# Raycom Media Negotiating with DirecTV



## Mojo Jojo (Mar 14, 2012)

It appears that Raycom Media is negotiating with DirecTV.* Here is the link: *
*http://www.wave3.com/story/26193116/raycom-media-negotiating-with-directv*

*Looks like my local affiliate is using the same story (as of now):*
*http://www.fox8live.com/story/26193116/raycom-media-negotiating-with-directv*


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

That wreaks of... We are trying to gouge them for a huge price increase and are going to take our channel off the air from them if they don't agree to it.

I really wish that wasn't the first thing that comes to mind when I read stories like this, but how can it not be anymore....


----------



## vroten (Mar 8, 2010)

Same story with our Charlotte CBS affiliate, WBTV.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/26166833/message-for-directv-subscribers

I am not sweating this one, though. I receive WBTV ota, and it is my strongest station. So let them pull it as far as I'm concerned.

As stated this sounds like a money play. Unfortunately for those without another signal for CBS programming, here we go again.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

The contract doesn't expire until December, they have plenty of time to call each other names and kiss and make up 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ChuckZ (Aug 17, 2009)

Already being re-addressed here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/180049-raycom-stations/

Seems to be a reoccurring theme.

ChuckZ
Harvest, AL


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Most of the people on my local Raycom affiliate(s)' Facebook page seem to be blaming DirecTV. 

Many are talking about how great DISH is, and how glad they are to have DISH... apparently forgetting that DISH took their NBC and ABC affiliates off the air last year due to a fee dispute with Raycom.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

cpalmer2k said:


> The contract doesn't expire until December, they have plenty of time to call each other names and kiss and make up
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


It's August 31.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Full list of television stations owned by Raycom Media here.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

How does this work?


> WDAM
> 
> Hattiesburg
> 
> ...


Two networks sharing the same call letters? I noticed Biloxi had two networks in one town with same call.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Call letters are assigned to the station, not the channel. If one station broadcasts two networks on the .1 and .2 channels, they'd have the same call letters.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Call letters are assigned to the station, not the channel. If one station broadcasts two networks on the .1 and .2 channels, they'd have the same call letters.


Ah, thanks. Just I'd never seen it in any of the markets in which I have lived. Still must cause some conflicts of interest within the station I'd imagine.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Ah, thanks. Just I'd never seen it in any of the markets in which I have lived. Still must cause some conflicts of interest within the station I'd imagine.


There are often multiple stations in a market with the same owner. In my DMA, the CBS and Fox affiliates have the same owner. They share a broadcast studio and tower, but are on separate channels so they have different call letters.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Of course all this happens when football season is nearing, what a coincidence for the money grubbers.


----------



## Mauiguy (Jul 14, 2007)

I always get a laugh out of the station complaints about the different satellite services. They claim that they are losing money. Now figure this. My local stations would not be viewable to me if not for Directv. Simply stated their antennas are on the other side of the mountain thanks to tree huggers.

Now Directv uses their bandwidth to broadcast the local station to me so that i can see local television and also get exposed to their advertisers which in theory means i would purchase products from the advertisers etc.

Given that the local stations now have a larger audience than before as a result of satellite rebroadcast, they should be paying Directv and not the other way around...Just my opinion.

In addition I am now paying for that service when other folks get it for free over the air. it seems to me that the folks like raycom should be thanking their luck for satellites.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Ah, thanks. Just I'd never seen it in any of the markets in which I have lived. Still must cause some conflicts of interest within the station I'd imagine.


My local Raycom affiliate lists their stations as:

WALB-NBC (10.1) or WALB NBC
WALB-ABC (10.2) or WALB ABC


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

WWBT here in Richmond is broadcasting this now. The worst part is Raycom just purchased them not that far back and their previous owner just finished negotiating with DirecTV. So twice now in recent memory they have been hammering the airwaves with the DirecTV is evil commercials....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rakul said:


> WWBT here in Richmond is broadcasting this now. The worst part is Raycom just purchased them not that far back and their previous owner just finished negotiating with DirecTV. So twice now in recent memory they have been hammering the airwaves with the DirecTV is evil commercials....


I wonder if they are hitting every station, whether the contract is up or not. I am assuming that Richmond's contract with DIRECTV® survives a sale or merger.....


----------



## Fish Man (Apr 22, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> I wonder if they are hitting every station, whether the contract is up or not. I am assuming that Richmond's contract with DIRECTV® survives a sale or merger.....


Raycom took over managing WVUE in New Orleans earlier this year. (And mind you, they DON'T own it, they only have an agreement with the owner to MANAGE it.

The owner is Louisiana Media Company, who has an agreement with DirecTV that's long from expiring.

Yet, Raycom is now saying to expect WVUE to be off DirecTV by Aug. 31.

It does seem to me that the agreement in place with the OWNER of this station would be in effect until it expired.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Glad Raycom doesn't "serve" my area. 

And, man, those are some towers! I haven't seen anything like them in the SF Bay Area.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Our Fox is Raycom, and I'm not sure how much I really care. Though my wide likely will if Bengals games are on Fox instead of CBS. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Glad Raycom doesn't "serve" my area.
> 
> And, man, those are some towers! I haven't seen anything like them in the SF Bay Area.


California and the mideast/mid atlantic area have a maximum HAAT (height of tower above average terrain) of 305 meters, in the rest of the country it is 610 meters. Those antennas are actually pretty short, nowhere near as tall as they would be allowed to be in Louisiana. The ones around here are not far from 2000 ft high. Sorry I don't have any cool pictures though!

There's a TV tower in North Dakota that was the tallest structure in the world for years until the Burj Khalifa was built a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAAT


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

The nice thing about investing just a little bit on OTA is that you won't care about any of these disputes. 

Since digital TV came online OTA is so much better vs the analog days.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

As long as you can get a good OTA signal.

Does DirecTV ever remove channels from the OTA database during a dispute?


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> As long as you can get a good OTA signal.
> 
> Does DirecTV ever remove channels from the OTA database during a dispute?


I suspect with an attic or outdoor antenna a majority of folks will get great OTA signals. I am even amazed at how some of the small window antennas work if you are within 40 miles of stations facing the right directions.
With Digital and almost all going to ch's 7 (physical not logical) and higher, it's amazing what's out there with little effort. But I do realize some folks are just too far away or live in a valley.

During a dispute at my location 2 years ago, the -1 OTA channels were not removed from the data base. They worked and recorded.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> *California and the mideast/mid atlantic area have a maximum HAAT (height of tower above average terrain) of 305 meters,* in the rest of the country it is 610 meters. Those antennas are actually pretty short, nowhere near as tall as they would be allowed to be in Louisiana. The ones around here are not far from 2000 ft high. Sorry I don't have any cool pictures though!
> 
> There's a TV tower in North Dakota that was the tallest structure in the world for years until the Burj Khalifa was built a few years ago.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAAT


So I wonder what's going on here in the L.A. market with most TV/FM broadcast antennas atop Mt. Wilson/Mt. Harvard giving them HAATs no less than 845 meters?

http://www.rabbitears.info/locationmap.php?request=location&location=Mount+Wilson+(CA)

Some type of grandfathered exception or something?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They aren't 845 meters taller than the mountain top they are sitting on. I think it's really about the height of the actual structure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The wiki article I linked says something about grandfathering, maybe those towers on Mt. Wilson came before that rule was established.

Based on the zones, with more densely populated states (at least more densely populated when they came up with these zones, which may have been 50-60 years ago) requiring a shorter HAAT, less transmit power for FM, and requiring less co-channel separation, I think it was done simply to allow signals to travel further in areas with smaller and more widely separated metro areas.

As it is, there's probably large swathes of Nebraska or Wyoming where you can hardly get any stations at all, let alone all four major networks. They should amend the rules to allow 4000 ft towers and 4x the broadcast strength there


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

HoTat2 said:


> So I wonder what's going on here in the L.A. market with most TV/FM broadcast antennas atop Mt. Wilson/Mt. Harvard giving them HAATs no less than 845 meters?
> 
> http://www.rabbitears.info/locationmap.php?request=location&location=Mount+Wilson+(CA)
> 
> Some type of grandfathered exception or something?


You are reading it incorrectly.

HAAT = Height Above Average Terrain

The tower can be 50 feet tall, but if it is sitting on Mt. Wilson it will be 845 Meters Above Average Terrain.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

The original towers were Grandfathered when there were few stations and they wanted maximum coverage.

