# So, is Fox News in HD now or what?



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

I was just wondering since they supposedly launched two months ago on Time Warner. I posted there but there was no response. And nobody on Fox News ever mentions that they're in HD now. So, are they offering and HD feed now? Nobody seems to know!:eek2:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Yes, it is offered in HD but not on DirecTV yet. It's either a carriage agreement issue or bandwidth. We'll know better once the new satellite (D11) is lit up later this summer.


----------



## Toyo (Nov 19, 2007)

Last time I brought this up I was flamed since it's been talked about so much. Sometimes you just don't have the time to sift thru all the search pages. 

To answer your question though..... Fox Business Channel is in HD, however the regular Foxnews Channels is not. Why? Thats a wonderful question. The #1 primetime news channel is behined times in my opinion.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

A reminder, this is not the place to discuss the political leanings of Fox News, just whether or not it's carried in HD.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I have Comcast HD and Dish HD and no Fox HD so far. :shrug:

What I really don't understand is how CNBC and CNN goes
HD before Fox News or MSNBC. :scratch:


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

It is obvious they have the capability. Fox News Sunday, the Chris Wallace Sunday morning interview show, has been in HD for a few weeks now.


----------



## ebockelman (Aug 16, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> It is obvious they have the capability. Fox News Sunday, the Chris Wallace Sunday morning interview show, has been in HD for a few weeks now.


Yeah, but FNS is filmed in Washington, while the main Fox News studio is in New York.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes, it is offered in HD but not on DirecTV yet. It's either a carriage agreement issue or bandwidth. We'll know better once the new satellite (D11) is lit up later this summer.


I'm surprised that you don't see any "available in HD" graphic like you do on FBN. No advertising whatsoever about them being available in HD.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

It's because Fox dropped the ball getting Fox News in HD. If Fox News went HD when D10 went live they would have been carried more than likely. This is nothing but Fox's fault and they will have to wait till D11 goes live before Directv can add them to the HD lineup.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Fox News HD does exist, only with Time Warner that I am aware of. Saw it with my own eyes in Brooklyn. I am sure once D11 is turned on D* will carry it. Hopefully it gets turned on before the party conventions in late August/Sept timeframe.


----------



## ProfLonghair (Sep 26, 2006)

It's gotta be a bandwidth issue. Aren't they (DirecTV & Fox) both owned by Murdoch?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

ProfLonghair said:


> It's gotta be a bandwidth issue. Aren't they (DirecTV & Fox) both owned by Murdoch?


Not anymore - DirecTV was purchased by Liberty Media.


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

Seriously. Can we just once in one thread discuss the availability of a channel without any lame political jabs?


----------



## Cable_X (Nov 12, 2007)

Jon D said:


> Seriously. Can we just once in one thread discuss the availability of a channel without any lame political jabs?


I agree.

I mentioned on another thread about their Fox and Friends show looking HD'ish - boxes, etc. a couple of weekends ago. I assumed then that they (Fox) was broadcasting stuff in HD.


----------



## paco1986 (Mar 26, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> Fox News Sunday, the Chris Wallace Sunday morning interview show, has been in HD for a few weeks now.


Actually it is not in HD, it is upconverted widescreen. Better than SD for sure, but not HD.


----------



## ProfLonghair (Sep 26, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Not anymore - DirecTV was purchased by Liberty Media.


I thought he owned Liberty.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Seriously though, I do have a few useful tidbits. I saw in a press release that it is indeed on Time Warner Cable in a few markets in NY and TX, that it's 720p and that they will cover the conventions in HD.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

Wikipedia:

_On May 1, 2008, Fox News launched a high definition channel simulcast. Time Warner has agreed to carry this channel in parts of New York and Texas, [16] though rollout to other providers is expected to go slowly._


----------



## Cable Lover (Jun 19, 2007)

I want to see Laurie Dhue's legs in HD!


----------



## Robert Simandl (Jan 31, 2004)

Bad news on Laurie Dhue.... she is no longer with Fox News in any capacity. I think it was a contract dispute.


----------



## Cable Lover (Jun 19, 2007)

Robert Simandl said:


> Bad news on Laurie Dhue.... she is no longer with Fox News in any capacity. I think it was a contract dispute.


----------



## oronomus (Feb 23, 2007)

_Originally Posted by Robert Simandl 
Bad news on Laurie Dhue.... she is no longer with Fox News in any capacity. I think it was a contract dispute. _

She'll be missed. Hope she turns up somewhere soon.

One of my kids graduated from Laurie Dhue's high school in Atlanta, and Laurie spoke at commencement. She must be 6 feet tall. An absolutely stunning impression in person... Everyone wanted to speak with her afterwards..


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Cable Lover said:


> I want to see Laurie Dhue's legs in HD!


I haven't looked in a while but I'm sure there's someone else "taking" her spot...


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Well, half of you says it exists, and the other half says it doesn't. I believe I've reached a zen like state of confusion


----------



## Mightyram (Jan 9, 2007)

mystic7 said:


> Well, half of you says it exists, and the other half says it doesn't. I believe I've reached a zen like state of confusion


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6555936.html



> Time Warner Cable to Begin Carrying Fox News HD in Select Markets Thursday
> By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 4/29/2008 3:12:00 PM
> Fox News Channel will become the latest cable network to launch an HD service when it begins broadcasting in the 720-line progressive HD format Thursday...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

It exists. Some people that have said so have provided ample evidence of such.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Then others will say it's not really HD, it's stretched 480p. Ommmmm......


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> It exists. Some people that have said so have provided ample evidence of such.
> 
> 
> mystic7 said:
> ...


So it's fake and trying to pass as the real thing, and some people who watch it are unaware and/or uninformed to the point that they think that it's real? That's shocking!


----------



## spectrumsp (Aug 30, 2006)

Robert Simandl said:


> Bad news on Laurie Dhue.... she is no longer with Fox News in any capacity. I think it was a contract dispute.





Cable Lover said:


>


This needs to be a sticky!:sure: :sure:

:new_smili


----------



## homebase (Sep 4, 2007)

bump


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Fox News _is_ now available in HD...just not on satellite (Dish or DirecTV) -- and VERY few cable co's.

It's expected to be added to DirecTV soon.


