# DirecTV going back to OTA for locals?



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

http://www.multichannel.com/satellite/directv-looks-test-air-antenna-set-top/143326

Multichannel news is reporting that DirecTV is testing an OTA setup as a replacement for retransmitting local channels. Objective: save retrans fees.


----------



## Annihilator31 (Nov 21, 2006)

I love the idea, but it won't work for everyone everywhere!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Hmm. interesting. Not sure how that would work for folks like myself that would need to get a 15ft outdoor antenna to even get a chance of any reception


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Yeah I just read that and other articles on this issue;

But I'm a little confused here;

DIRECTV has always had OTA solutions integrated or not since the HR10-250 TIVO and H20 STB receiver eras on through to the AM21(N).

Is Patrick Doyle not aware of this, or is he referring to returning to receivers only with built in integrated OTA tuners like the HR10-250 and H20?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> DIRECTV has always had OTA solutions integrated or not since the HR10-250 TIVO and H20 STB receiver eras on through to the AM21(N).
> 
> Is Patrick Doyle not aware of this, or is he referring to returning to receivers only with built in integrated OTA tuners like the HR10-250 and H20?


I think he's referring to dropping the LIL satellite feed altogether and having some kind of "magical" OTA antenna built in.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Seems like Aero Tv may be having more impact than first thought. Cheaper than paying the high Retrans. fees netword demand.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

LOL, which ever engineer designed the internal RF remote antenna better not have any input on D* trying something new in the OTA world.

:eek2:


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

To add OTA as a supplement to LIL in all boxes would be wonderful. For them to add it as a replacement for LIL would not be acceptable for most people.

As a supplement, it could easily allow most customers to "get by" if negotiations result in loss of a local station for a period of time. That in turn would give DirecTV more leverage in their negotiations, and help keep costs down. The bottom dollar question is could they save enough in retransmission fees to offset the cost of adding OTA back into the receivers and DVRs?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mnassour said:


> Multichannel news is reporting that DirecTV is testing an OTA setup as a replacement for retransmitting local channels. Objective: save retrans fees.


If this comes to pass, those to dissed OTA tuners as superfluous will being eating mass quantities of crow.

Because LIL and/or DNS is so critical to the acceptance of DBS, I think they're just blowing smoke.


----------



## Jacob Braun (Oct 6, 2011)

jerrylove56 said:


> Seems like Aero Tv may be having more impact than first thought. Cheaper than paying the high Retrans. fees netword demand.


That's what I was thinking...perhaps adopt more of an Aereo setup, where they have an antenna array on their end and then actually broadcast it through DBS to customers.

But after reading the article it sounds more like they actually are very much considering a built-in OTA tuner once again. Perhaps building the OTA antenna into the physical dish itself, and sending all of it over a single coax line?
Hmmm....


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

What I'd bet is that DirecTV would issue tuners to everyone who CAN pick up OTA. At the same time, it would demand of the stations that it pay retrans fees *per subscriber using them, *instead of a blanket fee for all subs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mnassour said:


> What I'd bet is that DirecTV would issue tuners to everyone who CAN pick up OTA. At the same time, it would demand of the stations that it pay retrans fees *per subscriber using them, *instead of a blanket fee for all subs.


The question then becomes what to do about those who can't reliably receive the "necessary" channels OTA. The whole mess falls apart when a user can't get a channel they need so they have to go LIL to fill in the missing channel.

You can't very well negotiate a contract based on estimates of who is going to want or need LIL for whatever reason.

There is a question in my mind that the stations don't care how many "subscribers" they have as long as they see their bottom line where they want it to be. If the station isn't getting out, they're likely to want more money per subscriber to maintain the bottom line as I think we can all agree that viewership means next to nothing in these retransmission deals.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

That's the stupidest idea DirecTV ever had. I waited to cancel cable over 12 years ago until DirecTV had most of my OTA channels on the satellite because I get lousy OTA reception. While it would be nice for them to literally build an AM-21 into their new receivers for customers who want subchannels and have good OTA signals, most people would ask "why am I paying for satellite TV when I need an outdoor antenna?"


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> most people would ask "why am I paying for satellite TV when I need an outdoor antenna?"


HBO, SHow, TBS, TNT. You get the idea. satellite TV is just not locals. and you need an outdoor antenna to get DBS anyway.


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

ThomasM said:


> That's the stupidest idea DirecTV ever had. I waited to cancel cable over 12 years ago until DirecTV had most of my OTA channels on the satellite because I get lousy OTA reception. While it would be nice for them to literally build an AM-21 into their new receivers for customers who want subchannels and have good OTA signals, most people would ask "why am I paying for satellite TV when I need an outdoor antenna?"


I agree with you 100% 100% 100%


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I thought the reason of possibly adding an ota antennea to directv receivers was only to be able to recieve local OTA channels in the event you lost your satellite signal during negotiations for a new contract for the local stations!!,NOT because directv wants to remove them!


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Nice idea, but it just won't work too well. Too many variables when it comes to receiving OTA.
What about people who can receive many OTA channels but are in different directions?
Omnidirectional antennas don't work in areas with terrain problems.
And how do you incorporate a rotor into the system?

The whole idea of having your locals on the sat is to eliminate the nee for an outside antenna.

The installers have enough problems without them having to install antennas.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While I'd love it if they started shipping receivers with ATSC tuners instead of the AM21 being the only option, I'm not sure how this would work. I assume the goal would be to have a backup OTA solution to minimize the ability of local stations to demand crazy fees and Directv being forced to pay up because they fear losing a lot of customers in that market. So they'd continue broadcasting OTA stations via satellite, but would allow for OTA to provide a backup. In markets where most customers can receive the OTA station in question, the customer defections due to losing an OTA channel for a while during "negotiations" would be greatly minimized and improve Directv's bargaining position.

They would need three things for this to work:

1) some type of antenna to bring in the OTA signal
2) a way to get that signal to the customer's receivers
3) a way for the receivers to tune that signal

Adding an OTA tuner to the receivers only addresses #3. What about #1? Would Directv provide the antenna, perhaps a mini antenna attached to the dish mount? Or leave it up to the customer to provide the antenna? Maybe those for whom an indoor antenna would work, or if they happen to have an OTA antenna, but it isn't really a good solution if they leave too much up to the customer to do on his own.

As for #2, regardless of what is being used to pull in the OTA signal, how are they going to get that signal to all the receivers in the home? If the customer isn't making use of whole home it can be diplexed in, but that's hardly a workable solution since the OTA capability would go away if/when the customer decides to upgrade to WHDVR. Since DECA/MRV uses the same frequencies as much of the UHF band where most OTA stations reside these days, the two can't coexist.

There is one way this could be made to work. Create a special OTA "diplexer" that shifts the UHF frequencies for channels 14-51 in the range of 470-698 MHz to say 230-458 MHz. This is quite similar to the frequency shifting that a SWM multiswitch or B-band converter does, so it shouldn't be too difficult or costly to do. If Directv went with the mini-antenna on the dish, this device would be built into it. Only customers providing their own OTA antenna would need it as a separate unit.

The "H26" and "HR45" would have a single RF input that could tune satellite in the existing SWM frequency range, DECA in the existing DECA range, UHF in the modified/lowered range, and VHF at its standard frequencies. If a customer has older equipment that uses an AM21, rather than swap out the receiver/AM21 combo they could optionally swap the AM21 for an "AM22" that tuned the modified UHF frequency and had an output that would loop into the receiver's satellite input.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

How about a 'module' that is on the roof antenna that puts a selected OTA onto a SWiM channel as a SWiM channel??


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

carl6 said:


> To add OTA as a supplement to LIL in all boxes would be wonderful. For them to add it as a replacement for LIL would not be acceptable for most people.
> 
> As a supplement, it could easily allow most customers to "get by" if negotiations result in loss of a local station for a period of time. That in turn would give DirecTV more leverage in their negotiations, and help keep costs down. The bottom dollar question is could they save enough in retransmission fees to offset the cost of adding OTA back into the receivers and DVRs?


The OTA supplement has never gone away. I have OTA on all 3 of my HD DVR's....its very easy to do even now. H20's and HR20's have built-in OTA, all other current HD models can use an AM-21....they work great if OTA is possible where you live.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They did well *after* they added local stations LiL. That was a key thing in their success.

More saber rattling?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> The OTA supplement has never gone away. I have OTA on all 3 of my HD DVR's....its very easy to do even now. H20's and HR20's have built-in OTA, all other current HD models can use an AM-21....they work great if OTA is possible where you live.


True, but customers with an AM21 are in the significant minority. Building OTA back into receivers would provide it to all customers. I also have two AM21's, but rarely watch OTA.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

carl6 said:


> True, but customers with an AM21 are in the significant minority. Building OTA back into receivers would provide it to all customers. I also have two AM21's, but rarely watch OTA.