As more Stations came on the air, limits were put in place.

Same for FM.

Any TV station in LA could move to Mt. Wilson (that is not already there) but they would be required to reduce power accordingly because of their increased height so their contour would be the same as if they were at the current limit. 

For example, a Radio Station that has been up on Mt. Wilson from the beginning, KRTH or KBIG have over 100kw of power (in some cases up to 150kw). Radio Stations that moved there after limits were put in place had to reduce power accordingly. As thus, KOST and KIIS have less than 10kw from Mt. Wilson. 

The biggest issue for Mt. Wilson is the Santa Monica Mountains cause a big shadow from Wilson in the Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverly Hills to Hollywood areas. Other than that, Mt. Wilson has a great shot all the way down to San Diego and Mexico.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Mauiguy said:


> I always get a laugh out of the station complaints about the different satellite services. They claim that they are losing money. Now figure this. My local stations would not be viewable to me if not for Directv. Simply stated their antennas are on the other side of the mountain thanks to tree huggers.
> 
> Now Directv uses their bandwidth to broadcast the local station to me so that i can see local television and also get exposed to their advertisers which in theory means i would purchase products from the advertisers etc.
> 
> ...


Well, Hawaii is a little different than most areas to begin with. There are translators on multiple Islands to begin with, but if you are on the wrong side of the mountain....

Regardless.

Your statement would make sense if things were like they were in the 80s and 90s.

Even today, 35% of the TV viewing on a MVPD is OTA Broadcast.

However, cable channels have started demanding exorbitant amounts for their Programming from MVPDs.

Up until a few years ago OTA TV was getting $0 from the MVPDs - even today the average is below $1.

Compare that with ESPN getting $6.04 per sub and .74 more from ESPN2. Not to mention ESPN will be well over $8 alone in 2018 according to current contracts.

TNT is over a $1 as well.










The NFL Network is getting more than OTA TV Stations right now - for what - 16 games a year - and half of those will be simulcast on CBS this coming year.

They are using those fees to bid up the price of Sports Networks.

As thus, the OTA cannot be competitive in bidding on Sports etc to keep it OTA.

Of your basic bill (not including Multiple Receiver, DVRs, Multiroom, etc), around 25% of it goes to basic channel programming fees.

So if you are paying $60 for basic service, roughly $15 goes to pay for programming.

Again, remember OTA viewing is about 35% of total. So you would think OTA would get around $5 of that amount. Again, remember I noted the average is less than $1 per station right now.

That is where the issue is.

Of course, the FCC and Wireless/Cable Companies want to take away the OTA and repack the spectrum so they can get the Spectrum and sell it back to you for additional bandwidth usage every month.

That way you do not have a choice to receive OTA, if you so desire (or can).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The original towers were Grandfathered when there were few stations and they wanted maximum coverage.
> 
> As more Stations came on the air, limits were put in place.
> 
> ...


Huh, interesting. Explains a lot about some stations being better from larger distances. Thanks,for the good explanation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Huh, interesting. Explains a lot about some stations being better from larger distances. Thanks,for the good explanation.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You are welcome.

Mt. Wilson was there in the beginning and a logical place to put transmitting sites - thus the early stations were Grandfathered in. It was cheaper to put them on Wilson than build a tall tower.

In other markets, no one needed a 2,000 ft tower in the 1950s, so they really did not exist.

(Also, most did not want to spend the money for high RF output in the 50s and 60s so they never went with big power anyway).

Then when the max limits went into effect, a lot of LA Stations were Grandfathered in, where stations in other markets were Grandfathered in until they changed facilities.

When TVs started to go to taller towers in the 70s and 80s, they lost the Grandfathered status once they changed facilities - so very few stations are still operating under Grandfather Status.

Those almost always are stations on mountains - like Mt Wilson in LA - or even WXII in Winston Salem, NC.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The original towers were Grandfathered when there were few stations and they wanted maximum coverage.
> 
> As more Stations came on the air, limits were put in place.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation;

I figured it was some type of grandfathered exception going on, but wasn't sure.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are reading it incorrectly.
> 
> HAAT = Height Above Average Terrain
> 
> The tower can be 50 feet tall, but if it is sitting on Mt. Wilson it will be 845 Meters Above Average Terrain.


Thanks;

Just to note; 

I do understand the concept of HAAT as opposed to say "AGL" ("Above Ground Level") measured from the base of the transmitting tower itself (on the ground of course) to the point of it's center of radiation, and was asking how this jived with the 300 meter max. figure for our market zone quoted in the Wikipedia article. Which I see you answered in your following post.


----------



## Mfrays12 (Aug 29, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Well, Hawaii is a little different than most areas to begin with. There are translators on multiple Islands to begin with, but if you are on the wrong side of the mountain....
> 
> Regardless.
> 
> ...


This is my first time on this site. I am quite impressed by your knowledge and understanding. Do you have any knowledge about Direct TV vs. Raycom media dispute? Like who is te greedy money grabber here? Thanks


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Mfrays12 said:


> This is my first time on this site. I am quite impressed by your knowledge and understanding. Do you have any knowledge about Direct TV vs. Raycom media dispute? Like who is te greedy money grabber here? Thanks


Based on history, it's Raycom. Either that or most of the providers are greedy, but Raycom usually starts to warn viewers that they may lose the channel very early.

It's been dropped or had to have an extension on many providers over the past few years.

Many we never hear about, they go into negotiations, come to an agreement and things just continue (or features added). Raycom is a lot noisier.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Any word if they are close to reaching an agreement? It seems like D* & Raycom just went thru this 2 years ago. My Local NBC is a Raycom Station & I am going to be pissed if I can’t see the first NFL Game of the Year this coming Thursday Night.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rob37 said:


> Any word if they are close to reaching an agreement? It seems like D* & Raycom just went thru this 2 years ago. My Local NBC is a Raycom Station & I am going to be pissed if I can't see the first NFL Game of the Year this coming Thursday Night.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


December 2011. I fully expect it to go off the air at least for a few days.

Backup plan could be to get an AM21 (unless you have an HR20) and an antenna. Of course this doesn't help if you're out of range,


----------



## freerein100 (Dec 14, 2007)

23 hrs 50 min and counting down


----------



## rodsaw11 (Aug 31, 2014)

dpeters11 said:


> Based on history, it's Raycom. Either that or most of the providers are greedy, but Raycom usually starts to warn viewers that they may lose the channel very early.
> 
> It's been dropped or had to have an extension on many providers over the past few years.
> 
> Many we never hear about, they go into negotiations, come to an agreement and things just continue (or features added). Raycom is a lot noisier.


I second that it is likely Raycom. They pulled the same stunt last year with Dish and Cox. With the fight with Dish, the local Raycom stations would post on Facebook how they were being picked on by the big carrier, not being fair. Dish had a webpage rebuttal that stated that Raycom was demanding either 400% or 800% increase in fees from Dish (I don't remember which and the page has since been taken down.) Dish also stated that the demanded rates were out of line for the size of the market, etc.. If you watched the stations' FB posts, any post by the public that contradicted what the station was saying were quickly removed. I posted a negative but not in any way derogiatory post that was taken down and I was blocked from posting to the site. It's their page, so I am not upset with their actions, I just post it in other places that they can't censor.

There was a similar fight between Raycom and DirecTv in 2011. If it is like Dish last year, the channels will get removed from Direct for 7-10 days before they finally come to an agreement.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Even OTA people are not immune from inconvenience. I live in Indy and NBC/DTV are threatening to shut off service. For me, NBC is channel 13. As some may know, if you press "13" on the remote, you go to the DTV feed of NBC. If you press "13.1" you go to the OTA feed of NBC. In DTV infinite wisdom, for the past few days, they have a nag screen on "13.1" talking about the possible disruption. Now I have 2 "13.1" stations. One is the nag screen and one is the OTA feed. Unfortunately the default choice is the nag screen and there is nothing I can do about that. So to get to the OTA channel I either have to choose it from the guide (which I never, ever, ever do) or have to "channel up" after you input "13.1".

This is extremely inconvenient when watching TV, but it is impossible for the computers that do the recording (ie, DVRs) to be able to handle.

