# DBSTalk Exclusive First Look: AM21N Off-Air ATSC Adapter



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

DBSTalk presents this first look on the AM21N Off-Air ATSC add-on for HD Receivers!








AM21N First Look

The DIRECTV AM21N is functionally identical to the AM21, and has the same matte finish as the HR22 series receivers.

Click through to read the exclusive first look!

_Please note that some DBSTalk.com testers and staff members may have received free equipment from DIRECTV or its partners for the purpose of evaluation and testing._


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

As always, nice First Look Stuart. 

Mike


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

As always, nice job.

So whats the N stand for, New? 

I guess the only difference is the new tuners inside? It still doesn't scan, right?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> As always, nice First Look Stuart.


+1.

So new tuner chips vs. old, no performance differences at all on marginal signals? Or handling problematic situations, like lots of multipath? TIA.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Not sure specifically what the N stands for other than to designate it as something other than the AM21.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Such a big box for such a small circuit board.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> Such a big box for such a small circuit board.


I guess it perserves the current form factor. IIRC, it's similar to inside of the original AM12.

Mike


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I guess it perserves the current form factor. IIRC, it's similar to the original AM12.
> 
> Mike


Yes, it's the same size as the original AM-21.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Nice work on the First Look.

Did any of the test team happen to do signal level comparisons with the older box?


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The DIRECTV AM21N is functionally identical to the AM21N


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Jon J said:


>


Why so confused?

Mike


----------



## KDelande (Aug 20, 2007)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Why so confused?
> 
> Mike


Reread what he quoted.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jon J said:


>


fixed .. typo


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Another nice First Look Stuart!


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

litzdog911 said:


> Such a big box for such a small circuit board.


Of course noone will be 100% satisfied, half would want it to match the chassis size of their current hardware, the other half would want it to be as small as possible. I'm in the match the footprint camp.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nice work on the First Look.
> 
> Did any of the test team happen to do signal level comparisons with the older box?


The signal is comparable, might be a bit better with the N than it is with the original but not a super huge difference.


----------



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

The review is fine.....what is not fine is DirecTV putting out another unit with no scan capability. Once again the Engineering Department proves they need to have a complete shakeup ...... and hopefully some people fired.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Rob77 said:


> The review is fine.....what is not fine is DirecTV putting out another unit with no scan capability. Once again the Engineering Department proves they need to have a complete shakeup ...... and hopefully some people fired.


What part of it's not a hardware limitation but rather a software design decision do you not understand?


----------



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

RobertE said:


> What part of it's not a hardware limitation but rather a software design decision do you not understand?


Oh I fully understand....so lets see.....if you want to watch sub channels you need to have another tuner....connected to another dvr...connected to another input to your TV Set.... You mean somewhere in the DirecTV engineering department there is not someone smart enough to solve this


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Rob77 said:


> Oh I fully understand....so lets see.....if you want to watch sub channels you need to have another tuner....connected to another dvr...connected to another input to your TV Set.... You mean somewhere in the DirecTV engineering department there is not someone smart enough to solve this


Could they do it? Most likely. They just choose not to.


----------



## liquidctv (Oct 14, 2010)

>Oh I fully understand....so lets see.....if you want to watch sub channels you need to have another tuner....connected to another dvr...connected to another input

Please recap, because the original discussion is 15 pages long.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Rob77 said:


> Oh I fully understand....so lets see.....if you want to watch sub channels you need to have another tuner....connected to another dvr...connected to another input to your TV Set.... You mean somewhere in the DirecTV engineering department there is not someone smart enough to solve this


The problem/issue has something to do with lack of Guide Data and perpetual "TBD" information in the guide. DIRECTV chose to alleviate what is likely a bigger problem by allowing only those channels where Guide Data is available. Is it the perfect decision? Probably not, but I do think it's a situation where the numbers in need are so small that DIRECTV has decided that it was not worth the effort. Yeah, it sucks for those that need it, but DIRECTV has chosen to concentrate it's efforts on other/bigger things.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

How much $$$?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Same price as previous, I think.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> The signal is comparable, might be a bit better with the N than it is with the original but not a super huge difference.


Thank you....figured some folks might wanna know.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Great Job on the First Look Stuart!


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Stuart great job as always


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Thanks Stuart


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The problem/issue has something to do with lack of Guide Data and perpetual "TBD" information in the guide. DIRECTV chose to alleviate what is likely a bigger problem by allowing only those channels where Guide Data is available. Is it the perfect decision? Probably not, but I do think it's a situation where the numbers in need are so small that DIRECTV has decided that it was not worth the effort. Yeah, it sucks for those that need it, but DIRECTV has chosen to concentrate it's efforts on other/bigger things.


Doug,
I completely respect your opinions and leadership, but I respectfully disagree with you on this one... Why put out new hardware when the customer can't use it to view the channels broadcast OTA that we want to see.

For example, WFMZ 69.3 (Allentown PA/Philly) is a 24 hour weather channel, and a VERY good one. But WPHT 17.4 with its good 24 hour traffic channel is not viewable with DirecTV OTA equipment. Why the difference?

If it's a guide data issue, change stations like WFMZ DT (3) to have a single 24 hour block per day instead of hundreds of 10 minute long programs every day.

I'd assume (yes, that's usually not smart) that DirecTV has stopped adding OTA channels to the guide?


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

The Dish Network tuners allow for any OTA channel/sub channel by either scanning or adding a single channel.
But there are complaints from some that they want the guide data to go with it. For networks you get from Dish, you also get the guide date OTA. But other channels or sub channels is hit an miss for guide info.
I'm sure Dish has had to field questions from customers wondering why they only get "digital" instead of guide data on some channels.

Personally I much prefer getting all the OTA channels and working out what is on when using the many guides available. Of course all weather channels need no guide.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nice work on the First Look.
> 
> Did any of the test team happen to do signal level comparisons with the older box?


Ditto on the nice First Look Stuart and Team. Appreciate the inside shots.

If I am fortunate enough to come across one sometime in the future, I will be happy to line it up with the AM21 and HR20-700 for side by side signal strength and multipath testing. And report back of course.

Any idea when Directv will sell them directly?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Doug,
> I completely respect your opinions and leadership, but I respectfully disagree with you on this one... Why put out new hardware when the customer can't use it to view the channels broadcast OTA that we want to see.
> 
> For example, WFMZ 69.3 (Allentown PA/Philly) is a 24 hour weather channel, and a VERY good one. But WPHT 17.4 with its good 24 hour traffic channel is not viewable with DirecTV OTA equipment. Why the difference?
> ...


I don't know the full reasons behind this .. but remember, DIRECTV is broadcasting up-to-date information on probably 1500 to 2000 channels (maybe more, I don't know an exact number, but I know it's big) .. This data takes up space on the satellite. There is likely some limitation that is resulting in what you see.

I certainly didn't design the way it works .. I also know that very, very, very, very few DIRECTV Satellite subcribers even use OTA to begin with. It's TINY. Then the number affected by this particular problem is only a tiny fraction of that tiny number. I'm sure that DIRECTV has simply decided that it is not cost effective for them to spend any time on making it work the way you want it to work. As a result, they don't do it. You're stuck with what is available. I'm not saying it's right or wrong .. but that is the way it is. It makes sense to me.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't know the full reasons behind this .. but remember, DIRECTV is broadcasting up-to-date information on probably 1500 to 2000 channels (maybe more, I don't know an exact number, but I know it's big) .. This data takes up space on the satellite. There is likely some limitation that is resulting in what you see.
> 
> I certainly didn't design the way it works .. I also know that very, very, very, very few DIRECTV Satellite subcribers even use OTA to begin with. It's TINY. Then the number affected by this particular problem is only a tiny fraction of that tiny number. I'm sure that DIRECTV has simply decided that it is not cost effective for them to spend any time on making it work the way you want it to work. As a result, they don't do it. You're stuck with what is available. I'm not saying it's right or wrong .. but that is the way it is. It makes sense to me.


At the risk of threadjacking here.

But I still contend that it's silly for the LiL guide data to be sent from a conus 101 transponder. I feel that all that extra data that has to either be hidden and/or discarded is what has led to some of the slowness in the HR2x line.

If it were up to me, I'd move all LiL guide data to each DMA's respective spot beam transponder. It's a tiny amount of data, even considering the reuse of the transponder in multiple markets.

If this were done, I feel we would see a speedup in the boxes and would allow for more OTA channels to be listed in the guide.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Nice piece Stuart!


----------



## Mr_A1 (Jul 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> The problem/issue has something to do with lack of Guide Data and perpetual "TBD" information in the guide. DIRECTV chose to alleviate what is likely a bigger problem by allowing only those channels where Guide Data is available. Is it the perfect decision? Probably not, but I do think it's a situation where the numbers in need are so small that DIRECTV has decided that it was not worth the effort. Yeah, it sucks for those that need it, but DIRECTV has chosen to concentrate it's efforts on other/bigger things.


Well, that would be mostly true; I wonder if they could program it to pull that particular data from OTA like the televisions do though.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I like RobertE's idea .. I think where that falls down is in much older receivers .. But who knows, maybe that too will change one day. I refuse to believe that DIRECTV hasn't at least thought about doing that at some point.


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

Really sorry that DirecTV didn't choose to totally revamp and replace its OTA tuner.

First, the AM21's sensitivity in receiving stations cannot match the tuner
in my Sharp HDTV. 

Second, why won't DirecTV give up and stop using Tribune Media Services?
The whole system is inept and the company continues to be in bankruptcy. 

I wish we had a tuner that would scan and then provide those stations that can be received without our being at the mercy of Tribune.

My old Sony/DirecTV receiver scanned OTA and it was a pleasure.

DirecTV has done not much more than moving the deck chairs on its
Titanic of an OTA tuner!


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Nice First Look, guys.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Rob77 said:


> The review is fine.....what is not fine is DirecTV putting out another unit with no scan capability. Once again the Engineering Department proves they need to have a complete shakeup ...... and hopefully some people fired.


Yes, fire the whole staff because they made a design decision you don't agree with! 

Off with their heads!










Thanks, Stuart, for the great review.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

GP245 said:


> Really sorry that DirecTV didn't choose to totally revamp and replace its OTA tuner.
> 
> First, the AM21's sensitivity in receiving stations cannot match the tuner
> in my Sharp HDTV.


However that is just you and your TV. The AM21 is better then some TV tuners and worse then others. When I used one it was better then my Samsung TV's internal tuner but worse then the tuner I use on my HTPC.



> Second, why won't DirecTV give up and stop using Tribune Media Services?
> The whole system is inept and the company continues to be in bankruptcy.


And what exactly would they use then? Everyone, even Tivo, uses Tribune. It is the only service out there as far as I know.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

For the LiL guide data, the internet connection could be used so as to not take up Sat bandwidth. TV Guide On Screen works that way. Yes I know not everyone has an ICK/CCK but OTA users probably would go through the effort.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

Why don't they just add external port where you could just use your own digital converter box?


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Mr_A1 said:


> Well, that would be mostly true; I wonder if they could program it to pull that particular data from OTA like the televisions do though.


I've wondered this too about the Dish Network OTA module. It should get the data from the sat. if it is available and if it isn't available it should rely on the OTA guide data. Maryland Public TV is available on multiple channels across the state, but we only get guide data from ch. 22 out of Annapolis, but no guide data for ch. 67 out of Baltimore (the station I can receive reliably). I keep 22-2 in my guide just so I know what is on 67-2 and I have to set manual timers.

On Dish Network, if we lose a channel due to contract negotiations, we stop receiving the guide data too. I would think they would want to keep the guide data so the outage affects less people.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

When I had cable we were able to tune some of the subchannels, we also were able to tune into some of the channels from the Chicago market in SD. With the AM21(N) I am able to receive the entire Chicago market in HD, incorporate it into my guide and treat those channels just like another channel, pause/record etc. I just don't understand how this is bad, sure there may be some channel that I cannot get but I can watch it on my tv if I want to.

I know my cable company didn't carry another local market in HD and they still don't, in fact many times a couple of the channels would be blacked out. Thanks for the AM21, it's a nice unit.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

GP245 said:


> Really sorry that DirecTV didn't choose to totally revamp and replace its OTA tuner.
> 
> First, the AM21's sensitivity in receiving stations cannot match the tuner
> in my Sharp HDTV.
> ...


As for receiver sensitivity, it was capturing all my local stations the same as my Sharp televisions (maximum). I am right at 40 miles from most stations. The picture quality was the same for both my Sharp TV and the AM21N, I couldn't tell a difference. Though, as you know, once you can receive a signal digitally, even on the hairy edge, your quality should be the same and your receiver sensitivity only needs to be good enough to receive the digital signal to get good quality picture. Better receiver sensitivity is only indicative of how far you are from the signal and your line of site to the transmitters to your antenna. Mine is within my attic and all signal levels at 40 miles were maxed out in accordance with the signal meters within the STB I used. Receiver sensitivity is not an issue. 

I am not sure that the way DirecTV chooses to do their OTA system is the best either. Though for me it is functional and does receive all of my local channels as with my Sharp TVs. The system seems to work. So I don't see an issue there either.

