# A better OTA solution please



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

A message to DirecTV Finance and Engineering teams:

PLEASE add an OTA channel scan in your next OTA receiver, preferably IN a HD or HD DVR satellite receiver. The H20 has it. It's great! 

The HR20 does not. HR21 does not either... and it requires an ADDITIONAL box. 
The new H23 does not have an OTA tuner and from what I have read does not even work with the AM21. I don't get the idea of having yet another box in my entertainment center. I already have a bunch of boxes in there already. Hey D*, why not do something BETTER than E* and have a ONE BOX SOLUTION for your consumers? 

How much are you saving by leaving this out? $10 per box? Anyone have that figure? It's going to be increasingly clear that leaving out the OTA tuner is stupid once we get used to the digital subchannels. You can't put all the subchannels on the satellite, they take up too much bandwidth. Even if you try, you'll have to overly compress the signals and sacrifice picture quality. There are people that live in between markets that need the OTA scan also. 

So, I am PLEADING with you D*, DELIVER A VERSATILE, ONE BOX HD and HD-DVR SATELLITE OTA with channel scan SOLUTION to us. Keep your customers happy by making it simple and versatile. 


Thank you.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I hear you and I know what you're saying. The answer I've heard before, and am repeating to you is, that other television providers do not provide integrated ATSC tuning in their receivers, and 94% (the number I've heard) of subscribers do not use OTA. 

While OTA was important in the early days of digital TV, as DIRECTV carried very few HD locals, DIRECTV's plan to cover the country with HD local coverage in the next 12 months will limit the continuing demand for OTA. 

I understand that subchannels are important. I understand that many of you want a backup solution for rain fade. However, from what I've been told, integrated OTA support, and OTA scanning, were always envisioned as short term solutions. 

Also, remember that there are about 20 million receivers in use now and as people go from SD to HD there is expected to be a huge surge in HD adoption. Let's say that even a quarter of those receivers get upgraded next year. Taking your $10 number at face value, eliminating OTA will save $50,000,000 and 94% of the people will not miss it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Don't expect a one box solution again. While there are passionate folks here about OTA, the percentage of folks actually using OTA is rather tiny.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

It is significantly easier to implement in the H20 than the the HR2x series. For it to be usable in the HR2x series, you would have to manage 14 days of programming data on channels found on the OTA scan.

It would seem much simpler to watch a channel you found via scan than it would be to manage its future program data. This program data is the key to any usability in a DVR.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Don't expect a one box solution again. While there are passionate folks here about OTA, the percentage of folks actually using OTA is rather tiny.


As DirecTV expands their HD LIL, I will agree that the number will shrink. I am not sure I agree that it is so small now while so many markets are unserved.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gregjones said:


> As DirecTV expands their HD LIL, I will agree that the number will shrink. I am not sure I agree that it is so small now while so many markets are unserved.


Perhaps, but those are the facts. I do not know the exact number, just that it is tiny. Maybe in unserved areas the percentage is higher, but over the whole of the country, it is tiny.


----------



## kenva (Dec 29, 2006)

I still almost exclusively use OTA for my local channels to receive better picture quality. Once in a while I do use D* HD local channels for something that I don't really care that much about the quality. Also my OTA doesn't get rain fade either.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I can understand separating out the OTA capabilities and the cost savings. Not having OTA scanning though is a missing feature that would be a nice addition. What issue could there be with guide data...they get it from another source already and they send an awful lot of it to receivers as is...for channels that the customer doesn't subscribe to.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

Personally I agree with the OP that the one-box solution is a great feature of the HR20s. Not only that, it did play a key role in my decision to stay with DirecTV even though they didn't provide my HD locals as I could fill that hole with an antenna (even with D11 that may still be some time off in my lowly DMA).

Now Stuart made a great point that they could have a huge saving while relatively few would miss the OTA feature, but I'd like to propose a counterpoint:
I currently pay DirecTV around $140/month - perhaps on the high side, so let's say $100 is more typical for an HD viewer. That's $1,200/yr or $6k over 5 years - a typical life-cycle of many products/services. Even if only 100,000 would be subscribers (less than 1% of their current base) chose not to go with DirecTV because of their lack of integrated locals, then that represents a revenue loss of $600 million! Now, of course, that money is used for many other things than free receivers, and OK, maybe these numbers are exaggerations, but with the increase in awareness of digital OTA, I think they're missing a great marketing opportunity by not having this as an option.

Just added this thought... even if D11 (or eventually D12) does provide my locals in HD, it will certainly not provide the ~9 sub channels I currently get OTA - so I'll still need my antenna - and I don't want to be having to switch inputs on my TV, and re-route the 5.1 audio from my TV back to my sound system every time I switch between satellite and antenna!


----------



## mitoca (Jun 1, 2006)

Why can't they offer it as a choice? The "free" box has no OTA, or you can chose an upgraded box with OTA for $xx. That way they wouldn't be on the hook for something that 94% if people don't use, but they can satisfy the ones that really want it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> While there are passionate folks here about OTA, the percentage of folks actually using OTA is rather tiny.


I suspect that this is not backed up with any real numbers.

As more people become acquainted with alternate content available on some of the subchannels, OTA will become more popular, not less. Because most cable systems don't offer subchannels and DIRECTV is getting away from them, subscribers really have no idea what they're missing.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

aa9vi said:


> You can't put all the subchannels on the satellite, they take up too much bandwidth.


I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Most of the quotes I've seen about their future abilities to carry x number of HD locals have been based on full HD bandwidth. As each station adds more subchannels, the total bandwidth stays the same... it just sucks bandwidth away from the HD channel.

To play devil's advocate... you _could_ say that it would be BAD for DirecTV, Dish, cable, etc. to carry the subchannels... the fewer eyes the subchannels have, the less marketable they become, and the less likely they will become more commonplace and further degrade HD quality from local broadcasters. From what I've seen, even a full 19Mbps isn't enough for 1080i when it contains lots of motion (ever watched NBC's Olypmic swimming coverage?), strobes, etc. If that continues to be dwindled down, it's just going to get worse.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

mitoca said:


> Why can't they offer it as a choice? The "free" box has no OTA, or you can chose an upgraded box with OTA for $xx. That way they wouldn't be on the hook for something that 94% if people don't use, but they can satisfy the ones that really want it.


Isn't that exactly the model they're moving towards. Granted, the AM21 doesn't work on the H2x series, on the HR2x.... but they've basically made a "base model" and the OTA is an upgrade for anyone who wants it.



harsh said:


> I suspect that this is not backed up with any real numbers.
> 
> As more people become acquainted with alternate content available on some of the subchannels, OTA will become more popular, not less. Because most cable systems don't offer subchannels and DIRECTV is getting away from them, subscribers really have no idea what they're missing.


Obviously none of us have "real" numbers. Only DirecTV has those. Given the nature of the relationship between DirecTV & the moderators of this forum, however... When the HR21 first came out Earl stated that DirecTV had hard data as to how many people were utilizing the OTA option. Now Doug and Stuart have both stated that the number of people using OTA is "small".

I take that as a pretty good sign that DirecTV believes (knows?) the number and that it is significantly small enough to justify removing the ATSC tuners.


----------



## bgedney (Nov 21, 2006)

That logic is flawed... How much is the HR20 VS the HR21?

The consumer is fronting the disadvantage of no OTA tuner and the advantage of what I assume is a consistent $100 bucks per unit. (that is what I paid...)

D* needs to distribute both OTA boxes and non OTA boxes and let the consumer choose which is right for his/her specific situation. The public is already being educated about digital OTA technologies because of all these government funded commercials about the DTV transition...

Also, I'm waiting for the day when D* has equipped everyone with nonOTA boxes and all of a sudden local HD channels are no longer free... OTA for me, all the way...



Stuart Sweet said:


> I hear you and I know what you're saying. The answer I've heard before, and am repeating to you is, that other television providers do not provide integrated ATSC tuning in their receivers, and 94% (the number I've heard) of subscribers do not use OTA.
> 
> While OTA was important in the early days of digital TV, as DIRECTV carried very few HD locals, DIRECTV's plan to cover the country with HD local coverage in the next 12 months will limit the continuing demand for OTA.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I can understand separating out the OTA capabilities and the cost savings. Not having OTA scanning though is a missing feature that would be a nice addition. What issue could there be with guide data...they get it from another source already and they send an awful lot of it to receivers as is...for channels that the customer doesn't subscribe to.


The problem is this. The receiver has to know which channels it is seeing. Depending on the effectiveness of the antenna and the atmospheric conditions, it might not be trivial to match the signals received to the guide data out there. Due to the flat land here, people can often pull in signals very far away in other markets. It is fairly simple now because DirecTV controls which possibilities are there. If they have to ascertain which distant 38-1 you are receiving, it gets a lot less simple.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

mitoca said:


> Why can't they offer it as a choice? The "free" box has no OTA, or you can chose an upgraded box with OTA for $xx. That way they wouldn't be on the hook for something that 94% if people don't use, but they can satisfy the ones that really want it.


Then they have to spend money on R&D and that would mean a significant difference in price. I have to wonder if it would be worth it.



harsh said:


> I suspect that this is not backed up with any real numbers.
> 
> As more people become acquainted with alternate content available on some of the subchannels, OTA will become more popular, not less. Because most cable systems don't offer subchannels and DIRECTV is getting away from them, subscribers really have no idea what they're missing.


Actually my sources in the broadcast world all believe that subchannels for commercial television may completely stop in the coming years, as the economic model for them is failing.



bgedney said:


> That logic is flawed... How much is the HR20 VS the HR21?


Production costs of HR20 were something like double that of HR21, and that's the more important number.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Two things come to mind as I read this.

One - I have had an HR10-250, and subsequently other OTA capable receivers (HR20s), for however long the HR10-250 has been around, connected to an OTA antenna. I live in the Minneapolis DMA, so subchannels are prevalent. While I also find OTA a pretty high value thing (for some of the same reasons stated - primarily the quality of OTA feeds and them being more "hardy" in rough weather), I think I have YET to tune to one "sub-channel" beyond the -1 primary feed.