DTV gets an "F" for this incredibly stupid decision. Why in the world would you put a nag screen on "13.1" when the people who are going to be affected watch "13" and the people who watch "13.1" will "not" be affected. I'm so angry that after 17 years, I'm calling Dish and Uverse on Monday.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

That seems pretty stupid, have you tried that email address for the office of the president to complain about this? Adding that nag screen to the OTA channel must have been some sort of mistake, as there is no requirement on their part to block a viewer's ability to tune OTA channels if they stop broadcasting the satellite-delivered local.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> Even OTA people are not immune from inconvenience. I live in Indy and NBC/DTV are threatening to shut off service. For me, NBC is channel 13. As some may know, if you press "13" on the remote, you go to the DTV feed of NBC. If you press "13.1" you go to the OTA feed of NBC. In DTV infinite wisdom, for the past few days, they have a nag screen on "13.1" talking about the possible disruption. Now I have 2 "13.1" stations. One is the nag screen and one is the OTA feed. Unfortunately the default choice is the nag screen and there is nothing I can do about that. So to get to the OTA channel I either have to choose it from the guide (which I never, ever, ever do) or have to "channel up" after you input "13.1".
> 
> This is extremely inconvenient when watching TV, but it is impossible for the computers that do the recording (ie, DVRs) to be able to handle.
> 
> DTV gets an "F" for this incredibly stupid decision. Why in the world would you put a nag screen on "13.1" when the people who are going to be affected watch "13" and the people who watch "13.1" will "not" be affected. I'm so angry that after 17 years, I'm calling Dish and Uverse on Monday.


It's the same in the Charlotte market with 3 and 3.1 on my HR20. But I find it no big deal to press the Ch Up once I saw duplication and consider it temporary.

Don't sweat the small stuff!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dennisj00 said:


> It's the same in the Charlotte market with 3 and 3.1 on my HR20. But I find it no big deal to press the Ch Up once I saw duplication and consider it temporary.
> 
> Don't sweat the small stuff!


It sounds like he's saying when he records he's recording the message and not the channel. If true, that would be a serious issue.

And even though it may be a little thing if all it affects is direct tuning of a channel, it is stupid that Directv even has a blackout message. Does that mean they're planning on blacking out OTA reception from their equipment if the channel is pulled in a dispute? If so, that removes one of the big reasons someone may want to use OTA in the first place, and is completely unnecessary from a legal standpoint.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

While I have duplicate -1's as well due to Raycom, I don't know how the recordings would be messed up since the guide data for the Info -1 channel has no programming content.

But when entering the channel and -1, I do agree its a nuisance that you go to the info screen not the right OTA channel.

What is odd is that for folks that don't have OTA, I suspect they never enter -1 anyway so why wouldn't Directv append it with something never used such as -6 (almost never) since the only time to see it is in the guide. If you tune to the info channel you get a logo and no info anyway.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

rbmcgee said:


> Even OTA people are not immune from inconvenience. I live in Indy and NBC/DTV are threatening to shut off service. For me, NBC is channel 13. As some may know, if you press "13" on the remote, you go to the DTV feed of NBC. If you press "13.1" you go to the OTA feed of NBC. In DTV infinite wisdom, for the past few days, they have a nag screen on "13.1" talking about the possible disruption. Now I have 2 "13.1" stations. One is the nag screen and one is the OTA feed. Unfortunately the default choice is the nag screen and there is nothing I can do about that. So to get to the OTA channel I either have to choose it from the guide (which I never, ever, ever do) or have to "channel up" after you input "13.1".
> 
> This is extremely inconvenient when watching TV, but it is impossible for the computers that do the recording (ie, DVRs) to be able to handle.
> 
> DTV gets an "F" for this incredibly stupid decision. Why in the world would you put a nag screen on "13.1" when the people who are going to be affected watch "13" and the people who watch "13.1" will "not" be affected. I'm so angry that after 17 years, I'm calling Dish and Uverse on Monday.


Seems more like a mistake than a decision, but you must be pretty honked off prior to this to let a tiny thing drive you out.

However: Possible workaround: can you make a custom list that has only the "right" OTA channel?


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Seems more like a mistake than a decision, but you must be pretty honked off prior to this to let a tiny thing drive you out.
> 
> However: Possible workaround: can you make a custom list that has only the "right" OTA channel?


You cannot create a custom channel list. 13.1 still will take you to the nag screen. You also cannot "block" the first 13.1 (parental controls) because you end up going to a 13.1 that says it's blocked, even if you only block the first 13.1. I was on the phone for an hour w/ dtv yesterday having them try and figure out a way to solve the problem. They finally agreed, there was no way and then, after 10 minutes of no talking while the rep documented this issue and my displeasure, she sent me to retention. When retention picked up, she had no idea who I was and could find zero notes about my problem.

It was at that point I decided DTV is simply not worth the hassle. There are other, and potentially better, alternatives.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Another thing that frosted me about the call...

The DTV reps are obviously prepped that if DTV customers call and complain about the service interruption, make sure they understand that the problem is both DTV and NBC so that the caller doesn't lay all the blame on DTV. On multiple occasions, even after I fully explained the situation, the rep would go away and talk to someone and then come back and make sure I understood fault lies with DTV and NBC.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBC.

I personally don't care if DTV and NBC ever sign a contract. Don't now, never have, never will.

The nag screen and its placement is 100% DTV decision/doing and NBC has 0% to do with it. Obviously the rep was either dumb as a box of rocks, wasn't listening and understanding what I was saying, or was intentionally trying to deceive me thinking I might be dumb as a box of rocks.

I am 99.8% sure it was #3 and I tend to not do business with people who have zero respect for me.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It sounds like he's saying when he records he's recording the message and not the channel. If true, that would be a serious issue.
> 
> And even though it may be a little thing if all it affects is direct tuning of a channel, it is stupid that Directv even has a blackout message. Does that mean they're planning on blacking out OTA reception from their equipment if the channel is pulled in a dispute? If so, that removes one of the big reasons someone may want to use OTA in the first place, and is completely unnecessary from a legal standpoint.


Nothing I've set up to record from the guide or a search has been wrong.

And the crazy thing as NR4P mentioned is everytime I've tuned to the 3-1 (not OTA) all it is is a DirecTV Logo and music. Nothing about the dispute.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

rbmcgee said:


> You cannot create a custom channel list. 13.1 still will take you to the nag screen. You also cannot "block" the first 13.1 (parental controls) because you end up going to a 13.1 that says it's blocked, even if you only block the first 13.1. I was on the phone for an hour w/ dtv yesterday having them try and figure out a way to solve the problem. They finally agreed, there was no way and then, after 10 minutes of no talking while the rep documented this issue and my displeasure, she sent me to retention. When retention picked up, she had no idea who I was and could find zero notes about my problem.
> 
> It was at that point I decided DTV is simply not worth the hassle. There are other, and potentially better, alternatives.


Best of luck to you. Please do come back and tell us to which provider you have switched.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

For those interested in the advantages of OTA vs DTV for local channels:

1) It is a better picture. Its close, but OTA is better. I've personally done a blind poll with friends.
2) For live events, ie, sports, there is no DTV delay. If you like the radio broadcast instead of the TV, no problem. With DTV's feed, it is not possible
3) No rain/weather fade. I can watch locals in a hurricane.
4) Contract disputes w/ the networks, I thought, were irrelevant.

For where I live, a $10 antenna will do the job for the locals (although I've got a much more expensive setup).


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Nothing I've set up to record from the guide or a search has been wrong.
> 
> And the crazy thing as NR4P mentioned is everytime I've tuned to the 3-1 (not OTA) all it is is a DirecTV Logo and music. Nothing about the dispute.


That's what I'm calling a nag screen. The program information at the top describes the contract issue. Other than that, its a DTV logo and music and it is a complete NAG!


----------



## freerein100 (Dec 14, 2007)

As of 11 PM Central time, my Raycom station has gone dark.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Raycom Media Continues Negotiating With DirecTV (link)

Here is the slate they have put up...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*50+ Raycom Media TV Stations No Longer Available On DirecTv*

Raycom Media Statement Here

DirecTV Statement Here

Locations Impacted Here


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Same old stuff. This is the way of the future.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I lost all respect for Direc when they knuckled under to The Worster Channel. If they couldn't hold their word against a pipsqueak like that, I can't trust them to stand up to broadcast channels.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> *50+ Raycom Media TV Stations No Longer Available On DirecTv*
> 
> Raycom Media Statement Here
> 
> ...