At best your two points are nits since the crux of both of them seem to be functional and work well, at least for me. All setups are different however, so your mileage, as they say, may vary.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Nice review. Nobody should think that a criticism of the device is a criticism of the reviewer.

The lack of scanning capability, is an issue. DirecTV needs to fix it. A simple ability to tune to any possible channel number would sufice.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know, I agree that it would have been great if DIRECTV had revamped the AM21 concept, made it smaller and more capable. But Doug is right. There was still a small demand for OTA but not a big enough one to really take on revamping it. In that sense I'm glad that DIRECTV actually committed to a new run of AM21s instead of forcing people to go to eBay or elsewhere.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know, I agree that it would have been great if DIRECTV had revamped the AM21 concept, made it smaller and more capable. But Doug is right. There was still a small demand for OTA but not a big enough one to really take on revamping it. In that sense I'm glad that DIRECTV actually committed to a new run of AM21s instead of forcing people to go to eBay or elsewhere.


I would have made 2 changes to the form factor. 1st, I would have it match the footprint of the HR24/34 in width and depth. The second one is a carryover from my thoughts on the original AM21. I would have added an additional inch or so to the height and put in an eSata controller. It would then be a perfect external drive enclosure.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I wonder if it couldn't have just been made into an "add-in" card for the H/HR receivers, had they been designed to accept one. With no power supply and just an "F" connector, the circuit board could probably be made even tinier than it is now.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RobertE said:


> I would have made 2 changes to the form factor. 1st, I would have it match the footprint of the HR24/34 in width and depth. The second one is a carryover from my thoughts on the original AM21. I would have added an additional inch or so to the height and put in an eSata controller. It would then be a perfect external drive enclosure.


Almost seems like they could have marketed it that way to make the cost structure better, but I wonder if the added cost of the OTA elements wouldn't have priced it out of the marketplace as just and eSATA addition.


----------



## kymikes (Jan 16, 2008)

What is a bit puzzling to me is why they made a different model designation for new device. Given no change to form factor or function, it just appears to be a cost reduction/vendor update (????) and the end user will have no way to request one version or the other. Since they don't appear to have an upgrades to firmware (aka HR2X & H2X boxes), why would any one care?? (except to object to the fact that there was no update to form or function). 

Just curious.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hint .. All HR2x & H2x that support the AM21 just had their firmware updated.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

As for actual model numbers? :shrug:

It probably could have been an AM21 still with a 'v2.0' designation on the bottom. I've seen router companies do this many times so that they can keep the same model numbers. Just change the version information to keep it straight when getting down to the technical nitty gritty.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Nice first look! 

It does raise a different question for me personally: Do I really need OTA? I have had it all along, continuing with the HR20-700 about when it came out. I live in a well covered area, San Francisco. I'm not sure what I might miss if I didn't have OTA here.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kymikes said:


> What is a bit puzzling to me is why they made a different model designation for new device. Given no change to form factor or function, it just appears to be a cost reduction/vendor update (????) and the end user will have no way to request one version or the other. Since they don't appear to have an upgrades to firmware (aka HR2X & H2X boxes), why would any one care?? (except to object to the fact that there was no update to form or function).
> 
> Just curious.


There's no need for a customer to specify which one they want. There are no more AM21's, there are only AM21N's now.


----------



## CoramDeo (May 24, 2007)

My issue has always been the limitation to only one additional "local" market allowed, and this is not just with the AM-21(X), but also with the H-2X and HR-2X. I am in the Alexandria, LA (DMA 179) market that is supposed to get HD locals in 2011. There are, however, two other markets within reach of my Winegard 8200P antenna/preamp; Lake Charles, LA (50 miles) and Lafayette, LA (65 miles). It would be sweet to be able to add them both to the D* menu along with the Alexandria locals.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

In some areas, the zip code you enter will give you OTA stations available from more than one market, in that case you could potentially get more than 2 OTA markets, even though you can only use 2 zip codes. When you get your lil HD locals, you will be able to use the 2 zips to get you 3 markets.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know, I agree that it would have been great if DIRECTV had revamped the AM21 concept, made it smaller and more capable. But Doug is right. There was still a small demand for OTA but not a big enough one to really take on revamping it. In that sense I'm glad that DIRECTV actually committed to a new run of AM21s instead of forcing people to go to eBay or elsewhere.


I'm going to agree with Stuart on this one...

My HOPE was that the AM21N's tuner would be as strong as the tuners in some of my TVs, my TiVo Series 3, or even a cheap digital tuner I have, but in all fairness, the AM21/AM21N manages to provide (in my particular case) equal reception as those units except for TWO channels that I'm able to receive. To be honest (in all fairness) I could make changes to my antenna setup (by adding a second antenna), and receive them with the AM21/AM21N, but I simply haven't been concerned enough about it to spend the money or go to the trouble...

HOWEVER, (remaining un-served markets aside) DirecTV didn't _HAVE_ to bother with the AM21N, so I'm just happy they decided to continue offering the option.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Nice first look!
> 
> It does raise a different question for me personally: Do I really need OTA? I have had it all along, continuing with the HR20-700 about when it came out. I live in a well covered area, San Francisco. I'm not sure what I might miss if I didn't have OTA here.


Not everybody has locals... nor does everybody that has SD locals have HD locals.

Some of us who have HD-LIL, don't have access to every network, and if we do, they might not all be in HD.

There's also sub-channels (for those who are interested in the content offered).

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> When you get your lil HD locals, you will be able to use the 2 zips to get you 3 markets.


That's assuming they don't want the sub-channels in their market... 

~Alan<~~~~~~~~Who can receive channels from THREE DMAs, but keeps his own market as the primary for the above reason (as well as OTA back-up)....


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> What part of it's not a hardware limitation but rather a software design decision do you not understand?


Irrelevant from a customer standpoint.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

The first looks is fine, but as I've said in the past, a "first look" should be more of a review would encompass both plusses and minuses which would be much, much more helpful to the average consumer.

D* has alot to offer an hopefully, at some point, this site's first looks will become actual reviews rather than marketing pieces.

Surely the fact the new OTA tuner still cannot offer scan capability (unlike virtually every other OTA scanner) would be be highlighted as a negative rather than have to link to another review.


----------



## MoInSTL (Mar 29, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know, I agree that it would have been great if DIRECTV had revamped the AM21 concept, made it smaller and more capable. But Doug is right. There was still a small demand for OTA but not a big enough one to really take on revamping it. In that sense I'm glad that DIRECTV actually committed to a new run of AM21s instead of forcing people to go to eBay or elsewhere.


After the recent tornadoes in my area, I rely on the AM21 & rooftop antenna when there is heavy cloud cover/rain fade for local network weather coverage. That's all I really use it for, but it's an important use.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Alan Gordon said:


> Not everybody has locals... nor does everybody that has SD locals have HD locals.
> 
> ~Alan


Sorry not to be clearer: I am aware that there are major differences in markets, also appreciating that you have stated your location- but my question was parochial: What do those of us living in or familiar with the SF Bay Area TV situation have to say about the *need *for OTA? I am not sure there's any, but before I ditch OTA if, when and as my HR20-700 dies, I'd like some other viewpoints.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

"raott" said:


> Irrelevant from a customer standpoint.


Not really...

DirecTV could always change their mind, and code our receivers... thereby giving that capability to everyone. A hardware limitation would require everyone wanting that capability to go out and buy a new device (should one come out with that feature).

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

"raott" said:


> The first looks is fine, but as I've said in the past, a "first look" should be more of a review would encompass both plusses and minuses which would be much, much more helpful to the average consumer.
> 
> D* has alot to offer an hopefully, at some point, this site's first looks will become actual reviews rather than marketing pieces.
> 
> Surely the fact the new OTA tuner still cannot offer scan capability (unlike virtually every other OTA scanner) would be be highlighted as a negative rather than have to link to another review.


There is no change (for all intents and purposes) between the AM21 and the AM21N. If you've read the First Look for the AM21, you've read the First Look for the AM21.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

"Laxguy" said:


> Sorry not to be clearer: I am aware that there are major differences in markets, also appreciating that you have stated your location- but my question was parochial: What do those of us living in or familiar with the SF Bay Area TV situation have to say about the need for OTA? I am not sure there's any, but before I ditch OTA if, when and as my HR20-700 dies, I'd like some other viewpoints.


AAH! I gotcha... my bad.... 

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Sorry not to be clearer: I am aware that there are major differences in markets, also appreciating that you have stated your location- but my question was parochial: What do those of us living in or familiar with the SF Bay Area TV situation have to say about the *need *for OTA? I am not sure there's any, but before I ditch OTA if, when and as my HR20-700 dies, I'd like some other viewpoints.


Having not had OTA for the entire life cycle of my HR2x ownership .. I an unequivocally state that I do not miss/need OTA at all in the SF Bay Area. In fact, the MPEG4 version of HD from the Sat is going to be smaller in size than the MPEG2 version OTA and may even look better (I can't direct compare them). So, I think it's probably a no brainer to ditch OTA in the SF Bay Area. (but that's just me)


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Doug, the MPEG4 can never really look better than the MPEG2 OTA version, unless perhaps D* is given a fiber feed of much higher bandwidth than what they send out over the airwaves, and that is probably a very slim possibility. In theory, the best PQ you can get from a local station at your house is the OTA version.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I suspect that the AM21N with the new innerds (southern tech term LOL), was driven more by the original AM21 tuner circuitry was no longer available. So Directv had to do redesign of some sort. And the size being kept the same is a decision to avoid tooling up new front and back covers with indicators, connectors etc.
And a flat paint is much more cost effective since it doesn't show the defects and fallout in production.

I do understand that in many areas, you probably don't get alot of dropouts due to tropical rain storms. Here in S. Florida (and Central Fla) from June 1 to Oct. 30 it could be a daily occurence. Today we had 3 gator gushers as they are fondly called, each lasting 3-6 minutes, so the season is starting. 

I bring that up because if we use MPEG4 99s locals to record afternoon and evening network programming, we lose alot of recordings due to 771 pop ups during the show. And of course we can't watch them. (My 99 sig strengths are in the 90s). So OTA is how my family watches local TV and records them. Its 100% reliable vs MPEG4.

Over the past 3 years I referred two friends to Direct TV. One is now with uVerse and the other is waiting 6 mos until his contract is up to do the same. Both cited the same reason, rain storm dropouts. So needless to say, I don't refer alot of friends locally to Directv unless they want my help with an OTA antenna.

Just sharing my thoughts on why the AM21N might be exaclty the same size and why some of us folks need it.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

CoramDeo said:


> My issue has always been the limitation to only one additional "local" market allowed, and this is not just with the AM-21(X), but also with the H-2X and HR-2X. I am in the Alexandria, LA (DMA 179) market that is supposed to get HD locals in 2011. There are, however, two other markets within reach of my Winegard 8200P antenna/preamp; Lake Charles, LA (50 miles) and Lafayette, LA (65 miles). It would be sweet to be able to add them both to the D* menu along with the Alexandria locals.


You can setup more than one market, as long as you can bring them in, with an AM21 or AM21N, you just supply 2 zip codes.


----------



## CoramDeo (May 24, 2007)

I can enter two zip codes, but I want to enter three (Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette).


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

CoramDeo said:


> I can enter two zip codes, but I want to enter three (Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette).


Try to find a zip code that covers two of those DMA's then enter the second zip to the 3rd zip.


----------



## BakeBarry (May 23, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I also know that very, very, very, very few DIRECTV Satellite subcribers even use OTA to begin with. It's TINY. Then the number affected by this particular problem is only a tiny fraction of that tiny number. I'm sure that DIRECTV has simply decided that it is not cost effective for them to spend any time on making it work the way you want it to work. As a result, they don't do it. You're stuck with what is available. I'm not saying it's right or wrong .. but that is the way it is. It makes sense to me.


As a member of the very very very TINY group...It makes NO sense to me.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

CoramDeo said:


> I can enter two zip codes, but I want to enter three (Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette).


If you have two Directv boxes, you could always add a second AM21 and plug in two additional zip codes, and just split the antenna between the two AM21's.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

CCarncross said:


> Doug, the MPEG4 can never really look better than the MPEG2 OTA version, unless perhaps D* is given a fiber feed of much higher bandwidth than what they send out over the airwaves, and that is probably a very slim possibility. In theory, the best PQ you can get from a local station at your house is the OTA version.


I've been hard-pressed to see a difference between the two. However, my testing has not been side by side of identical monitors, but watching the same segments of one program on one feed right after watching it on the other feed.

I agree with the theory, but on a 58" Samsung plasma, with a somewhat discerning eye, differences are tiny to me.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

BakeBarry said:


> As a member of the very very very TINY group...It makes NO sense to me.


I am a member of this group as well, and it actually makes perfect sense. It makes absolutely zero business sense for D*(SAT provider), to waste a lot(or any) of time and resources on OTA for the very small group of subscribers who use it.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan (Apr 23, 2010)

So what exactly is the benefit to getting one of these? The only reason I can think of is the benefit of seeing subchannels like THIS and RTV in the guide and recording them?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

NewForceFiveFan said:


> So what exactly is the benefit to getting one of these? The only reason I can think of is the benefit of seeing subchannels like THIS and RTV in the guide and recording them?


