# HD locals



## spaceopera (Jul 29, 2005)

don't shoot me but why in the world is E* and D* doing locals in HD? For the most part anyone can just stick and antenna in their roof (like i do) and get them? It just seems to me that they would be better off severing us by providing HD content that is not already provide for free. I have now had my hd dish for a year now and have not seen one new hd channel added (i already have locals). And from what I can tell I do not see any new channels arrive any time in the next 2 years. It makes me want to question why we have HD for only 9 frig’in channels. And no I do not consider anything on voom real HD content. (fx,sci-fi military, comedy central, a couple more movie pay channels with current movies) I mean they double broadcast HBO and Showtime on two different channels whats up with that.

I feel like we are back in the 70's.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

*b*ecause many of us have a hard time (sometimes impossible) time getting digital signals to come in.
Analog had an easier time being recieved, yet people still wanted their locals on cable/sat. No different than now.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

We want it becasue we can get it. No, actually, not everyone is interested in HD and are used to 'if I can see it, it's ok' no matter how bad the quality is. Others want the best image possible. As far as those who can get their signals OTA - great. But channels such as TNT, ESPN, ect are not available via that route. The reason there are two channels is those without an HD receiver do no see the HD version, so to them there is only one. If only the HD version were available there would be a large group not seeing the channel at all. Most of it is a matter of a person's choice. If you are not interested in them, choose not to get them.


----------



## bbriggs (Dec 17, 2003)

Choice is fine and dandy, but they're using a tremendous amount of bandwidth providing locals - particularly HD ones. And they give us excuses like 'not enough original content to warrant carriage' for currently available HD channels not available locally. Most of us don't have the 'choice' to get HD locals via satellite, but take one set of them down and we suddenly have enough room that most of us could choose to receive one of these channels Dish is stalling on. Even if they had only 4% original content, that would beat the heck out of the 0% HD locals add for most of us. The other part of 'choice' that offends me is Dish's choice to tie guide with local subscription. I, and many others, have absolutely no interest in satellite locals. But without a guide, even off-air locals are pretty useless. So much for 'choice'.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

bbriggs said:


> Choice is fine and dandy, but they're using a tremendous amount of bandwidth providing locals - particularly HD ones. And they give us excuses like 'not enough original content to warrant carriage' for currently available HD channels not available locally. Most of us don't have the 'choice' to get HD locals via satellite, but take one set of them down and we suddenly have enough room that most of us could choose to receive one of these channels Dish is stalling on. Even if they had only 4% original content, that would beat the heck out of the 0% HD locals add for most of us. The other part of 'choice' that offends me is Dish's choice to tie guide with local subscription. I, and many others, have absolutely no interest in satellite locals. But without a guide, even off-air locals are pretty useless. So much for 'choice'.


FCC makes rules which providers must follow. Providing network feeds just for HD programing makes more sense and uses less bandwidth, but then local advertisers can't show what they offer. The guide info can be viewed via other sources, E*'s choice is to make money.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Because many folks with E* like me can get no TV signals---SD or HD.


----------



## smoky (Dec 28, 2003)

hankmack said:


> Because many folks with E* like me can get no TV signals---SD or HD.


Ditto


----------



## cebbigh (Feb 27, 2005)

hankmack said:


> Because many folks with E* like me can get no TV signals---SD or HD.


Or others, like me, who get intermittent reception OTA on the local channels that we care most about (Football on Fox and ABC-KOMO). Even when the Sat HD locals are available, I will still have my antenna up to get two of my locals that will not be carried by dish. An added plus is recording of both OTA and HD locals from dish so there will be fewer schedule conflicts.

Mpeg4 is suppossed to allow Dish to carry both the HD locals and expanded HD offerings. I don't think bandwith will be as big a roadblock as Charlie negotiating deals with the providers. More customers with Mpeg4 capable sets (including those that wanted the sets specifically because of HD Locals) means building demand for other national HD programing. It isn't an either/or between National HD and HD locals. We can have both. And the more of us that want it, the sooner we will have it.


----------



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

The main reason why I want locals from Dish is that with name based recording you need to be able to use it for season passes, etc. With just the ota antenna I could only watch one ota channel at a time. I have about 3 or 4 shows that run up against each other in Primetime. With sd locals ,soon to be hd locals and a 622, I can record up to 3 things at a time. 

