 2 (or more) OTA tuners in the box. Join two antenna, or create a true bi-directional one, so that the two tuners could be fed independently and the antennas adjusted seperately.

I agree on giant antenna, but aren't there stipulations on the size of the antenna that's used to determine 'white out' areas? If so, are those the giant antennas, or more reasonably sized? Assuming they're reasonably sized (and assuming Dish could actually sell out-of-market signals to white-area customers - which they can't), then there would be a reasonable limit on the size of the antenna(s) that would be put up.

I'd imagine that a reasonably sized, properly tuned outdoor antenna would provide good local reception for the majority of Dish customers. I imagine the cost of providing an improved tuner and antenna would be substantially less than the cost of launching new sats and installing new dishes.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

TechniKal said:


> a reasonably sized, properly tuned outdoor antenna would provide good local reception for the majority of Dish customers. I imagine the cost of providing an improved tuner and antenna would be substantially less than the cost of launching new sats and installing new dishes.


I think you're right on the money here.

And like I say, within 30 miles of the towers in Austin, all you need is a bowtie mounted to the dish mast to get everything. This is a $4 antenna!! No tuning necessary! You could get a diplexer and an aluminum bowtie zip-tied to the mast of the dish and you'd be in business.

In other markets they might require two antennas or directional antennas, maybe UHF/VHF combo but it would not be any more complicated than the current plan.


----------



## msalvail (Sep 19, 2003)

James Long said:


> E* said they will be the leader in HD ... are they? Seems like they are at the moment. Will that change? Possibly, but all we have are promises to compare. This year E* has few "promises" to keep or break. And people are yelling that they have not made promises. Well, some people are complaining.


Do you know if E* only has the 25 local markets in HD that are listed in http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=54667 ? That thread hasn't been updated in a year and is marked closed but is still posted at the top of the page...I don't know why.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We're waiting for new markets ... Still the best info we have, IIRC.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> We're waiting for new markets ... Still the best info we have, IIRC.


Someone has forgotten about the EKB.

Arguably the definitive resource, the EKB list is here:http://ekb.dbstalk.com/hdlocal.htm

Note that there are 31 cities listed, but Indy was aborted and Oklahoma City hasn't been released yet. Added to Richard's list are:
Charlotte
Pittsburgh
Raleigh (ABC, NBC)


----------



## msalvail (Sep 19, 2003)

harsh said:


> Note that there are 31 cities listed, but Indy was aborted and Oklahoma City hasn't been released yet. Added to Richard's list are:
> Charlotte
> Pittsburgh
> Raleigh (ABC, NBC)


So E* has 28 local areas in HD and D* has over 50? Do we know why E* has backed off of the local market procurement and uplinking? Anything factual and not just guessing?

If you live in an area that gets your OTA locals in HD clearly, of course it isn't a problem and I am sure those people would definitely want E* to concentrate on National HD channels. But there are many who don't pick up their OTA signals very clearly, even with an external antenna.

We are picking up our hd locals with an OTA omni directional indoor antenna but it still drops the signal from time to time. This is the 3rd antenna we have tried and clearly the best of the bunch. We pick up our locals anywhere from 80% to 99% strength but you can be watching, for instance, ABC at 85% and then it drops the signal for about 15 seconds then comes back in. As a result, we don't watch much local HD because it is SOOO frustrating.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msalvail said:


> So E* has 28 local areas in HD and D* has over 50? Do we know why E* has backed off of the local market procurement and uplinking? Anything factual and not just guessing?


Of course we don't. We can only speculate.


> But there are many who don't pick up their OTA signals very clearly, even with an external antenna.


The difficult part about this theory is that it is some of the smaller markets that have a larger percentage of people unable to receive OTA. I've found from my local acquaintances with DirecTV that they don't seem to miss ABC and CBS in HD, so I guess you get used to it, or you don't miss what you never had.


> We pick up our locals anywhere from 80% to 99% strength but you can be watching, for instance, ABC at 85% and then it drops the signal for about 15 seconds then comes back in.


I'm baffled by this phenomenon. I've never lost OTA signal and I live 42.5alm from the towers. I'm lucky that my roof-top antenna gets all but one LP UHF station without having to use the rotor. The rotor gives me some local sports options from the market 66 miles the other way. Does your antenna setup use an amplifier? Are you unable to use a more directional antenna, or do you live around Monroe?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

harsh said:


> Of course we don't. We can only speculate.


BS. We know exactly why. Bandwidth - or should we say, lack of it.

If E* wants to put 6 MPEG4 channels on a transponder as they have started experimenting with lately, they could put 4 more markets on 129W, 2 more on 61.5 and 3 more on 118, but thats about it.

At that point all they can do is take all the HD MPEG Channels and take them MPEG4 and squash 6 per transponder to get 3 more per transponder there - but clearly the space crunch has come.

Furthermore, all on has to do is read the E* 10-K filed with the SEC within the last 60 days and do a little math to realize that 129W is scheduled to die before a replacement is in place - so its going to get really interesting next year. On top of that, there have been more problems on 119W, 121W and 148W in the last few months than we have read anywhere - with disasterous results. All it takes is 1 more receiver going out on 119W and the bird looses 20% of its spotbeams - 1 more momentum wheel goes out on 121W and it turns into a clone of the doomed 129W.148 - Echostar 1 - Loss of two solar array strings in Q2 2006. 104 originally on satellite - 98 need for full operation. 2 more go down and trouble - Echostar 2 - Feb 2007 - North Solar array quit rotating - backup system is operating it now - but if backup fails.....