----------



## theedger (Mar 31, 2008)

syphix said:


> Fox News _is_ now available in HD...just not on satellite (Dish or DirecTV) -- and VERY few cable co's.
> 
> It's expected to be added to DirecTV soon.


I don't see the value of news in HD. It's just murders and missing little white girls. I don't want to see O'Riley in HD. Does anyone? And all the Blonde readers... it's like watcing Porn in HD. Anyone who's done that knows the HD isn't flattering. Now if there was a car chase channel in HD...I'd watch that!


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

theedger said:


> I don't want to see O'Riley in HD.


Actually I'd be entertained by watching O'Riley's veins popping out of his neck as he screams at his guests. Now that's comedy!


----------



## Frrrunkis! (Mar 3, 2008)

theedger said:


> I don't see the value of news in HD. It's just murders and missing little white girls. I don't want to see O'Riley in HD. Does anyone? And all the Blonde readers... it's like watcing Porn in HD. Anyone who's done that knows the HD isn't flattering. Now if there was a car chase channel in HD...I'd watch that!


Couple that with the fact that alot of news footage on Fox News would not be in HD...just the studio and fancy, seizure-inducing graphics.

Although, I'd like to try and find all of Greta's plastic surgery scars...so maybe HD won't be so bad.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Fox News Channel HD is only available on Time Warner Cable of San Antonio and Time Warner Cable of New York City. No other TW franchise carries Fox News HD, and to my knowledge, no other cable providers has it. A few days ago we just got Fox Business News HD here, I was hoping Fox News HD would come along with it, but we got Planet Green HD instead :barf:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Not anymore - DirecTV was purchased by Liberty Media.


And somewhere, somebody who wrote the sales contract was fired because he didn't put a clause in there for FOXNewsHD to be carried on day one.

Talk about a FU. The incoming owner managed to get a couple of HD only channels added, but the outgoing owner couldn't get his flagship carried.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Isn't there anyone here who knows how to use The Google. The 1st time I saw this question it took all of a few seconds to get the answer in #19. That was weeks ago and hasn't changed.


----------



## betterdan (May 23, 2007)

Stop being a sour puss Mr. Campbell. It is not hurting anyone for the person to ask a question here.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

theedger said:


> I don't want to see O'Riley in HD. Does anyone?


Get out of your little box. Lots of people (including myself) would want to watch The O'reilly Factor in HD. There is a reason why it has been the #1 cable news program (killing CNN and MSNBC combined) on the #1 cable news channel.


----------



## betterdan (May 23, 2007)

I watch Oreilly all the time and would welcome FOX HD.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

theedger said:


> I don't see the value of news in HD. It's just murders and missing little white girls. I don't want to see O'Riley in HD. Does anyone? And all the Blonde readers... it's like watcing Porn in HD. Anyone who's done that knows the HD isn't flattering. Now if there was a car chase channel in HD...I'd watch that!


You don't want to watch news in HD, that's your business. Some of us (I'd wager a fair amount) do. Now, shopping channels in HD? There's a true waste of bandwidth...


----------



## feeth (Jul 23, 2006)

There is nothing like watching Liz Claman in Full HD on Fox Business in the morning to get your day started right.


----------



## George Lewis (Jul 23, 2008)

I seriously hope Fox News HD becomes available on/around August 14th, 2008 - channel 360 is usually where my receiver is at when sports aren't on anyways...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Fox News Channel in HD went live on May 1, 2008 in limited markets. Don't know if it is produced in 720p or 1080i, but the Fox (entertainment) Network is 720p.......


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Fox News Channel in HD went live on May 1, 2008 in limited markets. Don't know if it is produced in 720p or 1080i, but the Fox (entertainment) Network is 720p.......


All Fox Networks are 720p


----------



## mcrutland (Dec 29, 2004)

credit: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=968494


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nice screen grabs, can't wait for it on D*


----------



## JLW (May 15, 2008)

best.choice..of....pictures........ever


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

Ed Campbell said:


> Isn't there anyone here who knows how to use The Google. The 1st time I saw this question it took all of a few seconds to get the answer in #19. That was weeks ago and hasn't changed.


I keep looking for the title MODERATOR under your name but I can't seem to find it. People dont need to go to Google for their answers to DirecTV or DISH. That's one of the reasons DBSTALK exists....


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

mcrutland said:


> credit: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=968494


Hey - thanks for my new desktop wallpaper!!

:smoking:


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

between fox, fox news & fox business they should do a *"girls of fox calendar*"...and there still wouldnt be enough months.


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Fox News Channel HD is only available on Time Warner Cable of San Antonio and Time Warner Cable of New York City. No other TW franchise carries Fox News HD, and to my knowledge, no other cable providers has it. A few days ago we just got Fox Business News HD here, I was hoping Fox News HD would come along with it, but we got Planet Green HD instead :barf:


IO Digital Cable carries it too (cablevision) 
http://www.optimum.com/io/hdtv/hdtv_channels.jsp


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mhking said:


> You don't want to watch news in HD, that's your business. Some of us (I'd wager a fair amount) do.


During the primary election, CNNHD's graphics package with results blew away everything else. While seeing the hosts in HD is not a huge deal, the amount of extra info that can be displayed in HD makes it worth it.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> During the primary election, CNNHD's graphics package with results blew away everything else. While seeing the hosts in HD is not a huge deal, the amount of extra info that can be displayed in HD makes it worth it.


As long as you turned the sound off. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mbuser (Jul 6, 2006)

Add me to the list of viewers who really want Fox News in HD. It's about the only thing I watch in SD these days. Hurry up and start carrying them, DirecTV.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

mbuser said:


> Add me to the list of viewers who really want Fox News in HD. It's about the only thing I watch in SD these days. Hurry up and start carrying them, DirecTV.


Agreed. What is the reason for the delay?


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

jal said:


> Agreed. What is the reason for the delay?


Well, since D11 came online oh.. 32 HOURS AGO.. maybe everybody should just sit tight a few days.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

Tom_S said:


> Well, since D11 came online oh.. 32 HOURS AGO.. maybe everybody should just sit tight a few days.


:lol: :lol:


----------



## homebase (Sep 4, 2007)

mcrutland, thanks for the photos! Jamie Colby is the #1 hottie IMO. Courtney is close #2.


----------



## Old Tv Watcher (Dec 23, 2007)

Tom_S said:


> Well, since D11 came online oh.. 32 HOURS AGO.. maybe everybody should just sit tight a few days.