I would venture to guess that of the apparently small-ish percentage of people that utilize OTA, there is an even smaller (maybe MUCH smaller?) percentage of those that even use the additional sub-channels. A percentage of a small percentage is an even much smaller number.

Two - DirecTV is in the Direct Broadcast Satellite business and some people seem to feel they are also obligated to provide the very best of OTA solutions? While I think it's a good thing that they do have OTA solutions, I can't feel they are obligated in any way to make providing that service any kind of priority.

If OTA is THAT important to you, plug the antenna into your HDTV or get an HDTV Tuner (they threw one in free when I bought my HDTV). I wouldn't think that DirecTV should be relied upon for that.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> Two things come to mind as I read this.
> 
> <much snipped>
> 
> If OTA is THAT important to you, plug the antenna into your HDTV or get an HDTV Tuner (they threw one in free when I bought my HDTV). I wouldn't think that DirecTV should be relied upon for that.


That doesn't support the recording capability and many of us work during a period when they want to record OTA. A great example was the 18 and then 19 hole playoff of the US Open Golf.

D* is doing fine by me offering the HR21 and AM21. I have both and they do nicely. I need OTA, I want OTA and don't mind paying the HD access fee (which I'm paying anyway) and the additional 50 bucks to get it.

So, yes, OTA is THAT important to some of us. The reasons have been beaten to death. I can't bear to post them yet again, and am not even remotely interested in a discussion of the merits <again>.

We can have both (OTA and DVR) for minimal investment. We asked, D* delivered at a reasonable price. Case closed for me.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I can understand separating out the OTA capabilities and the cost savings. Not having OTA scanning though is a missing feature that would be a nice addition. What issue could there be with guide data...they get it from another source already and they send an awful lot of it to receivers as is...for channels that the customer doesn't subscribe to.


I agree - add scanning capability.

This thread could devolve once again into an argument about the necessity of OTA and whether or not it should be a one-box solution, but I firmly believe that ship has sailed and nothing will be gained from rehashing the arguments. The scanning capability, however, that's something that's been requested several times in the past, but I don't recall seeing in depth discussions of the merits or lack there of in having it .... so I hope this thread could steer more in that direction ...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I agree - add scanning capability.
> 
> This thread could devolve once again into an argument about the necessity of OTA and whether or not it should be a one-box solution, but I firmly believe that ship has sailed and nothing will be gained from rehashing the arguments. The scanning capability, however, that's something that's been requested several times in the past, but I don't recall seeing in depth discussions of the merits or lack there of in having it .... so I hope this thread could steer more in that direction ...


I should have mentioned that....scanning would be super. It was listed as a feature in the first manuals. I doubt we'll see it. I don't see D* investing one more penny than they already have in OTA. (other than making sure they have at least one model of HD-DVR that can accept the AM21)


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> I suspect that this is not backed up with any real numbers.
> 
> As more people become acquainted with alternate content available on some of the subchannels, OTA will become more popular, not less. Because most cable systems don't offer subchannels and DIRECTV is getting away from them, subscribers really have no idea what they're missing.


Your suspicions are incorrect, and if anything the overall number is decreasing, not increasing.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Your suspicions are incorrect, and if anything the overall number is decreasing, not increasing.


However, when the plug is pulled from NTSC, and more people become aware of ATSC & subs, and perhaps stations start carrying more on their subs (my ch 68 currently has 4 subs, and ch 58 has 5), that might change... Nothing raises awareness like forced obsolecense... Especially to those who want to get content as economically as possible.

Anyway, as long as the source of the AM21's chans stays up to date (which means I must watch something like http://www.zap2it.com/ to see if there is anything new, and then redo the setup for the AM21), I guess I'll be OK... AFAIK, some sort of periodic re-scan is always required with ATSC.


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

I probably watch sub channels as much as the main channels in my market, PBS reruns things on different days on the subs, and several of the non national channels show kids shows 24 hours a day on the subs, decent stuff not Disney brainwashing programs. I could dump DTV and just use OTA without much loss, if it wasn't for NFL games on premium channels, I would just rent DVDs of the shows I like that are on cable. DTV is going to customer abuse themselves out of a very advantageous position, especially if internet TV on demand ever matures.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Elephanthead said:


> DTV is going to customer abuse themselves out of a very advantageous position, especially if internet TV on demand ever matures.


Hmmm .. this doesn't make sense. How is Internet TV related to OTA?


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

I took it to mean if ITV (is that an accepted acronym?) becomes common, accepted and readily available, the need for satellite diminishes (for some), especially if it reduces monthly fees. Some may also find expanded ATSC OTA content more than enough for their viewing habits. I have a PC connected to my HDTV... It's just as easy to watch video via the PC as it is the HR21... Now granted the HR21 makes it very user friendly, but I could see someone selling a PC as an ITV box that boots directly to a receiver-like system.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Your suspicions are incorrect, and if anything the overall number is decreasing, not increasing.


I assume you are only referring to Directv subscribers?

Overall antenna distributor sales are up quite nicely, including sales to cable subscribers who learned they got a better picture when they hooked up a $25 to $50 antenna.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Sub-channels are still in their infancy, as the programming develops the demand may increase.

Imagine local live sports, etc. on the subs.

It will take a while for local TV stations, that were built around producing/distributing one channel, to develop the infrastructure to create/deliver multi-casting.

If demand for the content matures, D* will either be forced to carry them, or keep an OTA option. (A scanning option would be preferable!)


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

At one point when the whole sub-channel concept was first introduced, it seems like I remember talk of 12-15 subchannels per digital broadcast channel. I remember talk of a broadcaster being able to pass along "cable" channels such as ESPN on a subchannel. Was that all just "hot air" or was there no way to encrypt this type of signal for subscription revenues. :lol:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I have seen three actually useful (if not preferable) uses of subchannels:

Carrying another network where there is no decicated channel (our local CW affiliate is a subchannel of the local CBS station)
Low-res weather map/info (that five day forecast can't take much bandwidth, afterall)
Carrying multiple games during the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament

Other than that, I would be against any broad use of subchannels because it degrades the picture quality. To see subchannels gone wrong, look at your local PBS digital station.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Sub-channels are still in their infancy, as the programming develops the demand may increase.
> 
> Imagine local live sports, etc. on the subs.
> 
> ...


Thats the interesting phrase - "must carry". I don't know how that applies to subchannels - but if it does apply to subchannels then I would guess they would almost have to double the fleet or compress the signals into nothingness.

Cable companies are facing that issue too - so they are talking about new boxes with OTA tuners with very small antennas. You don't have to put the locals on your line (or satellite for that matter) if you can just pluck them out of the air. I think if the issue is forced and DirecTV or Dish is faced with - a) putting tuners in the receiver or b) increasing capacity through spending on new satellites - I would think the receiver option would be cheaper - but I reserve the right to be wrong.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I have seen three actually useful (if not preferable) uses of subchannels:
> 
> Carrying another network where there is no decicated channel (our local CW affiliate is a subchannel of the local CBS station)
> Low-res weather map/info (that five day forecast can't take much bandwidth, afterall)
> ...


I have seen all of those scenarios:

Here in Indy - we had "The Tube" as a subchannel of CW
Our NBC has a weather subchannel
Our CBS has a weather subchannel, and a radar subchannel
Our ABC has a 'news' subchannel - which actually is a separate channel in the analog world (Ch 64)
Our Fox - no subchannel

Our CBS in the past did actually multicast NCAA - they did split the stream into four subchannels.

PBS - we have kind of a unique situation - we have 2 PBS' - one in Indy and one in Muncie. The Indy channel is split into 3 streams - the primary is 1080i with 2.0 AC3. The Muncie channel is spit into 2 streams - the primary is 1080i with 5.1 AC3. However - they don't always have the same programming so it isn't as easy as just watch a or b.

In fairness - I don't watch subchannels in general - I did watch "The Tube" - but since its demise I have occasionally consulted the one radar channel when severe storms are rolling thru. I do like having them available though.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> DirecTV is in the Direct Broadcast Satellite business and some people seem to feel they are also obligated to provide the very best of OTA solutions?


DIRECTV is in the business of going head-to-head with CATV. As such, they need to offer things that CATV doesn't.

CATV will expand their national offerings over time as well as expanding their local channel coverage/partnerships. Where does that leave DIRECTV? Waiting for the deployment of their BSS satellite fleet while never having met the needs of their SD and HD customers in many smaller markets.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Your suspicions are incorrect, and if anything the overall number is decreasing, not increasing.


It is not decreasing where I live and I will be very surprised if it changes (here) in the next 12 months. So 100% of the people having HR21's (here) need an OTA solution assuming they know one exists. Most of my TV viewing is on OTA channels. Seems like a lot of disappointed people out there and around here to me. I suspect most people ordering HD DVR's will not even be aware of an AM21. I never see it mentioned in the mailbox flyers or Sunday paper.

I haven't had any real complaints about the AM21. I wish it had been smaller like a USB thumb drive and other USB tuners but maybe that wasn't possible. Lots of confusion and delays at DirecTV when I ordered on first day it became available. Somehow I was even sent an extra that I have no use for. I did'nt pay for it and haven't been asked to send it back.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> A message to DirecTV Finance and Engineering teams:
> 
> PLEASE add an OTA channel scan in your next OTA receiver, preferably IN a HD or HD DVR satellite receiver. The H20 has it. It's great!
> 
> ...