I believe the reason they are in the significant minority is most dont use OTA and dont want to use OTA. Hence the whole reason they took it out of their STB's...unecessary added expenses to the cost of the boxes and everyone wanted cheaper stbs, which in all honesty we got until the Genie's came along. HR20's were I believe $299 lease when they came out, maybe $399, most people if they do pay only get charged $99 or $199 for an HR2x model these days.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Dumb, dumb, dumb. They did well *after* they added local stations LiL. That was a key thing in their success.
> 
> *More saber rattling?*


I really think so ....

Can you imagine DIRECTV letting the billions of dollars they've spent on space and ground facilities for LiL spot beam technology since the late '90s essentially go to waste with such a plan? Too absurd to even contemplate ... 
:nono2: :nono2: :nono2:


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

I used the OTA tuner in my HR20 before getting a Genie. We have a ME TV affiliate on a sub channel that will most likely be never be carried by DirecTV. The AM21N can scan for channels with the Genie, unlike the HR20 that relies on data from TMS. DirecTV stopped adding OTA channels to the database sometime ago. I will be ordering an AM21N soon.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

The CSRs have enough problems with current equipment. Can you imagine what kind pf questions they would need to answer if this ever came back?


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I signed up for DirecTV to get both local channels and "cable" channels that I could easily record. The OTA tuner in my HR20-700 let me record a number of local channels that DirecTV didn't carry.

I also get an excellent picture OTA directly on my two HD sets, so that I can watch programs even when I'm recording two other programs. There are 136 OTA channels available in the Los Angeles area.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gov said:


> How about a 'module' that is on the roof antenna that puts a selected OTA onto a SWiM channel as a SWiM channel??


That's a really interesting idea. Having a way to integrate the OTA signal into a SWM channel would be a big win. Once a tuner has pulled in the signal it is just MPEG2, which Directv receivers can already handle, and SWM LNBs/multiswitches are already performing frequency shifting. Theoretically at least a next generation SWM that included an ATSC tuner could shift an OTA signal on a SWM channel in a manner that could be made to work with _existing_ receivers.

There's still the bigger problem of where does the OTA signal come from, but they've got that problem no matter what. Integrating it with SWM would at least avoid the need for an OTA tuner in the receivers, and if it were somehow done in a way that was compatible with all existing SWM capable receivers it would be a huge win for Directv. They'd only need to replace the SWM LNB/multiswitch with a new one and route the OTA signal into it.

As someone who has an OTA antenna and still has 17 H20s in service due to the need for that tuner, if I was able to replace my SWM-16s with a new model that would take an OTA input and pass it through via SWM, I'd jump at the chance. I've got 7 H24/AM21 pairs, I'd love to be able to ditch all the AM21s without losing my locals, that would be awesome!

Thinking of stuff like this makes me even more curious what Directv is planning/considering. If all they end up doing is subsidizing people to install OTA antennas and giving them free AM21s when Directv has a fight with a local station in their DMA, I'll be mightily disappointed :sure:


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I've been suggesting the increased support of OTA for at least 2 years here at dbstalk. To help cutback on Directv retransmission fees as they cite and to solve rain fade problems for those that have it bad, like I do in the SE USA. I know many folks who have left Directv over rain fade, this will solve some that too. 

I look forward to this to replace 1 or more of my 4 AM21's someday.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

I think that it would be great if it would lower our bills and we wouldn't have to worry about greedy negotiations with broadcasters that have a lot of stations through out the U.S. However, the D* receivers would have to act as tuners. In my case, only one of my four TV's has a tuner at this time. Another big downside, is that I have a narrow window of LOS from the transmitters and there are a lot of trees in the way. Most of the transmitters are 26 miles away to the S.E.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

NR4P said:


> I've been suggesting the increased support of OTA for at least 2 years here at dbstalk. To help cutback on Directv retransmission fees as they cite and to solve rain fade problems for those that have it bad, like I do in the SE USA. I know many folks who have left Directv over rain fade, this will solve some that too.
> 
> I look forward to this to replace 1 or more of my 4 AM21's someday.


I have no problem with OTA integration. It is a plus as far as I'm concerned. But I don't get the logic that it helps cutback on retrans fees. Can you explain why you think it does? Other than dumping retrans, that is.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

If I recall correctly, the ability to to combine OTA and DBS over the same COAX was touted when SWiM was introduced.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> I have no problem with OTA integration. It is a plus as far as I'm concerned. But I don't get the logic that it helps cutback on retrans fees. Can you explain why you think it does? Other than dumping retrans, that is.


Because fewer customers would be affected/angry if a local station made Directv quit carrying them for a while during negotiations, Directv would be able to hold out longer and have a better chance of negotiating a lower rate.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

machavez00 said:


> If I recall correctly, the ability to to combine OTA and DBS over the same COAX was touted when SWiM was introduced.


It made diplexing possible again, until they introduced DECA. Since Directv chose its own frequencies instead of using the standard MoCA ones that conflicted with satellite frequencies, I wonder why they didn't choose a low frequency range to fit it into the gap between VHF and UHF frequencies? Then you have still diplexed OTA, albeit with a slightly more complex diplexer.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

n3vino said:


> I think that it would be great if it would lower our bills and we wouldn't have to worry about greedy negotiations with broadcasters that have a lot of stations through out the U.S. However, the D* receivers would have to act as tuners. In my case, only one of my four TV's has a tuner at this time. Another big downside, is that I have a narrow window of LOS from the transmitters and there are a lot of trees in the way. Most of the transmitters are 26 miles away to the S.E.


It seems pretty unlikely Directv would try to promote a solution that relied on the tuner in your TV. It wouldn't allow for you to select the channel in the guide like you can now, and more importantly, wouldn't allow you to record it. Few would be interested in installing Directv's OTA solution, even as a backup in case of rain fade or negotiations gone wrong, if there was no way to record. It would look pretty lame compared to Dish's ads touting their ability to record all four broadcast networks at once.

Either the tuner would return to the receivers, or we'd see the more interesting solution of having having the SWM LNB/multiswitch able to provide OTA over a SWM channel.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I wonder why they didn't choose a low frequency range to fit it into the gap between VHF and UHF frequencies? Then you have still diplexed OTA, albeit with a slightly more complex diplexer.


Diplexing isn't for OTA only, it's also used for cable and the frequencies between VHF and UHF are used by cable channels 23-64.
Basically it's like this:
VHF Lo (2-6)
FM Radio 88.1-108.0 (Cable channels 95-97)
Cable channels 98-99 and 14-22
VHF Hi (7-13)
Cable Channels 23-64
UHF 14-43 (2 MHz offset from cable channels 65-94)
UHF 44-69 (2 MHz offset from cable channels 100-125)
Former UHF 70-83 (2 MHz offset from cable channels 126-139)
Cable channels 140-158

Since most analog TVs only go up to 125 after they discontinued use of UHF 70-83, cable channels 126-158 are used for digital cable only, although once you reach 850 MHz (channel 133) you are beyond the cutoff of most diplexers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There are probably 100 people who want to have both satellite and OTA for every one who wants to have both satellite and cable. Just because a solution only worked for diplexing OTA and not for diplexing cable doesn't mean it wouldn't have been worthwhile for them to do. They could have saved many people from having to run additional coax for OTA. The few who want both satellite and cable would be no worse off than they are today.

Perhaps there were other considerations for why they chose the frequency range they did for DECA that precluded them being able to fit in between VHF and UHF.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Because fewer customers would be affected/angry if a local station made Directv quit carrying them for a while during negotiations, Directv would be able to hold out longer and have a better chance of negotiating a lower rate.


Okay but what is the value of that? The vast, vast majority of deals get done without a second of down time. Are you saying directv would be more willing to tick off the non OTA customers just to make a harder bargain? I'm not seeing it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Okay but what is the value of that? The vast, vast majority of deals get done without a second of down time. Are you saying directv would be more willing to tick off the non OTA customers just to make a harder bargain? I'm not seeing it.


Well, that's what this whole thread is about. Directv appears to be dropping hints that they might do just that, because the local stations keep increasing their demands every time around and that's not sustainable, particularly for something which is FREE to those who have an antenna!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Well, that's what this whole thread is about. Directv appears to be dropping hints that they might do just that, because the local stations keep increasing their demands every time around and that's not sustainable, particularly for something which is FREE to those who have an antenna!


And I'm saying it makes no sense. It is a bluff and won't work.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

In regards to retransmission fees paid by DirecTV to the locals.

IMO, it should be the other way around. The locals should pay DirecTV to have there programming carried by DirecTV.