It's a ragged fleet and they are flirting on the edge...

But then again, they've never been very good with math - because in Charlie's own words from January 2006, they debutted 5 markets and he stated they would roll out 5 more per month through 2006. 5x12 = 60 markets by the end of 2006 - Sorry, Charlie - that never had a prayer of happening.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> BS. We know exactly why. Bandwidth - or should we say, lack of it.


That is speculation. 

BTW: E* has plenty of bandwidth. They just need to put it to use.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

msalvail said:


> ...
> We are picking up our hd locals with an OTA omni directional indoor antenna but it still drops the signal from time to time. This is the 3rd antenna we have tried and clearly the best of the bunch. We pick up our locals anywhere from 80% to 99% strength but you can be watching, for instance, ABC at 85% and then it drops the signal for about 15 seconds then comes back in. As a result, we don't watch much local HD because it is SOOO frustrating.


I'm having the same problem with my local PBS signal. It hasn't always been that way. I believe that it started with the most recent firmware upload from E*, so I'm hopeful that it's fixable with another shot of firmware.

I started a poll about this anomaly at this thread. Hopefully, E* is looking at the support forums.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> That is speculation.
> 
> BTW: E* has plenty of bandwidth. They just need to put it to use.


I have no idea if you or Fanatic are correct regarding available bandwidth - but if you are James, than what is their excuse for not implementing what they said they would? At least not having bandwidth is a legitimate reason.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

ScoBuck said:


> I have no idea if you or Fanatic are correct regarding available bandwidth - but if you are James, than what is their excuse for not implementing what they said they would? At least not having bandwidth is a legitimate reason.


Maybe they heard about all the national HD networks that D* had lined up, and decided to save some bandwidth to put those up instead.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Mikey said:


> Maybe they heard about all the national HD networks that D* had lined up, and decided to save some bandwidth to put those up instead.


I bet you hope they do. But most likely not I'm sure.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

ScoBuck said:


> I bet you hope they do. But most likely not I'm sure.


And I bet you hope they don't. But it's all just speculation on everyone's part.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Mikey said:


> And I bet you hope they don't. But it's all just speculation on everyone's part.


No actually I hope they do, - because its way too obvious that you percieve my *preference* for the DirecTV offering as more than just that. When another provider comes up with an offering that I think is better I will switch ASAP.

Perhaps you speak for yourself? I asked a fair question, you have taken it off-topic again, why is that?


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

ScoBuck said:


> No actually I hope they do, - because its way too obvious that you percieve my *preference* for the DirecTV offering as more than just that. When another provider comes up with an offering that I think is better I will switch ASAP.
> 
> Perhaps you speak for yourself? I asked a fair question, you have taken it off-topic again, why is that?


No, I've given you a fair answer, just my speculation, which you chose to turn into a slam against me and E*. But that's okay, I've learned to expect that from you.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Mikey said:


> No, I've given you a fair answer, just my speculation, which you chose to turn into a slam against me and E*. But that's okay, I've learned to expect that from you.


No - you answer was a 100% sarcastic answer. Asking a question as to why something didn't happen is not a 'slam' - but since a DirecTv sub asked it your reply is a DirecTv reply - oh please.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> At least not having bandwidth is a legitimate reason.


It would appear that neither company has a simple answer for why they haven't added more local markets. E* has quite a bit of spotbeam space at 110W which can be used for both SD and HD locals. E's space should be increased within weeks by the addition of Anik F3. D* should have space for nearly 100 HD LIL markets at 99W and 103W that were designed to provide 500 HD LIL channels between them.

I'm speculating that it has a lot to do with reaching carriage agreements on E*'s part and maybe end-user equipment availability on the D* side. E* has decided hardware advantages of having had the machines out for a while longer and sharing platforms with BEV.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> It would appear that neither company has a simple answer for why they haven't added more local markets. E* has quite a bit of spotbeam space at 110W which can be used for both SD and HD locals. E's space should be increased within weeks by the addition of Anik F3. D* should have space for nearly 100 HD LIL markets at 99W and 103W that were designed to provide 500 HD LIL channels between them.
> 
> I'm speculating that it has a lot to do with reaching carriage agreements on E*'s part and maybe end-user equipment availability on the D* side. E* has decided hardware advantages of having had the machines out for a while longer and sharing platforms with BEV.


Thanks for some intelligent response.

BTW whats a BEV?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> BTW whats a BEV?


Bell Express Vu. Like Sky Angel, they use Echostar hardware.

What happened to the acronym sticky?


----------



## RealityCheck (Apr 3, 2007)

A quick but needed rant:

Mikey, it's pretty clear you don't like that other poster, but he has the absolute right to post in this or any thread he wants. His question actually was fair, and it is something that many people would like an answer to. Thanks to harsh for ignoring your sarcasm and actually trying to further the knowledge and discussion.

We know you post in the other companies forums:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=896301&postcount=6
was this post a slam at DirecTV, seems to be the same type as what was asked here.

or this:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=889585&postcount=23
no slam intended I take it.

I could go on and on, but I'm not sure why you of all people would start a feud about people posting anything in any providers forums. You've certainly done more than your fair share of it.

Everyone has the right to post, and maybe a good answer from you for a change would be in order. Seems you are 100% guilty of what you are accusing others of doing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Enough.
People need to know the difference between plans and promises.

Obviously this has become yet another bash thread.
One too many ... except that we are a few past one.

We're done here (again).


----------