Or Months!


----------



## theedger (Mar 31, 2008)

MLBurks said:


> Get out of your little box. Lots of people (including myself) would want to watch The O'reilly Factor in HD. There is a reason why it has been the #1 cable news program (killing CNN and MSNBC combined) on the #1 cable news channel.


All without being in HD. I'm not commenting on the BOF content. Just the wasted use of bandwidh for HD news channels. Just make them 480P 16:9 That's all we need anyway.


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

theedger said:


> All without being in HD. I'm not commenting on the BOF content. Just the wasted use of bandwidh for HD news channels. Just make them 480P 16:9 That's all we need anyway.


So what do you watch in HD? The Weather Channel? Now there's a waste of bandwidth. Shopping channels? OMG. USA? A bunch of old crime show reruns. Wouldn't want to miss out on that. TNT? Can't miss me no professional wrastlin' in HD. That's certainly a good use of bandwidth. :nono2: 
My point is, it's ALL a waste of bandwidth. All of it. None of it is necessary. It's entertainment. Your entertainment isn't everybody else's but if it wasn't for everybody else's desires subsidizing your desires, you wouldn't get to see what you want to see. Once you get used to watching HD, you don't want to see anything in SD, even it's just talking heads talking, heck, even commercials.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

theedger said:


> All without being in HD. I'm not commenting on the BOF content. Just the wasted use of bandwidh for HD news channels. Just make them 480P 16:9 That's all we need anyway.


You have a right to your opinion. But I would bet that the majority would not agree with you. When CNN went HD, I don't recall people complaining that it was a waste. Same for The Weather Channel.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

theedger said:


> All without being in HD. I'm not commenting on the BOF content. Just the wasted use of bandwidh for HD news channels. Just make them 480P 16:9 That's all we need anyway.


If it were just talking heads, maybe. But CNN and both Fox Business and CNBC have made very good use of the space and the clarity to add information to the screen that is professional looking and less intrusive than big text needed to make SD graphics readable.

Oh, and when HD gets more and more into the field, you will be seeing better pictures of natural disasters, wars, national and international events and more.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I can't believe Rupert Murdoch brought fox news in and took it to number 1, and then let cnn go hd this long and not have it, I don't watch it any more except to check ever now and then to see if they have it. I bet if everbody would stop watching it for one week you would see them move.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Fox Business News HD does a GREAT job with presentation. I always liked Bloomberg's way of dispaying information, but FBN blows them away and it isn't so busy and overwhelming. I'm not a big business news guy, I watch from time to time, but FBN HD, IMO is more worth while then a lot of other HD channels, at least they're taking advantage of what they can work with, not like TNT HD. I can't wait for FNC HD


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Fox Business News HD does a GREAT job with presentation. I always liked Bloomberg's way of dispaying information, but FBN blows them away and it isn't so busy and overwhelming. I'm not a big business news guy, I watch from time to time, but FBN HD, IMO is more worth while then a lot of other HD channels, at least they're taking advantage of what they can work with, not like TNT HD. I can't wait for FNC HD


From the pictures posted earlier, they are using too big a font and wasting space but at least they are making use of the extra space when a talking head is on.


----------



## theedger (Mar 31, 2008)

djwww98 said:


> So what do you watch in HD? The Weather Channel? Now there's a waste of bandwidth. Shopping channels? OMG. USA? A bunch of old crime show reruns. Wouldn't want to miss out on that. TNT? Can't miss me no professional wrastlin' in HD. That's certainly a good use of bandwidth. :nono2:
> My point is, it's ALL a waste of bandwidth. All of it. None of it is necessary. It's entertainment. Your entertainment isn't everybody else's but if it wasn't for everybody else's desires subsidizing your desires, you wouldn't get to see what you want to see. Once you get used to watching HD, you don't want to see anything in SD, even it's just talking heads talking, heck, even commercials.


I'm glad you asked what I watch in HD. The Weather Channel? Nope - both SD and HD removed from my favorites list. Shopping Channels? Nope. USA? Nope. TNT? Nope.

Not quite sure you mean by "everybody else's desires subsidizing my desires" comment. I spend $120 a month on my TV service. I watched CNN (sound down) when I was at work for election info. We usually have FNC on most of the time (sound down). Everytime I look at the tv it's somebody poppin' a vein or some hot chick trying to make me pop one. Funny thing about my post last night about 'missing white girls'. When I went to shut off the TV, FNC was on and Bill and Laura were snappin' at each other. I turned up the audio. When the battle of the minds finnished the tease was....... wait for it..... coming up, more on the story of the missing 2 year old girl. Just too funny. Nat'l news outlets are a joke.

Anyway I watch "Weeds" and "Call Girl" on Showtime. Gordon Ramsey on FOX and BBCA, Looking forward to "The Shield" and "Rescue Me" in HD! I'm 'testing out' Dan Rather Reports. "Greek" on ABC fam. Can't wait for 311-HD. "Office", "30 Rock" on NBC. "Lost" on ABC. That's about it.


----------



## Balestrom (Jan 12, 2007)

theedger said:


> I'm glad you asked what I watch in HD. The Weather Channel? Nope - both SD and HD removed from my favorites list. Shopping Channels? Nope. USA? Nope. TNT? Nope.
> 
> Not quite sure you mean by "everybody else's desires subsidizing my desires" comment. I spend $120 a month on my TV service. I watched CNN (sound down) when I was at work for election info. We usually have FNC on most of the time (sound down). Everytime I look at the tv it's somebody poppin' a vein or some hot chick trying to make me pop one. Funny thing about my post last night about 'missing white girls'. When I went to shut off the TV, FNC was on and Bill and Laura were snappin' at each other. I turned up the audio. When the battle of the minds finnished the tease was....... wait for it..... coming up, more on the story of the missing 2 year old girl. Just too funny. Nat'l news outlets are a joke.
> 
> Anyway I watch "Weeds" and "Call Girl" on Showtime. Gordon Ramsey on FOX and BBCA, Looking forward to "The Shield" and "Rescue Me" in HD! I'm 'testing out' Dan Rather Reports. "Greek" on ABC fam. Can't wait for 311-HD. "Office", "30 Rock" on NBC. "Lost" on ABC. That's about it.