See Alan's post here for a good quick summation of the benefits of the AM21/N.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2790323#post2790323


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Steve said:


> +1.
> 
> So new tuner chips vs. old, no performance differences at all on marginal signals? Or handling problematic situations, like lots of multipath? TIA.


+1 Could see subtle differences between the AM21 and AM21N...


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Nice work on the First Look, Stuart. It looks great!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RAD said:


> Try to find a zip code that covers two of those DMA's then enter the second zip to the 3rd zip.


WHAT?!?!?!

That's possible with the AM21/AM21N?! 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> I've been hard-pressed to see a difference between the two. However, my testing has not been side by side of identical monitors, but watching the same segments of one program on one feed right after watching it on the other feed.
> 
> I agree with the theory, but on a 58" Samsung plasma, with a somewhat discerning eye, differences are tiny to me.


Over the years I've done similar tests to you comparing OTA feeds with the DNS channels, and last year with our locals upon them launching, and I found that the ABC and CBS HD-DNS feeds were virtually identical to the PQ I received over the air from two CBS affiliates, and two to four ABC affiliates.

Upon our locals launching last year, I found that the FOX affiliate was virtually identical to the naked eye, as was the PBS affiliate, while our NBC feed was SLIGHTLY softer (particularly during faster moving scenes)... an odd fact considering DirecTV could possibly be receiving it directly from the NBC affiliate, but the PQ difference wasn't worth being concerned about. Once our CBS launched, it too was slightly softer than the OTA feeds I can receive, or the HD-DNS feeds.

For the (all too) brief time that we had ABC and CW in HD (from Jacksonville, FL), the ABC was virtually identical to the naked eye, and while I had nothing to compare the CW to, it was VERY sharp and looked EXCELLENT. 

*Sorry for going off-topic, but I wanted to comment on the issue.*

~Alan


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Rob77 said:


> The review is fine.....what is not fine is DirecTV putting out another unit with no scan capability. Once again the Engineering Department proves they need to have a complete shakeup ...... and hopefully some people fired.


Oh good lord. You're calling for people to lose their jobs? That is absolutely ridiculous...


----------



## BEP1030 (Sep 4, 2007)

Love my H20!


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

I certainly didn't design the way it works .. I also know that very, very, very, very few DIRECTV Satellite subcribers even use OTA to begin with. It's TINY. Then the number affected by this particular problem is only a tiny fraction of that tiny number. I'm sure that DIRECTV has simply decided that it is not cost effective for them to spend any time on making it work the way you want it to work. As a result, they don't do it. You're stuck with what is available. I'm not saying it's right or wrong .. but that is the way it is. It makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]

I bet the OTA H20 or AM21 owners outnumber the Direct TV 3D subscribers.

Another poster mentioned tornados/weather in his area lately.

I had the same thing, and if I hadn`t had OTA subchannel local weather available on those occasions, it could have been bad news for all my neighbors as well (Time Warner Cable lines down)


----------



## leadout_kv (Nov 4, 2006)

Sorry if this has been asked in this thread but why doesn't DTV design a receiver like the HR20 (w/OTA) just much faster?

I'm in the DC market so I use an OTA to pick up Baltimore stations. I use an HR20 (its still ticking but slow) in my bedroom for watching and recording the Ravens games.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

LubbersLine said:


> Sorry if this has been asked in this thread but why doesn't DTV design a receiver like the HR20 (w/OTA) just much faster?
> 
> I'm in the DC market so I use an OTA to pick up Baltimore stations. I use an HR20 (its still ticking but slow) in my bedroom for watching and recording the Ravens games.


Why supply OTA tuner equipped boxes to all your customers if only a very very small % use OTA(...Its all about economics, and if you can save a few dollars per millions of units, well there you go.

Taking the tuners outside so its an option is just smart business sense. Especially when the intended audience is so small.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

It's amazing what I've spent getting the NYC subchannels. Basic cable monthly fee. $250 approx. for a 500Gb equipped DVD recorder to start. As far as OTA I'd have to get someone in to install an antenna. I keep the basic cable since it also delivers a fair selection of non locals for another part of the house.

OTA or off of cable with a cable box or Clear QAM tuner is the only way I can watch Antenna TV. 

Channels like that are one reason I bought a Magnavox DVD Recorder with clear QAM to go with my basic cable feed. This way I can record them and watch later, IE Poor mans DVR. Manual timers I'm afraid. However the 500Gb hard drive holds a fair amount off of the digital channels. I programmed it for 30 second forward skip and 15 second reverse skip so I can skip commercials. I was watching a previously recorded Benny Hill the other night. 

It's amazing how many subchannels are available from NYC, NY. 

AM21 or AM21N or the Dishnetwork DTVPal (?) wouldn't work since they don't get the clear QAM channels.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

LubbersLine said:


> Sorry if this has been asked in this thread but why doesn't DTV design a receiver like the HR20 (w/OTA) just much faster?
> 
> I'm in the DC market so I use an OTA to pick up Baltimore stations. I use an HR20 (its still ticking but slow) in my bedroom for watching and recording the Ravens games.


It was not included in subsequent models because there was just such a small call for it. Very, very few people use OTA with their DirecTV receivers.

This add on provides OTA for the small percentage of people that want it while eliminating that added cost from the receivers.

Mike


----------



## hombresoto (Sep 10, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It was not included in subsequent models because there was just such a small call for it. Very, very few people use OTA with their DirecTV receivers.
> 
> This add on provides OTA for the small percentage of people that want it while eliminating that added cost from the receivers.
> 
> Mike


In the last five years I have had 1, yes 1 customer that used OTA in addition to their DirecTV service. It was an elderly couple with an old Hughes box. I have NEVER been to a home with an AM21 installed. 
My most recent experience with OTA was taking the antennas DOWN when the Boston DMA got their locals in HD. 
I am sure there are small regions of the country that use it however I think everyone should be happy DirecTV chooses to serve that sized demographic in any way rather than complain about what it doesn't do.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

twiseguy said:


> I bet the OTA H20 or AM21 owners outnumber the Direct TV 3D subscribers.


Hmmm .. I hadn't thought of this. But I'd almost bet that 3D subscribers outnumber OTA folks.



> Another poster mentioned tornados/weather in his area lately.
> 
> I had the same thing, and if I hadn`t had OTA subchannel local weather available on those occasions, it could have been bad news for all my neighbors as well (Time Warner Cable lines down)


The recent tornadoes are very sad. Additionally there were hurricanes the past couple of years that were problematic as well. That being said, over time, it's still a small percentage of DIRECTV customers that actually have and use OTA. Generally speaking, this is not what people have DIRECTV service for.


----------



## gcd0865 (Jul 23, 2008)

I'm very much interested in hearing about how much the internal components of the new AM21N differ from the previous AM21. As I advised previously (see http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=160282), I had gradually declining sensitivity with my first AM21, until it got to the point that even local stations would not come in on the AM21, while my tv tuner continued to receive them just fine (and at the same high signal strengths).

Unfortunately, I must now report that my second AM21 is just beginning to show the same symptoms (I even located this second unit away from the top of my HR24, in case heat might have been an issue). One of my recordings over the weekend failed (on a station 25 miles away) due to insufficient signal strength on my AM21. On my tv tuner, the signal strength for that channel is 83 (and was around the same number for that channel on my AM21 last time I checked). Both my tv tuner and the AM21 can receive and lock stations with signal strengths above about 35-ish, and we have no multipath problems at all in my area.

Upon slightly rotating my antenna, the AM21 briefly received a frozen/pixelated picture on this 25-mile channel the other evening, indicating that that station has basically fallen below the 35-ish signal threshhold because my AM21 has become less sensitive over time, same as the last unit. I'll continue to monitor the situation, but I suspect that I'll shortly be calling DirecTV to complain about this happening a second time. Last time, the replacement AM21 showed instant improvement, back to like the first one performed when it was new, so I'm quite sure it's the circuitry of the AM21 gradually going bad, as opposed to any antenna problems.

Although I did have to pay $50 for this replacement AM21 unit, I later got that refunded as part of a telephone call with DirecTV (about a different subject) when they asked me generally whether I was satisfied with their service, and I brought up my disappointment with the lack of warranty on the AM21.

Thought this might be helpful to anyone else having declining sensitivity with their AM21...


----------



## gcd0865 (Jul 23, 2008)

Oh yeah, forgot to add that I'd also prefer either channel scanning or up to 5 zip code entries for station markets, as DirecTV doesn't provide two of my locals in HD (causing me to use one zip code for my local city). Besides my locals, I receive 5 stations from a 2nd market, 5 stations from a 3rd market, 1 station from a 4th market and sometimes 4-5 stations from a 5th market late at night.


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

We use OTA on 2 of 3 HR20s all the time, this is why I never upgraded. The HR20s are great with OTA and sub channels. DirecTV should have had internal "add-in" modules at extra cost to eliminate the need for extra boxes, power, cables, and problems.....


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

gcd0865 said:


> Oh yeah, forgot to add that I'd also prefer either channel scanning or up to 5 zip code entries for station markets, as DirecTV doesn't provide two of my locals in HD (causing me to use one zip code for my local city). Besides my locals, I receive 5 stations from a 2nd market, 5 stations from a 3rd market, 1 station from a 4th market and sometimes 4-5 stations from a 5th market late at night.


Though this particular method would not be without it's own problems, I'm quite fond of TiVo's implementation.

Essentially, you enter in your zip code, and you get guide data for all of the stations that Tribune Media Services feels you can receive based on your zip code. I'm sure some people might have issues with stations omitted due to Tribune thinking the zip code is unable to receive the station, but it works GREAT for my zip code...

~Alan


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

With the weather lately around here and my wife glued to the channels that Oprah and Idol are on, one heavy rainstorm came about, satellite lost the signal during the storm, my wife looked at me and I saw death before my eyes.

I immediately changed my local channels SL's to -1 channels via the AM21. Never an issue since. Doesn't matter how bad the freekin' storm is, I never lose signal on the AM21, thus recordings are intact.

So include me in the tiny little group of OTA subscribers.....and the AM21 has really saved my life!

Maybe the "N" in the AM-21N stands for "Not shiny"???


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

There is no doubt, that OTA is very important to our household. With heavy showers that constantly knock out the satellite signals, we use OTA to record anything on local channels. Plus, we watch the weather and local news, on the sub channels, that DirecTV doesn't provide. 
I am going to make my HR20's last as long as I can, in hopes that they will release a future AM21, with a small footprint.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

codespy said:


> With the weather lately around here and my wife glued to the channels that Oprah and Idol are on, one heavy rainstorm came about, satellite lost the signal during the storm, my wife looked at me and I saw death before my eyes.
> 
> I immediately changed my local channels SL's to -1 channels via the AM21. Never an issue since. Doesn't matter how bad the freekin' storm is, I never lose signal on the AM21, thus recordings are intact.
> 
> ...


+1. Same situation here when storms approach from the Southwest. OTA for Chicago locals remain strong...


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Does anyone know if the AM21N works better with the HR24-500? Quite a few people had issues with the AM21 and that DVR.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> Does anyone know if the AM21N works better with the HR24-500? Quite a few people had issues with the AM21 and that DVR.


I tested my AM21N with an HR24-500 and have had zero issues.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

BEP1030 said:


> Love my H20!


When you scan for OTA channels with your H20, are you able to see any channels in your market that you otherwise (if your were using an HR20 or AM21) would not be able to tune due their not being in the DirecTV market database?

If so, what does the guide show for those channels? Does the channel show in the guide? What does the programming content for that channel say?


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

In this case, I simply prefer the DISH model for handling OTA channels and guide info. Let the receiver scan for and/or be manually set up for any OTA channel. If DISH has guide data, then show it. If not, show "digital service". It's very simple.

For example, from posts # 3 and 4 of http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=186611 regarding how DISH does it:

_What results someone will get is very dependent on their DMA, and what OTA channels are added to the receiver from another DMA. I have many sub-channels in my DMA that appear as Digital Service, but I also have maybe two dozen OTA sub-channels from the Bay Area with Guide info. I'm 100 miles from the Bay Area towers, so actually watching SF or SJ stations isn't predictable. I have Guide data for the Sacto sub-channels 1 thru 3 of ION, qubo, & IONL, but Digital Service for -4 Wors. The Bay Area 65-1 ION has info but the next 3 are Digital Service for me.

I have about 50 OTA sub-channels that have EPG info and 12 that say Digital Service. Some are my DMA, some are the Bay Area. 
_​
and

_
If you sub to your DMA's locals in addition to your satellite delivered channels you will get the guide data for any available channel (available in the guide data database, that is) that is scanned into your OTA receiver.

I get one OOM OTA station virtually 24/7, with one sub channel. I get the correct guide data for those two stations. Additionally I have scanned in other stations from that distant city that only come in when the atmospheric conditions assist those signals in getting out here. I can see the guide data even when those signals are not receivable.

I also get guide data for many, but not all subchannels from my locals.

Bottom line YMMV.​_


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

tkrandall - THAT is a great solution, and I wish D* would consider it.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> tkrandall - THAT is a great solution, and I wish D* would consider it.