I have a h20 and a hr20,On the h20 i don't believe it really scans for channels off the tuner i feel it scans for channels from Directv database from local markets.I can tell by the channels it gets by where my rota is positioned.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gitarzan said:


> It is not decreasing where I live and I will be very surprised if it changes (here) in the next 12 months. So 100% of the people having HR21's (here) need an OTA solution assuming they know one exists. Most of my TV viewing is on OTA channels. Seems like a lot of disappointed people out there and around here to me. I suspect most people ordering HD DVR's will not even be aware of an AM21. I never see it mentioned in the mailbox flyers or Sunday paper.
> 
> I haven't had any real complaints about the AM21. I wish it had been smaller like a USB thumb drive and other USB tuners but maybe that wasn't possible. Lots of confusion and delays at DirecTV when I ordered on first day it became available. Somehow I was even sent an extra that I have no use for. I did'nt pay for it and haven't been asked to send it back.


There may be pockets where it is increasing. I'm simply speaking to the overall DIRECTV subscribers. As more and more DMAs get their HD locals turned on, the numbers will bear out in those markets as well. And yes, there will always be folks that want/need OTA .. that is what the AM21 is for.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

gitarzan said:


> I wish it had been smaller like a USB thumb drive and other USB tuners but maybe that wasn't possible.


The am21 definitely could have been smaller. When opened up there is a lot of empty space in it. The size was specifically picked to match the hr21's so that it would sit perfectly on top of or bellow them. The only dimension that is possibly based on the needs of the device is the height and I'm not even sure about that. Personally I like the size the way it is much better than having some other random size box I need to fit into my entertainment center.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Two things come to mind as I read this.
> 
> One - I have had an HR10-250, and subsequently other OTA capable receivers (HR20s), for however long the HR10-250 has been around, connected to an OTA antenna. I live in the Minneapolis DMA, so subchannels are prevalent. While I also find OTA a pretty high value thing (for some of the same reasons stated - primarily the quality of OTA feeds and them being more "hardy" in rough weather), I think I have YET to tune to one "sub-channel" beyond the -1 primary feed.
> 
> ...


JLP,

No, DirecTV is in the delivery of TV content business. They enable people to bring in that content via satellite, OTA and the internet. They're not obligated to provide anything other than what is mandated by law. However, it's not an unreasonable request from their customers to have the OTA part of the device that they sell pickup the available OTA signals.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gregjones said:


> The problem is this. The receiver has to know which channels it is seeing. Depending on the effectiveness of the antenna and the atmospheric conditions, it might not be trivial to match the signals received to the guide data out there. Due to the flat land here, people can often pull in signals very far away in other markets. It is fairly simple now because DirecTV controls which possibilities are there. If they have to ascertain which distant 38-1 you are receiving, it gets a lot less simple.


So, how does the receiver know the channel 5 it's receiving is the correct channel 5 and not one from a distance away? Somehow they're figuring that out...and they can figure out what 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 the receiver is seeing as well.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Well, my H20 has yet to scan in a new religious digital that went on air. My HTPC and terrestrial ATSC boxs both found it.

I can also "fool" my HR20 into picking it up (with the wrong guide data) by entering a secondary zip code of a city with the same digital subchannel and logical channel that is carried in DirecTv's guide.

All in all, I gave up on DirecTv's attempts at media sharing and OTA DVR (the HR20 has the worst tuner I've used to date), and built a sagetv htpc, with ATSC tuner and component input tuner which controls a combo ATSC/HD FTA receiver. Its free (the tv and guide data), and works across the home network (multiroom viewing) in HD. Need another tuner, plug in a $49 usb stick. I don't record any locals/subchannels with my HR20 anymore. Cost is reasonable, since if you use media extenders, the actual tuner/server can be run on an older slower computer, and the system upconverts everything to 1080p if you wish.

Echostar is coming out with a OTA DVR this fall as well. 

Directv should keep OTA as an option, for storm coverage when the sat rain fades, but their current sat delivered guide data with no option to manually add stations, is a kludge. It took them two years to get the right guide data for one of the stations they DID have in their database. They are going in two many directions at once IMHO, and need to regroup. Add OTA scan, and if internet connected, take the PSIP station ID and either download the guide data, or just read the guide data the station itself is sending in the PSIP stream. Keep VOD, and lose MediaShare. MediaShare might be useful if you could watch recorded shows from your DVR on a H20 or another DVR in another room, but there are much better solutions already available for watching PC tuners/media via networking on TV's throughout the house, ones that work.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I hear you and I know what you're saying. The answer I've heard before, and am repeating to you is, that other television providers do not provide integrated ATSC tuning in their receivers, and 94% (the number I've heard) of subscribers do not use OTA.


All but one of the other providers offers nearly 100% coverage of their locals (less subchannels) and the one that doesn't still offers an integrated ATSC tuner.

Any statistics are wild speculation as a relatively small number of DVRs are able to rat out their users (no phone line, no Internet). They'll never know how many H(R)21 owners are having to resort to other means.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So, how does the receiver know the channel 5 it's receiving is the correct channel 5 and not one from a distance away? Somehow they're figuring that out...and they can figure out what 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 the receiver is seeing as well.


Right now, on the HR2x series, they give you a list of possible channels. Since they control the list, they know which channel five it *should* be.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Ken S said:


> JLP,
> 
> No, DirecTV is in the delivery of TV content business. They enable people to bring in that content via satellite, OTA and the internet. They're not obligated to provide anything other than what is mandated by law. However, it's not an unreasonable request from their customers to have the OTA part of the device that they sell pickup the available OTA signals.


OK, so it's been a LONG time since I was a Comcast customer, but can someone fill me in, then, on what OTA solutions cable is providing? Are they offering/providing OTA tuners in their set-top boxes? I guess I'm still a little confused.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't think cable worries about OTA. Since they serve much more limited market areas than satellite, carrying the subchannels is much less of a problem.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

bobnielsen said:


> I don't think cable worries about OTA. Since they serve much more limited market areas than satellite, carrying the subchannels is much less of a problem.


Comcast in Atlanta carries at least SOME subchannels. I don't really watch them, so I can't confirm that they carry ALL of them.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So, how does the receiver know the channel 5 it's receiving is the correct channel 5 and not one from a distance away? Somehow they're figuring that out...and they can figure out what 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 the receiver is seeing as well.


The ATSC datastream includes PSIP data. Which has the number of services ("channels"), their labels (call letters and suffixes), and the virtual channel (RF 13 is displayed as 5-1, 5-2, etc.).

It is all there in the OTA broadcast. D* needs to "figure" nothing out. It just matches the call letters/channel combo to the program guide database. So, more than one "Channel 5" isn't an issue.

Let's say there's a channel that the ATSC tuner decodes, without accompanying guide data. So what? Display the channel anyway. You can wait for the guide data to eventually appear, or set a manual recording event. It's better to scan and see everything out there, than "block" OTA channels available just because D*'s database isn't always perfect.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

Installed my AM21 today... It has all the channels I was expecting (see attached) and one that I was not... But on that channel (which seems to be infomerical) there is no audio..

PS. As it turns out, http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCGrid.do?zipcode=76137 does not show 54-1 either.

Oh, and I forget to scrutinize the guide for this channel... If you are curious, I'll let you know when I do.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> The ATSC datastream includes PSIP data. Which has the number of services ("channels"), their labels (call letters and suffixes), and the virtual channel (RF 13 is displayed as 5-1, 5-2, etc.).
> 
> It is all there in the OTA broadcast. D* needs to "figure" nothing out. It just matches the call letters/channel combo to the program guide database. So, more than one "Channel 5" isn't an issue.
> 
> Let's say there's a channel that the ATSC tuner decodes, without accompanying guide data. So what? Display the channel anyway. You can wait for the guide data to eventually appear, or set a manual recording event. It's better to scan and see everything out there, than "block" OTA channels available just because D*'s database isn't always perfect.


Wait until Feb 2009 when some current UHF digital stations revert back to VHF! I've been predicting from the beginning that D* is going to have a royal mess on their hands if they don't handle this database stuff better than they have so far. We have at least two local HD channels that are going back to VHF...I expect I'll completely lose them for a few months (no exaggeration).

D*'s track record on the accuracy/usability of the program guide for OTA is abysmal. (and please, don't tell me it isn't their fault...if they cared one whit about it, they would insure that the data they were getting from Tribune was correct and up to date). I'm still missing a channel on our PBS affiliate.

In this case being forwarned is not being for-armed, because D* has (to date) shown no *effective* interest in the accuracy of their OTA channel lineup. The sad thing is that if you can catch the ear of your local engineer in charge at the TV station, they can solve the whole mess with a phone call to Tribune (they fixed mine in about 10 days, after I waited, whined and complained for over a year for D* to do anything about it)

(and the data the local TV station provided to Tribune with the phone call was EXACTLY the same data they had previously provided. All the local engineer did was tell them to get off their inattentive butts and fix it.)


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I hear you and I know what you're saying. The answer I've heard before, and am repeating to you is, that other television providers do not provide integrated ATSC tuning in their receivers, and 94% (the number I've heard) of subscribers do not use OTA.
> 
> While OTA was important in the early days of digital TV, as DIRECTV carried very few HD locals, DIRECTV's plan to cover the country with HD local coverage in the next 12 months will limit the continuing demand for OTA.
> 
> Also, remember that there are about 20 million receivers in use now and as people go from SD to HD there is expected to be a huge surge in HD adoption. Let's say that even a quarter of those receivers get upgraded next year. Taking your $10 number at face value, eliminating OTA will save $50,000,000 and 94% of the people will not miss it.


Stuart, where did you get the 94% figure? How was this survey asked? Just judging by the response on this thread it seems to be inaccurate by a wide margin. Someone is fudging that number or asked a targeted group, either way it's a badly taken poll.

There will always be DMA's that can't get the satellite feed because the satellites haven't been launched or the DMA is too small.... or the stations are owned by companies that want $$$ for satellite retransmission. So, why not increase your pool of potential customers by integrating this "used to be in there" (from H20 and HR20) feature?