Afterall, this would increase the number of viewers to their stations.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

There is one big reason to have an OTA antenna over what D* offers, subchannels and class A stations. D* dosen't offer all the subchannels and class A stations aren't must carry. Around here, we have lots of both are missing.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

alnielsen said:


> There is one big reason to have an OTA antenna over what D* offers, subchannels and class A stations. D* dosen't offer all the subchannels and class A stations aren't must carry. Around here, we have lots of both are missing.


That's why an OTA antenna is a good supplement but it doesn't work even for primaries for a large number of customers. I get sub channels OTA but lost main channels OTA with the digital transition.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

jerrylove56 said:


> Seems like Aero Tv may be having more impact than first thought. Cheaper than paying the high Retrans. fees netword demand.


In my opinion, nothing to do with Aero. This has to do with Retrans fees.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

slice1900 said:


> Well, that's what this whole thread is about. Directv appears to be dropping hints that they might do just that, because the local stations keep increasing their demands every time around and that's not sustainable, particularly for something which is FREE to those who have an antenna!


That's especially true with broadcasters, such as Sinclair Broadcasting, that own stations all over the U.S., and in some cities, they own multiple stations. Here in S.A., they own the Fox and NBC affiliates. When broadcasters negotiate, they pretty much have D* and subscribers all over the U.S. by they yang yang, as they negotiate for all the stations they own at the same time.


----------



## sliderbob (Aug 10, 2007)

I'd be in favor of this IF we could get the channels on the 390's.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

Sounds great to me. I would not be able to use a dish mount but if I could tie in my mast to the genie and still DVR locals and maybe save a few bucks, why not? Not everyone would be able to do it but probably 80-90 percent could. That is another question, what about current equipment that is not OTA compatible? Would there be some kind of converter available?


----------



## netraa (Mar 28, 2007)

It's going to take a 2 step approach for this.

1. certify the technicians to do an off air signal test with the appropriate equipment.

2. if they have acceptable levels, they get an off air and are good to go. If not, they get the distant networks turned on by default.

that alone will kill 90% of the complaints about stopping a retrans for a local station.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Would the local channels allow for this, would they allow for their guide data to be carried over D* satellites?

Sounds like a good idea, but I just don't see it happening. Like others have said already, too many negative variables would be in affect.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> In regards to retransmission fees paid by DirecTV to the locals.
> 
> IMO, it should be the other way around. The locals should pay DirecTV to have there programming carried by DirecTV.
> 
> Afterall, this would increase the number of viewers to their stations.


I've always wondered about that, too. Seems kinda backasswards to me.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inhd40 said:


> Sounds great to me. I would not be able to use a dish mount but if I could tie in my mast to the genie and still DVR locals and maybe save a few bucks, why not? Not everyone would be able to do it but probably 80-90 percent could. That is another question, what about current equipment that is not OTA compatible? Would there be some kind of converter available?


I think your 80-90 number is way too high. Since the digital switchover, ota coverage as dropped dramatically.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Would the local channels allow for this, would they allow for their guide data to be carried over D* satellites?


On what grounds?


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> I think your 80-90 number is way too high. Since the digital switchover, ota coverage as dropped dramatically.


I only get one OTA channel where I live and it's retransmitted so this would not work for me. Even if they gave us the distant networks, I would lose the local news and weather which is mostly all I watch on the networks.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I've always wondered about that, too. Seems kinda backasswards to me.
> 
> Rich


In an ideal world, local stations would want to be carried by cable and satellite providers because it increases their reach. They used to give it away free for that reason. Later they realized that due to the way copyright law is written, they control whether/how their signal is rebroadcast. Since there's a demand for it, and they control it, they're able to charge for it. Why give something away, even something you might be willing to pay to give them, if someone is willing to pay for it?

It's like if you were cleaning out your attic for a garage sale and some guy driving by sees one item you were going to put on the curb as trash and offers you $50 for it on the spot. Are you going to tell him, "actually I was going to throw that away, you can have it" or will you take the $50? Or maybe you figure if he's willing to pay $50, maybe he might be willing to pay $100?

The local stations keep raising their rates each time around, charging whatever the market will bear. They know that if the average person puts on a channel to watch their regular show or their team and instead sees a message about the station being blacked out due to ongoing negotiations, the angry phone call they make is much more likely to be directed at their provider who they pay for service rather than at their local station whom they don't (personally) pay.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> On what grounds?


Not sure, thats why I asked.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> I think your 80-90 number is way too high. Since the digital switchover, ota coverage as dropped dramatically.


Range went down for sure but with a good booster you can pull a long way.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Would the local channels allow for this, would they allow for their guide data to be carried over D* satellites?


As long as they're submitting their guide data information to Tribune (or another provider), they can't prevent DirecTV from getting the guide data from Tribune (or another provider) and disseminating the information.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inhd40 said:


> Range went down for sure but with a good booster you can pull a long way.


Problem is that you need big antennas. No amount of amplification makes a signal appear that isn't here. And it largely needs to be directional. The further away the more likely. A little dipole on a dish ain't gonna do it. Especially or VHF. Then there is the problem of multipath for people in and near cities. Multipath in analog just made a ghost. In digital, it breaks up and knocks out the picture.

While digital gave us beautiful HD and sub channels, it made it much harder to get clean, consistent OTA.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

trainman said:


> As long as they're submitting their guide data information to Tribune (or another provider), they can't prevent DirecTV from getting the guide data from Tribune (or another provider) and disseminating the information.


Not to mention that there isn't a single protest now, even from channels in dispute. Precedent set.

Heck, hey dont need to get it via satellite. The data is actually in the psip data. Not as far out calendar wise, but it is there.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I've suggested that the Feds just begin a transition to all Satellite for locals. Buy back the portion of the spectrum that's used for locals, from the satellite companies, and give it to the broadcasters in place of the terrestrial frequencies.
Let the satellite companies still operate the ground and space facilities for a while, until time for new satellites and uplinks.
As we move forward, eliminate the need for two HD and two SD feeds (both DISH and DirecTV), and free up more spectrum for the satellite companies and the broadcasters. Make all new satellite boxes HD-capable.
The locals would be available to anyone in the particular DMA, for free, but would be tightly spot-beamed....maybe even scrambled, if necessary (to control out-of-market reception). make it possible for non-subscribers to purchase FTA receivers for local reception.
As things progress, let the local stations get together and build or purchase their own local POP, and uplinks. They could hire (on a national basis) the DBS companies, or someone else, to build, launch and operate the Space Segment and TT&C facilities.

With the local stations being the ones who send the signal, there is no need for retransmission fees. Even Cable subs could receive the terrestrial broadcasters' signals via a dish, and the Cable companies could use their bandwidth for broadband.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Why not just go back to the East and West feeds, and if you want your own locals then use OTA. Atleast then your are still getting the Major networks.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Why not just go back to the East and West feeds, and if you want your own locals then use OTA. Atleast then your are still getting the Major networks.


Current federal laws won't allow it, even though outdated and misused by broadcasters to extort money from the MSOs

And the powerful NAB Washington lobby will fight tooth'in nail to keep it that way ...


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I'd switch OTA in a heartbeat if I didn't have to pay for my locals on DirecTV. 

They should go back to the way it used to be and allow you to sub to your locals for $7 a month. If you don't need them don't pay for them... Or was it Dish Network that would let you chose to pay for locals or not? Can't remember.

The majority of DirecTV subs would at least have the OTA option and that could save a bunch of money and put the local broadcasters in their place.


----------



## phodg (Jan 20, 2007)

There's no way I could get CBS Chicago without a big antenna on my roof. And I wouldn't accept distant networks as I'd lose my local news and weather. If this happened (which I think is probably unlikely), even though I've been with DirecTV for over 15 years I'd be off like a shot.


----------



## ACR_Ted (May 11, 2010)

I would love to see DTV go OTA for locals! I have a large antenna and I can get about 60 or so channels (all of the Phoenix and Tucson (AZ) stations). It would be nice to save a few $$ on the DTV price and would help put the greedy stations in their place. I see mention of the new OTA AM21N however does it scan? I've read that it does and/or does not. Getting the Tucson stations is important to me, but if it is limited to just your local dma I would not be interested. And if it doesn't scan that would mean no sub channels either, I think?

Thanks!