I know you were asked about your viewing choices, but I think perhaps that question was closer to a hypothetical in order to make a point. Furthermore, I am not sure that anyone asked your opinions of Fox News. Perhaps you should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to the reader.

I am sorry, perhaps that is a bit snippy&#8230; or not. Either way, I think the whole issue is quite simple.

Fox News = #1 cable news channel
#1 Cable news channel = very large viewer ship
Large viewer ship = HD demand

Rather a person wants to spend many hours watching Call Girls and Dan Rather or rather they want to watch Fox News, who wants to go from a clear picture in HD on a channel they don't really watch to their favorite channel with a fuzzy picture? The difference between your opinion and others can be stated simply by Fox's ratings. Based on the numbers&#8230; well you get the picture.


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

theedger said:


> I'm glad you asked what I watch in HD. The Weather Channel? Nope - both SD and HD removed from my favorites list. Shopping Channels? Nope. USA? Nope. TNT? Nope.
> 
> Not quite sure you mean by "everybody else's desires subsidizing my desires" comment. I spend $120 a month on my TV service. I watched CNN (sound down) when I was at work for election info. We usually have FNC on most of the time (sound down). Everytime I look at the tv it's somebody poppin' a vein or some hot chick trying to make me pop one. Funny thing about my post last night about 'missing white girls'. When I went to shut off the TV, FNC was on and Bill and Laura were snappin' at each other. I turned up the audio. When the battle of the minds finnished the tease was....... wait for it..... coming up, more on the story of the missing 2 year old girl. Just too funny. Nat'l news outlets are a joke.
> 
> Anyway I watch "Weeds" and "Call Girl" on Showtime. Gordon Ramsey on FOX and BBCA, Looking forward to "The Shield" and "Rescue Me" in HD! I'm 'testing out' Dan Rather Reports. "Greek" on ABC fam. Can't wait for 311-HD. "Office", "30 Rock" on NBC. "Lost" on ABC. That's about it.


What I mean by "everybody else's desires subsidizing mine" is: If all the research and development and investment in the entire industry that went into producing and delivering HD was just for the type of entertainment YOU were interested in and not for anything you weren't interested in, it never would have happened... not a big enough audience, not enough money. The more people they serve, the more money they make to recoup their investments, and the more people they serve, the less it costs for each one. So in summary, if it wasn't for all the other stuff being there, you wouldn't have the stuff that you do have. Basic economics. BTW, I'm also looking forward to Rescue Me, 30 Rock, and The Office. And I also watch Weeds, and Call Girl. And I'm looking forward to FOX News in HD. And I think The Weather Channel is a waste of bandwidth, but I've learned to live with it.


----------



## Darkscream (Mar 8, 2008)

Balestrom said:


> Fox News = #1 cable news channel
> #1 Cable news channel = very large viewer ship
> Large viewer ship = HD demand
> 
> ...


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Balestrom said:


> Rather a person wants to spend many hours watching Call Girls and Dan Rather or rather they want to watch Fox News, who wants to go from a clear picture in HD on a channel they don't really watch to their favorite channel with a fuzzy picture? The difference between your opinion and others can be stated simply by Fox's ratings. Based on the numbers&#8230; well you get the picture.


As a liberal who usually leans left of center I completely agree with you. DirecTV is a television service provider. Fox News is a major cable network. Since we know DirecTV has the bandwidth available, there should be no reason why they don't offer Fox News HD when they begin adding new HD in a couple of weeks. In this regard, Fox News should be viewed no differently than The Travel Channel, Lifetime, AMC, etc. Fox's editorial content should have nothing to do with it.


----------



## JDubbs413 (Sep 4, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> As a liberal who usually leans left of center I completely agree with you. DirecTV is a television service provider. Fox News is a major cable network. Since we know DirecTV has the bandwidth available, there should be no reason why they don't offer Fox News HD when they begin adding new HD in a couple of weeks. In this regard, Fox News should be viewed no differently than The Travel Channel, Lifetime, AMC, etc. Fox's editorial content should have nothing to do with it.


Left of center cause you are a liberal or left of center because you are crazy and have had too much to drink? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Wow, it's rare that a thread I started still lives on almost 2 months later. Speaking of TNT did mine eyes deceive, or did they actually present The Wizard of Oz in its original aspect ratio last week? Assuming it was shot in 4:3. Looked pretty bad, though.


----------



## Tiger62 (Mar 18, 2008)

Balestrom said:


> Rather a person wants to spend many hours watching Call Girls and Dan Rather or rather they want to watch Fox News, who wants to go from a clear picture in HD on a channel they don't really watch to their favorite channel with a fuzzy picture?


I think the word you're looking for is "whether". You know, like Dan Whether.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

JDubbs413 said:


> Left of center cause you are a liberal or left of center because you are crazy and have had too much to drink? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Not keeping with American popular discourse, I know "left of center" is a separate category from liberal so I felt I should make both positions clear. I sometimes wonder whether those Fox News acolytes who like to mock liberals know that in France leftists sometimes take to the street protesting "liberalism."



mystic7 said:


> Wow, it's rare that a thread I started still lives on almost 2 months later. Speaking of TNT did mine eyes deceive, or did they actually present The Wizard of Oz in its original aspect ratio last week? Assuming it was shot in 4:3. Looked pretty bad, though.


TNT has been known to show certain films they deem untouchable classics in their original aspect ratio. These films seem limited to _The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind_, and _Titanic_.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

A thread gone amuck.... :eek2:


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> A thread gone amuck.... :eek2:


And I though I was keeping it fair and balanced.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Mods.............

Time to shut this one down...................... :backtotop

:nono2:


----------



## theedger (Mar 31, 2008)

Please allow me to sum up:

No cable news channel should be HD. 480P 16:9 with little compression will be a stunning picture and take up less bandwidth.

I was not making any political observation of FOX News. Just that ALL cable News outlets often fill the time with trivial banter. This thread was about FOX News HD, so I left the others out of it.

Although I don't watch The Weather Channel, I can see weather-related specials could be a good use of HD. But if it's all maps... 16:9 480p with light compression is all that is needed. 

Just because it's HD doesn't make the content better.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

theedger said:


> Just because it's HD doesn't make the content better.


Correct, my friend - but it _does_ make the picture better, and that is the point of HD.......

Also - the extra space can be put to good use...........