My fear is they actively DID consider it, and they decided that not having to entertain customers calling asking "why don't I have guide data?" for every subchannel that goes live (achieved by denying the customer the ability to tune channels unless DirecTV has it in a database) was somehow preferable to entertaining calls of "why can't I tune this channel?", and "why won't your box let me scan for channels like every other tuner in the world?"

That, or they just simply did not think through it at all and without much thought for the implications went with a solution they are already comfortable with like for the channels they deliver via sat, i.e. a database managed solution.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if it may be the latter - they just did not give the OTA tuning/setup issue much thought from the user perspective and instinctively went with the database solution. It's how every other aspect of their prodect delivery is handled, but it is just not a good approach for how to handle OTA in my opinion.

Who knows....


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Or more likely, the implementation cost would far exceed the cash benefit or the goodwill gained.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

That's pretty much how I see it as well Stuart ...


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

tkrandall said:


> My fear is they actively DID consider it, and they decided that not having to entertain customers calling asking "why don't I have guide data?" for every subchannel that goes live (achieved by denying the customer the ability to tune channels unless DirecTV has it in a database) was somehow preferable to entertaining calls of "why can't I tune this channel?", and "why won't your box let me scan for channels like every other tuner in the world?"
> 
> That, or they just simply did not think through it at all and without much thought for the implications went with a solution they are already comfortable with like for the channels they deliver via sat, i.e. a database managed solution.
> 
> ...


I also think it is probably more like the latter. I think that when they originally came up with the way they do OTA channels in the guide they didn't have any problems with it. There weren't as many channels to add and they didn't include as much information at the time. I'm thinking that they probably had plenty of room for the guide info until they made the upgrades to the guide info and added the cast & crew information, screenshots, parental info, etc. I think when they made that upgrade it vastly increased the amount of data the guide info takes up and it has caused issues in the receivers since. Seems to me it was shortly after the expanded guide info was added was when they started dropping low power channels from the OTA guide, stopped adding subchannels, etc.

I also wonder if they couldn't add all these channels in if they considered dropping a few days from the guide info, like from 14 days to 10 or so. I believe a lot of their competitors only go out that far as it is.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Or more likely, the implementation cost would far exceed the cash benefit or the goodwill gained.


Yes I agree at this point it is probably too far gone to mess with re-writing the programming to allow scanning and getting guide data by other means. However, if the upgrade to the HD-GUI contains a major overhaul of the way the guide data is distributed etc. then it could possibly be implemented at that time without costing too much extra. Of course I have no idea if the HD-GUI will need a major overhaul to the guide data though.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Beerstalker, to be totally straight I think that there just isn't a lot of effort being put into OTA. DIRECTV already provides more OTA support than most other multichannel providers, and the need for such support is so minimal... seems to me that they just don't see a reason to make such a large change.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Beerstalker, to be totally straight I think that there just isn't a lot of effort being put into OTA. DIRECTV already provides more OTA support than most other multichannel providers, and the need for such support is so minimal... seems to me that they just don't see a reason to make such a large change.


What you say is correct as long as it's DIRECTV, Dish and cable that you're talking about, but make it just DIRECTV and Dish, then IMHO Dish handles OTA better.

When it comes to cable, yep they normally don't support OTA at all. Why, because normally they carry all the local's DMA channels and subchannels, no need for an OTA solution.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't have the data on every cable provider in the nation, but all I can tell you is that not one cable provider in my area carries even a single subchannel.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't have the data on every cable provider in the nation, but all I can tell you is that not one cable provider in my area carries even a single subchannel.


Mine does here, and I checked where I used to live and they're also carried there. So YMMV, but IMHO I think over all cable does a better job of carrying local channels, especially sub channels, then DIRECTV does, so no need to support an OTA facility in their STB's.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It sounds like your markets are far better served by cable than mine, then.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Cable here does support a good chunk of the sub channels.
In my area, the local TV stations in a not so subliminal way, push Comcast.

Example, local NBC station ends weather morning, afternoon, evening and 11pm forecast every time with "24hr weather available to you on Antenna 5.2 or Comcast channel xxxx". Keeps ramming cable and OTA at the viewers. Weather is big here given the location.

But I understand why Directv focuses on many other areas. Economically they have to.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

As I see it, my simple mind's concept of how DirectTV could handle OTA, which would be largely how DISH does it, would be LESS COMPLICATED and require LESS SUPPORT and maintenance by DirecTV in the end. Therefore less costly to them in the long run. There would be no need to set up and maintain a zip code based OTA database and customized software in the boxes to download the channel tuning info. Perhaps fewer employees dedicated to this task as well. Let the receivers tune and scan for OTA channels, just as is the industry standard for other ATSC tuners. 

Rather than a database, the tuning and picking up of the actual terrestrial broadcast is what would give the receiver the channel identification info, including sub channels. Using that channel identification info, the guide issue could/would be handled from the Satellite provided guide info, for any OTA channels DirecTV happened to have in the database. If a channel is not in the DirecTV database and guide stream, that would be OK too - simply show "digital service" or "guide info not provided" or some other generic label in the guide. I see no value proposition (either to DirecTV or the customer) in holding OTA channel tuning hostage to a database.

I probably have said enough on this topic so will try to stand down......


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Or more likely, the implementation cost would far exceed the cash benefit or the goodwill gained.


They do a beta software download virtually every weekend. Don't you think they spend a lot of time and money on those? How could putting a little extra time into programming the ota tuners to scan add anything significant to their costs? It's a one time thing, not every week like the beta testing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I have to wonder which there are more of... Cutting edgers or OTA enthusiasts.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I have to wonder which there are more of... Cutting edgers or OTA enthusiasts.


Enthusiasts, is probably a small subset of OTA users, very small. But I bet Directv sold quite a few AM21's and felt the need to embark on the AM21N to satisfy a need for OTA. Since they did an add on product and all receivers continue to support the USB implementation, I suspect more than 50K AM21's were put into service.

Admittingly a swag but if it was less then they probably wouldn't have bothered with a new one.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I have to wonder which there are more of... Cutting edgers or OTA enthusiasts.


How many are involved in the CE program is irrelevant. Directv is spending time and money nearly every week to run the program. Why not spend a little bit extra and allow the ota tuners to scan? It's likely a one time fix.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The only reason for a new AM21 is to meet the demand of those markets not yet served by DIRECTV. I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV would like to serve every market via SAT. As a result any extra money will be headed that direction rather than making scan work for OTA.

Look, I'm sure that DIRECTV could make it happen .. OTA works the way it does now and for the most part development is done. There will be some people (some here in fact) that are directly affected by this decision, but the vast majority of users are served by the existing model. It's not anything against those of you that need it, it's just that there are bigger things that interest DIRECTV. The demand for this is tiny .. infinitely tiny. That's why it's not being done.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The only reason for a new AM21 is to meet the demand of those markets not yet served by DIRECTV. I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV would like to serve every market via SAT. As a result any extra money will be headed that direction rather than making scan work for OTA.
> 
> Look, I'm sure that DIRECTV could make it happen .. OTA works the way it does now and for the most part development is done. There will be some people (some here in fact) that are directly affected by this decision, but the vast majority of users are served by the existing model. It's not anything against those of you that need it, it's just that there are bigger things that interest DIRECTV. The demand for this is tiny .. infinitely tiny. That's why it's not being done.


I'm sure the numbers are small, that's not my point. It would take little effort or money on Directv's part to make the tuners scan. It seems foolish for them not to when virtually all other tuners made can scan.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"raoul5788" said:


> I'm sure the numbers are small, that's not my point. It would take little effort or money on Directv's part to make the tuners scan. It seems foolish for them not to when virtually all other tuners made can scan.


But they have no need to care what all others do, unless they are losing customers by not having it or can gain customers by adding it. And how many would they have to lose or gain to make it worth while. It never makes sense to spend $10 to get $1.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm sure the numbers are small, that's not my point. It would take little effort or money on Directv's part to make the tuners scan. It seems foolish for them not to when virtually all other tuners made can scan.


You don't know that .. Remember, it works the way it works now. Everything would have to be rewritten, tested, trained, etc. What may seem to be "little effort" will take a lot of people .. which will rack up the man-years .. which will rack up the cost.

Why does it seem foolish? What if the numbers are so low that it will cost DIRECTV more money to make the change to something that works than it would cost if every single one of those customers left? Folks that really, really want OTA channels not available through DIRECTV can simply connect the antenna directly to their TV and pick them up. Remember DIRECTV is in the SAT business, not the OTA business. I don't see Comcast, Uverse, or FiOS providing any OTA solution. DIRECTV likely covers 100% of the OTA needed for 90% of those with OTA and 90% of the OTA for the remaining 10% who use OTA. Yeah, there are some holes, but there are ways to mitigate the problem.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I have to wonder which there are more of... Cutting edgers or OTA enthusiasts.


These two categories are not mutually exclusive 

Although most of the locals I watch are already carried, I find the AM21 to be quite useful for watching and recording such subchannels as RTN or Antenna TV. I recently bought a second AM21 (it was the original version, not the AM21N).


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> The only reason for a new AM21 is to meet the demand of those markets not yet served by DIRECTV. I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV would like to serve every market via SAT. As a result any extra money will be headed that direction rather than making scan work for OTA.
> 
> Look, I'm sure that DIRECTV could make it happen .. OTA works the way it does now and for the most part development is done. There will be some people (some here in fact) that are directly affected by this decision, but the vast majority of users are served by the existing model. It's not anything against those of you that need it, it's just that there are bigger things that interest DIRECTV. The demand for this is tiny .. infinitely tiny. That's why it's not being done.


I know that DirecTV does strive to get as many local markets on satellite as possible, but the bottom line is they only transmit a portion of the available channels. In our area we receive 17 channels from DirecTV via satellite, of the 39 available OTA channels. And the truth is, that it wouldn't be cost effective for them to add the other 22 channels and subchannels, as their viewer base is lower that the 17 they now provide. But those other 22 channels are watched and important to many, some contain PBS sub channels, local news and weather, as well as independent networks. That is why I feel DirecTV should continue to improve their OTA technology. 
Many could care less about anything other than the big 4 OTA networks, but to some of us the other available programing is just as important.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> The only reason for a new AM21 is to meet the demand of those markets not yet served by DIRECTV. I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV would like to serve every market via SAT. As a result any extra money will be headed that direction rather than making scan work for OTA.


Actually I doubt the new AM21 had anything to do with demand, they would have just produced more of the old AM21 to cover that. The H25 is the reason for the new AM21. They couldn't send the old AM21 out without a cap over the power port since the H25 doesn't use that port anymore. Without that cap there is a chance of people getting shocked/electrocuted and DirecTV would have been liable.

Although I personally can't see many people using an AM21 with the H25 since it's about 4 times as big.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think you're only about halfway right, Mr. Stalker. H25 compatibility is certainly part of the equation, but their is still some residual demand in markets with no locals. As I said several pages ago, DIRECTV could have simply sent those people to eBay for used AM21s but they didn't. They decided to build new hardware. They didn't spend a boatload of money on engineering the case, but they did deliver a new device instead of relying on the secondary market.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> You don't know that .. Remember, it works the way it works now. Everything would have to be rewritten, tested, trained, etc. What may seem to be "little effort" will take a lot of people .. which will rack up the man-years .. which will rack up the cost.
> 
> Why does it seem foolish? What if the numbers are so low that it will cost DIRECTV more money to make the change to something that works than it would cost if every single one of those customers left? Folks that really, really want OTA channels not available through DIRECTV can simply connect the antenna directly to their TV and pick them up. Remember DIRECTV is in the SAT business, not the OTA business. I don't see Comcast, Uverse, or FiOS providing any OTA solution. DIRECTV likely covers 100% of the OTA needed for 90% of those with OTA and 90% of the OTA for the remaining 10% who use OTA. Yeah, there are some holes, but there are ways to mitigate the problem.


The lack of a scan feature would be moot for most if they bothered to update their database to accommodate new channels. WTIC in Hartford added AntennaTV as a subchannel January 1st. Directv has yet to add it to the database. When I emailed them about it they first claimed it was an analog low power station. Then they tried blaming Tribune, but that was wrong too, since it's in the Zap2it listings. Finally they told me to call about it. That was another waste of time!


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Could they do it? Most likely. They just choose not to.


BINGO! Right on cue. We just hashed this whole argument out for the 10th time in the last year 2 or 3 weeks ago just like I predicted.

WHEN WILL DIRECTV GET THE POINT? We need the scan enabled. If you can't do that then at least synchronize with Tribune Media's guide every 2 weeks. You can always put in "Regular Programming" if you want to conserve guide info on rarely watched channels. This isn't difficult.

DUH?

See you back here in another 3 weeks for the next thread about the same thing yet once again. DirecTV Engineering, How many ways can you spell TONE DEAF?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

aa9vi said:


> How many ways can you spell TONE DEAF?


One way would be FOE AT END.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Why does it seem foolish? What if the numbers are so low that it will cost DIRECTV more money to make the change to something that works than it would cost if every single one of those customers left? Folks that really, really want OTA channels not available through DIRECTV can simply connect the antenna directly to their TV and pick them up. Remember DIRECTV is in the SAT business, not the OTA business. I don't see Comcast, Uverse, or FiOS providing any OTA solution. DIRECTV likely covers 100% of the OTA needed for 90% of those with OTA and 90% of the OTA for the remaining 10% who use OTA. Yeah, there are some holes, but there are ways to mitigate the problem.