Ted


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

The Tivo and the Genies scan, the others are stuck with the database that limit you to two DMAs. The database also only lists the main signals so if you're in a market like mine that has a lot of translators, you're out of luck if you can't get the main signal. Check the transponder maps thread in tips and tricks, it has a full list of stations in the database for each market.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

kenglish said:


> I've suggested that the Feds just begin a transition to all Satellite for locals. Buy back the portion of the spectrum that's used for locals, from the satellite companies, and give it to the broadcasters in place of the terrestrial frequencies.
> Let the satellite companies still operate the ground and space facilities for a while, until time for new satellites and uplinks.
> As we move forward, eliminate the need for two HD and two SD feeds (both DISH and DirecTV), and free up more spectrum for the satellite companies and the broadcasters. Make all new satellite boxes HD-capable.
> The locals would be available to anyone in the particular DMA, for free, but would be tightly spot-beamed....maybe even scrambled, if necessary (to control out-of-market reception). make it possible for non-subscribers to purchase FTA receivers for local reception.
> ...


How do you cover the local news emergency for people who don't have cable or satellite? Or don't have line of sight?


----------



## ACR_Ted (May 11, 2010)

KyL416 said:


> The Tivo and the Genies scan, the others are stuck with the database that limit you to two DMAs. The database also only lists the main signals so if you're in a market like mine that has a lot of translators, you're out of luck if you can't get the main signal. Check the transponder maps thread in tips and tricks, it has a full list of stations in the database for each market.


Thanks for the info - that leaves me out with a HR22. Oh well....using the built in database will not work for me seeing as how the sub channels would not be shown.

Ted


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I think it all depends on how the retrans contracts are written. If they pay per sub in an area, then there is no benefit, but if it is like HBO where they only pay on the number of subs actually subscribing to the locals, then I think there is a huge benefit. 

But it will have to be a fully integrated solution, ie antenna in the STB, for most people. Those who live in major cities could probably pick up most locals with a decent antenna, so if the STB handled all the setup, then it could work.

DirecTV could have the STB first try to get locals via OTA via the setup process. If that works and the OTA signal is adequate, then the customers uses OTA for locals and is none the wiser, if the OTA setup portion fails, then the customer gets locals via satellite and is none the wiser. The STB then reports back to DirecTV which method the customer is using and then only pays retrans fees on those using the satellite feed.

The downside I see is that OTA takes up more recording space, so DirecTV will need to increase HDD sizes.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why would the antenna be in the STB? Having it on the dish would work better since antennas always function better outside, and would typically be located at higher elevation than the STB, and could also be larger - fewer people will complain about a 2' mast with a 2-3' long 1' wide antenna extending from their dish than would complain about the same thing extending from their STB!

Even a full size antenna on the peak of the roof isn't adequate for some people, so OTA can never replace getting the channels delivered over satellite for everyone, but the more people who could be covered by an alternate solution, the fewer people who will threaten to leave Directv if they played hardball when negotiating with the local stations. Over time that should reduce the growth rate of their cost for local stations.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

harsh said:


> The question then becomes what to do about those who can't reliably receive the "necessary" channels OTA. The whole mess falls apart when a user can't get a channel they need so they have to go LIL to fill in the missing channel.
> 
> You can't very well negotiate a contract based on estimates of who is going to want or need LIL for whatever reason.
> 
> There is a question in my mind that the stations don't care how many "subscribers" they have as long as they see their bottom line where they want it to be. If the station isn't getting out, they're likely to want more money per subscriber to maintain the bottom line as I think we can all agree that viewership means next to nothing in these retransmission deals.


Sorry I've been away from the topic so long, especially since I started it <grin>.

Actually, I think you CAN negotiate a contract for LIL based on the numbers of people taking the service. Instead of a blanket fee for all subs in a market, DirecTV simply offers a certain figure PER sub. Of course, the TV station owner doesn't have to take it!

This does indicate at the very least a threat on the part of DirecTV to either drop entirely (not likely) or dramatically cut back (much more likely) its use of Local into Local service.

Frankly, I see is as a threat...more than anything else...to force down the cost of local retrans fees. DirecTV has already demonstrated that it has the capability to seamlessly integrate OTA with its own guide. I would not be surprised if it has decided that there are certain...marginal...local into local markets that could be more economically served by an OTA solution than local into local.

Until now, DirecTV hasn't really had any leverage on its side to try to hold down the ever-escalating retrans fees. This is, more than anything else, its first club. In a worst-case scenario, DirecTV transitions to OTA service one market at a time. Yes, there will be those folks who cannot be served for whatever reason. In some markets, those folks may have to get cable as a supplement (bad idea) or move to Dish.

Before now, DirecTV has been a captive of the local stations for local signals. That...if nothing else...may be about to change. DirecTV has made it clear that it has to get its costs in line. This is the first shot in that battle.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> How do you cover the local news emergency for people who don't have cable or satellite? Or don't have line of sight?


Cell phone! Works like a charm.
And I'm in a fairly poor service area where the closest major city is 25 miles.

I signed up for free emergency alerts from the national weather services as well as my local ABC.
With cell phones and internet ,I wouldn't miss the lack of local news.
I would be fine with East or west feeds.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Cell phone! Works like a charm.
> And I'm in a fairly poor service area where the closest major city is 25 miles.
> 
> I signed up for free emergency alerts from the national weather services as well as my local ABC.
> ...


No, no, no. It doesn't work like a charm in emergencies. Heck, doesn't work like a charm at a football game. Cells get overtaxed. And you want to force people to get cell phones? Really good business plan.

If directv drops locals, it is suicide. This is saber rattling.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> No, no, no. It doesn't work like a charm in emergencies. Heck, doesn't work like a charm at a football game. Cells get overtaxed. And you want to force people to get cell phones? Really good business plan.
> 
> If directv drops locals, it is suicide. This is saber rattling.


95% of the time i'm not in front of a TV during an emergency, I would say that accurate for most.
But My Cell phone is on my 99.9% of the time.

Its 2013 most people have several cell phones in their home.

Just saying if its a cost saving measure with a solid back up plan, I'm all for it!
If I was at a football game I wouldn't watching my Directv locals anyway. I've never ran in to an overtaxed Cell phone since September 11th 2001.

Which again was not home to watch my locals!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

damondlt said:


> 95% of the time i'm not in front of a TV during an emergency, I would say that accurate for most.
> But My Cell phone is on my 99.9% of the time.
> 
> Its 2013 most people have several cell phones in their home.
> ...


Ever hear of "Dead Space" ? It's a common issue with cell phones.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Ever hear of "Dead Space" ? It's a common issue with cell phones.


 :sleeping:

Please! Dead Space, what you carry Directv receiver and TV with you everywhere you go?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> No, no, no. It doesn't work like a charm in emergencies. Heck, doesn't work like a charm at a football game. Cells get overtaxed. And you want to force people to get cell phones? Really good business plan.
> 
> If directv drops locals, it is suicide. This is saber rattling.


I agree, cell phones are far from being 100% reliable. I live in a very rural area. There are pockets of Dead Space where cell phones cease to function. Hell, there are even pockets where our State Troopers' radios don't work.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> I agree, cell phones are far from being 100% reliable. I live in a very rural area. There are pockets of Dead Space where cell phones cease to function. Hell, there are even pockets where our State Troopers' radios don't work.


I don't disagree with that.
But I'm more likely to hear a Text from the national weather service at 3am,

then my Directv receiver and TV turning on by its self to give me warning.

Just saying TV anymore is not the best warning signal anymore.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> I agree, cell phones are far from being 100% reliable. I live in a very rural area. There are pockets of Dead Space where cell phones cease to function. Hell, there are even pockets where our State Troopers' radios don't work.


but then that would be the minority, as cell companies try to cover larger cities


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

peds48 said:


> but then that would be the minority, as cell companies try to cover larger cities


For a sizeable portion of the population cities are 30+ miles from their location. Nearest city to my location is 26 miles. Second nearest city is 38 miles.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I don't disagree with that.
> But I'm more likely to hear a Text from the national weather service at 3am,
> 
> then my Directv receiver and TV turning on by its self to give me warning.
> ...


I will give you a recent example.

In Boston after the Marathon bombing, they turned off cell phone access because they were afraid it was being used to set off the bombs. So, millions of people in the middle of a city are cut off from information and in the grip of terror.

I will give you more. Cell phone towers often go out in hurricanes or tornadoes. Yet all you need to watch DirecTV is power at your house.

Not a good plan.

Cell phones are not reliable in all cases. Not to mention that your plan would put a much larger burden on the cell phone networks as they are not broadcast. Then you get the condition of the football game I was mentioning. A stadium of 70,000 easily knocks out multiple carriers in that location. Say half of them are using data (they are not, more like 1/5) and there are three major carriers. That means 10,000 users are knocking out a cell.