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Let us return this thread to the benefits or status of Fox News in HD. (Comparison of HD presentation are permitted.) Source _content_ is not a topic for discussion, absent of any HD meaning.

or I will take sadly have to shut this thread down.

Thank you for helping,
Tom

Edit: For those of you who are catching this late, I've deleted a few posts that were political in nature. And redacted a few that had salient points outside of the posts that were quoted.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Let us return this thread to the benefits or status of Fox News in HD. (Comparison of HD presentation are permitted.) Source _content_ is not a topic for discussion, absent of any HD meaning.
> 
> or I will take sadly have to shut this thread down.
> 
> ...


Okay, every channel would be better in HD, assuming the original material can support the higher resolution. Personally, I believe DirecTV should put their first priority on adding existing HD channels that can be viewed by the greatest number of their subscribers. That would clearly include Fox News.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

QuickDrop said:


> Okay, every channel would be better in HD, assuming the original material can support the higher resolution. Personally, I believe DirecTV should put their first priority on adding existing HD channels that can be viewed by the greatest number of their subscribers. That would clearly include Fox News.


I can go with those points.

I don't know if there is a: contractual hangup, technical problem, capacity issue (about to be relieved) or some amalgam of all.

As for "News in HD", I prefer to see people's faces more clearly as they talk. I like how some programs and networks have very creatively used the extra space for extra information. At least the ones that don't over pollute the screen with visual noise.

I think CNN's political coverage information (walking my own very fine line...) is well done. And I think others are getting better at presenting data that way.

Some of the business channels are also good at presenting more information.

As for "Everything in HD", about the only show I rather I hadn't seen in HD would be certain episodes of _Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs_. 

Just kidding tho HD does add to the eeewww factor. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> As for "Everything in HD", about the only show I rather I hadn't seen in HD would be certain episodes of _Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs_.


That and Verminators. I watched that show the first time and said to myself, "This is NOT why I got HD".


----------



## pjb3589 (Nov 9, 2007)

Looks like Comcast is adding Fox News in HD starting next week.



> Comcast to Add Fox News HD
> The channel will launch first in Nashville, Tennessee.
> By Swanni
> 
> ...


C'mon DirecTV... what's the hold up lol.. especially now with D11 live. I mean, they haven't even announced plans to carry it yet have they?


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 26, 2004)

pjb3589 said:


> Looks like Comcast is adding Fox News in HD starting next week.
> 
> C'mon DirecTV... what's the hold up lol.. especially now with D11 live. I mean, they haven't even announced plans to carry it yet have they?


I would like to know what the problem is as well. I was especially concerned that the announced new HD channels, following D11 activation, did not include Fox News HD.

I do not know if it is Fox News or Directv to blame but I don't like it.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

butchd5 said:


> I would like to know what the problem is as well. I was especially concerned that the announced new HD channels, following D11 activation, did not include Fox News HD.
> 
> I do not know if it is Fox News or Directv to blame but I don't like it.


Unless DirecTV is planning to add 20 more PPVs, they didn't announce all the planned national channels. I agree that the channels they chose to announce are puzzling, but I would wait until a couple weeks into them adding channels before assuming there's someone to blame.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Let's get back to the topic at hand, please. Discussion of Fox News inevitably turns political, which is not the right discussion for this forum.


----------



## capegator (Sep 14, 2007)

So, all we still know is that on the 14th we'll be treated to ABC Family HD, some Green thing HD and 1,200 more RSNs in HD. I guess then, that we can only hope that D* will actually come through with FNC, AMC and the Travel Channel. I want my FNC upskirts in HD!


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I'm kinda anxious for them to go HD. I can understand if they don't see the need (still ranking VERY high in the ratings) but I believe broadcasting in HD would give them a little extra appeal.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Let's get back to the topic at hand, please. Discussion of Fox News inevitably turns political, which is not the right discussion for this forum.


It's not so much that it turns political but rather it's hijacked by those who would accuse Fox News of lying if they reported that the sky is blue. Then the fun just keeps rolling...


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 26, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> Unless DirecTV is planning to add 20 more PPVs, they didn't announce all the planned national channels. I agree that the channels they chose to announce are puzzling, but I would wait until a couple weeks into them adding channels before assuming there's someone to blame.


Good point. I will wait until the new channels are launched and keep my guns holstered until then. But I still don't know why they would not have stated Fox News HD would be added if that was indeed planned.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

butchd5 said:


> Good point. I will wait until the new channels are launched and keep my guns holstered until then. But I still don't know why they would not have stated Fox News HD would be added if that was indeed planned.


Ditto.. I want my Fox News HD. Would have been nice if they would have announced the complete list of new HD channels..couldn't imagine D* was still working on contracts at this late date.


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

butchd5 said:


> Good point. I will wait until the new channels are launched and keep my guns holstered until then. But I still don't know why they would not have stated Fox News HD would be added if that was indeed planned.


I think they just picked a few random channels that will be added and put them in the release. I'm sure Fox News as well as most of the other channels that are available in HD but not on DirecTV will be by the end of the month.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

n3ntj said:


> Ditto.. I want my Fox News HD. Would have been nice if they would have announced the complete list of new HD channels..couldn't imagine D* was still working on contracts at this late date.


With some rare exceptions, DirecTV does not announce channel additions in advance. Last fall was a fluke.


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 26, 2004)

This is the response I just received from Directv asking when will Fox News HD be available:



Thanks for writing us about your DIRECTV account. I understand your concern in getting FOX News in HD. However, I have checked our records and found that it's not yet available. While we don't have plans to add FOX News in HD at this time, we're working to bring you even more HD channels in the near future. Stay tuned to directv.com/hd to keep up with the latest HD news.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Typical canned response. Substitute what ever channel was requested where Fox News is in the script.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

butchd5 said:


> This is the response I just received from Directv asking when will Fox News HD be available:
> 
> Thanks for writing us about your DIRECTV account. I understand your concern in getting FOX News in HD. However, I have checked our records and found that it's not yet available. While we don't have plans to add FOX News in HD at this time, we're working to bring you even more HD channels in the near future. Stay tuned to directv.com/hd to keep up with the latest HD news.


You will definitely get more information from the knowledgable people in these forums over DirecTV CSR _any _day....