My question is what will Dish and Directv do when the analog signal is cut off in 2009? What will happen to all the locals up there in sd? Will they continue to use the digital signal and downconvert it to 480i or 480p and use that signal for locals? Or will they use the bandwith for all mpeg 4 hd locals on the rest of the locals as well? Questions , questions.


----------



## steeliebob (Jan 10, 2006)

I too have no other option ... I'm only 75 miles or so from Seattle, but have 8000 feet of mountains between us!


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I think the other part of the issue is that Comcast and the other cable companies offer the locals in HD and to be competitive D* and E* need to do the same. For me, I can receive them all fine OTA but with the 622 I now have the ability to record two Network shows at the same time. 

..Doyle


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Actually, Dish has added a few HD channels... of course you need a new receiver to get them... but UniversalHD and ESPN2HD + a few more Vooms were added recently. Also rumored to be on the horizon are a couple of other HD channels maybe in the next month or two + perhaps StarzHD as well. So right now they are adding as many HD nationals as anyone else is.

As for locals in HD... I am on the fence. Having them in HD even though I can receive them OTA means if I get a DVR I have more options to set timers to record conflicting programs. This is a plus.

BUT... I've always said that I wish they would launch markets (SD or HD) for locals based on where it is harder to receive them OTA rather than which market has the most customers. I wouldn't mind waiting longer for Raleigh since I am not missing anything with my OTA... but I know businesses don't work that way, so they will go where the money is first.


----------



## davidxlai (Jan 21, 2006)

If they were really going where the money is, why is SF so late in the HD local game? Moreover, SF Bay is a hilly area where OTA reception is difficult for a lot of people. Some also live in snobish areas where rooftop fish bone antenna is not allowed. I think their decision is based on a more complex formula than just the market size.



HDMe said:


> Actually, Dish has added a few HD channels... of course you need a new receiver to get them... but UniversalHD and ESPN2HD + a few more Vooms were added recently. Also rumored to be on the horizon are a couple of other HD channels maybe in the next month or two + perhaps StarzHD as well. So right now they are adding as many HD nationals as anyone else is.
> 
> As for locals in HD... I am on the fence. Having them in HD even though I can receive them OTA means if I get a DVR I have more options to set timers to record conflicting programs. This is a plus.
> 
> BUT... I've always said that I wish they would launch markets (SD or HD) for locals based on where it is harder to receive them OTA rather than which market has the most customers. I wouldn't mind waiting longer for Raleigh since I am not missing anything with my OTA... but I know businesses don't work that way, so they will go where the money is first.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

spaceopera said:


> don't shoot me but why in the world is E* and D* doing locals in HD? For the most part anyone can just stick and antenna in their roof (like i do) and get them?


 I live several small mountains or large hills from the local stations, in an old-growth forest.

Huh, you ask?

Although in a "metropolitan" area, I'm in one with a whole lotta geography. OTA HDTV requires line-of-site, which these smallish mountains block rather thoroughly. Also trees prevent HD signal, and I've got several 100 footers on my property, and many more between me and the local city and their repeaters.

Three miles any direction and you have a good chance of OTA HDTV. Our area? Not so good a chance. And the cable systems are slowly adding locals in HD (though not OUR local cable system, which is still experimenting with 10000:1 compression ratios - and it shows.) If the cable company had HD locals and Dish didn't, I'd be on cable because that would be my only choice.


----------



## socceteer (Apr 22, 2005)

On my case, I only get Fox and NBC

Plus I want it all


----------



## PeggyD (Apr 6, 2006)

steeliebob said:


> I too have no other option ... I'm only 75 miles or so from Seattle, but have 8000 feet of mountains between us!


We're only 19-22 miles from the transmitters in Seattle & we're at 530' elevation, but there is a 900' hill directly in our line of sight. Fox is about 35 miles away, but the terrain goes up to 680' a couple of miles from here in that direction. Houses a half a mile either way get great reception. Too bad we didn't know about this 9 years ago when we bought this house! :sure:


----------



## JPointerWI (Jul 29, 2005)

bbriggs said:


> Choice is fine and dandy, but they're using a tremendous amount of bandwidth providing locals - particularly HD ones.


Hold on a few more weeks. AMC16 is on it's way to 118.7 to provide heaps of additional bandwidth. How it's going to work for LNB's and switches no one is really sure yet.