Your DirecTV statement link goes to the Raycom site, here is the DirecTV statement


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

While Congress rarely "fixes" anything, they need to arm the FCC to step in and stop these blackmail games. I do believe that the providers need to pay something, even though the networks are free OTA, since they are retransmitting the shows and it is part of what customers pay for (e.g. the DVR capability, etc.) but since the local networks are granted certain rights in return for certain obligations from the FCC, there needs to be some kind of standardized guidelines for retransmission fees. I'm sure neither side would be happy with what was set up but that's usually the sign of a good compromise.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I lost all respect for Direc when they knuckled under to The Worster Channel. If they couldn't hold their word against a pipsqueak like that, I can't trust them to stand up to broadcast channels.


Raycom gets dropped on a lot of carriers after the deadline. It gets dropped more than is renewed without an outage it seems.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

longrider said:


> Your DirecTV statement link goes to the Raycom site, here is the DirecTV statement


Woops - Thanks for the headsup! I fixed the link.

:righton:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

This is one of the best excerpts:



> Fox Lacks Esteem
> 
> Stations hurt their own networks with blackouts like the one last January when Esteem Broadcasting decided to keep NFL fans in California from seeing NFL playoff games featuring the San Francisco 49ers.


Nice pun!


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> For those interested in the advantages of OTA vs DTV for local channels:
> 
> 1) It is a better picture. Its close, but OTA is better. I've personally done a blind poll with friends.
> 2) For live events, ie, sports, there is no DTV delay. If you like the radio broadcast instead of the TV, no problem. With DTV's feed, it is not possible
> ...


Since I wrote this post, I have learned that there is a reason #5:

5) Sub-channels, sub-channels, sub-channels

Other than for testing purposes, I have never viewed any local channel via a DTV feed so I was not aware that DTV doesn't include any/some/most of the local sub-channels.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

When one views the Wikipedia complete list of Raycom Media stations you have to ask yourself several questions:

How did one company, and a few others like it, get ownership/management control of so many TV stations?
Why do we have to pay local stations to watch free-to-airwaves broadcast channels?
Do you dislike Congress but have repeatedly voted to reelect your member of Congress and plan to vote to reelect your member of Congress in November?
Contained in those three questions is an answer as to why broadcast TV on your airwaves now costs you money. We are being "taxed" to support local broadcast stations that should have gone out of business years ago.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> 1) It is a better picture. Its close, but OTA is better. I've personally done a blind poll with friends.


This is totally dependent upon where you live. My local Raycom station has NBC (1080i) on their primary channel, and ABC (720p) on their secondary channel. This station provides DirecTV, DISH Network, etc. with a 1080i upconverted ABC feed that is superior to the 720p OTA version.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It sounds like he's saying when he records he's recording the message and not the channel. If true, that would be a serious issue.
> 
> And even though it may be a little thing if all it affects is direct tuning of a channel, it is stupid that Directv even has a blackout message. Does that mean they're planning on blacking out OTA reception from their equipment if the channel is pulled in a dispute? If so, that removes one of the big reasons someone may want to use OTA in the first place, and is completely unnecessary from a legal standpoint.


Channel "13" (NBC for me), as of last night, is off the air w/ the explanation screen in its place

Let me address a couple points in this post:
You are correct, the computer is no longer able to record channel "13.1". I became aware of this issue when I tried to watch something I recorded on "13.1" and all I got was 30 minutes of DTV logo and music. It took some thinking and investigating but I realized what DTV had done. That led to the phone call. Even though I have an OTA feed of NBC, nothing can be recorded from it.

No, the DTV/NBC contract is for re-broadcast rights. OTA is not involved in that issue since DTV is not rebroadcasting anything.. The OTA feed of NBC continues to work perfectly. The problem is that is very difficult to get at and a computer, on its own, can't get to it at all.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That seems pretty stupid, have you tried that email address for the office of the president to complain about this?


Interesting notion. How does this work? I probably need someone who knows the inner workings of DTV to be able to answer these questions.

Does DTV monitor these forums/posts and is it reasonable to assume that the powers at DTV are aware of this issue?

Would sending an email involve simply linking to this thread?

Would sending an email require me to to re-explain the whole issue?

What is the email address?

I already know that a rep, the rep's supervisor and a rep in retention are fully aware of what they've done and what it has caused. Is it a good assumption that the information will just sit un-acted upon?


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> This is totally dependent upon where you live. My local Raycom station has NBC (1080i) on their primary channel, and ABC (720p) on their secondary channel. This station provides DirecTV, DISH Network, etc. with a 1080i upconverted ABC feed that is superior to the 720p OTA version.


Have you personally compared the 2 side-by-side? Because ABC is actually taking pictures at 720. I don't understand how turning 720p into 1080i matters if it happens at the station, in the DTV box or on the display device. It is not necessary to discuss whether viewing a 720p source at 1080i vs 720p is superior because that conversation goes nowhere.

I can prove, that at least in Indianapolis, grabbing the OTA is better than having DTV compress it and rebroadcast it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rbmcgee said:


> Interesting notion. How does this work? I probably need someone who knows the inner workings of DTV to be able to answer these questions.
> 
> Does DTV monitor these forums/posts and is it reasonable to assume that the powers at DTV are aware of this issue?
> 
> ...


Fill out the online form, and they'll get back to you, usually very fast;
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIFnorail.jsp?assetId=P4960016

Was popularly called "Ellen Filipiak's" office for a long time.

Now referred to just as the "Office of the President" since her retirement.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

rbmcgee said:


> Interesting notion. How does this work? I probably need someone who knows the inner workings of DTV to be able to answer these questions.
> 
> Does DTV monitor these forums/posts and is it reasonable to assume that the powers at DTV are aware of this issue?
> 
> ...


You have created a volcano out of a burnt out match stick. This is a temporary situation, caused initially by the Bolshevik actions of a greedy local. Let it go.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> Have you personally compared the 2 side-by-side? Because ABC is actually taking pictures at 720. I don't understand how turning 720p into 1080i matters if it happens at the station, in the DTV box or on the display device. It is not necessary to discuss whether viewing a 720p source at 1080i vs 720p is superior because that conversation goes nowhere.
> 
> I can prove, that at least in Indianapolis, grabbing the OTA is better than having DTV compress it and rebroadcast it.


ABC may be providing a 720p signal, but not all programming on this station is provided by ABC (syndicated programming and local programming like news, etc).

Prior to receiving said channel in 1080i (DirecTV carried the ABC feed in SD for around a year after it launched before offering the HD feed), I didn't expect any big difference in PQ. I was very surprised, but I do see a difference in quality.

Not Raycom related, but DirecTV only provides the local affiliate of The CW in SD, and I cannot receive it OTA to make comparisons, but this local affiliate (which is a sub-channel) downconverts The CW programming (24/7) to 720p. From my understanding, the 720p feed is all they offer local providers. It'll look better than DirecTV's 480i SD feed, but I'm very disappointed by the reduction of quality.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> This is totally dependent upon where you live. My local Raycom station has NBC (1080i) on their primary channel, and ABC (720p) on their secondary channel. This station provides DirecTV, DISH Network, etc. with a 1080i upconverted ABC feed that is superior to the 720p OTA version.


The upconversion has nothing to do with it, what you are seeing is because squeezing two HD feeds into a single ATSC channel requires some serious compression. Assuming they are providing the original feeds to DirecTV via fiber there is no question the DirecTV image will look better


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm with Alan. OTA is not always better, or even as good as DIRECTV, and it does depend on where you live, and what channels you are comparing.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

longrider said:


> The upconversion has nothing to do with it, what you are seeing is because squeezing two HD feeds into a single ATSC channel requires some serious compression. Assuming they are providing the original feeds to DirecTV via fiber there is no question the DirecTV image will look better


Actually, the 720p OTA ABC feed is fairly equal to the ABC East & West coast feeds on DirecTV, as well as the three other ABC affiliates I can receive OTA. I can see a slight loss of PQ, but I'm VERY impressed with it's quality. The DirecTV provided 1080i signal is superior to the three ABC affiliates I can view OTA. Granted, one of those stations has two SD sub-channels and the other has one (I think). I'm not sure about the other... it may have none.

The 1080i OTA NBC feed however experienced a downgrade in PQ after the ABC feed was upgraded to HD, and looks far inferior to the years when the station didn't have a sub-channel. Sadly, DirecTV has the exact same feed as the OTA version (or at least did prior to midnight last night), so there's no upgrade in signal quality there.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

OTA is as good or better and FREE. Get an AM21 if you want to record.
In a dispute can the channel on a AM21 be blocked?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Interestingly enough, the Facebook page of the local Raycom affiliate is mostly filled with people complaining about Raycom Media, and not DirecTV (a few DISH Network fans who think DirecTV sucks aside).