The idea is not a bad one, it is just no where near where we are with the technology and the penetration of that technology (like little old ladies who just want to turn on their TV and watch the weather, etc.).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You have to be tuned to one of your locals for Directv to be useful during emergencies. If you're watching HBO or ESPN, or a recording for that matter, how exactly are you going to learn about the emergency? If you already know about the emergency, you can turn to a local station and get information, so without locals Directv wouldn't be of much help. But you could also use the Internet, your cell phone, your landline if you still have one, or a radio. Radio is still the best way to get information during emergencies because just about everyone owns a car which has a radio _that doesn't need utility power_! If the emergency takes out your power, Directv is no help unless you have a generator.

Rather than worrying about locals support on Directv for emergency alerts, if you really care about this get them to support the EAS system that cable companies all have to now. Personally I hate this crap, and I'd view it as a feature in favor of Directv that it didn't have them if I was able to get Directv at my house. If you want it though, and push them and/or congress hard enough, Directv could implement it using the same spotbeams they use to deliver locals, along with your account's zip code as saved on your access cards, to send EAS warnings to your receivers. The constant stream of nonsense warnings will likely cause you to not pay attention when a real emergency finally happens. I know I probably won't, since where I live I get hundreds (no, I'm not joking or exaggerating) of EAS warnings every year. Be glad you have Directv and don't see this crap!


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> I will give you a recent example.
> 
> In Boston after the Marathon bombing, they turned off cell phone access because they were afraid it was being used to set off the bombs. So, millions of people in the middle of a city are cut off from information and in the grip of terror.
> 
> ...


They didn't intentionally turn off the service. It was immediately overwhelmed. It just proves your point even more.

Cell providers will only guarantee a text message will arrive within 24 hours of when it was sent. Which is why doctors still use pagers.

Still, if you subscribe to local channels, or you entered your zip code on your unit correctly, D* knows where you live and could send out emergency notices. Logistically it would be difficult, but the technology is there.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

So... the upshot is...

All the work they did taking OUT the OTA tuners from both the DVR's and Receivers a few years ago was for naught, since they now come to the conclusion that they 'may' want it back in. 

Real Smart Thinking.

BUT, those of use who (myself) that when it was announced that they were taking out the OTA, who immediately bought up boxes that still had it (I have the 'original' HR20-700 and went out and got 2 HR20-100's) knew that the tuner in them was several generations back, and when A/B'd to newer ATSC/HD tv's they (the newer tv's) performed hands down better off the same antenna input.

So, they'll need do two things (that folks here have pointed out), get the antenna OUTSIDE at the dish, and second, get the best design tuner. Most folks don't live in New Jersey or Kansas (both flat as a pancake over most of the terrain). And most broadcasters 'tune' their broadcast array's to 'point' their power in the direction of the most potential viewers. 

So, if done right, it'd be a good thing to 'bring back'. But again, it does make the original decision to take it out look pretty dumb (and don't talk about the AM21, it's just a poor an ATSC tuner as the original 'built-in's).


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> In Boston after the Marathon bombing, they turned off cell phone access because they were afraid it was being used to set off the bombs.


As bobcamp1 noted, they did not turn off cell service, the system was simply overwhelmed by call volume. Cell phones are absolutely NOT a reliable source of communications following any disaster. While it is perhaps technically possible to shut down cell service, it is no small matter to actually do so. And if they (the carriers) were to actually do so, it would take a considerable amount of time and effort to restore service. It is not as simple as flipping a switch. Texting is marginally better than voice cell service, because your phone will hold the message until it can get a slice of airtime to pass it (unlike voice which must have the airtime live in order to work). That is of course, assuming the infrastructure itself is undamaged (there is a cell tower your phone can actually connect to).


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You have to be tuned to one of your locals for Directv to be useful during emergencies. If you're watching HBO or ESPN, or a recording for that matter, how exactly are you going to learn about the emergency? If you already know about the emergency, you can turn to a local station and get information, so without locals Directv wouldn't be of much help. But you could also use the Internet, your cell phone, your landline if you still have one, or a radio. Radio is still the best way to get information during emergencies because just about everyone owns a car which has a radio _that doesn't need utility power_! If the emergency takes out your power, Directv is no help unless you have a generator.
> 
> Rather than worrying about locals support on Directv for emergency alerts, if you really care about this get them to support the EAS system that cable companies all have to now. Personally I hate this crap, and I'd view it as a feature in favor of Directv that it didn't have them if I was able to get Directv at my house. If you want it though, and push them and/or congress hard enough, Directv could implement it using the same spotbeams they use to deliver locals, along with your account's zip code as saved on your access cards, to send EAS warnings to your receivers. The constant stream of nonsense warnings will likely cause you to not pay attention when a real emergency finally happens. I know I probably won't, since where I live I get hundreds (no, I'm not joking or exaggerating) of EAS warnings every year. Be glad you have Directv and don't see this crap!


You said we were talking only about EAS? (Which I believe they do have.) what about the hours of local information during snow storms and hurricanes, terror attacks, tornados, etc? The person who said locals were useless said use cell phones. Won't work.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> For a sizeable portion of the population cities are 30+ miles from their location. Nearest city to my location is 26 miles. Second nearest city is 38 miles.


Then you are in the "minority" lol


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

1948GG said:


> So, if done right, it'd be a good thing to 'bring back'. But again, it does make the original decision to take it out look pretty dumb (and don't talk about the AM21, it's just a poor an ATSC tuner as the original 'built-in's).


Who says they'd put tuners back in the receivers if they decided to support OTA? Tuners could be located in the SWM module to deliver OTA via SWM, or the AM21 could be shrunk to the size of a pack of cards that plugs into and is powered from a receiver's USB port.

The reason why Directv dropped OTA is because of the ATSC licensing costs, which are rumored to be $20-$40 per device. So coming up with a solution that doesn't require tuners in every receiver would be highly desirable from their standpoint. You want to create one device with multiple (at least 4, to compete well with Hopper) ATSC tuners that can deliver the content to receivers without OTA tuners. Either over a SWM channel just like satellite if the tuner is in the SWM, or attached to the back of one receiver and shared with others over DECA.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

What would Directv do with all the freed bandwidth.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There wouldn't be any freed bandwidth, they'd still offer the locals via satellite, the OTA solution would just be an option. There's no way Directv could entirely stop broadcasting locals via satellite, there are too many customers who have no other ways to receive them.

They'd just have to figure out a way to encourage customers to adopt their OTA solution. They could charge more for getting the locals via satellite, for instance. Or they could have a hybrid solution where the OTA solution would use whatever locals it could pull in for free at a good signal level, and get the rest via satellite. That way customers don't lose anything - in fact most would gain locals they previously didn't have - but Directv still has fewer customers relying on them for a given local station, thereby gaining a better bargaining position when negotiation time rolls around.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Then you are in the "minority" lol


Wrong! That makes me part of that sizeable part of the population that doesn't live near a city. My house is located off a state route. Time Warner ran their cable along that state route but not any of the roads that run off of it. I was able to acquire their service and have Road Runner for my internet provider.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> tonyd79, on 22 May 2013 - 8:25 PM, said:
> You said we were talking only about EAS? (Which I believe they do have.) what about the hours of local information during snow storms and hurricanes, terror attacks, tornados, etc? The person who said locals were useless said use cell phones. Won't work.


My Cell phone had no problem letting me know about the severe weather in my county 5 times yesterday.

My Directv Genie, didn't flip over to my local networks to show me the alerts, Nor did the receiver walk down the steps outside while I was in my office to warn me about the Severe Thunderstorm warning that hit last night.

So when I went up to the house to close the windows, I said maybe I should check the TV , OH but Guess what. "Searching for Satellite"
OH yea forgot if there are any Storms coming from the southern Sky NO Directv.
Better keep that in mind when you have only a 10 minute warning to get into your basement.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Not sure what the big deal is. DirecTV should not agree to pay blanket fees to broadcasters. It should be per sub and that cost should be passed on only to those that actually subscribe their locals. Of course DirecTV would have to make changes so that the locals are billed separately.

Obviously not everyone can use OTA but millions can. I would use OTA with no problem although it would be nice if DirecTV updated their equipment to make it easier. Seems kind of nuts to have an OTA tuner twice the size of the HR44 or 4 times the size of the H25 receivers. A new OTA module similar to what Dish Network does is long overdue from DirecTV. Being able to scan for OTA channels is also a no-brainer.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Another article on it.

http://broadcastengineering.com/ott/directv-considers-rf-antennas-challenge-broadcast-retrans-fees

I'm curious if they are talking about the AM21 or if there is a new IRD coming that has the antenna built in.

I have seen something like this coming for a long time. Having to pay the local providers to rebroadcast their content to people (while maintaining the cost of the rebroadcasting equipment) never made financial sense to me. Especially when many people can get the same channels (or more) with a AM21 and an antenna.