Also, I respectfully disagree with your financial analysis of the cost. My bill has gone up to pay for the new birds. DirecTV isn't eating all this cost and giving the HD channels away for free. I'd gladly pay $10 for a versatile, one box solution. That would give DirecTV something over Comcast ,Time Warner, Charter, etc. Then DirecTV can have commercials with whiny cable customers complaining they don't get all their local (sub)channels yet DirecTV has them!

My whole point in this is that the Finance, Marketing, or Engineering groups at DirecTV are living in some vacuum with this 94% number. Just because they don't use OTA doesn't mean the rest of us don't... and heck, I live in the #3 DMA. I like to watch some PBS subchannels, check the NBC weather plus, watch my local news an hour later than the original newscast, and watch old comedy reruns on a subchannel.

I hate to see what's DirecTV's answer to the #63DMA is when they ask for local HD.... "errr.. go to cable???"


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> Stuart, where did you get the 94% figure? How was this survey asked? Just judging by the response on this thread it seems to be inaccurate by a wide margin. Someone is fudging that number or asked a targeted group, either way it's a badly taken poll.


Believe it or not .. the number is tiny. The responses from this thread is most certainly a biased group. It's interesting that you choose to use that as a comparison point.



aa9vi said:


> There will always be DMA's that can't get the satellite feed because the satellites haven't been launched or the DMA is too small.... or the stations are owned by companies that want $$$ for satellite retransmission. So, why not increase your pool of potential customers by integrating this "used to be in there" (from H20 and HR20) feature?


Actually, that may not be true .. It is very possible, even likely, that DIRECTV will bring every single DMA online. That is not true today, but technologically, it is possible and really could happen. As for hold-out stations? Whose fault is that?



aa9vi said:


> Also, I respectfully disagree with your financial analysis of the cost. My bill has gone up to pay for the new birds. DirecTV isn't eating all this cost and giving the HD channels away for free. I'd gladly pay $10 for a versatile, one box solution. That would give DirecTV something over Comcast ,Time Warner, Charter, etc. Then DirecTV can have commercials with whiny cable customers complaining they don't get all their local (sub)channels yet DirecTV has them!
> 
> My whole point in this is that the Finance, Marketing, or Engineering groups at DirecTV are living in some vacuum with this 94% number. Just because they don't use OTA doesn't mean the rest of us don't... and heck, I live in the #3 DMA. I like to watch some PBS subchannels, check the NBC weather plus, watch my local news an hour later than the original newscast, and watch old comedy reruns on a subchannel.
> 
> I hate to see what's DirecTV's answer to the #63DMA is when they ask for local HD.... "errr.. go to cable???"


There will always be folks that want OTA .. In fact, DIRECTV is providing a solution to you today. Is it 100% perfect, no, perhaps not. But you're willing to spend $10 on a box but not $50? Both are one-time charges and after that is completely free to you .. zero revenue to DIRECTV. Why should DIRECTV subsidize this venture more than they have already done?


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

hasan said:


> Wait until Feb 2009... <snip>


Me thinks a couple thousand calls a day, clogging the call center, about "*Where is my channel X-Y?*" will light a pretty good fire... Presently a person can always fall back on an NTSC tuner, but when the analog plug is pulled, and there is a greater dependence on ATSC, it will be scrutinized by many more people... D* may have to act more quickly just to restore order, and throughput, to their call center.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> I hate to see what's DirecTV's answer to the #63DMA is when they ask for local HD.... "errr.. go to cable???"


Funny you should bring up DMA #63 .. That's where my in-laws live (Naples, FL) 

HD locals have been available there for over a year. Check out the list below for even more information (Thanks go to Newshawk for maintaining the list).

http://members.cox.net/oknewshawk/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

EricJRW said:


> Me thinks a couple thousand calls a day, clogging the call center, about "*Where is my channel X-Y?*" will light a pretty good fire... Presently a person can always fall back on an NTSC tuner, but when the analog plug is pulled, and there is a greater dependence on ATSC, it will be scrutinized by many more people... D* may have to act more quickly just to restore order, and throughput, to their call center.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


No one hopes you are right more than I do.

Then again, the best predictor of future performance is past performance.

One would think with the minefield you describe staring them in the face that they would act proactively....but I'm not holding my breath.

I expect yet another round of finger pointing, disingenuous as it was last time. In the end it doesn't matter, as the situation is completely out of our control, so we just have to watch from the sidelines as the clock ticks down.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

hasan said:


> In the end it doesn't matter, as the situation is completely out of our control, so we just have to watch from the sidelines as the clock ticks down.


Exactly!


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Funny you should bring up DMA #63 .. That's where my in-laws live (Naples, FL)
> 
> HD locals have been available there for over a year. Check out the list below for even more information (Thanks go to Newshawk for maintaining the list).
> 
> http://members.cox.net/oknewshawk/DTV_HDLIL_DMA.html


Interesting link...

I wonder what it's like to live in Glendive, MT (#210)?

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/US_HH_by_DMA.asp


----------



## Machael (Apr 20, 2008)

I agree that a scan function on the AM-21 is very much needed. 

I don't mind having the extra equipment, and I don't even mind not having guide data for the channels picked up via the scan. All I want is an integrated way to record HD broadcast networks. I know what time the shows I want to record are on, so setting up a manual recording is painless.

Just make a way to "label" the channels that are found by the scan.

This is big to me because I get basic cable so I can get FOX in HD. They only have a direct fiber link to cable provider here so that's the only way to get it.

Unfortunately, the cableco remaps those HD channels from where they are OTA. This makes the AM-21 useless to me.  

SCAN is a function that should be included on any OTA receiver that's worth a damn.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Even if scan were available, cable broadcasts using QAM instead of ATSC and the AM21 is incapable of receiving that.


----------



## shenefie (Dec 15, 2006)

whats the kicker in all this is when your old hr20-XX goes out and then they send you a hr21 that does not have the OTA built in when your locals are not shown in HD by directv, thats when problems begin. it took some heavy negotiating with CSR's and supervisors (since the CSR told me all locals are going away in 2009!?!?) but directv sent me a AM21 at no charge. what got me was when my hr20 went out i specifically told the guy on the phone that i did not want nor desire a HR21 or higher model just for the fact of the OTA situation. but yet, lo and behold, guess what showed up at my doorstep? a (non-functioning mind you, but thats for another post) HR21....As for this 94% figure, that sounds kinda skewed. i would like to see that number broken down for people who can and can't get HD locals in their DMA. its a no-brainer if directv offers them already in your DMA, but if they dont? id be willing to bet for people in DMA's that cannot get locals via Directv that numbers is a lot closer to 50% for people that have HD DVR's. And, i wonder if Directv or the locals would tell people that the locals IN HD were available and in better quality that cable or sorry to say D* then would that make more people use OTA?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

gregjones said:


> For it to be usable in the HR2x series, you would have to manage 14 days of programming data on channels found on the OTA scan..


1) No you don't. Let it say "regular programming" like it does on my HR10.

and

2) The H10, H20 and HR10 find ways to do it.

I don't really care about being able to record from it, but let be able to tune to my weather subchannel. I don't need guide data for that.

The real solution is pester the absolute $#!* out of the station managers and owners to provide their guide data for sub-channels to TMS so that D* will know they exist.

Pestering TMS won't hurt either.


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

I read somewhere when the HR20 first came out that the reason they didnt have the OTA option enabled for the 1st couple of months, and now no scanning option is because the HR20 actually has a QAM cable tuner included. And Directv does not want the QAM tuner used. So they do not allow scanning.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

jamieh1 said:


> I read somewhere when the HR20 first came out that the reason they didnt have the OTA option enabled for the 1st couple of months, and now no scanning option is because the HR20 actually has a QAM cable tuner included. And Directv does not want the QAM tuner used. So they do not allow scanning.


I've never heard that - I wonder if that was just early speculation as to the reason scanning wasn't included, or based on fact?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jamieh1 said:


> I read somewhere when the HR20 first came out that the reason they didnt have the OTA option enabled for the 1st couple of months, and now no scanning option is because the HR20 actually has a QAM cable tuner included. And Directv does not want the QAM tuner used. So they do not allow scanning.





Drew2k said:


> I've never heard that - I wonder if that was just early speculation as to the reason scanning wasn't included, or based on fact?


This is not true at all. If you read it in the past, that was someone speculating - and they were wrong.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

jamieh1 said:


> I read somewhere when the HR20 first came out that the reason they didnt have the OTA option enabled for the 1st couple of months, and now no scanning option is because the HR20 actually has a QAM cable tuner included. And Directv does not want the QAM tuner used. So they do not allow scanning.


What Doug said. Totally not true. OTA was delayed because DirecTV needed to do a few more tweaks before release.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Thanks Doug and Chris. I really doubted that was true, as enough people have seen the innards to have identified the tuner components and I'm sure there would have been much discussion about this if the tuner was QAM-capable ...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think someone got confused. The Broadcom chips that power the HR2x series are also used in some QAM-capable products but the only tuner chips in DIRECTV receivers are DIRECTV and ATSC chips.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't know what OTA tuner chips are in the HR20 (the first look document doesn't say and I haven't pulled the cover off mine), but the AM21 uses the ATI Theater 311 chip, which does not support QAM.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> 1) No you don't. Let it say "regular programming" like it does on my HR10.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


That is a completely different issue, in my opinion. DirecTV not carrying the program data for a subchannel when the main channel is in the guide is a problem they should fix immediately. This does not require scanning, only that they have the program information.

One of my locals has a weather subchannel and the programming information is carried by DirecTV. Scanning should only be necessary when it is a channel (not subchannel) that is not in your local area but can be picked up via antenna. The situation you refer to should be simply getting good guide data to them and having them enable it.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Scanning should only be necessary when it is a channel (not subchannel) that is not in your local area but can be picked up via antenna. The situation you refer to should be simply getting good guide data to them and having them enable it.


Sorry, but there are other cases where scanning helps.

In some urban areas, there are digital low-powers that D* doesn't and most likely will never have guide data for.