I guess too many people remember when the stations were taken off DISH Network last year, and are not taking the switch to DISH Network or Mediacom suggestions kindly after being having been told to switch from DISH Network to DirecTV and Mediacom last year.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

PCampbell said:


> OTA is as good or better and FREE. Get an AM21 if you want to record.
> In a dispute can the channel on a AM21 be blocked?


Again, OTA is not always as good or better. It's not always FREE either if you need/want some of the channels provided by satellite that you cannot receive OTA (DirecTV doesn't allow you to pick and choose locals).

The channels COULD be blocked on an AM21 by removing the guide data, but DirecTV never has.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

My participation in this thread was to describe a mistake that DTV has made that springs from DTV's response to contract negotiations involving broadcast networks. I understand 2 things: 1) There is no way to know how long this will last, and 2) This situation will occur again in the future. DTV needs to create a new response when this situation arises. This mistake is a big deal to me and could well force me, after 17 years, to quit and join a new team.

I really have no intention of getting into a debate on OTA vs, DTV and resolutions and bitrates and compression and rebroadcasting. I have my opinions and in my location, with the channels I care about, I am convinced that the OTA feed is superior to the DTV feed. That's the last thing I will say about that issue.

I have sent the President an email re-describing the problem and linking them to my first post post in this thread so that they can get the full flavor. If I hear back, I will let this thread know. If I don't, I don't suspect you will be hearing from me again on the DTV part of DBSTalk.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> My participation in this thread was to describe a mistake that DTV has made that springs from DTV's response to contract negotiations involving broadcast networks. I understand 2 things: 1) There is no way to know how long this will last, and 2) This situation will occur again in the future. DTV needs to create a new response when this situation arises. This mistake is a big deal to me and could well force me, after 17 years, to quit and join a new team.
> 
> I really have no intention of getting into a debate on OTA vs, DTV and resolutions and bitrates and compression and rebroadcasting. I have my opinions and in my location, with the channels I care about, I am convinced that the OTA feed is superior to the DTV feed. That's the last thing I will say about that issue.
> 
> I have sent the President an email re-describing the problem and linking them to my first post post in this thread so that they can get the full flavor. If I hear back, I will let this thread know. If I don't, I don't suspect you will be hearing from me again on the DTV part of DBSTalk.


I wish you good luck, but I believe you aren't going to get the result you're looking for.

What type of recorder are you using?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I had to laugh at DirecTV's Raycom statement. DirecTV recommended the "Watch ABC" app, but it doesn't work for DirecTV subscribers. !rolling :righton:


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I wish you good luck, but I believe you aren't going to get the result you're looking for.
> 
> What type of recorder are you using?


I'm not sure why DTV won't correct the mistake. It is a completely unforced error besides being a foolish approach (putting nag screen on 13.1 when the affected parties watch 13 and the unaffected parties watch 13.1 and then making the nag screen the default choice that cannot be changed)

I have many recorders.

3xColossus
HVR1600
HDHomerunDual

I don't now have, and have never used a DTV DVR. That's a whole other kettle of fish that I don't feel like getting into but if you so choose you can search my user name. At one point I discussed the setup.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> I'm not sure why DTV won't correct the mistake. It is a completely unforced error besides being a foolish approach (putting nag screen on 13.1 when the affected parties watch 13 and the unaffected parties watch 13.1 and then making the nag screen the default choice that cannot be changed)
> 
> I have many recorders.
> 
> ...


I just feel that you're in such a minority, that you're not going to get the resolution you're looking for.

I wish you luck...


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

They are all free here. Sat does not have all channels but OTA doses.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

PCampbell said:


> They are all free here. Sat does not have all channels but OTA doses.


I cannot receive all my "local" channels here OTA. If I want said channels via DirecTV, I pay for ALL the local channels. I can't pick and choose.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

A thought, D* should offer the AM21 at a discount to all who are in the Raycom areas and have lost stations. If we can get the channel effected OTA then we don't need the satellite feed and Raycom would be the looser here.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I just feel that you're in such a minority, that you're not going to get the resolution you're looking for.
> 
> I wish you luck...


I do hope that DTV understands that some of their customers are very technically savvy. These are the kinds of people that friends and family go to when they need help with technology. These friends/family count on these people to tell them what to do and what to buy. It is not possible for DTV to know who these "mini-thought-leaders" are or are not.

Sometimes a customer is worth more than the company realizes.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

seern said:


> A thought, D* should offer the AM21 at a discount to all who are in the Raycom areas and have lost stations. If we can get the channel effected OTA then we don't need the satellite feed and Raycom would be the looser here.


DISH Network dropped the Raycom stations last year for eight days. I really don't expect the DirecTV standoff to last much longer (if it lasts longer).

Antennas aren't a good option for everybody, and DirecTV's aware of that. Sadly, so is Raycom Media.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Last night before the local Fox station went off the air at Directv they were running a crawl against Directv. It had BS in it and I've since sent the station a note on their website that they are foolish for spreading misinformation and being greedy. With my OTA antenna system, I look forward to the day if it ever comes where I could opt out of paying for my local channels on SAT as it was years ago.

I know the providers including Directv mark up the local broadcasts and turn it into a profit center but I wish one would have the guts to make it ala carte and cut back the payments to the station owners. Then the station owners would lose revenue. Even if 5% opt out, that would hit the local stations hard.

If it wasn't for cable and SAT providers, the local stations would have less than half the viewers. 

In the meantime, the best thing folks can do is contact their representatives in Congress. There are various bills moving around to end this nonsense.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> I'm not sure why DTV won't correct the mistake. It is a completely unforced error besides being a foolish approach (putting nag screen on 13.1 when the affected parties watch 13 and the unaffected parties watch 13.1 and then making the nag screen the default choice that cannot be changed)
> 
> I have many recorders.
> 
> ...


Why should DirecTV, in any way, be responsible for an error in channel selection on your third-party recorders?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

phrelin said:


> When one views the Wikipedia complete list of Raycom Media stations you have to ask yourself several questions:
> 
> How did one company, and a few others like it, get ownership/management control of so many TV stations?
> Why do we have to pay local stations to watch free-to-airwaves broadcast channels?
> ...


What's worse is when one company owns two networks in the same network. That causes much more pain than just one. Why are they allowed to own two, but not three?


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Why should DirecTV, in any way, be responsible for an error in channel selection on your third-party recorders?


Error in channel selection? Huh?

13.1 is supposed to bring you to the OTA feed of channel 13. 3 days ago, it did. DTV made a foolish decision. Now it brings you to a nag screen.

DTV doesn't have to do anything. I'm not going to sue them. I'm going to leave them.


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

If it wasn`t for Direct TV (and cable ,DISH, etc.) a lot of people in NE Ohio wouldn`t even RECEIVE Raycom`s WOIO CH. 19 CBS Cleveland. They run on digital Ch. 10, and not with a lot of power. A lot of folks in NE Ohio cannot pick it up OTA because WOIO is so weak. Raycom should be paying the different systems, not the other way around.

Fortunately, WKBN 27.1 CBS Youngstown has a booming signal that a lot of people in NE Ohio can receive.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

I do wish DTV or Dish would somehow build an OTA into their dishes. I know it wouldn't work for everyone, but putting up an outdoor antenna on my roof and running the line into the house is a PIA for me, and our locals don't come in so great with an indoor antenna. I'd love to have an OTA option that was "easy."


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

phrelin said:


> When one views the Wikipedia complete list of Raycom Media stations you have to ask yourself several questions:
> 
> How did one company, and a few others like it, get ownership/management control of so many TV stations?
> Why do we have to pay local stations to watch free-to-airwaves broadcast channels?
> ...


On the first one, just our capitalist system. It used to be moguls owning a lot of newspapers.

One the second one, you don't have to pay local stations to watch free to the airwaves broadcast channels. You can watch them via OTA antenna the way we all watched them before we decided we needed cable and then satellite. Directv has to pay them to rebroadcast them since they are selling the rebroadcast to us.

Congress: whoever shouts the loudest and has the lobby that pays people in Washington the most will get their way.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

phrelin said:


> When one views the Wikipedia complete list of Raycom Media stations you have to ask yourself several questions:
> 
> How did one company, and a few others like it, get ownership/management control of so many TV stations?[/*].