Douglas, I think you are missing that ATT U-Verse, Comcast, FIOS, and Time Warner all have OTA subchannels on their digital tiers. Many of them on their free QAM signals for anyone who gets a cable modem through them. So, the cable providers are providing something DirecTV does not. Dish has an ideal OTA accessory that DirecTV should have.

So, when looking at increasing your customer base, don't you want to say, yes, we offer at least the same as if not more than our competitors? Don't you want to brag you have more HD then they do? The current DirecTV shAM-21 holds them back from saying we have so many more HD channels (and SD channels for that matter, too). Why not use the OTA as a way to pad your brag list?

Then there are those in markets where it is unprofitable to launch another bird for the locals. Well, why not have a good solution for them too. At some point the subscriber growth will plateau and you'll have to look at what you may consider too small to care about markets for growth. Collectively they do add up.

Market it right and you reap the benefits. Please consider explaining this to your manager if you work for DirecTV.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Noone NEEDS this OTA and the ability to scan for channels that dont make the database for your zip...many WANT it, and apparently aren't ever going to give it a rest....:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Noone NEEDS this OTA and the ability to scan for channels that dont make the database for your zip...many WANT it, and apparently aren't ever going to give it a rest....:beatdeadhorse:


No one NEEDS Directv either. What's your point? If you don't really care, don't post about it. Let those of us that do care continue to discuss it.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

How about another way of looking at it... How many of you out there would pay $75-$100 for an AM-22 that scans for channels?

Mark me down for 2.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Me too.

I wish DirecTV could see the advantage and appeal of having a product offering that would allow the customer to view all his receivable OTA channel offerings (not a remotely managed sub set, but all) through a single box: the DirecTV receiver or DVR for OTA. 

While OTA reception is not core to what DirecTV does, neither is being able to watch youtube or pics from my computer on my receiver either. 

Having a product that makes it easy for the customer to tune and even record all the available OTA channels without having to have multiple connection to his TV, having to switch input modes on the TV and/or Home Theater system and not have to split the antenna input to both the DVR and the TV would only ENHANCE the DirecTV product.

Finally, from the engineer pride-in-your-work side of me I cannot understand why they would prefer this "klugey" database restricted model, versus a more elegant solution in keeping with industry norms that allows scanning and manual setup. I suppose that gets under my skin as much as anything.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And as I said, it would be great but I suspect it's a matter of cost benefit. The database-restricted model, as you call it, allows them to use a single source for guide data and to have some degree of confidence in that source. 

I think of it this way. Without knowing the exact number of OTA users, let's shoot WAY high and say it's 10% of all DIRECTV subscribers. 

Now, in general, how many DIRECTV customers are super-techs like the people in this forum? Let's say that 50% of the super-techs have registered here. That's high, but still, let's say. Since our membership historically has been about 50% DIRECTV and 50% dish, those 50%s cancel out and we can say 85,000 super-techie satellite watchers exist. 

If the proportion of OTA users among super-techs is the same as in the regular DIRECTV population, that puts the number of OTA super-techs at about 8,500. 

So 8,500 out of 20 million subscribers... meaning that subchannels and full coverage is important to roughly .05% of the DIRECTV population. 99.95% of the subscribers by my admittedly fuzzy math are either ok without OTA or ok with the OTA they get. 

Of course it's all made up numbers, but I have some reason to believe it's not that far off.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think you're only about halfway right, Mr. Stalker. H25 compatibility is certainly part of the equation, but their is still some residual demand in markets with no locals. As I said several pages ago, DIRECTV could have simply sent those people to eBay for used AM21s but they didn't. They decided to build new hardware. They didn't spend a boatload of money on engineering the case, but they did deliver a new device instead of relying on the secondary market.


I agree, but like I said I think the new design (AM21N) was specifically because of the H25.

If they were only making them to meet demand for markets without locals via Sat they could have just made another run of the old design (AM21).

I'm just a little suprised they didn't re-do the case to make it match the HR24/HR34 case designs though (AM24?). Then if someone was using a HR21-23 they could buy the AM21, if they were using an HR24/34 they would get the AM24.

I doubt many people would use the AM2x with the H25 or any non-dvr for that matter, as if you are just wanting to watch OTA live you can just as easily use the OTA tuner in your TV rather than spend the money on the AM2x.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> And as I said, it would be great but I suspect it's a matter of cost benefit.


That could very well be, but realistically, how much would it cost them to reprogram the AM21 to scan? It's a one time thing. I doubt it would take more than a couple of hours of code writing to accomplish. Failing that, at least keep the database of stations up to date. They have failed miserably in that regard.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

raoul5788 said:


> That could very well be, but realistically, how much would it cost them to reprogram the AM21 to scan? It's a one time thing. I doubt it would take more than a couple of hours of code writing to accomplish. Failing that, at least keep the database of stations up to date. They have failed miserably in that regard.


Not sure it would be that easy to rewrite the code. Although maybe they could go back to the code from the H20 and use it as a starting point.

As far as keeping the database of channels up to date many of us don't think that it is a problem of them failing to do so, or not feeling like doing it. We think that they are to the point where they don't have room to add the data at all.

It seems to me that the point in time where they seemed to start getting bad about adding new OTA channels to the database, and actually started removing low power channels from the database, occurred right around the same time that channel logos, show logos, and more in depth program info and parental ratings were added to the guide. I'm wondering if that didn't take up a lot more room than they originally thought it would and they decided to sacrifice OTA info in order to keep this expanded info for Sat channels.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> Not sure it would be that easy to rewrite the code. Although maybe they could go back to the code from the H20 and use it as a starting point.
> 
> As far as keeping the database of channels up to date many of us don't think that it is a problem of them failing to do so, or not feeling like doing it. We think that they are to the point where they don't have room to add the data at all.
> 
> It seems to me that the point in time where they seemed to start getting bad about adding new OTA channels to the database, and actually started removing low power channels from the database, occurred right around the same time that channel logos, show logos, and more in depth program info and parental ratings were added to the guide. I'm wondering if that didn't take up a lot more room than they originally thought it would and they decided to sacrifice OTA info in order to keep this expanded info for Sat channels.


That's the first explanation I have heard that makes sense.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Beerstalker said:


> As far as keeping the database of channels up to date many of us don't think that it is a problem of them failing to do so, or not feeling like doing it. We think that they are to the point where they don't have room to add the data at all.


There may be a capacity issue but there is a problem with them failing to correct problems. They have a local class A digital station in the table, but they must be looking at the incorrect RF channel for it, since every ATSC tuner I have in TV's can pick it up just fine at a high signal reading. Plus even the channel identification that DIRECTV displays for this station (channel number and name for one subchannel) doesn't match the PSIP info that the station generates. I've e-mailed DIRECTV, Ellen's office and Tribune Media and for over a year no party will correct this problem.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> I doubt it would take more than a couple of hours of code writing to accomplish.


!rolling

You clearly know nothing about coding...

They aren't going to add a scan. Accept that fact, make peace with it, and move on.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> !rolling
> 
> You clearly know nothing about coding...
> 
> They aren't going to add a scan. Accept that fact, make peace with it, and move on.


You're right, I don't. Thanks for the condescending remark.  The time involved to fix the problem is a minor point in my position. The explanation Beerstalker gave makes the most sense. I've "made peace" with it a long time ago. I'm merely stating my opinion. Sorry it doesn't agree with yours. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, why interject yourself?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> You're right, I don't. Thanks for the condescending remark.  The time involved to fix the problem is a minor point in my position. The explanation Beerstalker gave makes the most sense. I've "made peace" with it a long time ago. I'm merely stating my opinion. Sorry it doesn't agree with yours. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, why interject yourself?


So DirecTV's time is a "minor point" to you? Apparently it's all about you then... gimme gimme... Regardless of who is inconvenienced and how or what it costs.

I added to the discussion. I also tested the AM21N and find no need at all for scanning.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> So DirecTV's time is a "minor point" to you? Apparently it's all about you then... gimme gimme... Regardless of who is inconvenienced and how or what it costs.
> 
> I added to the discussion. I also tested the AM21N and find no need at all for scanning.


No, you clearly missed my point. The time that it would take Directv to fix the problem is not the most important part of my position, and it's not all about me. It's about me and the many other customers that can't get ota stations with an AM21 because Directv can't or won't add those stations to the database, or because they won't program the AM21 to scan. I don't see it as a big inconvenience or expense considering how much time they spend programming for the CE program or how much they spend on advertisement.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> No, you clearly missed my point. The time that it would take Directv to fix the problem is not the most important part of my position, and it's not all about me. It's about me and the many other customers that can't get ota stations with an AM21 because Directv can't or won't add those stations to the database, or because they won't program the AM21 to scan. I don't see it as a big inconvenience or expense considering how much time they spend programming for the CE program or how much they spend on advertisement.


It's been said over and over in this thread that there aren't enough of you to warrant spending the money on implementing it. When will you get that?

It's a very very very very very small subset of DirecTV customers that need OTA that can't get the stations they need using the methods in use today. They aren't going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. You may not see it as a big expense but it would be, not just money but time as well.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Some people spend way too much time worrying and defending direct tv's time/party line.. I know, I know, defending a corporate entity like D* is sport on this board but really, what a waste of time .. 

!rolling.. But, very true


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

fireponcoal said:


> Some people spend way too much time worrying and defending direct tv's time/party line.. I know, I know, defending a corporate entity like D* is sport on this board but really, what a waste of time ..


And others waste their time spending it complaining about something that won't happen. That's the waste of time...


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> It's been said over and over in this thread that there aren't enough of you to warrant spending the money on implementing it. When will you get that?
> 
> It's a very very very very very small subset of DirecTV customers that need OTA that can't get the stations they need using the methods in use today. They aren't going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. You may not see it as a big expense but it would be, not just money but time as well.


I'm not convinced it's that small a number of people that would like to have the ability to scan. I'm also not convinced it would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. Can you provide real numbers to back up your position?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm not convinced it's that small a number of people that would like to have the ability to scan.


Well you've been told that over and over by reliable sources. It's your choice whether to accept that or not.



raoul5788 said:


> I'm also not convinced it would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. Can you provide real numbers to back up your position?


What do you think they pay developers, minimum wage? Oh yeah, you must think that since you also think it would only take a few hours...


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Well you've been told that over and over by reliable sources. It's your choice whether to accept that or not.
> 
> What do you think they pay developers, minimum wage? Oh yeah, you must think that since you also think it would only take a few hours...


Do you have to be insulting? It's not necessary.

You may chose to believe your "reliable" sources, I chose not to without real proof. Like Beerstalker said, they could probably use the code in the H20 as a good starting point, if not in it's entirety.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

If we are paying for an OTA receiver, it should be receiving *ALL* of the local OTA channels, not just the ones someone programs it to receive.


----------



## flatus5 (Aug 19, 2006)

I've got an HR20-700 with the built-in OTA receiver. It's great and would be even better if we could program the damned things ourselves when our provider doesn't have the time to do it. Quite frankly, if anywhere close to a metro area, anyone else's decent add-on box provides more OTA channel grabbing functionality than our provider's product.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm not convinced it's that small a number of people that would like to have the ability to scan. I'm also not convinced it would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. Can you provide real numbers to back up your position?


I don't work for Directv so I can't give you their numbers but hundreds of thousands $ is pretty accurate for a s/w feature. Consider:
-a single s/w engineer is valued at $150K to $200K annually depending where they are located. Maybe less in India. That includes salary, medical, dental, office space, computers, networking, other overheads. 
-It has to be written and compiled on every stb. Every R and every H/HR with a USB jack. There's a bunch of them.
-Someone has to write the code, test the heck out of it on every box.
Test it with every new feature in the box. Say one is scanning for new channels and an Autotune pops up, what does the box do?
Dozens of use cases in each box to consider.
-After bugs are found, corrected, retest.
-Beta test, correct, then final code

While one person didn't do all the above, a bunch of people were involved, including project mgrs and Engineer mgrs. It's the equivalent of one or more engineers over 12 mos (Could be 3 eng for 4 mos etc.).

So a few hundred thousand is easy to defend. I do like OTA, I need it, would like it to scan but do understand why Directv may choose not to focus on it.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

loudo said:


> If we are paying for an OTA receiver, it should be receiving *ALL* of the local OTA channels, not just the ones someone programs it to receive.


You got an OTA box that's worth paying $49 for new and less on Ebay.

Given the small number of people that would desire the dream box in this thread, it would cost hundreds of dollars at retail after design, testing, redesign, construction, transportation and mark-up costs (I don't know a manufacturer of small runs that doesn't at least double their internal costs for their selling price).

I sold retail electronics for years. I used to wonder how a VCR that sold for $200 could be jam-packed with components inside the case and an AM/FM tuner which also sold for $200 could be empty. The reason is that the manufacturer sold millions of VCRs and thousands of tuners.