I'd still like them integrated into the IRD's channel list, even if guide data isn't available. Why should a user be "punished" for being able to receive a distant station OTA and not have it available?

If scanning is so bad, and a database is so much better, why doesn't a new HDTV ask for your zip-code during set-up, and use a database of "what you should get OTA"?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Sorry, but no.
> 
> In some urban areas, there are digital low-powers that D* doesn't and most likely will never have guide data for.
> 
> I's still like them integrated into the IRD's channel list, even if guide data isn't available.


Again, covering multiple topics. I was responding to someone that wanted a subchannel of a channel that was provided by DirecTV. That is different than wanting a channel not provided by DirecTV.

Has DirecTV specifically refused to carry them? Do they provide guide data currently?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> If scanning is so bad, and a database is so much better, why doesn't a new HDTV ask for your zip-code during set-up, and use a database of "what you should get OTA"?


Scanning is not bad for finding channels. It is bad for tracking future program information. You have to store the information well in advance to be useful for a DVR. A new HDTV has no particular use for a database because it can't, by itself, schedule recording well into the future.

Is it worth DirecTV to deal with the calls from users that want to record something on these low-power channels that don't have programming information. Weigh the cost to support those channels on a DVR platform versus the possible gain in subscriber base.

It would seem that DirecTV is either leaving them out because they have no program information or because they don't want to use the space to transmit it. If it is the former, the station can fix that. If it is the latter, it would seem they didn't make the cut.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Do they provide guide data currently?


Interesting question...

I wonder where my "subs > 1" guide data is coming from?

I don't have a TV with an ATSC tuner, but my in-laws do... A Vizio...

I never really looked (I will next time) how far in advance the TV's OTA guide data is, but it's a least 2~4 hours...

Enough for a DVR, but not enough for a 14-day guide.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I'd still like them integrated into the IRD's channel list, even if guide data isn't available. Why should a user be "punished" for being able to receive a distant station OTA and not have it available?


It is not a matter of punishing them for pulling in a distant channel. It is a matter of managing the data. Right now, the guide data works in a specific way.


You enter the primary zip
DirecTV sees the list of channels available from that zip
the programming data for those channels is integrated into the guide
the programming data is all from the satellite and not from the PSIP information transmitted by the stations

They may or may not have a way to add a channel to the list without programming information, I don't know. The list of local channels has to be there so they can determine which channel 38-1 they see on the antenna. The guide data has to come over satellite to fill out the ~14 day guide data.

I suspect it is not a conspiracy to keep someone from seeing distant programming more than a lack of incentive to do the engineering.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

EricJRW said:


> Interesting question...
> 
> I wonder where my "subs > 1" guide data is coming from?
> 
> ...


Many -2 subchannels are included in the stream from DirecTV. We have one that is a weather subchannel and two that are completey different stations from their main channel. All are handled appropriately in Eastern NC without the need to scan.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Many -2 subchannels are included in the stream from DirecTV. We have one that is a weather subchannel and two that are completey different stations from their main channel. All are handled appropriately in Eastern NC without the need to scan.


I have one channel that has 4 subs, and another with 5... I wonder if D* is really providing that as well?? I guess it would be easier, though obviously more bandwidth, if they just transmitted everything and let the receiver sort it out, but dang, all guide data , for channels with all subs, nationwide, that's a lot of data (though obviously quite small when compared to the content's bandwidth).


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> They may or may not have a way to add a channel to the list without programming information, I don't know.


They did with the HD-Tivo... it was called scanning. They omitted that from the HR2x. I think that's the whole point.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

EricJRW said:


> I guess it would be easier, though obviously more bandwidth, if they just transmitted everything and let the receiver sort it out,


D* will provide the guide data if TMS provides it to them. That is where the disconnect is. My local station doesn't feel the need to provide, and hence pay for, the guide data for their weather radar as D* customers are such a small percentage of their base.

I get guide data for the MyZ subchannel because that is a revenue generating channel.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

gregjones said:


> It is not a matter of punishing them for pulling in a distant channel. It is a matter of managing the data. Right now, the guide data works in a specific way.
> 
> 
> You enter the primary zip
> ...


I'm aware of how it works now.

We are saying "let the tuner scan", if it can't match guide/program info to the database, still, using the virtual channel info embedded in the PSIP, just add it to the D* channel list anyway.

BTW..."Punishing" was in quotes to emphasize the tongue-in-check aspect of that statement.

My HR10-250 scans, and displays the label embedded in the PSIP...with at least one other D* box doing the same.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> They did with the HD-Tivo... it was called scanning. They omitted that from the HR2x. I think that's the whole point.


And the codebase for the two products is not the same. I suggest keeping your HR10-250 running as long as you can if the feature is important to you.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> D* will provide the guide data if TMS provides it to them. That is where the disconnect is. My local station doesn't feel the need to provide, and hence pay for, the guide data for their weather radar as D* customers are such a small percentage of their base.
> 
> I get guide data for the MyZ subchannel because that is a revenue generating channel.


It sounds like the issue is with the local channel, then. Complain loudly, listen for desired response, repeat.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I have to ask, if only 6% of households use OTA, and there are 78M households in the US (that means 4.68M households use OTA)

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

Then why does the Government converter box program cost 1,500 million?

In fact, if you assume the government is correct, then the 1.5 billion dolor program will buy 37.5 million converter boxes (@ $40 each), assume 2 per household, that is 18.75 million households with OTA. That is about 24% of all households with OTA.

Does anyone want to try to spot the flaw in my argument? (Hint: I assume that the government knows what it is doing)


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> My HR10-250 scans, and displays the label embedded in the PSIP...with at least one other D* box doing the same.


The one other box isn't a DVR though. This issue has everything to do with guide data used for the DVR.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I have to ask, if only 6% of households use OTA, and there are 78M households in the US (that means 4.68M households use OTA)
> 
> http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf
> 
> ...


This is vastly off-topic. Find a more appropriate thread for the rant...


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> D* will provide the guide data if TMS provides it to them. That is where the disconnect is. My local station doesn't feel the need to provide, and hence pay for, the guide data for their weather radar as D* customers are such a small percentage of their base.
> 
> I get guide data for the MyZ subchannel because that is a revenue generating channel.


Of course it will depend when you look, but the subs on 58 & 68 carry some unique stuff (not local weather, that's what 4-2, 5-2 and 8-2 are for).

http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCGrid.do?zipcode=76137


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I have to ask, if only 6% of households use OTA, and there are 78M households in the US (that means 4.68M households use OTA)
> 
> http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf
> 
> ...


I believe the 6% figure pertains to the number of DirecTV households that use OTA, not the general population.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

That is correct. I've been told that 6% of DIRECTV subscribers also use OTA.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

gregjones said:


> This is vastly off-topic. Find a more appropriate thread for the rant...


Perhaps if you go back and read the first two posts in the thread, you will be able to understand what the original topic was.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> Perhaps if you go back and read the first two posts in the thread, you will be able to understand what the original topic was.


The first two posts discuss the relative importance of OTA. Your post was a criticism of the cost of the OTA converter program.


----------



## STEVED21 (Feb 6, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> I have to ask, if only 6% of households use OTA, and there are 78M households in the US (that means 4.68M households use OTA)
> 
> http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf
> 
> ...


Flaw in your argument: "I assume that the government knows what it is doing."


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> And the codebase for the two products is not the same. I suggest keeping your HR10-250 running as long as you can if the feature is important to you.


What relevance does that have to a thread of someone requesting that they add the feature to future products? You said you didn't know if it was possible to add channels to the list without having programming info. I replied that it most certainly is, because they've had other products that do it. They could do it with the CURRENT product if they wanted to, it's just an issue of programming. I'm not saying I think they will, but it is technically possible.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks .. :backtotop please


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> That is correct. I've been told that 6% of DIRECTV subscribers also use OTA.


The number of dbstalk members who use OTA is probably *much* greater (geek factor if nothing else).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> What relevance does that have to a thread of someone requesting that they add the feature to future products? You said you didn't know if it was possible to add channels to the list without having programming info. I replied that it most certainly is, because they've had other products that do it. They could do it with the CURRENT product if they wanted to, it's just an issue of programming. I'm not saying I think they will, but it is technically possible.


We were discussing the likelihood and financial incentive. It is in the current codebase for non-DVR DirecTV boxes. It is in the codebase for the now-defunct HR10-250.

It is relevant in that it would seem unlikely that they would add the feature as it would be new development on the DVR platform. I pointed out that it may be impossible without retooling their entire DVR codebase in regards to program data management.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

gregjones said:


> The one other box isn't a DVR though. This issue has everything to do with guide data used for the DVR.


Not necessarily. The non-DVRs show program guide data, too.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Not necessarily. The non-DVRs show program guide data, too.


The importance of the data is significantly different between DVR and non-DVR models. Non-DVRs don't care about series links, for example. They are significantly different.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

I'm still not following the importance of the guide data, as it relates to the ability to scan for and include OTA channels to show in the guide (without program data). I don't disagree that DirecTV probably doesn't have much incentive to provide this feature. But I don't buy in to the premise that there's a _technical_ reason for it. It should be trivial, IF they wanted to do it.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I'm still not following the importance of the guide data, as it relates to the ability to scan for and include OTA channels to show in the guide (without program data). I don't disagree that DirecTV probably doesn't have much incentive to provide this feature. But I don't buy in to the premise that there's a _technical_ reason for it. It should be trivial, IF they wanted to do it.


And as a person that designs commercial software systems, I have made an attempt to explain why it is not trivial. I give up.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

gregjones said:


> And as a person that designs commercial software systems, I have made an attempt to explain why it is not trivial. I give up.


Unless you wrote the code for D*, you are only making an educated guess.

It may not be trivial...or, it may be relatively simple. I (or you) don't know. We can only request what we would like to see. Which seems to be the point of this thread.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

A question was asked about DIRECTV supplying data for subs ...