The only problem I can see with this is that you cannot guarantee reception from a OTA.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

damondlt said:


> My Cell phone had no problem letting me know about the severe weather in my county 5 times yesterday.
> 
> My Directv Genie, didn't flip over to my local networks to show me the alerts, Nor did the receiver walk down the steps outside while I was in my office to warn me about the Severe Thunderstorm warning that hit last night.
> 
> ...


Having worked in the cellular industry for a long time, I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about there. I recently had a text message take 18 hours to get to me, and I was in an area with good coverage with no local event that would cause an increase in volume. The message simply didn't get to my phone for 18 hours. Of course, most of my other messages DO get there within 5-10 minutes or so. But SMS is only 98% reliable. That 2% will kill you. Which is why doctors still use pagers.

But you ARE correct about the weather disrupting the satellite signal when you might need it most. But weather also disrupts the ATSC signal -- I've had problems in recent days getting a good signal with all the thunderstorms that have been around. Even a gusty day can wreak havoc.

Since no one method is 100% reliable, you need to use as many methods as you can. Which should include DBS. But there's no need for an antenna for THAT. If they can send you local weather on The Weather Channel, they can incorporate EAS just like cable does. They aren't doing it because they have a waiver from the FCC.

As a side note, some of my channels are not available in HD OTA but are available in HD with cable and satellite. Which is why very few people here use an antenna.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

bobcamp1 said:


> As a side note, some of my channels are not available in HD OTA but are available in HD with cable and satellite. Which is why very few people here use an antenna.


Wow - that's nuts! A broadcaster that doesn't broadcast in HD but invested in the equipment to do HD over cable and satellite? What kind of programming do they have?


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> Having worked in the cellular industry for a long time, I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about there. I recently had a text message take 18 hours to get to me, and I was in an area with good coverage with no local event that would cause an increase in volume. The message simply didn't get to my phone for 18 hours. Of course, most of my other messages DO get there within 5-10 minutes or so. But SMS is only 98% reliable. That 2% will kill you. Which is why doctors still use pagers.
> 
> But you ARE correct about the weather disrupting the satellite signal when you might need it most. But weather also disrupts the ATSC signal -- I've had problems in recent days getting a good signal with all the thunderstorms that have been around. Even a gusty day can wreak havoc.
> 
> ...


I do. I like to exercise ALL my options, the cheapest way possible. After all, its only tv............


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Mike Greer said:


> Wow - that's nuts! A broadcaster that doesn't broadcast in HD but invested in the equipment to do HD over cable and satellite? What kind of programming do they have?


Some stations have duel goals I suppose;

For instance I've got one local station here in the LA market, KJLA-57, which does that;

The reason being they wish to use their OTA spectrum for many SD sub-channels, 10 (1 main and 9 secondary). with most of the secondaries carrying Chinese and Vietnamese programming. Yet DIRECTV and other MSOs carry a 720p HD feed of their main sub. 57-1 sent to them directly by fiber or microwave.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bobcamp1 said:


> Having worked in the cellular industry for a long time, I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about there. I recently had a text message take 18 hours to get to me, and I was in an area with good coverage with no local event that would cause an increase in volume. The message simply didn't get to my phone for 18 hours. Of course, most of my other messages DO get there within 5-10 minutes or so. But SMS is only 98% reliable. That 2% will kill you. Which is why doctors still use pagers.


If you work n the cellular industry then you know that if the government were serious about sending emergency alerts out via cell phone (which it seems like Europe already is and the US is getting on board with) they'll use Cell Broadcast, not SMS. The capability is in most recent phones but not fully enabled on many of them because currently carriers aren't using it to provide any meaningful information yet.

You can never rely on a single solution for emergency notification. Even if cellular notification was a perfect solution, it requires the person to own a cell phone. Some don't. If you rely on local TV stations, it requires the person to own a TV. My brother doesn't. And so on.

Personally, I dread the full implementation of Cell Broadcast. I fear that government regulations will make it work like EAS where it isn't permitted to have a way to disable it. If my phone is going to wake me up every time there is a severe storm warning, I'll keep it in another room if there's no way to shut it up.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> Some stations have duel goals I suppose;
> 
> For instance I've got one local station here in the LA market, KJLA-57, which does that;
> 
> The reason being they wish to use their OTA spectrum for many SD sub-channels, 10 (1 main and 9 secondary). with most of the secondaries carrying Chinese and Vietnamese programming. Yet DIRECTV and other MSOs carry a 720p HD feed of their main sub. 57-1 sent to them directly by fiber or microwave.


I guess that makes sense for them.... But that has to be a tiny minority of local channels and could still continue as-is for someone that wants to pay DirecTV for locals.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Who says they'd put tuners back in the receivers if they decided to support OTA? *Tuners could be located in the SWM module to deliver OTA via SWM*, or the AM21 could be shrunk to the size of a pack of cards that plugs into and is powered from a receiver's USB port. ...


Not sure if that would be practical.

Since each receiver is assigned its own SWiM channel for programming, you would need an available off-air ATSC tuner for each SWiM program channel. So that's as much as 8 ATSC tuners for a SWiM LNB or SWiM-8 outboard module and 16 for a SWiM-16 outboard module.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> For a sizable portion of the population cities are 30+ miles from their location. Nearest city to my location is 26 miles. Second nearest city is 38 miles.


Depends on definition of city. Being an ex-NYC, myself, my idea of a city is a lot larger then someone who grew up in Wilmington, Vermont.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

If this ever becomes a reality I'm covered. I rarely ever tune to the recently add HD locals via sat, and continue to use my OTA locals.....never a missed recording due to weather, unless it takes out the power....why not use the OTA versions? Ever SL for a network show on all 3 of DVR's is setup for the OTA version...For those that have the option, it seems silly not to use it.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

If you're like me in Philly, OTA is hit or miss due to the hills.


----------



## tnnolman (Aug 9, 2009)

Stupidest thing I ever heard of. where do you think subs will get their local signals? I have 2 amplified sets of rabbit ears and the one the back cannot pick up PBS out of nashville. this is why LIL was formed for subs to watch those networks. Somehow I hope this not happen but we do need retrans reform right away.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> Not sure if that would be practical.
> 
> Since each receiver is assigned its own SWiM channel for programming, you would need an available off-air ATSC tuner for each SWiM program channel. So that's as much as 8 ATSC tuners for a SWiM LNB or SWiM-8 outboard module and 16 for a SWiM-16 outboard module.


They wouldn't have to be able to allow people to watch 8/16 different locals at once. I would think that a limitation of perhaps 5 locals (with tuners able to be shared if more than one TV is watching the same thing) would cover 99% of people. Those who have a problem with it could stick with the satellite delivered locals, and risk paying more and more every year if the stations keep successfully forcing the providers to pay more.

Five tuners isn't a problem, that's a single chip these days. Actually, for all I know 8 or even 16 tuners is a single chip nowadays, so maybe it would be possible to do what you say.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tnnolman said:


> Stupidest thing I ever heard of. where do you think subs will get their local signals? I have 2 amplified sets of rabbit ears and the one the back cannot pick up PBS out of nashville. this is why LIL was formed for subs to watch those networks. Somehow I hope this not happen but we do need retrans reform right away.


It's not like they would ever do away with the locals but those of us that have no problem getting OTA (the majority I suspect) could save ourselves and DirecTV money. The more people that use OTA the less power the broadcasters will have.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I'd like to see a QAM tuner built in. I can't get anything OTA here unless I spend a bunch on a large unsightly antenna and amplifier.

Though with the cable feed, they provide all the locals in HD, plus QVC HD, HSN HD, many SD feeds like Music Choice, SWRV and the whole "expanded basic" SD lineup that has better picture quality than DirecTV's SD feeds. Anyway it's nice to have QAM as a backup and if it could be integrated into a DirecTV DVR for recording and not having to switch inputs.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, as was said earlier, a lot of this is probably "sabre rattling". But...it IS a large sabre.

First of all, DirecTV, as well as Dish, already has the technology in place. Yes, it does need to be tweaked, as in the case of the barely-adequate AM21 (of which I own two), but it is in place.

Second, Direct is going to have to get the station groups to agree to payments based on a per sub model, rather than a blanket fee.

Third, LIL transmissions will have to continue for those who are outside of the OTA signals _assuming it is cost-effective for DirecTV to do so. _ If there is a market where DirecTV is losing money on LIL, due to high payments and low take rates due to many subs having OTA capability, watch for it to shut down LIL in a moment. Those subs will have to either go to Dish (assuming LIL is available there), put up larger antennas, or do without. Let's face it...local television service is not a right, it's simply been made easier in this age where LIL can be delivered via satellite. I really think it would be a tragedy if millions of us were deprived of local stations due to providers dropping them due to increased retrans costs, but it's not the provider's fault. You can blame your local station_'_s owner for being...well...greedy.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

mnassour said:


> Well, as was said earlier, a lot of this is probably "sabre rattling". But...it IS a large sabre.