The best figures I can find say that before the DTV changeover, the total OTA market was 10-15% and shrinking. Since the changeover, it has gone down to under 10%. CEA estimates the total satellite TV market is 32% of those watching TV (ibid). How many of those are DirecTV subscribers who would want OTA, too? It's a tiny percentage. Ask any DTV installer the last time someone wanted a AM-21. They will scratch their head and go, "Maybe a year ago."

I think Stuart's upthread guess, and it was purely a guess, of 8,500 people that would want a fully functional OTA tuner is pretty close. It certainly is in the right order of magnitude.

I just don't see DirecTV taking the gamble that there are enough people out there who'd want a juiced-up OTA tuner that would sell for a few hundred dollars. (Plus remember we are talking only about the ability to _record_ those OTA subchannels, not just watch them. As was pointed out upthread by Doug, you can _watch_ any subchannels you want. Your TV, by Federal law, has a tuner that can receive them. You just can't record them. Hook up your antenna to your TV and knock yourself out. I know it's a crazy concept to actually sit down and watch a show while it is being broadcast, but back in the Dark Ages of 1950 through 1980, that's all people could do. Somehow we struggled along.  ). DirecTV is a company that is used to selling units in quantities of hundreds of thousands, and the box a few people here are demanding would sell in lots one hundredth of that. Sorry. It just ain't gonna happen, not from a company bent on making a profit.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Then allow 3rd party devices to interface with the main receiver. 

Other previously discussed solutions:
1- enable channel scan
2- synchronize with Tribune Media on their database every 2 weeks
3- Design an AM-22 and sell for $100. Subsidize your engineering development this way.

I've now offered 4 alternatives to fix the problem. Will D* act on one?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Carl Spock said:


> You got an OTA box that's worth paying $49 for new and less on Ebay.
> 
> Given the small number of people that would desire the dream box in this thread, it would cost hundreds of dollars at retail after design, testing, redesign, construction, transportation and mark-up costs (I don't know a manufacturer of small runs that doesn't at least double their internal costs for their selling price).
> 
> ...


Sorry, but offering an OTA tuner with a capability that EVERY SINGLE OTHER TUNER ON THE MARKET HAS is not "juiced-up" , it's un-broken, or maybe fully-functioning.

I also refuse to believe that an additional hardware subsidy (remembering OTA was included up until the AM21), as well as one of the fees involved in an HD DVR can't subsidize the work here. It's a decision, a poor one, and a design flaw.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

You guys crack me up. You can feel more angst over a $49 tuner than I ever thought was possible, even after 30 years in the industry.

So, after high school, when you bought a cheap car for $300 in order to get around, did you also complain that it didn't go fast?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

You keep bringing up cost - why?

If it's so "cheap," why was it removed from the HD receiver set as a cost savings, hmmm?

The feature set is impacting a ~$300 DVR, that we pay an additional monthly fee for. If cost were really that important, I would just use my "free" TV tuner.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> You guys crack me up. You can feel more angst over a $49 tuner than I ever thought was possible, even after 30 years in the industry.


It is not about the cost of the equipment, cost for the design of the equipment or how many people use it. It is the fact that some us us need or want an OTA tuner to work with our DirecTV equipment, so be buy an AM21. We set it up and it doesn't pick up all of the available stations in our area, only the ones someone programs it to receive.

Without it scanning for *all* stations, it doesn't do what we bought it for, to receive all stations in our area, or those that DirecTV doesn't put on satellite.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hancox said:


> If it's so "cheap," why was it removed from the HD receiver set as a cost savings, hmmm?


Because by removing it from the units you only have to make a few thousand, not a few hundred thousand. Big cost savings.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hancox said:


> You keep bringing up cost - why?
> 
> If it's so "cheap," why was it removed from the HD receiver set as a cost savings, hmmm?
> 
> The feature set is impacting a ~$300 DVR, that we pay an additional monthly fee for. If cost were really that important, I would just use my "free" TV tuner.





RunnerFL said:


> Because by removing it from the units you only have to make a few thousand, not a few hundred thousand. Big cost savings.


I agree but it's probably more like thousand vs millions. How many HD receivers/DVRs are out there right now...say ten million total? The savings can be huge.

Heck, if it cuts $10 (I made that up) in parts and labor off the cost of the receiver we could be talking a hundred million dollars.

Conservatively the cost savings amounts to tens of millions of dollars. Looking at the big picture, why would any company spend that kind of money on hardware that almost no one will use?

Mike


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

sigh - and what does the separation of the OTA tuner from the DVR have to do with it's function, or lack thereof? Nothing. 0. Same codeset, same broken tuner.

Loudo nails it:



loudo said:


> It is not about the cost of the equipment, cost for the design of the equipment or how many people use it. It is the fact that some us us need or want an OTA tuner to work with our DirecTV equipment, so be buy an AM21. We set it up and it doesn't pick up all of the available stations in our area, only the ones someone programs it to receive.
> 
> Without it scanning for *all* stations, it doesn't do what we bought it for, to receive all stations in our area, or those that DirecTV doesn't put on satellite.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hancox said:


> sigh - and what does the separation of the OTA tuner from the DVR have to do with it's function, or lack thereof? Nothing. 0. Same codeset, same broken tuner.
> 
> Loudo nails it:
> 
> ...


It most certainly is about the cost. Not including it with HD receivers/DVRs saves tens of millions of dollars. That is the sole reason for having a stand alone unit. Since the post I was responding to was about the cost aspect, that's what I responded to.

The ability to scan and provide all the available local channels is a completely different issue and has absolutely _zero_ to do with whether the hardware is integrated into the receiver or is a stand alone addon. These are two completely unrelated discussions and no matter where the hardware is the available channels would still be an issue for some people.

Mike


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

loudo said:


> It is not about the cost of the equipment, cost for the design of the equipment or how many people use it. It is the fact that some us us need or want an OTA tuner to work with our DirecTV equipment, so be buy an AM21. We set it up and it doesn't pick up all of the available stations in our area, only the ones someone programs it to receive.
> 
> Without it scanning for *all* stations, it doesn't do what we bought it for, to receive all stations in our area, or those that DirecTV doesn't put on satellite.


Exactly when did DirecTV promise you, or even lead you to believe, it was going to give you equipment that would allow you to receive all the stations in your area?

If you don't like their choice of stations, be it a sub-channel or not having BBCA in HD, there are alternate providers out there, or as has been mentioned many times before in this thread, there's an option to watch all the sub-channels you want using $10 in parts from Radio Shack.

You want your DVR to record the sub-channels. As a design, or I suspect more of a marketing, decision, they aren't going to offer you that option. I also can't get TCM HD. That choice of theirs pisses me off to no end but it's the way it goes.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

You're still missing the point. Only the people without a true skin in this game are talking about cost. (or perhaps they have a pompom in the game, who knows?) It's irrelevant to the discussion about the AM21N, or about functionality.

OTA users (like me) are complaining about the functionality.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Carl Spock said:


> Exactly when did DirecTV promise you, or even lead you to believe, it was going to give you equipment that would allow you to receive all the stations in your area?


Because I have 2 launch-era HR20's, they promised me in the user manual. Guess I'm the idiot.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

This is a funny thread. The AM-21 is the only OTA tuner I have ever seen that does not scan and goes by zip codes. I mean I guess they want all the channels that they show to have guide data but, really? I mean I cannot think of any other OTA tuner I have ever seen that operates like the AM21 and I cannot see any advantage to why they would want it to work the way it does.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jclewter79 said:


> This is a funny thread. The AM-21 is the only OTA tuner I have ever seen that does not scan and goes by zip codes. I mean I guess they want all the channels that they show to have guide data but, really? I mean I cannot think of any other OTA tuner I have ever seen that operates like the AM21 and *I cannot see any advantage to why they would want it to work the way it does.*


Let's look at what might happen if it scanned for channels that didn't have any guide data.
Channel "x" would display something like no information/to be announced, with no start or stop times.
How would a DVR function? 
Would you have to manually set each recording with your own start & stop times? 
How could you setup a series link?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Let's look at what might happen if it scanned for channels that didn't have any guide data.
> Channel "x" would display something like no information/to be announced, with no start or stop times.
> How would a DVR function?
> Would you have to manually set each recording with your own start & stop times?
> How could you setup a series link?


Yup, it would have to be manual recordings (and recurring manual recordings) like the old days with VCR's, but still "better than nothing", as someone recently reminded me.

And of course LIVE TV would work as expected. The real PITA, IMHO, would be having to find the program listings somewhere. Either the local paper or somewhere on the web.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Yup, it would have to be manual recordings (and recurring manual recordings) like the old days with VCR's, but still "better than nothing", as someone recently reminded me.
> 
> And of course LIVE TV would work as expected. The *real PITA*, IMHO, would be having to find the program listings somewhere. Either the local paper or somewhere on the web.


I'm not trying to defend how it's being done [or not done], but I'll say the PITA factor for the average user would be great.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Should they have gone with channel scanning instead of a database method? Sure, common sense says yes. At the time the original decision was made, there must have been a reason. 

At this point, though, I think we need to look at reality. DIRECTV is providing a level of OTA support that probably satisfies 99.99 of its total user base and given that, they aren't going to change course.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Should they have gone with channel scanning instead of a database method? Sure, common sense says yes. At the time the original decision was made, there must have been a reason.
> 
> At this point, though, I think we need to look at reality. DIRECTV is providing a level of OTA support that probably satisfies 99.99 of its total user base and given that, they aren't going to change course.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


How much money is it costing them to field calls from all of us? Wasted money that could have been invested in the AM-22. Let's take the example of 1,000 calls, x 30 mins per call/ per month, for 1 year. If you consider a worker makes $65k when benefits, taxes, unemployment added in you end up wasting $162,500 each year.

Now, tell me how it will cost more than that for 2 engineers to make some code changes on the shAM-21 to force manual recording when "Regular Programming" or "No programming available" is in the guide and enable the channel scan or synchronize with Tribune's database?

Now, this joke has gone on for what, 4 years, 5 years? We're at a half-million $ in just customer service support and what does D* have to show for it? Irritated customers.

So, even if 1,000 calls is an exaggeration, go with 500 and you've wasted $250k in customer support. Financially they are losing if they just did the math.

My advice to all- keep calling, emailing, posting... keep costing them money to explain this flaw (on the phone, email, and via posts in this forum) and maybe they'll figure it out that it'd be cheaper to fix the box. Time is money.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Let's look at what might happen if it scanned for channels that didn't have any guide data.
> Channel "x" would display something like no information/to be announced, with no start or stop times.
> How would a DVR function?
> Would you have to manually set each recording with your own start & stop times?
> How could you setup a series link?


Manual channel/start/stop recordings would at least be possible if the off-air tuners supported scanning. With the current scheme there's nothing in the guide, so no way to record at all. I hope that DirecTV implements scanning, but I just don't think it's a high enough priority given the small percentage of customers who give a rip.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Exactly when did DirecTV promise you, or even lead you to believe, it was going to give you equipment that would allow you to receive all the stations in your area?


This one is easy! The H20 scanned for channels, and IIRC, was the first Directv branded tuner on the market. If it could scan, then why not all of the rest of them? They had the code written for it, why not the rest?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> This one is easy! The H20 scanned for channels, and IIRC, was the first Directv branded tuner on the market. If it could scan, then why not all of the rest of them? They had the code written for it, why not the rest?


DirecTV didn't write the code for the H20, NDS did. Maybe they couldn't get the rights to that part of the code from NDS.


----------



## Yes616 (Sep 6, 2006)

So is this available to the average DTV sub yet? How much does it cost? I didn't see anything about it on the D* web site.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Yes616 said:


> So is this available to the average DTV sub yet? How much does it cost? I didn't see anything about it on the D* web site.


Look under My Equipment -> Accessories. I believe it only shows up if you have a compatible receiver.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> DirecTV didn't write the code for the H20, NDS did.* Maybe they couldn't get the rights to that part of the code from NDS.*


I doubt they couldn't, but as I posted earlier without guide data a recorder will have problems recording.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> DirecTV didn't write the code for the H20, NDS did. Maybe they couldn't get the rights to that part of the code from NDS.


How do you know this?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It is common knowledge that NDS wrote the code for R15, D1x, and H20 receivers, also the first year or so of H21. I know it for a fact because <redacted> told me so face-to-face


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Let's look at what might happen if it scanned for channels that didn't have any guide data.
> Channel "x" would display something like no information/to be announced, with no start or stop times.
> How would a DVR function?
> Would you have to manually set each recording with your own start & stop times?
> How could you setup a series link?


Yes manual timers would be the answer. I am not saying that it is right or wrong just that it is very different than anything else I have ever seen. I do think that it is odd that the OTA addon that dish network offers for all the k model receivers runs between $20-$40 dollars depending where you purchase it at, it is very small and slides into the back of the existing receiver, and scans anything your antenna can pick up.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It is common knowledge that NDS wrote the code for R15, D1x, and H20 receivers, also the first year or so of H21. I know it for a fact because <redacted> told me so face-to-face


If it really is common knowledge, why be coy about it?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> How do you know this?


It's common knowledge.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

raoul5788 said:


> If it really is common knowledge, why be coy about it?