In the NY DMA, they provide guide data for channel 21, 21-2, 21-3, and 21-4. Channel 21 is WLIW (PBS) - there currently is no 21-1.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

So here's a question... If OTA is so important that even people with non-DVR receivers want it and need it, how come there isn't more activity in either of these threads?

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133114
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133125

...or is the pro-OTA contingent just not as strong as we thought?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> So here's a question... If OTA is so important that even people with non-DVR receivers want it and need it, how come there isn't more activity in either of these threads?
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133114
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133125
> ...


Could be...or since those boxes do not support OTA, off-air users don't have/didn't want those IRDs and therefore do not browse those threads.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I have to ask, if only 6% of households use OTA, and there are 78M households in the US (that means 4.68M households use OTA)
> 
> http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf
> 
> ...


I believe they are saying 6% of current Directv users. At least I hope they are.

Your guess as to OTA ONLY is about correct according to polls and studies. Somewhere between 25 to 30% of the population gets all programming from OTA.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Could be...or since those boxes do not support OTA, off-air users don't have/didn't want those IRDs and therefore do not browse those threads.


Another factor can be that those with other means of tuning OTA (like in their TV) don't really need the AM21, while those who have an OTA capable TV and a DVR still want it, because those with DVRs become accustomed to the "DVR way" of watching TV, so the OTA tuners in their TVs aren't the solution they're looking for. When you look at the response when the HR20 couldn't yet use the OTA tuners, when the HR21 omitted them, and when the AM21 became available, it's clear that the DVR community wants it.

That being said, I wouldn't necessarily say those threads are dead... they were just posted yesterday, and it seems most that replied are interested.

But of course, these forums don't reflect the general public. I would expect that the vast majority of the average customer base couldn't care less about OTA if they can get the main channels of their major locals via satellite.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Another factor can be that those with other means of tuning OTA (like in their TV) don't really need the AM21
> 
> I would expect that the vast majority of the average customer base couldn't care less about OTA if they can get the main channels of their major locals via satellite.


For the tech challenged family members, having the OTA integrated into the IRD is a major plus, versus switching between the set-top and the antenna inputs.

Yes, I agree most customers care less, when all of the locals are via the dish. But, "power" users that want all subs, and rain-fade backup, etc. will always want an OTA option.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> So here's a question... If OTA is so important that even people with non-DVR receivers want it and need it, how come there isn't more activity in either of these threads?
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133114
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=133125
> ...


Interesting question. I doubt every D* subscriber comes to this board and it's hardly representative of the group walking in to BB to get the weekly deal  .

Perhaps those people who really need/want/crave OTA are part of the Directv cancellation pool and don't care anymore.

There was a discussion of this topic elsewhere about cable losing approx 800k subscribers to users who learned about OTA via the hoorah regarding the DTV switch commercials and announcements and found they couldn't couldn't add it to their service (and accordingly cancelled) or simply cancelled to save money once they saw the quality.

I think we also forget how many people are so used to only pay services they forgot what an antenna was and could do. I'll bet my genius nieces think they are internet game antennae or lightning rods.

We use D* under an MDU for the development here and took a survey as to telco desires and satisfaction with D*. I'll have to find it; it's approx 1,000 households and covered OTA usage.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually I would suspect that our DBSTalkers are probably more likely to want OTA, not less. That's why I'm surprised those threads haven't seen more action. There sure was a lot of clamor for the AM21, and our friends at DIRECTV spent a lot of money developing it. I wonder if they're getting as many sales as they thought.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Actually I would suspect that our DBSTalkers are probably more likely to want OTA, not less. That's why I'm surprised those threads haven't seen more action. There sure was a lot of clamor for the AM21, and our friends at DIRECTV spent a lot of money developing it. I wonder if they're getting as many sales as they thought.


Nah, just that scanning isn't that important to many of us. I have all my locals in the current DirecTV list (posting this as somone who vehemently clamored for the AM21 and has one).


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Nah, just that scanning isn't that important to many of us. I have all my locals in the current DirecTV list (posting this as somone who vehemently clamored for the AM21 and has one).


Yes, like a lot of other things Directv-wise it works fine for many people and they don't complain.

There are a several OTA stations around here which I cannot receive, however they are already in the database and scanning wouldn't help.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

bhelton71 said:


> Thats the interesting phrase - "must carry". I don't know how that applies to subchannels - but if it does apply to subchannels then I would guess they would almost have to double the fleet or compress the signals into nothingness.
> 
> Cable companies are facing that issue too - so they are talking about new boxes with OTA tuners with very small antennas. You don't have to put the locals on your line (or satellite for that matter) if you can just pluck them out of the air. I think if the issue is forced and DirecTV or Dish is faced with - a) putting tuners in the receiver or b) increasing capacity through spending on new satellites - I would think the receiver option would be cheaper - but I reserve the right to be wrong.


Excellent point. Put the OTA tuner in the box now and avoid headaches and financial burden in the future caused by "must carry" laws.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

...or aggresively fight changes to "must-carry", which may cost less.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Actually, that may not be true .. It is very possible, even likely, that DIRECTV will bring every single DMA online. That is not true today, but technologically, it is possible and really could happen. As for hold-out stations? Whose fault is that?
> 
> ?


Hold outs? For example, Marquette Mich. isn't a holdout. It's a market of 100,000 or so people that almost exclusively get Charter cable or over the air since satellite does not offer the locals. Putting every single DMA channel on a satellite transponder is a cost ineffective task. There are still many DMA's that don't have SD signals on the satellite. So, in this one example, if even 15% can sign up to directv, that's 15,000 new subs. These people want local TV. The OTA tuner will provide that at a cost effective price to DirecTV. I'm sure there are other DMA examples out there like this.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> Excellent point. Put the OTA tuner in the box now and avoid headaches and financial burden in the future caused by "must carry" laws.


So you'd suggest that DIRECTV put the tuners back in .. which would cost some additional re-engineering fees .. and spend the extra $30 or so per receiver to support the 10% or so of the customers that will use the feature? That's like spending $300/customer (the ones that would actually use it) to support a non-revenue generating feature. I'm just curious why DIRECTV would want to do that .. There is an existing product .. the AM21 .. that DIRECTV makes available .. sometimes for free. This is a cost savings to DIRECTV but is ultimately passed on to us in some form .. be it delayed cost increases, credits or something else.

Bottom line is that the OTA support is there, it may not be 100% perfect, but it's the best solution for the 10% that will use it and will likely be sufficient for 90% of the folks that do use it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> Putting every single DMA channel on a satellite transponder is a cost ineffective task. There are still many DMA's that don't have SD signals on the satellite.


SD was done with the older Ku SATs, where the Ka SATs use newer phased array systems, that allows a much more efficient [re]use of the hardware, that simply couldn't be done with the older SATs.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> That is correct. I've been told that 6% of DIRECTV subscribers also use OTA.


Its the same 6% that they dont offer locals to obviously. Being in DMA #147, and seeing them rush out SD locals to 94% of the country and then suddenly stop worrying with SD locals so much so they can use up all their new bandwidth on HD locals for everyone has me doubting we'll see any locals here for a while longer.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Marvin said:


> Its the same 6% that they dont offer locals to obviously. Being in DMA #147, and seeing them rush out SD locals to 94% of the country and then suddenly stop worrying with SD locals so much so they can use up all their new bandwidth on HD locals for everyone has me doubting we'll see any locals here for a while longer.


From what I understand .. there will be plenty of bandwidth to go around even for the little guys.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> From what I understand .. there will be plenty of bandwidth to go around even for the little guys.


I doubt they'll add SD locals in small DMA's any time soon when people are clammoring for more national HD channels and more HD locals. It just doesnt make sense from a financial standpoint. Adding all the national HD and local HD gives them an advantage they can use over cable/Dish. Eventually it will happen, but Im not holding my breath.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> SD was done with the older Ku SATs, where the Ka SATs use newer phased array systems, that allows a much more efficient [re]use of the hardware, that simply couldn't be done with the older SATs.


Spaceway 1 and 2 use a phased array system but D10 and D11 do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPACEWAY-1

It is pretty interesting that they can change the size and location of the spot beams after they are in orbit and it definitely does give them some flexibility when it comes to co-locating them with D10, D11 and probably D12 in the future.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Marvin said:


> I doubt they'll add SD locals in small DMA's any time soon when people are clammoring for more national HD channels and more HD locals. It just doesnt make sense from a financial standpoint. Adding all the national HD and local HD gives them an advantage they can use over cable/Dish. Eventually it will happen, but Im not holding my breath.


It can make sense since they should be able to do all the SD locals for a market in the same bandwidth they can do a single HD channel. No locals at all is probably a bigger barrier to people getting service than no HD locals is to the subset of HD subscribers. They have already used some of their Ka Spot capacity to add SD locals even with out the added bandwidth of D11.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

evan_s said:


> Spaceway 1 and 2 use a phased array system but D10 and D11 do not.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPACEWAY-1
> 
> It is pretty interesting that they can change the size and location of the spot beams after they are in orbit and it definitely does give them some flexibility when it comes to co-locating them with D10, D11 and probably D12 in the future.


I think you're in error about D10,11, & 12.
Phased array is simply a better way of doing it.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I think you're in error about D10,11, & 12.
> Phased array is simply a better way of doing it.


No, reflectors, not a phased array:

Boeing D10/11/12 Fact Sheet.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> No, reflectors, not a phased array:
> 
> Boeing D10/11/12 Fact Sheet.


Thanks, 
that may explain some of the after launch issues they had with spots.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> Phased array is simply a better way of doing it.


Phased array is a decidedly inefficient method of delivering regional television (or anything else regional for that matter). It is designed to deliver pinpoint beams and DIRECTV is having to drive the daylights out of it to provide a reasonably sized spotbeam. That is one of the primary reasons that D10, D11 and D12 each can do as many HD LIL channels as the Spaceway 1 & 2 satellites combined in addition to their 75+ CONUS HD channel capacity each.