I don't think it is a large saber at all. The vast, vast majority of users do not want to add an antenna. In many places, the antenna needs to be much larger than the dish (almost everywhere, actually). OTA needs to be directional because of signal strengths but weak and strong, so you can't just slap a omni directional antenna on a dish and expect it to work. And through all that, it may not work well enough or consistently enough. So, you are going to try to explain this to the average customer and make them jump through hoops? I don't think so. I can see the ad campaigns now from cable. They would get slaughtered. So, you save a couple of bucks per sub but you lose a nice chunk of customers because of the cumbersomeness of the whole thing.

Meanwhile, you have to get local stations to agree to a reasonable cost per sub. Who says they will do that? You are asking them to cut themselves with their own sword. If you tell them, well, 1/3 of your market chose to go OTA, so we want to pay you 1/3 less, what makes you think they are going to say "okey dokey, we will happily take the cut?"

The only way the saber is going to do any good is the threat of not needing to pay the locals AT ALL. And that is not going to happen unless DirecTV wants to become Zoom.

Oh, and local TV is a right, sort of. That is what the license says. It may not be a right to be delivered via satellite (actually, to some degree, it is) but it is a right. OTA stations cannot block your signal OTA, so it makes it a right.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Good points, yes, but above all, DirecTV will not provide any service on which it loses money. I think that was made clear in the BE article referenced above. And since none of really know whether DirecTV is paying a flat rate, a per sub rate, or what, it's hard to make judgments at this time as to how those negotiations might proceed.

Indeed...locals are important at the present time. But the network share of viewership overall continues to decrease. I think DirecTV believes the day is coming when locals will be only a small part of its business...and should NOT be chewing up the lion's share of money or bandwidth.

What we do know, however, is that retrans fees are now really starting to bite into the providers profits. Each of the providers is going to be looking for new ways to cut these costs. Here in Austin, for instance, we're looking at another shootin' match between Time Warner and LIN, which is asking for a reported 50% increase for not one, not two, but three local channels. I fully expect all three to be gone from TWC at the end of the month. The big broadcasting groups apparently are well on their way to killing the golden goose of retransmission with their ever-increasing demands.

I'm sure that DirecTV's ideal world is one in which those who want LIL pay for it and the rest of us go our merry way. But by the same token, don't expect DirecTV to continue LIL service if only, say one percent, of its viewers in a particular market sign up for it. That's what I mean by saying we have no "right" to local TV, as reception, of course, depends on where you live.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

One other alternative would be for them to do exactly what Aereo is doing. Put up a bunch of tiny antennas near the transmitter sites, market by market, and stream the feed to each customer from "their" antenna via the Internet. Between that, and some sort of OTA solution, they could cover almost everyone.

As for those who can't use either solution, because they live out in the sticks far from OTA transmitters and without decent Internet service, if their number is small enough Directv might be willing to lose them if push came to shove. Things aren't close to that point yet, but someday if the local stations keep pressing for more and more money, they might be.

Maybe instead of Hulu, Directv should buy Aereo. That would certainly put a little fear into the local stations. Maybe the threat of doing a full scale rollout of that technology would be enough that they don't have to actually do it.


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

Aereo is coming here to metro Atlanta next month. I'm curious to see how that will work in terms of picture quality via the Roku, but it will likely not drive me to cut the cords that I currently have to receive local channels.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> . I recently had a text message take 18 hours to get to me, and I was in an area with good coverage with no local event that would cause an increase in volume. The message simply didn't get to my phone for 18 hours. Of course, most of my other messages DO get there within 5-10 minutes or so. But SMS is only 98% reliable. That 2% will kill you.
> 
> As a side note, some of my channels are not available in HD OTA but are available in HD with cable and satellite. *Which is why very few people here use an antenna*.


Clean out your inbox on your cell phone Or maybe you should upgrade that Cellular One bag phone!!

Channels that are in HD on cable and Satellite, but not OTA???? By available you mean can't receive? Because Directv can't make a channel HD if its not already.
Also 2% really what you think TV has a less margin of error.

2 times last year once in the Ice storm and once during our hurricane, Our local networks towers we either brought down or malfunctioned because of the weather. Cell phones is all we had!
TV the most reliable source, Ha that's a laugh!

* By the way over 50 million use OTA in the USA.*
And I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I don't think it is a large saber at all. The vast, vast majority of users do not want to add an antenna. In many places, the antenna needs to be much larger than the dish (almost everywhere, actually). OTA needs to be directional because of signal strengths but weak and strong, so you can't just slap a omni directional antenna on a dish and expect it to work. And through all that, it may not work well enough or consistently enough. So, you are going to try to explain this to the average customer and make them jump through hoops? I don't think so. I can see the ad campaigns now from cable. They would get slaughtered. So, you save a couple of bucks per sub but you lose a nice chunk of customers because of the cumbersomeness of the whole thing.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have to get local stations to agree to a reasonable cost per sub. Who says they will do that? You are asking them to cut themselves with their own sword. If you tell them, well, 1/3 of your market chose to go OTA, so we want to pay you 1/3 less, what makes you think they are going to say "okey dokey, we will happily take the cut?"
> 
> ...


I do agree with you on this!

Which is why I stated I'm all for a cost saving method, I may not like it . But for me , I don't need my DMA's locals for emergency alert. Programming well I would find another way to get it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> As a side note, some of my channels are not available in HD OTA but are available in HD with cable and satellite. Which is why very few people here use an antenna.


http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/60230/us-otaonly-tv-viewing-hits-178-of-hhs

*According to new research by GfK Media, the number of Americans now relying solely on over-the-air (OTA) television reception increased to almost 54 million, up from 46 million just a year ago*


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mnassour said:


> I would not be surprised if it has decided that there are certain...marginal...local into local markets that could be more economically served by an OTA solution than local into local.


I would think the large markets would be a better fit for this. Most people who live inside the city limits of a large (top 30) markets can probably get a useable signal with a hanger as an antenna  . I don't see DirecTV getting rid of markets served via satellite, but if they can lower their costs by moving some subs, or even threatening to move some subs, to OTA then they might just do it.

I mentioned an antenna in a STB simply because DirecTV would have some work to do to integrate OTA signals into a SWM/WHDVR system.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> I would think the large markets would be a better fit for this. Most people who live inside the city limits of a large (top 30) markets can probably get a useable signal with a hanger as an antenna  . I don't see DirecTV getting rid of markets served via satellite, but if they can lower their costs by moving some subs, or even threatening to move some subs, to OTA then they might just do it.
> 
> I mentioned an antenna in a STB simply because DirecTV would have some work to do to integrate OTA signals into a SWM/WHDVR system.


Right...once again, I should have been more specific. I don't take "marginal" to mean small. I take marginal to mean not terribly profitable. For instance, if here in Austin DirecTV is having to pay more for local channels than it's worth to the company, it might be more economical to go the Dish route and start installing OTA boxes and antennas for customers. Of course, not everyone could be served like this. If it's only one person, and they drop DirecTV, well, no big deal. If it's 90% of the customer base, well, then, that's something else!

Direct is just exploring all the options it has to cut down on this gouging by large corporations for retrans rights. We're only at the beginning of a hundred mile journey on this one.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Channels that are in HD on cable and Satellite, but not OTA???? By available you mean can't receive? Because Directv can't make a channel HD if its not already.


There are several channels out there that only have the HD feed available via a fiber link to the cable or satellite provider but not OTA. Usually it's in smaller markets where during the analog era they never had a full time local affiliate of one of the networks and launched one in SD using a subchannel while the HD feed is exclusive to cable and satellite.

There's also another example listed in this thread of a station that uses all of its subchannels for various ethnic programming while the HD feed of the main channel is only available on cable and satellite.

Our local MyNetworkTV affiliate does it too but they have more of a complicated history. Because of the shape of our market, most of the stations are in the northeast corner of it and reception of the stations is hard in Central PA. Up until the launch of MyNetworkTV it was the central PA repeater of the local WB station (we never had a full time UPN station). Instead of carrying the HD feed of MyNetworkTV OTA, they have it in SD on the main channel, while the second subchannel of that station has the local Fox station in HD for central PA viewers and the third subchannel is a SD simulcast of our CW affiliate.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> That's a really interesting idea. Having a way to integrate the OTA signal into a SWM channel would be a big win. Once a tuner has pulled in the signal it is just MPEG2, which Directv receivers can already handle, and SWM LNBs/multiswitches are already performing frequency shifting. Theoretically at least a next generation SWM that included an ATSC tuner could shift an OTA signal on a SWM channel in a manner that could be made to work with _existing_ receivers.
> 
> There's still the bigger problem of where does the OTA signal come from, but they've got that problem no matter what. Integrating it with SWM would at least avoid the need for an OTA tuner in the receivers, and if it were somehow done in a way that was compatible with all existing SWM capable receivers it would be a huge win for Directv. They'd only need to replace the SWM LNB/multiswitch with a new one and route the OTA signal into it.
> 
> ...