It may be now common knowledge, but one might still want to not reveal a specific source, esp. if it wasn't common knowledge at the time it was divulged.

Or maybe the source was Lady GagMe or representative Weiner, or..... well, too many flights of fancy from me trying to be amusing, so I will shut up now.....:nono2:


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

I'm calling BS on it being common knowledge. If you won't/can't say, it's not really common knowledge.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm calling BS on it being common knowledge. If you won't/can't say, it's not really common knowledge.


If you took the time to read around the forum you'd know it's common knowledge. How else would most of us have known???

If I remember right it's even in a press release on here somewhere.

You can't call BS on something you're too lazy to research.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Do the H20s (with the latest firmware) still support scanning?


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> If you took the time to read around the forum you'd know it's common knowledge. How else would most of us have known???
> 
> If I remember right it's even in a press release on here somewhere.
> 
> You can't call BS on something you're too lazy to research.


Nice personal shot there.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Seems to me, that if several people know the answer and helpfully share that answer, it becomes unwise to drop the BS flag. 

And if one does drop the BS flag, it only makes sense to be prepared for the ramifications. 

Specifically in this case, we have information that is so old and received from so many sources, and now reported on by several people who've been here a long time, that it becomes very difficult to track the "original" source(s).

The phrase "Common Knowledge" does not imply 100% of the people here know that. Lots of Dish people might not, for instance. 

Now, let us move on...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

bobnielsen said:


> Do the H20s (with the latest firmware) still support scanning?


Yes. Pretty sure they do.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

It has always been my experience that any channel that did not have guide data was some low budget crap channel anyways. I am sure less would complain if scan was implemented.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Maybe, but I hate to be the bringer of bad news here... but I think it's time to acknowledge that the OTA scanning ship has sailed. Of course one never knows what the future holds but realistically, you just shouldn't stay up nights hoping for OTA scanning. Just isn't happening.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

How about if I hold my breath until I turn blue? Will that make DirecTV add scanning capability?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm calling BS on it being common knowledge. If you won't/can't say, it's not really common knowledge.


I was not the first person to say it, and the fact that my sources are confidential does not affect the matter of whether or not it has been commonly known on this forum for years.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I was not the first person to say it, and the fact that my sources are confidential does not affect the matter of whether or not it has been commonly known on this forum for years.


That's almost exactly what I said earlier, but maybe coming from you the point will stick.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And I thank you for saying it.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Maybe, but I hate to be the bringer of bad news here... but I think it's time to acknowledge that the OTA scanning ship has sailed. Of course one never knows what the future holds but realistically, you just shouldn't stay up nights hoping for OTA scanning. Just isn't happening.


That's fine, Stuart. Then synchronize the DirecTV OTA channel database with Tribune every 2 weeks... or heck, once a month would be fine. We have people here waiting since December for *full power* (not low power) channels to be added.

Is manual recording off the table or generic guide tags such as "Regular Programming"/ "No program Information" off the table too?

Scan is only 1 way of solving this problem.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

How about just having DIRECTV take ownership of getting problems with the database corrected? If a customer finds a problem they shouldn't have to go to another company and ask them to fix something. And if there is a problem with the APG running out of capacity and all channels won't be added then just come out and say it so customers can make an informed decision on what they need to do to receive a certain channel.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> That's fine, Stuart. Then synchronize the DirecTV OTA channel database with Tribune every 2 weeks... or heck, once a month would be fine. We have people here waiting since December for *full power* (not low power) channels to be added.
> 
> Is manual recording off the table or generic guide tags such as "Regular Programming"/ "No program Information" off the table too?
> 
> Scan is only 1 way of solving this problem.


All of those would be acceptable options. For better or worse though, DIRECTV is not likely to be putting any more labor into this issue at this time. Remember everything has a cost, and that cost has to be measured against a benefit.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

RAD said:


> How about just having DIRECTV take ownership of getting problems with the database corrected? If a customer finds a problem they shouldn't have to go to another company and ask them to fix something. And if there is a problem with the APG running out of capacity and all channels won't be added then just come out and say it so customers can make an informed decision on what they need to do to receive a certain channel.


Veracity in the customer service department is another whole issue, if you think about it.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

He's not talking about customer service issues though. He's talking about DirecTV coming out and admitting as a company that they are running out of room for guide data, and that is the cause of some of the issues we are seeing lately (dropping of OTA channels, not adding new OTA channels, no guide info for ShortsHD). I highly doubt that DirecTV would be willing to do this though even if we are correct in our thinking that this is the case. Not many companies come out and admit there are issues like this unless they are forced to do so because it can have major effects to their service/stock prices (which these issues definitely do not qualify for).

I'm still hoping that with the new HD-GUI they may end up being able to take care of a lot of these issues if they change the way they handle the guide data. But I can pretty much gaurantee if adding the missing channels/guide info would mean dropping channel logos, TV show/movie posters, parental info, etc. from the guide then that is not going to happen.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> He's talking about DirecTV coming out and admitting as a company that they are running out of room for guide data, and that is the cause of some of the issues we are seeing lately (dropping of OTA channels, not adding new OTA channels, no guide info for ShortsHD)...


Guide data is streamed, so I don't see how they could be running out of room. The rebooting might take a bit longer if there was more serial data that it needed to parse through, but that would seem to be the only thing "more guide data" would cause.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

What I am saying is that in the past, there have been some issues with getting CSRs to admit certain things, and also with getting CSRs to stop lying about what is "really" happening. I know both of those issues are being addressed slowly.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> What I am saying is that in the past, there have been some issues with getting CSRs to admit certain things, and also with getting CSRs to stop lying about what is "really" happening. I know both of those issues are being addressed slowly.


Or getting CSR's to route problems to the correct area that can handle it vs. the "the problems with your equipment" response which folks typically get.

Guess I don't get it when you report a problem they can't say thank you, we'll forward it to the correct team and you'll get a response back in 48 to 72 hours that's accurate. DIRECTV prides themselves on their customer service, just wish my experiences matched what they claim to provide.

* RANT ON*
Latest example is the Engadget TVApp hasn't been updating it's news for days. I sent an e-mail with the topic of SERVICES and TVApps, both pulldowns on the DIRECTV web site which said:



> Could someone please contact the developer of the Engadget TVApp and have them check it? It hasn't been updating the news items for the past four days at least. Thanks


Their response was:


> Thanks for writing. I see that you've been with us for a number of years now and I would like to let you know that we appreciate your business.
> 
> I understand your concern about Engadget TVApp. We want to speak with you to help you with your concern. Since you have the DIRECTV PROTECTION PLAN, the best way for you to get help as soon as possible is to call 1-888-667-7463 and choose the option to speak to a technical assistant. Our Technical Support agents will be happy to assist you.


Simple problem report and it should have been a simple response of thanks and we'll forward it on. Just tired of the robots that handle e-mail problem at DIRECTV.
*RANT OFF*


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Guide data is streamed, so I don't see how they could be running out of room. The rebooting might take a bit longer if there was more serial data that it needed to parse through, but that would seem to be the only thing "more guide data" would cause.


Not necessarily running out of room for guide data in the stream from the satellite, but in the receivers themselves. I can't prove it but I really think this may be what is going on here. It really seems that when they added the extended guide info a while back seemed to be right around the same time that we started hearing complaints about low power stations being dropped from the OTA listing, new OTA channels no longer being added, etc.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> He's talking about DirecTV coming out and admitting as a company that they are running out of room for guide data, and that is the cause of some of the issues we are seeing lately (dropping of OTA channels, not adding new OTA channels, no guide info for ShortsHD).


Wait a minute. This was a supposition upthread by someone, not a fact. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. There is no evidence that this is the case. Not one iota.

This is the Internet at the worst. Someone posts something as a possibility. It soon becomes gospel. In fact, it isn't even a valid theory. Theories have facts behind them. This has coincidences, and even not very good ones at that (Ever go to ShortsHD's website? They have no more info on their own shows than what's in our guide.).

*EDIT:*



Beerstalker said:


> Not necessarily running out of room for guide data in the stream from the satellite, but in the receivers themselves. I can't prove it but I really think this may be what is going on here. It really seems that when they added the extended guide info a while back seemed to be right around the same time that we started hearing complaints about low power stations being dropped from the OTA listing, new OTA channels no longer being added, etc.


Now you're talking. You see coincidences and come to a conclusion. But as you say, "You can't prove it."

Some evidence would be nice. Wild speculation may be fun but it needs to be labeled as such.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> Wait a minute. This was a supposition upthread by someone, not a fact. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. There is no evidence that this is the case. Not one iota.
> 
> This is the Internet at the worst. Someone posts something as a possibility. It soon becomes gospel. In fact, it isn't even a valid theory. Theories have facts behind them. This has coincidences, and even not very good ones at that (Ever go to ShortsHD's website? They have no more info on their own shows than what's in our guide.).


You're right, I have no proof, never claimed this to be a fact, and pretty much every time I talk about this I mention that it is my theory.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Wait a minute. This was a supposition upthread by someone, not a fact. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. There is no evidence that this is the case. Not one iota.
> 
> This is the Internet at the worst. Someone posts something as a possibility. It soon becomes gospel. In fact, it isn't even a valid theory. Theories have facts behind them. This has coincidences, and even not very good ones at that (Ever go to ShortsHD's website? They have no more info on their own shows than what's in our guide.).
> 
> ...


Mr. Spock, you know better than to apply logic to statements made over the internet.


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

Q: is this going to be the AM21 replacement? No offense, but it will look like crap with an HR2X-XXX


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

litzdog911 said:


> Such a big box for such a small circuit board.


Reminds me of the inside of the Philips DSX-5500


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

"dthreet" said:


> Q: is this going to be the AM21 replacement? No offense, but it will look like crap with an HR2X-XXX


No offense taken, but yes. I understand that it doesn't look as ... integrated as it does with an HR21. But it's not terrible.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> All of those would be acceptable options. For better or worse though, DIRECTV is not likely to be putting any more labor into this issue at this time. Remember everything has a cost, and that cost has to be measured against a benefit.


yes, and I believe I posted a cost benefit a few posts back. Customer service dealing with this issue the last 4 years now costs them more than what they would have spent to fix the problem.

Do they want to flush down the drain another 4 years of customer service support and the salaries, benefits, taxes... associated with those employees fielding phone calls and emails about adding OTA channels?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, specifically how many people actually call to complain about the lack of complete OTA coverage. I'm led to believe it is an extraordinarily small number.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, specifically how many people actually call to complain about the lack of complete OTA coverage. I'm led to believe it is an extraordinarily small number.


Come to think of it, I don't think I know a single person, regardless of service provider, that uses both OTA and cable/satellite for their TV.

Of course in my neck of the woods (southeast CT) there is almost no OTA to be had but back in NJ where most of my family is they either have a service provider or rabbit ears...but not both.

Mike

P.S. where I grew up you could get 20ish channels with rabbit ears. we didn't even need a roof antenna.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Come to think of it, I don't think I know a single person, regardless of service provider, that uses both OTA and cable/satellite for their TV.


You do now! 

I've got an 8-bay UHF antenna in my attic. I record many of our shows both OTA _and_ SAT, so never have to worry about rain fade. I'd estimate we lost sat signal in prime time about a half-dozen times last year in my area (NYC burbs), and my sat signals are good. I'm at 100 on 7 of my 101 TP's, and mid-90's on 99c and 103c.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Steve said:


> You do now!
> 
> I've got an 8-bay UHF antenna in my attic. I record many of our shows both OTA _and_ SAT, so never have to worry about rain fade. I'd estimate we lost sat signal in prime time about a half-dozen times last year in my area (NYC burbs), and my sat signals are good. I'm at 100 on 7 of my 101 TP's, and mid-90's on 99c and 103c.


Ok, I kinda meant outside of DBSTalk.  :lol:

I know quite a few here who use OTA but not outside of online forums...personal experience with family and friends whose house I've visited. 

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Come to think of it, I don't think I know a single person, regardless of service provider, that uses both OTA and cable/satellite for their TV.


I happen to have all three. Cable is useful only for one local channel that isn't otherwise available- but I suppose it carries some things that DirecTV doesn't that'd be interesting to others. OTA is nice to have as a backup, but hasn't been needed since I added a second DVR. I've occasionally tried to compare PQ among the three, but differences aren't big enough for any big statement, and I cannot do side-by-side.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

To be fair, Mike - you're also talking about living between SE CT, a hole of OTA if I've ever seen one, and really almost anywhere in NJ, which is massively-cable-penetrated.

Having been born/raised in NJ, and almost 20yrs in CT now, thought I could comment


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh, you want an OTA hole try living in Palm Springs. If you're lucky you can get two channels without having to point the antenna.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

that's a hole, period.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Oh, you want an OTA hole try living in Palm Springs. If you're lucky you can get two channels without having to point the antenna.


An antenna on a 5' pole, on my roof, with a rotator and I will get exactly 1 channel...CPTV (PBS). But, it is in HD. 

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hancox said:


> that's a hole, period.


I see the smilie, yet.....??

Parts of that Desert around PS is a dream. Just lovely. Wish I could live there in the Winter!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And in the summer it is the pit of hell. No scratch that, it's where the people from the pit of hell go to warm up.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> And in the summer it is the pit of hell. No scratch that, it's where the people from the pit of hell go to warm up.


:lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> (dropping of OTA channels, not adding new OTA channels, no guide info for ShortsHD).


Satelliteracer has stated that they are TRYING to get ShortsHD to do better guide data. I wouldn't hold my breath, but at least DirecTV is trying to improve that situation.



veryoldschool said:


> Guide data is streamed, so I don't see how they could be running out of room. The rebooting might take a bit longer if there was more serial data that it needed to parse through, but that would seem to be the only thing "more guide data" would cause.


DirecTV is currently missing three OTA sub-channels in my (1 in my DMA, 2 in my secondary neighboring DMA). They are listed on Zap2it.com, my TiVo Series 3, etc., but they have yet to show up on DirecTV receivers with OTA setup. It's been noted elsewhere that it appears DirecTV has STOPPED adding new channels to their OTA database. Hopefully this is only temporary, but it kind of sucks in the meantime. 



RAD said:


> Or getting CSR's to route problems to the correct area that can handle it vs. the "the problems with your equipment" response which folks typically get.


I kept running into that problem last year when my local channels were added.

So thankful I managed to get someone to help me straighten that out...



dthreet said:


> Q: is this going to be the AM21 replacement? No offense, but it will look like crap with an HR2X-XXX


As Stuart stated, it doesn't looks as good with a newer model like the HR24 as it does an HR23 (etc.), but it doesn't look bad.



Stuart Sweet said:


> And in the summer it is the pit of hell. No scratch that, it's where the people from the pit of hell go to warm up.


I thought that was South Georgia...  

~Alan<~~~~~~~~~~~Who's not enjoying the triple digit temperatures, no rain, dead crunchy grass, and failing air conditioners...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> And in the summer it is the pit of hell. No scratch that, it's where the people from the pit of hell go to warm up.


But it's a* dry* heat.....

Unlike the Deep South, as AG notes.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> An antenna on a 5' pole, on my roof, with a rotator and I will get exactly 1 channel...CPTV (PBS). But, it is in HD.
> 
> Mike


Rotator with one channel available? :lol:


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Alan Gordon said:


> Satelliteracer has stated that they are TRYING to get ShortsHD to do better guide data. I wouldn't hold my breath, but at least DirecTV is trying to improve that situation.


Yeah, but I also read something here stating the Shorts has started supplying better guide data, but it couldn't be used because it wasn't in half hour increments (it was like Show A 6:12-6:18, Show B 6:18-6:27, Show C 6:27-6:31, etc.) and they acted like for it to go into DirecTVs guide it had to be in half hour blocks. Then someone else pointed out that is definitely not true because a lot of channels have smaller blocks than that, like the 15 min segments between shows on the Premium channels, short shows on some of the Nick or Cartoon Networks channels I think etc.

So it really seems like there is a lot of conflicting info out there on this stuff.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

You can believe:

(1) something someone posted that is demonstrably untrue

- or -

(2) Satelliteracer.

Hummm...who would I believe?

(If you're still conflicted, go to ShortsHD's website. They can't even tell you what's on their own channel tonight.  )


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> You can believe:
> 
> (1) something someone posted that is demonstrably untrue
> 
> ...


Or even this year. The "what's on" list is definitely not for 2011... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Rotator with one channel available? :lol:


Yeah, sound wierd. When I get to 35' off the roof I can get a couple of channels. Two local and a couple from RI. :grin:

Before DirecTV go our locals I tried to dump cable by going to OTA but it didn't work. I couldn't get all the local stuff.

I did use the AM21 to get PBS in HD. Once DirecTV got PBS-HD it didn't need it anymore.

Mike


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Or even this year. The "what's on" list is definitely not for 2011...


LOL. I didn't notice that. The "What's On This Month" are for 2009! :hurah: At least that was the last year June 29 was on a Monday.

I'm glad they know what they were showing back then.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Rotator with one channel available? :lol:


Wow, either behind a mountain or waaaaaaay out there.
Get 60 OTA channels here, but about 15 are religious stuff.

Summer storms started here. Lost all HD SAT for about 7 minutes jumped to OTA for local news to see the storm radar cell. Brief 60 mph winds too.

BTW, if anyone has any doubts, I know with certainty some folks at Directv care very much about OTA and really do their best.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> You can believe:
> 
> (1) something someone posted that is demonstrably untrue
> 
> ...


Actually, it's SR himself that posted it.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2777609#post2777609

So supposedly Shorts is giving better guide info, but Tribune says they can't break it up properly for some reason. Supposedly a Tribune issue, so Tribune needs to fix it first and then theoretically it will start working right on D*.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification. 

The problem must be the length of the blocks because I see programs start or stop two minutes past the hour all the time in the guide, and those list just fine.

Which network is it that, during the day, stretches CSI all the time out to over an hour, causing shows to start and stop at all weird times? Those show up fine in the guide. I've also seen details in the guide for shows as short as 15 minutes. It must be something about ShortsHD's programs in that they are just too short, no pun intended.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

The thing is that can't even be the whole problem, because they already allow blocks shorter than 30 minutes all the time. Look at channels 292-300. Especially Sprout on 295. They have shows shorter than 30 minutes all the time. Same with a bunch of the channels up in the 2000s.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

NR4P said:


> BTW, if anyone has any doubts, I know with certainty some folks at Directv care very much about OTA and really do their best.


I don't want to sound cynical, but can you substantiate that remark? Many of us have found quite the opposite to be true especially since they stopped adding local channels available on the shAM-21. Some of us have been waiting 6+ months for full powered stations or full powered subchannels to be added.

Then if you call and speak to a tech specialist you feel you have gone into a kindergarten and are explaining rocket propulsion to them. Everyone I have spoken to in the dozen plus calls has absolutely no clue and reads the same sentence off a piece of paper.

If they cared so much they'd synchronize with Tribune's database once a month.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

NR4P said:


> BTW, if anyone has any doubts, I know with certainty some folks at Directv care very much about OTA and really do their best.


If you actaully have contact with one of them, it would be nice if you could get them to come onto this board and maybe explain what the current situation is with the OTA guide/database issue are, and if there is any hope of us having real, honest scanning/setup capabilty at some point in time.


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Does anyone know if the AM21N works better with the HR24-500? Quite a few people had issues with the AM21 and that DVR.


I initially had issues with HR24-500 and AM21s shortly after the HR24 rollout, but they seem to have been fixed in software. We record and watch quite a bit of OTA with 2 HR24-500/AM21 combos and they've been working smoothly for quite a while.


----------



## WesGaige (Oct 3, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> How about another way of looking at it... How many of you out there would pay $75-$100 for an AM-22 that scans for channels?
> 
> Mark me down for 2.


Mark me down for +1


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Sorry but got to vote $0.00, would be nice but to me not worth the extra money.


----------



## huron77 (Jun 8, 2008)

Am behind the times. Guess I spend more time
watching D* than reading about it. Anyway...

what is it and why do I need it?

(also, do they publish DirecTV for Dummies? Got some
catchin' up to do...)


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

huron77 said:


> Am behind the times. Guess I spend more time
> watching D* than reading about it. Anyway...
> 
> what is it and why do I need it?
> ...


It is for OTA reception and integration of OTA stations into the guide. (OTA=Over-The-Air). You can watch/record your local OTA stations, just as if they are coming from the satellite, but the advantage is: no rain fade or signal loss due to thunderstorms or heavy wet snow. The picture quality of OTA is the best one can get (MPEG-4 via satellite is not quite as pristine, but the difference may be imperceptible)


----------



## c_hernandez32 (Jun 8, 2006)

So I finally got my mom to drop cable and stop recording her novelas (Mexican soaps) on vhs tapes and switch to DirecTV. She loves it but she only gets the locals in SD and one of her favorite Spanish stations is not found in any package. I tried to get the AM21 when I ordered but the rep didn't know what I was talking about. She recommended that I talk to the installer - he had no clue either. Every time I called back no one knew what I was talking about. I finally found a rep who knew that the AM21 even existed. He first recommended that I buy it else where and then he figured out that he might be able to order it and even waive the fee. In the end he said that the system wouldn't allow him to order it because we received the locals via sat. He said that he created a ticket to escalate the problem and that I would either get a call back or receive the AM21 in the mail. Neither happened. I called back and spoke to another rep who said she could order it but would have to charge me. She then gave me a number to call if I wanted to get it free. Its some number in Arizona and can't get a person on the phone. Sometimes it says its transferring me but then I hear someone pickup and hangup instantly. Other times I get a message to leave my info. I did and no one ever called me back; plus it sounds like its a commercial business department. So I wanted to know if anyone can recommend a number or email that might get me a little further?

Second, but more important, is there a way to see what channels I can pickup and see guide data for? The channel in question is Televisa which broadcasts out of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico but is carried on Laredo's Time Warner (USA). It could be a possibility that if I got all of the locals in via an OTA then she might be able to switch from the Spanish package to an English package and either save money or get a few other channels that while not 100% necessary would be a welcome addition. I'd hate to jump hoops or give in and buy the receiver just to realize that it doesn't pull in the channels we want.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

:welcome_s to DBSTalk!

First of all the CSR is wrong. You can always buy an AM21. It should be for sale at DIRECTV.com regardless of whether or not you get your locals via satellite. The CSR is right that it's usually free if you are in an area where DIRECTV does not offer locals and it costs money if you're in an area with DIRECTV locals. 

Now, as to the actual channel being carried, I don't know but I sort of doubt it. For the most part DIRECTV only allows US channels through the AM21. It's not like a TV tuner where it scans and then gives you everything it finds. It has a database of every channel they want to offer in that market and that's all you get. If the channel is international, they generally don't bother with the legal wrangling. Unlike your local Time Warner office which is semi-independent DIRECTV is a more monolithic entity and more conservative on the legal side. 

You say this station comes out of Nuevo Laredo. If the call letters (shown at the top of the hour) start with X, there's very little chance that DIRECTV carries it OTA. If they start with K, it's more likely.


----------



## c_hernandez32 (Jun 8, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> If the call letters (shown at the top of the hour) start with X, there's very little chance that DIRECTV carries it OTA. If they start with K, it's more likely.


Thanks very much for the help. The channel in question is XHBR-TV so I doubt that it will be available. I was wondering why many people were asking if the new AM21N was able to scan for channels. That kinda sucks that you are only allowed to see channels in DirecTV's database. I guess that it will have to wait for a better alternative.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

c_hernandez32 said:


> That kinda sucks that you are only allowed to see channels in DirecTV's database.


You are being polite.

Another option for you may be DISH. As long as you subscribe to local channels, then they enable tuning local OTA (antenna) channels through their receivers. Their receivers actually scan OTA and have manual setup, and then they map the channel info obtained OTA to the guide data from the satellite. As I understand it, if no guide data for a channel/subchannel is available/maintained by DISH, you can still view the channel through their receivers and even manually record them on the DVR.

It's so simple, even DirecTV should do it! :sure:


----------



## Fireman23 (Dec 31, 2008)

c_hernandez32 said:


> So I finally got my mom to drop cable and stop recording her novelas (Mexican soaps) on vhs tapes and switch to DirecTV. She loves it but she only gets the locals in SD and one of her favorite Spanish stations is not found in any package. I tried to get the AM21 when I ordered but the rep didn't know what I was talking about. She recommended that I talk to the installer - he had no clue either. Every time I called back no one knew what I was talking about. I finally found a rep who knew that the AM21 even existed. He first recommended that I buy it else where and then he figured out that he might be able to order it and even waive the fee. In the end he said that the system wouldn't allow him to order it because we received the locals via sat. He said that he created a ticket to escalate the problem and that I would either get a call back or receive the AM21 in the mail. Neither happened. I called back and spoke to another rep who said she could order it but would have to charge me. She then gave me a number to call if I wanted to get it free. Its some number in Arizona and can't get a person on the phone. Sometimes it says its transferring me but then I hear someone pickup and hangup instantly. Other times I get a message to leave my info. I did and no one ever called me back; plus it sounds like its a commercial business department. So I wanted to know if anyone can recommend a number or email that might get me a little further?


If you are still having trouble finding or getting one of these (AM-21), let me know. I am a Local Directv Dealer and can ship one to you if needed.


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

It's my understanding that the new version of the AM-21 does not have an updated chip and that the tuner's sensitivity continues to be, in my estimation way below par. I've already posted that my 5-year old Sharp HDTV is way better at bringing in channels than the AM-21. And, both tuners are connected to the same antenna!

I recently bought a Hauppauge WinTV aero-m which allows me to watch and record digital ATSC and ATSC-MH (Mobile) on my laptop computer.

This tiny USB stick is amazing! 

It has a 7th Generation Chip and has a built-in 5 1/2 inch telescoping monopole.

This little stick makes the AM-21 look anemic. It scans and picks up channels that the
AM-21 won't recognize.

I would have hoped and expected a new version, for whatever reasons, of the AM-21would have improved, up to date circuitry - this, does not seem to be the case.

I wish that Direct would update this component and while they're at it, allow us to scan for channels instead of having to be satisfied with what the bankrupt Tribune Media Services chooses to allow us to receive!


----------