DIRECTV has the Spaceways up there (for now) because they need the HD LIL capacity. If they had enough horns to fill in the gaps, they could conceivably replace the Spaceways with D12 (something I expect that they will do if they can find someone to unload them on).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Phased array is a decidedly inefficient method of delivering regional television (or anything else regional for that matter). It is designed to deliver pinpoint beams and DIRECTV is having to drive the daylights out of it to provide a reasonably sized spotbeam.


If this is the case, then DirecTV is over driving the living hell out of them then, as I'm getting good levels from spots for markets 300-400+ miles away, off of the Spaceway birds.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

harsh said:


> If they had enough horns to fill in the gaps, they could conceivably replace the Spaceways with D12 (something I expect that they will do if they can find someone to unload them on).


There's no reason why they'd want to "unload" them. They'd actually be a better candidate for "spares" than D12. At least their "spots" can be configured on the fly. They could fill in in ways the more conventional sats can't.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Marvin said:


> I doubt they'll add SD locals in small DMA's any time soon when people are clammoring for more national HD channels and more HD locals. It just doesnt make sense from a financial standpoint. Adding all the national HD and local HD gives them an advantage they can use over cable/Dish. Eventually it will happen, but Im not holding my breath.


There is no reason to expect these are mutually exclusive. HD LIL has a much smaller impact and can be rolled out in a considerably different timetable than offering a channel to the entire country. It is not as if there is one guy in the back room hooking up cables. There are teams of people that handle each of these.

If HD LIL were not important in competing against cable, DirecTV would not be spending this kind of money on it. HD nationals are important but there are very few missing channels at this point. You could easily argue that DirecTV isn't losing customers because of a lack of national HD. You could easily argue that providing locals in markets represents a much more significant change in those markets.

Don't think about the customers they have. Think of what it would take to get the customers they don't have. Adding nationals may give them a small percentage of new subscribers. Adding HD LIL in markets may prove to include a much more significant bump in subscriber numbers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DarinC said:


> There's no reason why they'd want to "unload" them. They'd actually be a better candidate for "spares" than D12. At least their "spots" can be configured on the fly. They could fill in in ways the more conventional sats can't.


Even the "conventional" D10, D11 and D12 have directable spots.

The Spaceways are much more valuable to an organization wanting to provide Internet or voice service than they are to a video provider.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

harsh said:


> Even the "conventional" D10, D11 and D12 have directable spots.


Source? Even if true, it's not going to be to the extent of a phased array antenna. They have "spares", but they can't apply them in any configuration they want.



> The Spaceways are much more valuable to an organization wanting to provide Internet or voice service than they are to a video provider.


Sure, whatever internet or voice services that don't care about the inherent latency. They'd be much more applicable for VOD for a video provider.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> So you'd suggest that DIRECTV put the tuners back in .. which would cost some additional re-engineering fees .. and spend the extra $30 or so per receiver to support the 10% or so of the customers that will use the feature? That's like spending $300/customer (the ones that would actually use it) to support a non-revenue generating feature. I'm just curious why DIRECTV would want to do that .. There is an existing product .. the AM21 .. that DIRECTV makes available .. sometimes for free. This is a cost savings to DIRECTV but is ultimately passed on to us in some form .. be it delayed cost increases, credits or something else.
> 
> Bottom line is that the OTA support is there, it may not be 100% perfect, but it's the best solution for the 10% that will use it and will likely be sufficient for 90% of the folks that do use it.


I don't think it makes any sense at all to put OTA tuners back in as long as they offer the AM21 at a resonable cost. It works better than the internal tuners that are integrated do, and re-engineering would cost a fortune for minimal benefit.

We have a viable alternative, and I'm impressed with its performance. There are some issues that don't relate to the performance of the tuner itself, and I have no reason to think that they will not be addressed eventually. I hope they make it available for the H21 (non-DVR, OTA missing).

If those who are unhappy had to go through what we went through with the HR20 and OTA in the first place, followed by dropping OTA support for a period of time, then re-introducing it with the AM21, they might have a slightly different perspective on the whole AM21 business.

I'm VERY pleased to have it. I fully expect its overall integration will get better, given time and a little patience. I'm recording OTA with it and having few if any difficulties, other than the aforementioned trick play stuff.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

hasan said:


> I don't think it makes any sense at all to put OTA tuners back in as long as they offer the AM21 at a resonable cost. It works better than the internal tuners that are integrated do, and re-engineering would cost a fortune for minimal benefit.


+1

As long as an "AM21 option" is available for their HD IRDs, I'm a happy camper.

Let D* save some bucks by not having OTA built into every box. Hopefully that translates into lower lease buy-ins for new D* receivers.

I just hope that the AM21 will work with the H21 and H23 soon.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

There is a sticky on the CE forums already that is looking for tester for the H21-200 and AM21 so I'm sure thats coming eventually just not as important as the DVRs.

I also agree that the AM21 is a perfectly fine solution. There is no reason to make a card or module that slides into the receiver. The AM21 as it is stacks perfectly on top of or underneath the receiver, doesn't require an extra power cable and plugs into the usb port that would have already been there. Making a card or module that could slide into the receiver would add cost to the receiver that wouldn't be there otherwise at which point you negate at least some of the point of making it optional. Really when they are stacked it functions just like the receiver is slightly taller and looks pretty much like a single unit at first glance. On the software side it is handled exactly the same way that the integrated tuners are so there is no downside in that regard.

The only issue I really see is the fairly commonly reported Trickplay issues but I'm sure that will be resolved in software and isn't a show stopper.


----------



## sharkay (Mar 6, 2007)

I am so glad some others have the same feelings as I do. I got a H23 because my other one was getting too hot. Was very disapointed to not get the OTA input and I have complained to everyone. This is a downgrade for those of us who like all the OTA channels and a definite decline in channels for the same money. I also live in between 2 markets and could get both areas before in HD, now I will only get one feed when we go HD. Icalled DTV and complained about that two and they were sorry, why can't we get whatever we want as long as we pay. Who wants all the shopping channels and other channels no one watches. Come on DTV, listen to your customers


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> Adding HD LIL in markets may prove to include a much more significant bump in subscriber numbers.


Adding SD LILs might also allow them to pick up some who are beholden to DISH because they carry many SD LIL than DIRECTV does not.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

sharkay said:


> I am so glad some others have the same feelings as I do. I got a H23 because my other one was getting too hot. Was very disapointed to not get the OTA input and I have complained to everyone. This is a downgrade for those of us who like all the OTA channels and a definite decline in channels for the same money. I also live in between 2 markets and could get both areas before in HD, now I will only get one feed when we go HD. Icalled DTV and complained about that two and they were sorry, why can't we get whatever we want as long as we pay. Who wants all the shopping channels and other channels no one watches. Come on DTV, listen to your customers


Funny that you mention that... When I upgraded to my new HR21, which meant more HD channels for me, the CSR I spoke with (when I called to get an AM21) told me that I had to "give some to get some." (this was before I had to remind her of the AM21). Meaning since I have new HD channels, I should not complain about loosing locals... I had a hard time with that logic for obvious reasons.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

EricJRW said:


> Funny that you mention that... When I upgraded to my new HR21, which meant more HD channels for me, the CSR I spoke with (when I called to get an AM21) told me that I had to "give some to get some." (this was before I had to remind her of the AM21). Meaning since I have new HD channels, I should not complain about loosing locals... I had a hard time with that logic for obvious reasons.


I can see why you'd have a problem with that logic. Open mouth, insert foot.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> So you'd suggest that DIRECTV put the tuners back in .. which would cost some additional re-engineering fees .. and spend the extra $30 or so per receiver to support the 10% or so of the customers that will use the feature? That's like spending $300/customer (the ones that would actually use it) to support a non-revenue generating feature.


I assume you're speculating on that engineering cost. Does anyone with direct contact to the engineering and finance teams know this exact answer? Once you put the OTA tuner back it it becomes part of the platform design. The design cost of subsequent receiver models will decrease due to NRE (non recurring engineering) costs. It's a one time investment that will pay greater dividends in the future.

Second question, why is it OK to have 2 boxes? That part seems really dumb to me. Heck, I help design 2-way radios. We have radios with GPS and without for businesses and public safety. The GPS isn't some sort of add-on USB or whatever gizmo. It's integrated. Some radios' PCBs have this some don't. But, regardless, it's all in 1 package. Why can't DirecTv do this with OTA?

Point 3: Competition - Dish Network already has multiple 1 BOX SOLUTION models
See Dish Network ViP722, ViP622, Dish Player DVR 625

Now that's 3 boxes with INTEGRATED OTA. If Dish can do it, why not DirecTV?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

*Let's make this all simple (especially since this has been debated before at nauseum).*

*Fact: *Some folks want OTA and some don't. All statistics, thread polls, and other DirecTV data itself clearly supports the fact that OTA is not requested or required by most DirecTV customers - not all, but the majority. Nonetheless, they do still support it.

*Fact:* The HR20 HD DVR has OTA tuner functionality - if you can get one, and that is a big if...that is one solution. They don't make them in production anymore.

*Fact:* The HR21 series HD DVR is compatible with a complimentary AM21 OTA tuner unit,..plug and play. You can get the HR21's many ways and places. The AM21 you must get yourself - $50.00. This was done to provide a mainstream HD DVR at a reduced cost, and still support OTA for those who want it - best of both worlds.

*Fact:* The HR20 series receiver supports OTA. Others can/will as well.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, prefer it or not...that's the way it is. *Now everyone can make their own personal decision *as to if and how to get OTA.

As far as what any other provider does...its irrelevant if you are a DirecTV customer. It is what it is.

End of story.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> Second question, why is it OK to have 2 boxes? That part seems really dumb to me. Heck, I help design 2-way radios. We have radios with GPS and without for businesses and public safety. The GPS isn't some sort of add-on USB or whatever gizmo. It's integrated. Some radios' PCBs have this some don't. But, regardless, it's all in 1 package. Why can't DirecTv do this with OTA?