----------



## Larry Kenney (Aug 19, 2005)

spaceopera said:


> don't shoot me but why in the world is E* and D* doing locals in HD? (snip)


Besides all of the other reasons mentioned, with Dish sending me my locals in HD now I can record THREE network HD programs at once, if I want... one OTA and two from the satellite feeds. Prior to this, I was only able to record the network shows in HD OTA. If I wanted to watch two shows that were on at the same time, one had to be recorded in SD. Not any longer!

Larry
SF


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

garys said:


> FCC makes rules which providers must follow. Providing network feeds just for HD programing makes more sense and uses less bandwidth, but then local advertisers can't show what they offer. The guide info can be viewed via other sources, E*'s choice is to make money.


The FCC is only supposed to regulate and enforce existing "law" which we all know is created by the NAB.


----------



## alfbinet (May 19, 2002)

spaceopera said:


> don't shoot me but why in the world is E* and D* doing locals in HD? For the most part anyone can just stick and antenna in their roof (like i do) and get them? It just seems to me that they would be better off severing us by providing HD content that is not already provide for free. I have now had my hd dish for a year now and have not seen one new hd channel added (i already have locals). And from what I can tell I do not see any new channels arrive any time in the next 2 years. It makes me want to question why we have HD for only 9 frig'in channels. And no I do not consider anything on voom real HD content. (fx,sci-fi military, comedy central, a couple more movie pay channels with current movies) I mean they double broadcast HBO and Showtime on two different channels whats up with that.
> 
> I feel like we are back in the 70's.


One word for my case: Multipath. My signals on some channels can go from 100 to 0 OTA. Very frustrating watching a gorgeous picture to black screen. Of course it depends on the season which channels exhibit this behavior. Some in the fall, some in the winter, and some in the spring. Summer seems to be fairly trouble free.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

Speaking to the bandwidth issue, for the most part we can expect HD LiL to be carried on spotbeams. This is not a waste of bandwidth as these transponders cannot (well, in most cases) be used for ConUS transmission with the current satellite fleet. Since E10 is fully operational, there's a fair amount of room to do HD LiL that has absolutely no impact on E*'s ability to do national HD.

Plus, you can put me in the list of those who just cannot get anything OTA. Terrain and distance are my enemies, and these are things that I cannot change. It's just too bad that my DMA isn't even shown as a planned HD market anytime in the near future, so I'm waiting for E* to work out HD DNS. Funny thing is, that if I switched to D*, I could have those today, but there are enough other reasons to keep me with E*.


----------



## socceteer (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

cebbigh said:


> Or others, like me, who get intermittent reception OTA on the local channels that we care most about (Football on Fox and ABC-KOMO). Even when the Sat HD locals are available, I will still have my antenna up to get two of my locals that will not be carried by dish. An added plus is recording of both OTA and HD locals from dish so there will be fewer schedule conflicts.
> 
> Mpeg4 is suppossed to allow Dish to carry both the HD locals and expanded HD offerings. I don't think bandwith will be as big a roadblock as Charlie negotiating deals with the providers. More customers with Mpeg4 capable sets (including those that wanted the sets specifically because of HD Locals) means building demand for other national HD programing. It isn't an either/or between National HD and HD locals. We can have both. And the more of us that want it, the sooner we will have it.


From what you state it sounds You have problems picking up KCPQ & KOMO. Just wonder where you live to have these problems. Having formally lived in the area and having an Associates degree in broadcast Tech earned at Bates Technical College in Tacoma. ABC, NBC, & CBS all transmit from Queen Anne Hill. KCPQ transmits from a point not far east of Lake Washington ( can't remember the name of the hill that it is on). What was having to be used when I was there that worked well for most areas was the 8 bay bowtie antenna. Check into what type of antenna that you are using there it might be better if you went with the 8 bay bowtie. If not that a very hi gain yagi. Now if you are between the 2 transmitters it will be a little harder to pick up in the opposite directions. Let me know and I might be able to help you w/ HD OTA in the area.


----------



## PeggyD (Apr 6, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> KCPQ transmits from a point not far east of Lake Washington ( can't remember the name of the hill that it is on).


KCPQ transmits from Gold Mountain, west of Bremerton. If you watch their news/weather & see where the doppler radar is, that's where their transmitter is. PAX & a couple of shopping channels transmit from Tiger Mountain, which is 10 or so miles east of Bellevue. If they all transmitted from there (at 2000'), a lot more people would be able to get the signals OTA.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

spaceopera said:


> don't shoot me, I feel like we are back in the 70's.


:lol: You must have gotten a free disco ball when you activated you account.:lol:


----------