----------



## SEAKevin (Jul 8, 2006)

Most people here appear to assume that the reason Fox News HD isn't on DirecTV yet is because there is some contract dispute or because DirecTV is not willing or able to broadcast it yet. 

But I think it's even more likely is that it's Fox that does not yet want it rolled out nationally. Perhaps they are intentionally doing a "soft launch" for whatever reason until they can get everything just how they want it before flipping the switch and allowing cable & satellite systems nationwide to carry it. 

It just seems very unlikely to me that (like it or not) the #1 cable news channel in the country would not receive top priority as soon as it became available in HD. So that leads me to believe it's Fox that is intentionally moving slowly.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Could it be that the cable companies have an agreement with Fox News that DirecTV can't carry it for some period of time?


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

It is not on the FNC end. From an email today:

Thank you for your interest in FOX News programming. We launched our high definition channel feed on May 1, 2008 with Time Warner Cable in selected areas. If, at this time, you are not receiving Fox News Channel in HD, we urge you to contact your resident cable provider to find out the specifics of its company launch plans for FNC-HD.


----------



## mbuser (Jul 6, 2006)

I just sent DirecTV an email requesting this channel, since it's the only national channel I watch in SD. If everyone who wants it does the same maybe they'll get the message.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

mbuser said:


> I just sent DirecTV an email requesting this channel, since it's the only national channel I watch in SD. If everyone who wants it does the same maybe they'll get the message.


Or we could wait until they put up new channels on August 14, as stated in their press release. They specifically mention adding channels. It seems a bit premature to complain about a channel not being offered on the 14th before we see that they haven't put it up.

And by the way, if they haven't "gotten the message" by now, they have chosen not to. Fox News is one of the most popular cable channels. It consistently ranks high in primetime viewership. They get it. It's their job. But Fox seems to have decided on a limited/gradual rollout. This put their availability after D10 had already had its capacity maxed out.

If DirecTV had turned up 15 new channels on July 31 and FNCHD was absent, you would have a valid point. The July 31 changes were only moves, though.

I watch FNC a lot. I would rather it be in HD. But Fox decided on the timing of their release knowing full well that they would be missing the boat on DirecTV until more capacity came online. I frequent three forum sites and I grow weary of people asking this same question. When you see FNC in HD on your set you will know that DirecTV is carrying it. Until then, you might as well wait quietly.


----------



## SEAKevin (Jul 8, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Or we could wait until they put up new channels on August 14, as stated in their press release. They specifically mention adding channels. It seems a bit premature to complain about a channel not being offered on the 14th before we see that they haven't put it up.
> 
> Until then, you might as well wait quietly.


Not that I disagree with your reasoning.. but their press release said:

"Beginning August 14, DIRECTV will launch more than 30
additional HD channels, bringing the total HD channel lineup to 130"

and

"Among the new HD channels that DIRECTV will launch next month are Showtime
Extreme HD, Showtime Showcase HD, Planet Green HD, ABC Family HD, additional
DIRECTV HD pay per view channels and an additional 23 Regional Sports Networks
(RSNs) in HD 24 hours a day."

So, if they are launching "more than 30" (which to me indicates only slightly more than 30), and 23 are RSN's and 4 of them are the channels mentioned in the release, that the rest will be HD PPV channels. I bet FNC is not going to be in there or they would have mentioned it in the release. I hope I'm wrong!

Still, even with the response a previous poster received from FNC asking them to contact their provider, I believe the slow rollout is Fox's doing, not DirecTV's.


----------



## CKNAV (Dec 26, 2005)

SEAKevin said:


> Not that I disagree with your reasoning.. but their press release said:
> 
> "Beginning August 14, DIRECTV will launch more than 30
> additional HD channels, bringing the total HD channel lineup to 130"
> ...


You are quoting the first press release which incorrectly stated 23 RSN's. They are actually launching 12 RSN's in addition to 11 they already have full time.

Here is the corrected press release http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4800004


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

CKNAV said:


> You are quoting the first press release which incorectly stated 23 RSN's. They are actually launching 12 RSN's is addition to 11 they already have full
> 
> Here is the corrected press release http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4800004


everything we know ... http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1191863&postcount=2


----------



## capegator (Sep 14, 2007)

There seems to be a lot of D* kool-aid consumed here. If Fox is telling people to contact their provider, how do you surmise that it is there issue? If it is so unusual for D* to actually communicate what stations they will be adding, why put out an error-filled press release that touts the addition of 189 more RSNs, the Green Thing Channel, ABC Family and some premiums?  I'm sorry to those who think we should quietly wait until D* thinks that we are worthy to receive HD channels that are available to others. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid, and am not shy about wanting my FNCHD now.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Seems like you'll find out tomorrow (during the earnings announcement) or on 8/14.

Personally, I'd expect it on 8/14 as long as the contract has been finalized.


----------



## SEAKevin (Jul 8, 2006)

capegator said:


> There seems to be a lot of D* kool-aid consumed here. If Fox is telling people to contact their provider, how do you surmise that it is there issue? If it is so unusual for D* to actually communicate what stations they will be adding, why put out an error-filled press release that touts the addition of 189 more RSNs, the Green Thing Channel, ABC Family and some premiums?  I'm sorry to those who think we should quietly wait until D* thinks that we are worthy to receive HD channels that are available to others. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid, and am not shy about wanting my FNCHD now.


I still don't buy it.. not because I'm drinking any kool-aid, but because there aren't any other providers that have rolled it out nationally either. Do you really think that Time Warner ONLY had space to immediately launch it in just 2 cities, NYC and San Antonio and that NO other provider (including Dish and Comcast) since FNC HD came online in ANY other city could start broadcasting the #1 cable news channel? It just isn't reasonable to think this is due to contracts or technical issues.

As to Fox's response... I don't know, maybe that's their canned response they're just giving to everyone to make them go away.

And I did read the post about what's expected on 8/14... good info. There appears to be around 18 or so "unknowns" but I am expecting those to be more HD PPV rather than anything useful. I believe that when FNC HD is ready to go we'll hear about it in advance.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

SEAKevin said:


> And I did read the post about what's expected on 8/14... good info. There appears to be around 18 or so "unknowns" but I am expecting those to be more HD PPV rather than anything useful. I believe that when FNC HD is ready to go we'll hear about it in advance.