Ain't nothing. Check out how many Sinclair broadcast group owns. Over 150.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> Error in channel selection? Huh?
> 
> 13.1 is supposed to bring you to the OTA feed of channel 13. 3 days ago, it did. DTV made a foolish decision. Now it brings you to a nag screen.
> 
> DTV doesn't have to do anything. I'm not going to sue them. I'm going to leave them.


Actually, it's been more than 3 days, but it would be no different if they had moved 202 to some other channel.

Enjoy your new provider and like I said earlier, don't sweat the small stuff. You'll live longer.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dennisj00 said:


> Actually, it's been more than 3 days, but it would be no different if they had moved 202 to some other channel.
> 
> Enjoy your new provider and like I said earlier, don't sweat the small stuff. You'll live longer.


Ditto. And it's not only very small stuff, it's temporary.


----------



## csf97 (Jan 10, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I had to laugh at DirecTV's Raycom statement. DirecTV recommended the "Watch ABC" app, but it doesn't work for DirecTV subscribers. !rolling :righton:


This is my only beef with DirecTV in this dispute and in general! They are only major provider not listed on the FoxNow app, the ABC app, and ESPN app. I could not care less about my "local" (it's 50 miles away from me and behind a mountain so we can't get it OTA) station, but would like to be able to watch the episode of MasterChef I will miss tonight on the Fox app tomorrow. C'mon DirecTV -- give us app access!


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

fudpucker said:


> I do wish DTV or Dish would somehow build an OTA into their dishes. I know it wouldn't work for everyone, but putting up an outdoor antenna on my roof and running the line into the house is a PIA for me, and our locals don't come in so great with an indoor antenna. I'd love to have an OTA option that was "easy."


That's not a bad idea.
The FCC OTARD rules allow for 39" dishes to be pre-empted from local regulations, HOA or otherwise.
It wouldn't be difficult to have some type of UHF antenna system built into the dish, or perimeter thereof.
I know it won't work all the time for all channels etc etc etc but every journey begins with a small step.

In the Pre-SWM days dishes required 4 wires. Now only one. So a second one could be used for OTA into the home.

But there's still the AM21 issue and they are big and old.

It would be nice to allow some of us to opt out of local SAT feeds for our local channels, even save $2-$5 per month and in return Directv gets to subtract the opt outs from the months sub counts.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Actually, it's been more than 3 days, but it would be no different if they had moved 202 to some other channel.
> 
> Enjoy your new provider and like I said earlier, don't sweat the small stuff. You'll live longer.


Incorrect. Moving a channel can be fixed. This cannot.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Ditto. And it's not only very small stuff, it's temporary.


What is it with you? Are you the god of what's important.

Here's my list of things that are 100% unimportant.
DTV providing local channels
DTV building a DVR that works
Genie
GenieGo
Any software update
WholeHome
PPV channels
Shopping channels

Not only do I deem these to be unimportant, but I think you should view them as unimportant as well. How does that sound????? Hmmmmmm?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> Incorrect. Moving a channel can be fixed. This cannot.


You still haven't explained why Directv is responsible for the error of your third-party dvrs.

Everything I set to record on 3-1 recorded properly during your problem.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> You still haven't explained why Directv is responsible for the error of your third-party dvrs.
> 
> Everything I set to record on 3-1 recorded properly during your problem.


I'm not sure what you are saying. Pick up the remote, point it at the box and type in 3.1 and tell whether you go to an OTA feed of channel 3 or a nag screen.

If indeed you go to the OTA feed of channel 3, I need to know that because it means DTV's decision is not universal.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying. Pick up the remote, point it at the box and type in 3.1 and tell whether you go to an OTA feed of channel 3 or a nag screen.
> 
> If indeed you go to the OTA feed of channel 3, I need to know that because it means DTV's decision is not universal.


No, press Guide and select the OTA 3.1 program that you want to record . . . They can not plan for your equipment.

You have to realize that OTA is a VERY small part of DirecTV.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

A DirecTV DVR can tell the difference between 2 channels with the same number and record the one you selected. A third party dvr that uses an IR blaster to simulate a remote cant and will record the first version of that channel number. As others have said how is that DirecTV's problem when their own DVR functions properly?


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> No, press Guide and select the OTA 3.1 program that you want to record . . . They can not plan for your equipment.
> 
> You have to realize that OTA is a VERY small part of DirecTV.


So therefore you agree with me, no matter what numbers you punch in for your channels, under no circumstances can you get to the OTA feed directly.

You cannot create a custom list
You cannot block the first 3.1
You cannot type in 3.1b

There is no way to get to that channel directly.

Now you'll probably join Laxguy who has concluded for me, that that is not important.

The DTV fanboys got to take a break. Sometimes DTV makes a bad decision.. This is one of those times.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

rbmcgee said:


> What is it with you? Are you the god of what's important.


Heck no. But find me two others who put any importance on a temporary inconvenience- a minor one to most- for equipment not under DIRECTV's control, and I will buy you a beverage. (location of my choosing.)

And you keep saying it was a decision. Most likely a mistake.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> So therefore you agree with me, no matter what numbers you punch in for your channels, under no circumstances can you get to the OTA feed directly.
> 
> You cannot create a custom list
> You cannot block the first 3.1
> ...


No, I don't agree with you and it's not a fanboy issue. The Directv dvr records properly. YOUR equipment doesn't.

Explain again how that's DirecTVs problem. You're having a hissy fit over nothing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

rbmcgee said:


> What is it with you? Are you the god of what's important.
> 
> Here's my list of things that are 100% unimportant.
> DTV providing local channels
> ...


You're doing something that only a handful of Directv subscribers are in using a third party DVR to record instead of getting one of their DVRs. They're unlikely to change the way they're doing things out of worry that one of the few might leave them over this issue. They have approximately 10,000 people leave them every day (and approximately 10,000 new people sign up every day) so I'm sorry but your problem is just not going to rate as very important to them.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> The DTV fanboys got to take a break. Sometimes DTV makes a bad decision.. This is one of those times.


You're using something in a way that's not intended, and then getting upset because it doesn't work the way you expect it to.

Pointing that out doesn't make one a fanboy.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Ain't nothing. Check out how many Sinclair broadcast group owns. Over 150.


Yep... I wasn't very happy when I found out that Sinclair purchased my local FOX affiliate last year.

NBC: Raycom Media
ABC: Raycom Media
The CW: Gray Television
FOX: Sinclair
CBS: Gray Television
MyNetworkTV: Gray Television


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Not everybody has a 13 or a 13-1 to record stuff anyway and directv doesn't carry sub channels so there is no way for them to know you have that channel especially using third-party equipment


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

"sigh"

There goes my Fox 10'oclock news, just an apology screen.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

I've said my piece. I've lodged my complaint both at DTV and here. I've emailed the president. I've thoroughly explained the situation from my perspective. I've explained it is important to me and how I use DTV. I apologize to anyone who thinks I'm not using DTV's service properly but I pay my bill every month. There is nothing else to say.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

rbmcgee said:


> I've said my piece. I've lodged my complaint both at DTV and here. I've emailed the president. I've thoroughly explained the situation from my perspective. I've explained it is important to me and how I use DTV. I apologize to anyone who thinks I'm not using DTV's service properly but I pay my bill every month. There is nothing else to say.


Cheeeez, can you wait a few days until this gets put to bed???? You are making an ocean out of a glass of water&#8230;&#8230;.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Take it from the bulk of us.
This will be over before you feel it.
I is unfair business politics for public display on both sides.

And we should never be involved.
Because we are, just adds to the lack of corporate respect they fight so hard to uphold.


rbmcgee said:


> I've said my piece. I've lodged my complaint both at DTV and here. I've emailed the president. I've thoroughly explained the situation from my perspective. I've explained it is important to me and how I use DTV. I apologize to anyone who thinks I'm not using DTV's service properly but I pay my bill every month. There is nothing else to say.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I am missing something. I type in say 4-1 and I go directly to my 4-1 OTA channel. no dash puts me on the sat version. I take it your channel is listed as 3.1 in the guide for both ota and the sat feed?


rbmcgee said:


> I've said my piece. I've lodged my complaint both at DTV and here. I've emailed the president. I've thoroughly explained the situation from my perspective. I've explained it is important to me and how I use DTV. I apologize to anyone who thinks I'm not using DTV's service properly but I pay my bill every month. There is nothing else to say.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> I am missing something. I type in say 4-1 and I go directly to my 4-1 OTA channel. no dash puts me on the sat version. I take it your channel is listed as 3.1 in the guide for both ota and the sat feed?