Actually, doing the OTA RF amplification and the heterodyne tuning right at the antenna is the best way to go. It keeps the noise factor down, and allows you to run an I.F. frequency down to the (rest of the) receiver. It would be very much like a SWM.
Also, the DTV standards already have a provision for a SmartAntenna, which electrically re-orients itself for each channel coming from different directions.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

kenglish said:


> Actually, doing the OTA RF amplification and the heterodyne tuning right at the antenna is the best way to go. It keeps the noise factor down, and allows you to run an I.F. frequency down to the (rest of the) receiver. It would be very much like a SWM.
> Also, the DTV standards already have a provision for a SmartAntenna, which electrically re-orients itself for each channel coming from different directions.


Can it handle reception of multiple channels from multiple directions simultaneously? I am guessing that it is similar to the MIMO antennas used for Wifi and cellular, in which case it should be capable of doing just that.

I found a small blurb on Wikipedia about this, and apparently there were two such antennas formerly available but neither is being produced anymore. I assume there must be some problem with this in practice, or this type of technology would dominate the market instead of people continuing to use old school antennas which are aimed in a specific direction.

I know the MIMO antennas used elsewhere require a fair bit of processing power, and since the SmartAntenna technology you're talking about was designed for the DTV converter boxes, that is to say at the very low end of the market, maybe sufficient amounts of processing power could not be included at the price range they were targeting. With another half decade of ASIC performance increases behind us and Directv presumably willing to make it cost what it needs to cost to get it done right, perhaps this is a possibility.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Anything that cuts into my local stations' greed is ok by me. I am 25-30 miles from two larger cities and OTA works fine here except for the one VHF station, which coincidentally is the one local NOT on the AM21. 

I don't even have a real antenna for OTA in my bedroom, just an alligator clip attached to the radio whip antenna from an old Plymouth car! I get 90% on all my local stations.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

They should bypass the locals entirely and make regional deals with the networks directly. It really isn't the rebroadcast rights they want, it's the content that the locals have exclusive locks on. Locks they would have lost long since, but the NAB got Congress to turn their business plan into law.

The business model of having local broadcasters in every conceivable RF footprint has LONG been obsolete. Not sure why networks still broadcast at all, really. Most of their customers have moved on. Sure, one wants local news coverage but that doesn't mean you have to have stations every 50 miles. Between satellite, cable and the ever-growing internet backbone many local broadcast stations are doomed. Be silly for DirecTV not to plan for that day, especially as some local stations have moved to hostage-taking as their basic business and have no added content worth buying.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Question for those who have OTA reception problems: If DirecTV delivered all the networks from the nearest big city, along with those local independents who signed up, would that really be so bad? The real problem is that the local network broadcasters, whose signal many can't get, claim to own you.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

gully_foyle said:


> Question for those who have OTA reception problems: If DirecTV delivered all the networks from the nearest big city, along with those local independents who signed up, would that really be so bad? The real problem is that the local network broadcasters, whose signal many can't get, claim to own you.


That's because...under the law....they do.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mnassour said:


> That's because...under the law....they do.


Yep. And they have better lobbyists than we do.


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

I hope I can get my money back for the AM21 I bought that won`t pick up all the available stations due to DTV not carrying them in their "database".


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm not sure if you can get your money back by returning it to the place of purchase, however the AM21 is an owned accessory, not leased, and you can sell it privately to recover your cost. Check the buy/sell/trade forum here as one opportunity to try and do that.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

twiseguy said:


> I hope I can get my money back for the AM21 I bought that won`t pick up all the available stations due to DTV not carrying them in their "database".


You have a couple of options. First contact the stations you think you should be getting and let them know they need to provide their data to Tribune. DirecTV can't add stations it doesn't know about.

Second, if you know you should be getting a signal from a station, but it is not in the database, then find another market that has a station that is broadcasting on the same channel. This needs to be the actual VHF/UHF channel, not the remap. For example, my local station 3, 3-1 and 3-2 are actually located at UHF 23. So find a market that has the station (easy) or stations (harder) you want and add it as your secondary market. You might get weird channel numbers, but you will be able to get the content.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

Does anyone know if you can still get a $3 discount on your bill if you don't want to get LiL? I can get all my local channels just fine via OTA so I would like to do this and support D* in this area. If D* really wants to encourage OTA usage, they could start letting the receivers scan for all OTA channels instead of only being able to select the ones in their database. This absolutely infuriates me that I can't do a real OTA scan and it's even worse when it seems every day the D* guide omits about half the OTA channels that showed up the week before!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

lokar said:


> Does anyone know if you can still get a $3 discount on your bill if you don't want to get LiL? ....... If D* really wants to encourage OTA usage, they could start letting the receivers scan for all OTA channels instead of only being able to select the ones in their database.


Not sure that $3 is worth having your recordings take up twice the space as the satellite delivered ones.

I agree they should enable scanning if they want OTA to take off. And increase the HDD size.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

lokar said:


> Does anyone know if you can still get a $3 discount on your bill if you don't want to get LiL? I can get all my local channels just fine via OTA so I would like to do this and support D* in this area. If D* really wants to encourage OTA usage, they could start letting the receivers scan for all OTA channels instead of only being able to select the ones in their database. This absolutely infuriates me that I can't do a real OTA scan and it's even worse when it seems every day the D* guide omits about half the OTA channels that showed up the week before!


Pretty sure the genie can scan but without guide data, all you can do is tune and manual record.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

lokar said:


> Does anyone know if you can still get a $3 discount on your bill if you don't want to get LiL?


Not by choice, only if you cannot get LILs. If they are available, you have to take them.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> You have a couple of options. First contact the stations you think you should be getting and let them know they need to provide their data to Tribune. DirecTV can't add stations it doesn't know about.


In my experience, the guide data is in Tribune for almost all of the substations. Tivo has no problem recording from these substations, and it also uses Tribune guide data.

Not scanning and supporting all substations is just a quick fix D* took a while ago to workaround some issues they were having.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

bobcamp1 said:


> In my experience, the guide data is in Tribune for almost all of the substations. Tivo has no problem recording from these substations, and it also uses Tribune guide data.
> 
> Not scanning and supporting all substations is just a quick fix D* took a while ago to workaround some issues they were having.


My local Fox station confirmed to me today that Movies! is not in the Tribune guide data.....yet. Hopefully, this will change soon.


----------



## haas (Sep 13, 2011)

I have an HR44 just installed today if I buy the AM21N can my mini genie clients use it also since they are all connected? Can one mini watch one OTA channel on one mini and watch a different OTA channel on another mini? Just curious if there is any limitations?
Thanks


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

haas said:


> I have an HR44 just installed today if I buy the AM21N can my mini genie clients use it also since they are all connected? Can one mini watch one OTA channel on one mini and watch a different OTA channel on another mini? Just curious if there is any limitations?
> Thanks


Yes, the mini Genies can do that.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mnassour said:


> My local Fox station confirmed to me today that Movies! is not in the Tribune guide data.....yet. Hopefully, this will change soon.


Movies! is in the Tribune guide data now;

At least as reported by Zap2it.com for my zip code, 90037

But of course DIRECTV has or more likely "will" not update their OTA database to receive it though.
:nono2:

The Genie can still get it without guide data, but when DIRECTV soon removes the active scanning capability from the Genies, we'll even lose that ...


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

D* seems to be anti-OTA to me:
1. Not all locals are in their database, so I can't get them on my D* DVRs
2. No scanning available
3. No plans to enable all locals or scanning.

Therefore, I think the seminal point of this thread is now moot.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Actually, I think it's been discussed several times here that the reason for not all locals being in the database is that the database is simply full. DirecTV's system for inserting locals appears to be breaking down under the crush of there being so many. I really wish I could quote the threads right here, right now, but hopefully someone else will come up with them.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

I know the discussion is months old but what about a simple weather radio for emergencies left on 24/7 set to your county. Solves the cellar and OTA problem.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Actually, I think the main reason DirecTV was toying with the idea of getting as many folks as possible onto OTA was to reduce payments to broadcasters.

But you're right about one thing...we ALL need weather radios, I don't care WHAT your TV provider is! :righton:


----------