As you point out, there is 18 unknowns right now and it is possible Fox News was not named as maybe not all the T's were crossed and I's dotted just yet and DirecTV was not about to get burned..


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

capegator said:


> There seems to be a lot of D* kool-aid consumed here. If Fox is telling people to contact their provider, how do you surmise that it is there issue? If it is so unusual for D* to actually communicate what stations they will be adding, why put out an error-filled press release that touts the addition of 189 more RSNs, the Green Thing Channel, ABC Family and some premiums?  I'm sorry to those who think we should quietly wait until D* thinks that we are worthy to receive HD channels that are available to others. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid, and am not shy about wanting my FNCHD now.


I've surmised that because I actually pay attention. The standard response of any network/channel is for you to contact your provider. The press release had one error that was very easily understood. It was corrected promptly.

The press release didn't mention FNC. It did mention Aug 14. You can complain about them not announcing channels, but that's a different topic. They have never (with the exception of last fall) announced channels well in advance. This is not a new policy. It is consistent with running a public company where forward-looking statements can and very often do impact shareholder price. Making tons of forward-looking statements with specific information in them can land you in court very often. Dish follows a different policy. Dish is often in court.

FNC issued a press release when the HD channel went live stating that it would be rolled out to TWC customers in specific areas. They specifically limited the release in that way: their choice, not DirecTV's. They let the channel exist in some markets for exactly one cable company. DirecTV used all of their bandwidth before that time. Fox chose to get Fox Business up in HD before turning up FNC HD: again, their choice, not DirecTV's. Would you like to blame DirecTV for not holding an empty HD spot for FNC? You can do that but it does seem somewhat short-sighted since they were in the process of launching another satellite with more capacity. And with the quick turnaround they gave Fox Business, it was obviously not some issue they had with getting them on the air. They would have just as happily used that bandwidth for FNC HD, had it been available.

Being logical and rational is not drinking kool-aid. Fox waited too long and lost their spot. The first release of channels since the new capacity is online is promised in the press release by August 14. If they miss that date or don't provide a channel you want on it, call them on that. Otherwise, you are just ranting.


----------



## SEAKevin (Jul 8, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> As you point out, there is 18 unknowns right now and it is possible Fox News was not named as maybe not all the T's were crossed and I's dotted just yet and DirecTV was not about to get burned..


Here's hopin!

Someone else earlier in this thread also pointed out that when you watch FNC they don't tout that they're broadcasting in HD either, another sign that they are soft launching. If they really were having problems getting themselves out there they'd make announcements on the air and the calls would start flooding into providers all over the place.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Being logical and rational is not drinking kool-aid. Fox waited too long and lost their spot. The first release of channels since the new capacity is online is promised in the press release by August 14. If they miss that date or don't provide a channel you want on it, call them on that. Otherwise, you are just ranting.


I agree that Fox was slow in putting up FNC HD, _very slow_, but I still think they could have given them a spot almost instantly. D10 had room reserved on its transponders for extra HD channels in the event D11 would fail and they could have easily put the channel up sooner if they wanted. If you assume that there is a carriage agreement, which would seem almost definitely, then they should have been quicker to get it out there or at least advertise that it will be out there. I'm not trying to put FNC on a pedastal here, but we're not talking about TOON HD (no offense to cartoon lovers). This is the highest rated cable news channel_ by far _and often has higher ratings than both of their competitors _combined_...:nono:


----------



## theedger (Mar 31, 2008)

Seems to me this "#1 new channel" has been #1 without HD. It's hard to convice bean counters that they need to spend millions of dollars to upgrade to HD. No rush. They'll just do what most of the other cable channels do and offer an HD feed that is mostly upconverted. And that's HD in name only.

Rolling out an upconverted HD channel in test markets sounds right. I don't TWC offeres stunning HD anyway. I work in TV here in Portland and know the headaches involved in converting to HD.


----------



## dtrell (Dec 28, 2007)

i dont know what all this talk is about time warner cable has added fox news HD....maybe time warner in new york or something, which usually gets stuff first. i have time warner cable northeast ohio, and we do not have fox news HD. we had 4 new HD channels added in april, and thats it since then.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

capegator said:


> There seems to be a lot of D* kool-aid consumed here. If Fox is telling people to contact their provider, how do you surmise that it is there issue? If it is so unusual for D* to actually communicate what stations they will be adding, why put out an error-filled press release that touts the addition of 189 more RSNs, the Green Thing Channel, ABC Family and some premiums?  I'm sorry to those who think we should quietly wait until D* thinks that we are worthy to receive HD channels that are available to others. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid, and am not shy about wanting my FNCHD now.


Your name isn't Bill O'Reilly, by any chance, is it?

Anyway, the DirecTV press release was not error filled. It had one error that gave the total of full time RSNs DirecTV would carry instead of only the number they would add to get that total.

Also, DirecTV hasn't added new HD channels since the Spring because they haven't had room for them, not because they believe we are not worthy of them. In fact, ABC Family HD was announced last Fall to be added in the Spring, launched on cable systems the same time as Disney HD and Toon Disney HD, yet was not added to DirecTV's lineup, almost certainly because of capacity issues. If anybody should be carrying pitchforks, it's the ABC Family fans.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

dtrell said:


> i dont know what all this talk is about time warner cable has added fox news HD....maybe time warner in new york or something, which usually gets stuff first. i have time warner cable northeast ohio, and we do not have fox news HD. we had 4 new HD channels added in april, and thats it since then.


That was the point, dtrell. FNC HD was launched only in a few markets and only on TWC. They obviously chose to soft-launch it to make sure they weren't fixing technical difficulties in front of a national audience.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

capegator said:


> There seems to be a lot of D* kool-aid consumed here. If Fox is telling people to contact their provider, how do you surmise that it is there issue? If it is so unusual for D* to actually communicate what stations they will be adding, why put out an error-filled press release that touts the addition of 189 more RSNs, the Green Thing Channel, ABC Family and some premiums?  I'm sorry to those who think we should quietly wait until D* thinks that we are worthy to receive HD channels that are available to others. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid, and am not shy about wanting my FNCHD now.


Don't worry, I neither drink Kool-aid nor get sucked into "the world is falling" gloom and doom. 

I do not know where the process is between DIRECTV and Fox. It very well might be about to be turned on as soon as the quality is there and the timing is right (read: marketing timing.) 