No, he's using various types of 3rd party computer DVRs;

See his post here: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/213483-raycom-media-negotiating-with-directv/?p=3286770

With what I gather has A/V connections to the computers from DIRECTV STB receivers controlled by IR blasters.

When the Raycom dispute arrived DIRECTV regrettably placed a "nag screen" with the same OTA channel number, 13-1 his local Raycom NBC outlet station in this case, explaining the outage. This though interferes with the computer's ability to directly tune to this station to record a show, but only goes to the nag screen instead now.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> I've said my piece. I've lodged my complaint both at DTV and here. I've emailed the president. I've thoroughly explained the situation from my perspective. I've explained it is important to me and how I use DTV. I apologize to anyone who thinks I'm not using DTV's service properly but I pay my bill every month. There is nothing else to say.


Honest question. You said you were going to leave Directv. Which carrier will factor in your DVR software into the decisions they make, whether on a technical or policy standpoint? Because that truly is what you need. Otherwise you may run into another issue down the line.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> No, he's using various types of 3rd party computer DVRs;
> 
> See his post here: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/213483-raycom-media-negotiating-with-directv/?p=3286770
> 
> ...


Does DIRECTV now have two 13.1 then? And do they also have a nag screen on 13 itself now?

I am Surprised this matters at all for him as I would have expected him to have a over the air tuner for his computer with all that he has and just use that for recording 13.1 and skip DIRECTV entirely for over the air recording all the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hidefman (Dec 16, 2006)

rbmcgee said:


> Channel "13" (NBC for me), as of last night, is off the air w/ the explanation screen in its place
> 
> Let me address a couple points in this post:
> You are correct, the computer is no longer able to record channel "13.1". I became aware of this issue when I tried to watch something I recorded on "13.1" and all I got was 30 minutes of DTV logo and music. It took some thinking and investigating but I realized what DTV had done. That led to the phone call. Even though I have an OTA feed of NBC, nothing can be recorded from it.
> ...


Assuming you have an antenna and OTA already set-up...Go into your favorites and add 13-1 to your favorites list. you may have to channel up once to get to the real 13-1. If recording, just make sure you're on the real OTA channel or choose the real 13-1 in your guide once your have added it to your favorites. when this is all resolved, you can go back and change things back to the way you had it....


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Does DIRECTV now have two 13.1 then? And do they also have a nag screen on 13 itself now?
> 
> I am Surprised this matters at all for him as I would have expected him to have a over the air tuner for his computer with all that he has and just use that for recording 13.1 and skip DIRECTV entirely for over the air recording all the time.


About a month ago, Raycom stations started running crawls and commercials about the negotiations. DirecTV added a channel to let people know how to get THEIR side of the story.

My local Raycom stations are on DirecTV as channel 10 (NBC) and 11 (ABC). DirecTV added the special channel screen on 10-1.

He should have two 13.1 channels now. The DirecTV delivered sat channel and the OTA feed.

DirecTV has another screen on the Raycom stations themselves, but they've KEPT the guide data for those stations for some reason.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> About a month ago, Raycom stations started running crawls and commercials about the negotiations. DirecTV added a channel to let people know how to get THEIR side of the story.
> 
> My local Raycom stations are on DirecTV as channel 10 (NBC) and 11 (ABC). DirecTV added the special channel screen on 10-1.
> 
> ...


Sorry for your Pain- But for myself they could pull all the locals off and I'd be fine with  It would save me $3 a month after all is said and done - NO matter What the real saving would be


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

WestDC said:


> Sorry for your Pain- But for myself they could pull all the locals off and I'd be fine with  It would save me $3 a month after all is said and done - NO matter What the real saving would be


I'm not sure WHY you responded this way to my quote, but to each their own.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> About a month ago, Raycom stations started running crawls and commercials about the negotiations. DirecTV added a channel to let people know how to get THEIR side of the story.


I may have posted this before, but same situations here (Charlotte) - only Ch 3 (CBS) from Raycom. The crazy part is every time I checked the 3.1, it had and continues to have nothing but a Directv logo and music.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> I may have posted this before, but same situations her - only Ch 3 (CBS) from Raycom. The crazy part is every time I checked the 3.1, it had and continues to have nothing but a Directv logo and music.


Same here. You'd think they'd at least duplicate the screen they're showing on the sat delivered channel.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Well, for me here in the Richmond, VA area, this whole Raycom thing is a non event. I did watch their local news as well as NBC National news but just switched over to the CBS station for news and as far as the upcoming TV season, Blacklist is the only show I watch on NBC and we can get that from the On Demand channel so don't miss that either. If I find I like the CBS news I may just stay there and not go back to the WWBT the Raycom station.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

And we just had the General Manager of Ch 3 speaking to the Directv customers!! If that many have OTA (I do but nobody I know with Directv in this area does. . .) to see the 'Please call Directv and express your concern about losing their signal') they're whistling in the wind, so to speak.

And customers that can see this plea, don't care! More whistling!

I'd bet there are more customers seeing this channel via Directv than OTA. Not counting other carriers. Particularly in the mountains here, antennas can't be mounted high enough if you're behind one.

Hard to believe they're asking for an increase.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> And we just had the General Manager of Ch 3 speaking to the Directv customers!! If that many have OTA (I do but nobody I know with Directv in this area does. . .) to see the 'Please call Directv and express your concern about losing their signal') they're whistling in the wind, so to speak.
> 
> And customers that can see this plea, don't care! More whistling!
> 
> ...


I think that the local station has an employee speaking to DirecTV customers on a video they posted on their website. Raycom has one as well.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I think that the local station has an employee speaking to DirecTV customers on a video they posted on their website. Raycom has one as well.


Y, pretty much the same spiel for the local channel, just not the GM over the air. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any comment area on their website, just contacts.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> Y, pretty much the same spiel for the local channel, just not the GM over the air. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any comment area on their website, just contacts.


Try their Facebook page. I've been quite vocal on the local affiliate's page. After last year's dispute with DISH Network, most people are placing blame on Raycom more than DirecTV.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

The Facebook page for the local Raycom station, WWBT channel 12, are overwhelming in their support for D* in this and very few are expressing support for Raycom. Many are just the "Bring back my 12 News kind of posts".


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

The office of the President sent me a reply. Unfortunately they neither read the email, visited this thread, nor understand the issue.

Here is their response and my original email (basically a reprint of my first post in this thread on page 3).

Good afternoon Mr. McGee,

I am writing in response to your recent email concerning the crawl on channel 13. On behalf of DIRECTV, I apologize for any frustration and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The crawl that you see is 99.9% of the time not DIRECTV's doing. Generally, the only crawl we'd put on the screen is if we are testing a particular channel. Messages regarding potential loss of programming is something the station is doing in an attempt to make customers contact their cable/satellite provider and voice their unhappiness about the situation, thus regardless of how you're accessing the station, you will see the crawl. We do not control the content and are not the ones who would be shutting the station down during carriage contract disputes. That's the sole decision of the station's owners.

I hope this helps clarify your concern and the issue is resolved very soon.

Have a great rest of your day.

Sincerely,

Mehmed
DIRECTV Office of the President
DIRECTV (09/02/2014 01:11 PM)
I have an antenna and use an AM21. I view all local channels from the antenna rather than the directv feeds

I live in Indy and NBC/DTV are threatening to shut off service. For me, NBC is channel 13. As you probably know, if you press "13" on the remote, you go to the DTV feed of NBC. If you press "13.1" you go to the OTA feed of NBC. In DTV infinite wisdom, for the past few days, they have a nag screen on "13.1" talking about the possible disruption. Now I have 2 "13.1" stations. One is the nag screen and one is the OTA feed. Unfortunately the default choice is the nag screen and there is nothing I can do about that. So to get to the OTA channel I either have to choose it from the guide (which I never, ever, ever do) or have to "channel up" after you input "13.1".

This is extremely inconvenient when watching TV, but it is impossible for the computers that do the recording (ie, DVRs) to be able to handle.

Why in the world would you put a nag screen on "13.1" when the people who are going to be affected watch "13" and the people who watch "13.1" will "not" be affected.