If the market were split close to 50/50 between those desiring OTA and those not, this would be a valid argument. There is a cost in maintaining two configurations of the unit. Also, a DVR is not a portable device. Would you also argue that an iMac is superior to desktop PC with similar specs specifically due to its integrated monitor?

I would argue that separating the tuners into the AM21 may allow a greater flexibility in future tuner advancement because the tuner is separately available. This could lead to the tuner being improved without upsetting the manufacturing process for the DVR. It has been documented that the tuner in the AM21 is more adept at tuning signals than the one included in the HR20.

I also detest integrated printer/fax/scan/copy devices. The manufacturers invariably include a driver that makes it worse at all of its individual functions and needlessly complicates items.

Just to show that I am not trying to justify my decisions, I own an HR20 and do use OTA. I don't have a problem with the move to the AM21 with the HR21 and would gladly let that combination replace what I have now.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> I don't have a problem with the move to the AM21 with the HR21 and would gladly let that combination replace what I have now.


Completely understand your point about the cost benefits of having a separate device, since it is a minority of customers that would want/need it. But damn, I wish they could have just put it in a dongle. There's no reason why it couldn't have looked similar to a BBC, but with a USB connector on one end instead of coax. I have two HR21s... one of them doesn't have the AM21, because it simply would not fit. I made the more important one in my main room fit, but it's sure is packed in there. It's crazy having a separate box and associated power wiring and interconnect, when the whole thing could fit in less space than a pack of cigarettes. A good percentage of the people who are willing to buy these things probably also have a lot of other components in their rack.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> I assume you're speculating on that engineering cost. Does anyone with direct contact to the engineering and finance teams know this exact answer? Once you put the OTA tuner back it it becomes part of the platform design. The design cost of subsequent receiver models will decrease due to NRE (non recurring engineering) costs. It's a one time investment that will pay greater dividends in the future.


Ah, but there is a licensing fee for each ATSC tuner that is per-tuner, not non recurring. Plus the added PCB and component cost. It's actually not as cheap as you might want it to be. It could possibly be as low as $20/receiver but is likely about $30/receiver. So .. the speculation .. is based on some very good information.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

aa9vi said:


> I assume you're speculating on that engineering cost. Does anyone with direct contact to the engineering and finance teams know this exact answer? Once you put the OTA tuner back it it becomes part of the platform design. The design cost of subsequent receiver models will decrease due to NRE (non recurring engineering) costs. It's a one time investment that will pay greater dividends in the future.


They already had a box with built in tuners so you could say the investment had already been made and they decided to pull them out anyway.


> Second question, why is it OK to have 2 boxes? That part seems really dumb to me. Heck, I help design 2-way radios. We have radios with GPS and without for businesses and public safety. The GPS isn't some sort of add-on USB or whatever gizmo. It's integrated. Some radios' PCBs have this some don't. But, regardless, it's all in 1 package. Why can't DirecTv do this with OTA?


There is a huge difference between a radio and a component in my home theater system. The AM21 stacks perfectly on top of or under the hr21 and might as well be a single unit.


> Point 3: Competition - Dish Network already has multiple 1 BOX SOLUTION models
> See Dish Network ViP722, ViP622, Dish Player DVR 625
> 
> Now that's 3 boxes with INTEGRATED OTA. If Dish can do it, why not DirecTV?


DirecTV already did and decided it wasn't worth continuing to do.

From what I understand the OTA tuners end up adding a bit more than you would expect because of the licensing of the tuners. A quick search showed at 5$ per tuner license fee on top of what ever cost of adding the hardware. 10$ per receiver x how ever many people don't need it is a lot of extra cost.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

DarinC said:


> Completely understand your point about the cost benefits of having a separate device, since it is a minority of customers that would want/need it. But damn, I wish they could have just put it in a dongle. There's no reason why it couldn't have looked similar to a BBC, but with a USB connector on one end instead of coax. I have two HR21s... one of them doesn't have the AM21, because it simply would not fit. I made the more important one in my main room fit, but it's sure is packed in there. It's crazy having a separate box and associated power wiring and interconnect, when the whole thing could fit in less space than a pack of cigarettes. A good percentage of the people who are willing to buy these things probably also have a lot of other components in their rack.


I think you are probably the exception rather than the rule. I much prefer the form factor they used since it sits perfectly on top of my hr21 and I've got plenty of space for it there. Looking at the first look at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=123012 I'd guess that it actually takes up about 1/4 of the space in the am21 so it would end up being a bit larger than a pack of cigarettes.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

DarinC said:


> It's crazy having a separate box and associated power wiring and interconnect ...


It has been speculated that the AM21 requires more power than can be delivered by the USB port, so regardless of form factor there would be a need for a separate power source. The current chassis handles that aspect elegantly.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> Second question, why is it OK to have 2 boxes? That part seems really dumb to me. Heck, I help design 2-way radios. We have radios with GPS and without for businesses and public safety. The GPS isn't some sort of add-on USB or whatever gizmo. It's integrated. Some radios' PCBs have this some don't. But, regardless, it's all in 1 package. Why can't DirecTv do this with OTA?


DIRECTV has a few partners assembling the receivers, which is why there's a -100, -200, and -700. They also have a partner assembling the AM21. This permits the partners to reduce costs as there would be only product coming out of each partner's assembly plant, and those costs are passed on to the consumer for the receivers without OTA tuners, as explained by Doug and others regarding hardware and licensing costs. If all three partners or even only one partner had dual assembly lines to build receivers with OTA and others without, that would add additional costs to the distribution and supply lines for DIRECTV. Keeping OTA out of the receivers simplifies the distribution channel, as DIRECTV deals with their partners for receivers ordering in large quantities, and deals with their partner for the AM21 ordering in smaller quantities. The simplification extends from there to distribution of receivers to the HSPs for customer installation and delivery. That's my take on it, at least.


----------



## EricJRW (Jul 6, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> It has been speculated that the AM21 requires more power than can be delivered by the USB port, so regardless of form factor there would be a need for a separate power source. The current chassis handles that aspect elegantly.


It was going to be at least 2 wires (RF and data) no matter how you look at it, so what's one more (power)? I have no complaints about the implementation... Pretty clean IMHO, without putting undo strain on the USB (for power).... Well blast, I can't open the first look doc at the moment, but with essentially 2 tuners in there, power requirements are probably a little higher than your typical USB device (just a guess), and I suspect the quality is better than shrinking them down to USB/BBC size, as I suspect "off the shelf" tuners are used. Just a thought.

PS: *aa9vi*, last time I looked (granted that was a while ago) Motorola (?) had a GPS chipset the size of a dime... Seems these tuners are a little bigger... But if it helps defer the cost for those who don't want it, well that seems to make sense to me.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

There are plenty of USB powered tuners out there, some of which even fit into a thumb drive type enclosure, that don't have power issues. I don't know if there are any dual tuner versions out, but even if dual tuners caused twice the power draw (which it probably wouldn't quite do), and even if the single tuner models were already pushing the USB power spec, they could have easily exceeded the spec if they wanted to. It's a proprietary application. Power draw doesn't really matter unless they intended on selling it as a device to be used on products other than their own (such as selling it as an ATSC tuner to the open public for use with PCs).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Power draw doesn't really matter unless they intended on selling it as a device to be used on products other than their own (such as selling it as an ATSC tuner to the open public for use with PCs).


Oh, but it does matter. Making it push more power out on the USB interface means not being able to use an off-the-shelf USB interface on either end. This makes a number of components more expensive, requires extended testing, etc.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

The only dual-tuner (other than the AM21) which I am aware of is the HDHomeRun. While smaller than the AM21, it is much larger than a thumb drive, with an external power supply (it uses ethernet for connecting to computers). The specifications don't mention power, but the wall-wart says 5 volts @ 2000 ma.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Oh, but it does matter. Making it push more power out on the USB interface means not being able to use an off-the-shelf USB interface on either end. This makes a number of components more expensive, requires extended testing, etc.


And requires and explanation when Joe User plugs in a USB connector to charge his phone only to watch it fry in his hand.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> And requires and explanation when Joe User plugs in a USB connector to charge his phone only to watch it fry in his hand.


Because the world has never been in short supply of bad decision-makers.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> Making it push more power out on the USB interface means not being able to use an off-the-shelf USB interface on either end. This makes a number of components more expensive, requires extended testing, etc.


Of course, all this is speculation, based on the assumption that a dual ATSC tuner device would consume more than the 500ma limit for "standard" usb, but if it did, I don't see why the interface would be be an major issue... a usb interface has dedicated pin-outs for power, so it's not like it has to travel through the data controller. In the world of thumb-sized ATSC USB tuners, you could get dual tuners just by plugging two of them in. No different than having a single USB device that draws twice as much power... the power leads on the motherboard are wired in parallel anyway.



Doug Brott said:


> And requires and explanation when Joe User plugs in a USB connector to charge his phone only to watch it fry in his hand.


I'm not suggesting to move away from the standard USB _voltage_, I'm simply saying IF power were a concern, they wouldn't necessarily have to adhere to the 500 ma limit in the USB spec. A hair dryer doesn't get more power if it's plugged into a circuit capable of 20 amps than it does when plugged into a circuit capable of 15 amps. Most USB voltage regulators are capable of more current anyway, because most motherboards these days have 6+ USB outlets.

Regardless, it's all moot. They went the direction they did, and I'm sure there were reasons. I'm just saying... it would be nice if the tuner didn't require the space that it does.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

aa9vi said:


> Point 3: Competition - Dish Network already has multiple 1 BOX SOLUTION models
> See Dish Network ViP722, ViP622, Dish Player DVR 625


In the interest of accuracy, the E* 625 does not have an OTA tuner. The ViP211 and ViP222 HD receivers do as does the ViP612 DVR.


----------