Or they might still be working on the negotiations. If so, I don't even begin to categorize it as one company's "issue" vs. they other--unless I get some sense that is plausible. (LIN was pretty openly discussed as to their demands.)

Here is what I know today: 
1) I don't get it today. 
2) If it is popular, DIRECTV will negotiate to get it.
3) DIRECTV won't put up new channels that aren't high quality HD.

And one thing I think is very likely true: at the front lines technical level, DIRECTV's engineers are happy to work with the engineers of the networks and the reverse is likely true too. Whenever I worked front lines with fellow technical people, we usually got along great, helping each other to solve our mutual problems. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

gregjones said:


> That was the point, dtrell. FNC HD was launched only in a few markets and only on TWC. They obviously chose to soft-launch it to make sure they weren't fixing technical difficulties in front of a national audience.


Excellent points.


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

QuickDrop said:


> Your name isn't Bill O'Reilly, by any chance, is it?
> 
> Anyway, the DirecTV press release was not error filled. It had one error that gave the total of full time RSNs DirecTV would carry instead of only the number they would add to get that total.
> 
> Also, DirecTV hasn't added new HD channels since the Spring because they haven't had room for them, not because they believe we are not worthy of them. In fact, ABC Family HD was announced last Fall to be added in the Spring, launched on cable systems the same time as Disney HD and Toon Disney HD, yet was not added to DirecTV's lineup, almost certainly because of capacity issues. If anybody should be carrying pitchforks, it's the ABC Family fans.


When they're old enough to carry sharp objects by themselves, anyway.

Still surprising that D* chose to focus on maxing out HD capacity with LiL HDs beyond, say, top-ten or top-fifteen markets rather than keep some in reserve in the event of new-channel rollouts before the new sat could go live. If D11 had gone wobbly, they'd be looking at more than a year without being able to expand national HD service at precisely the moment they would _need_ to do so -- not without a takeback of some LiL HDs, anyway, which wouldn't sit well with subs in those markets.

(Of course, this all presumes that transponders can be switched from spots to CONUS and back again remotely. If not, never mind...)


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

Just an FYI...

Here in Kansas City, a competing cable company to Time Warner launched Fox News Channel in HD. Everest Connections/Sure West launched it this week.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

YKW06 said:


> When they're old enough to carry sharp objects by themselves, anyway.
> 
> Still surprising that D* chose to focus on maxing out HD capacity with LiL HDs beyond, say, top-ten or top-fifteen markets rather than keep some in reserve in the event of new-channel rollouts before the new sat could go live. If D11 had gone wobbly, they'd be looking at more than a year without being able to expand national HD service at precisely the moment they would _need_ to do so -- not without a takeback of some LiL HDs, anyway, which wouldn't sit well with subs in those markets.
> 
> (Of course, this all presumes that transponders can be switched from spots to CONUS and back again remotely. If not, never mind...)


I find your surprise surprising. (Actually, I find a lot in this thread surprising or maybe indicative, but that's another story.) So it's your belief that only the top ten or fifteen markets get their locals in HD so that we can ensure everyone can get Fox News in HD? If so, I can't wait for rapid Lifetime or AMC fans to start threads, blaming their lack of carriage on St. Louis having their locals. (I wonder why they haven't already?) Maybe it's me, but that doesn't seem like the best way to attract or keep customers.

A greater number of posters here can speak to the technical side better than me, but I it's my understand that D10 had many more national channels than was intended because of D11's delay.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

dtrell said:


> i dont know what all this talk is about time warner cable has added fox news HD....maybe time warner in new york or something, which usually gets stuff first. i have time warner cable northeast ohio, and we do not have fox news HD. we had 4 new HD channels added in april, and thats it since then.


Actually, TW NYC very rarely sees new stuff first. San Antonio, Raleigh and Rochester usually are the top markets for new channels and features. We've gotten 25 new HD channels since February, with USA HD, CNBC HD and Speed HD on the way. Fox News HD is all that I'm waiting for, there's on open slot on channel 1021 for FNC HD, and I can't wait until it's lit up.


----------



## thomas317us (Feb 6, 2008)

I would not worry I am sure that Direct tv will carry FNC HD . Newscorp still owns a big chunk of the company even after the merger


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> 3) DIRECTV won't put up new channels that aren't high quality HD.


Tom, you cant be serious?? How do you explain MTV HD, VH1 HD, Nick HD, etc? Channels that DirecTV has carriage agreements with 95% of the content is non-HD?


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> Tom, you cant be serious?? How do you explain MTV HD, VH1 HD, Nick HD, etc? Channels that DirecTV has carriage agreements with 95% of the content is non-HD?


I would add TBS to that list... VERY little actual HD content... and everything else is stretch-o-vision... terrible terrible HD channel IMHO...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

QuickDrop said:


> I find your surprise surprising. (Actually, I find a lot in this thread surprising or maybe indicative, but that's another story.) So it's your belief that only the top ten or fifteen markets get their locals in HD so that we can ensure everyone can get Fox News in HD? If so, I can't wait for rapid Lifetime or AMC fans to start threads, blaming their lack of carriage on St. Louis having their locals. (I wonder why they haven't already?) Maybe it's me, but that doesn't seem like the best way to attract or keep customers.
> 
> A greater number of posters here can speak to the technical side better than me, but I it's my understand that D10 had many more national channels than was intended because of D11's delay.


D10 is using 2 transponders that are meant to be spares at this time... I have a feeling they will be shut off shortly, and the bandwidth they were using might get converted to spotbeams... But you never know... And everyone needs to remember this... Directv has always said that D10 and D11 are going to be able to broadcast 150 HD channels, plus additional services... I think additional services are the extra HD channels like NFLST.... Just my opinion

And it makes perfect buisness sense to hold off on expanding channels for a couple months if your already the leader, just to make sure your newest sat launches and is healthy when it gets into orbit... It allows them flexability... I think we will see a whole lot of channels in LIL and conus light up by the end of the year.. and I'm sure FN will be one of them... In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see them next week....


----------



## dtrell (Dec 28, 2007)

homeskillet said:


> Just an FYI...
> 
> Here in Kansas City, a competing cable company to Time Warner launched Fox News Channel in HD. Everest Connections/Sure West launched it this week.


hey theres an idea...two cable companies in the same area providing consumers a cable choice and competition....


----------