I'm participating in a thread at DBSTalk. Here is a link to my first post in the thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/213483-raycom-media-negotiating-with-directv/?p=3286305


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> The office of the President sent me a reply. Unfortunately they neither read the email, visited this thread, nor understand the issue.
> 
> Here is their response and my original email (basically a reprint of my first post in this thread on page 3).
> 
> ...


It took us a few posts to understand that your problem wasn't related to Directv equipment. So give them some slack!

I am currently watching 3.1 (same as your 'problem' on 13.1) and it watches / records fine.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Try their Facebook page. I've been quite vocal on the local affiliate's page. After last year's dispute with DISH Network, most people are placing blame on Raycom more than DirecTV.


I don't do Facebook.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> It took us a few posts to understand that your problem wasn't related to Directv equipment. So give them some slack!
> 
> I am currently watching 3.1 (same as your 'problem' on 13.1) and it watches / records fine.


This problem is 100% related to DTV equipment/decisions.

If I pick up my remote, point it at the box, type in "13.1", the box does not tune to the OTA feed of channel 13 (like it should and always has.) That's the problem.

Now how big of a problem is that? How inconvenient is that for me? I say it's extremely inconvenient. Others seem to disagree. Why do I consider that problem to be huge inconvenience and others blow it off as a minor issue? Please pause here and read carefully - Once again, we are no longer talking about if there is a problem, we are now talking about the level of inconvenience. The problem has been established.

Picking up a remote and choosing "13.1" and having to then push the "channel up" button creates a unnecessary and unwanted extra step. Plus this also screws up "GoBack" or "Previous Channel" toggle because you end up bouncing between a nag screen and the OTA channel. I consider this more of an inconvenience that others, although I'm actually having to deal with it and they, for the most part, are not.

I would not have started this issue if the level of inconvenience due to this problem was exclusively related to the above described TV watching.

I use computers to do the recording rather than DTV's DVR. These computers can send any channel number to the box that I want them to. They can't, however, choose a program from the guide and they can't do what a person could do get to the correct "13.1". The person should not have to do this anyway.

This reality does not create the problem, this reality helps people understand why I would find this problem a larger inconvenience than they might.

THIS PROBLEM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT TOOLS I USE TO RECORD!!!!

This simply increases the inconvenience. The problem is 100% caused by DTV.

On top of all that, there is absolutely no benefit to anybody to have a DTV logO and music as the default choice for ".1"


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> This problem is 100% related to DTV equipment/decisions.
> 
> If I pick up my remote, point it at the box, type in "13.1", the box does not tune to the OTA feed of channel 13 (like it should and always has.) That's the problem.
> 
> ...


I use to have a SONY Tivo that used IR blasters on a Directv receiver. It was neat, but occasionally wouldn't record the correct program. I didn't complain to Directv because the Sony recorder missed it.

As others have posted, you just don't get it.

If it's not your recorders, then just pull up the guide and select the program you want. . . but that's probably a few more inconvenient keystrokes than 13.1 and a ch up!


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I use to have a SONY Tivo that used IR blasters on a Directv receiver. It was neat, but occasionally wouldn't record the correct program. I didn't complain to Directv because the Sony recorder missed it.
> 
> As others have posted, you just don't get it.
> 
> If it's not your recorders, then just pull up the guide and select the program you want. . . but that's probably a few more inconvenient keystrokes than 13.1 and a ch up!


BTW, I don't use IR blasters of any kind and haven't even held a DTV remote in years. I've got a box of them somewhere but, if I had to, it would take me a while to even find them. All box commands (channels, on/off, etc/etc/etc) are sent across the network. I can change a channel on any of my boxes from the couch or from a hotel in London (not that there's any real benefit to that) . That way there is never a missed "catch", speed of button presses is irrelevant and response is instantaneous.

I should not have to pull up the guide to choose a channel. I should not have to press channel up after typing in "13.1". I should be able to type in a channel and have the box take me there. Due to a terrible decision on DTV's part, they have made that impossible


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> BTW, I don't use IR blasters of any kind and haven't even held a DTV remote in years. I've got a box of them somewhere but, if I had to, it would take me a while to even find them. All box commands (channels, on/off, etc/etc/etc) are sent across the network. I can change a channel on any of my boxes from the couch or from a hotel in London (not that there's any real benefit to that) . That way there is never a missed "catch", speed of button presses is irrelevant and response is instantaneous.
> 
> I should not have to pull up the guide to choose a channel. I should not have to press channel up after typing in "13.1". I should be able to type in a channel and have the box take me there. Due to a terrible decision on DTV's part, they have made that impossible


So inconvenient!! Pages ago, it was your recorders weren't working right. Now it's your super-duper remote that you have to press one more key!!

As Judge Judy would say, "I should have been 5'8",but I'm not. . . remember, this is temporary and next week you won't be posting about such an inconvenience!


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> So inconvenient!! Pages ago, it was your recorders weren't working right. Now it's your super-duper remote that you have to press one more key!!
> 
> As Judge Judy would say, "I should have been 5'8",but I'm not. . . remember, this is temporary and next week you won't be posting about such an inconvenience!


This is a repeating issue and there is absolutely no way to tell how long this will last.

The problem in specific:

DTV has decided when there is a contract dispute between themselves and one of the broadcast networks, DTV is going to create a new channel that has a DTV logo and music. In a time before the disruption occurs and, best that I can tell, throughout the disruption, they are going to place that channel at ".1" of the channel that's in dispute and they are going to make this new channel, the default.

If DTV wants to keep my business, they have to change this decision

It almost seems like they are intentionally trying trying to discourage OTA because they think it will improve their bargaining position.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> This is a repeating issue and there is absolutely no way to tell how long this will last.
> 
> The problem in specific:
> 
> ...


I repeat again. . . you have to remember OTA is a very SMALL % of Directv customers and even a smaller revenue item - almost NIL. They do provide a AM21 for $50 and if you have a HR20 it does OTA. Again VERY, VERY small percentages.

Also, remember not all markets have sub-channels carried by DirecTV. It's possible the person that set up the .1 local channels has no idea that there was .1 channels in some markets. And it will be low on their list to change since they're not really in the OTA market!

It's obvious from this thread that OTA isn't a big concern.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

rbmcgee said:


> This is a repeating issue and there is absolutely no way to tell how long this will last.
> 
> The problem in specific:
> 
> ...


why do they have to change for you what makes you special not everybody who has a 13 has a 13-1 and I bet that if you was using Dtv equipment to record you would successfully record the 13-1 and not the info screen


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> Also, remember not all markets have sub-channels carried by DirecTV. It's possible the person that set up the .1 local channels has no idea that there was .1 channels in some markets.


Pretty much every market has multiple .1 channels, but otherwise, +1


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

boukengreen said:


> why do they have to change for you what makes you special not everybody who has a 13 has a 13-1 and I bet that if you was using Dtv equipment to record you would successfully record the 13-1 and not the info screen


I'd bet that a DirecTV supported setup would record correctly. I haven't tried it as there's been nothing to record that interested me.


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I repeat again. . . you have to remember OTA is a very SMALL % of Directv customers and even a smaller revenue item - almost NIL. They do provide a AM21 for $50 and if you have a HR20 it does OTA. Again VERY, VERY small percentages.
> 
> Also, remember not all markets have sub-channels carried by DirecTV. It's possible the person that set up the .1 local channels has no idea that there was .1 channels in some markets. And it will be low on their list to change since they're not really in the OTA market!
> 
> It's obvious from this thread that OTA isn't a big concern.


It's unfortunate, but if DTV has decided that they no longer want to provide the service I require, I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. That's how the marketplace works. If you don't like a Ford, buy a Chevy


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

rbmcgee said:


> It's unfortunate, but if DTV has decided that they no longer want to provide the service I require, I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. That's how the marketplace works. If you don't like a Ford, buy a Chevy


Sure, vote with your wallet.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

rbmcgee said:


> It's unfortunate, but if DTV has decided that they no longer want to provide the service I require, I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. That's how the marketplace works. If you don't like a Ford, buy a Chevy


May your Chevy work well for you...


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I'd bet that a DirecTV supported setup would record correctly. I haven't tried it as there's been nothing to record that interested me.


A few (FEW) posts back, I confirmed that anything scheduled on 3.1 recorded properly on my HR20s. Doing that since Sunday before it was pulled.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> It's unfortunate, but if DTV has decided that they no longer want to provide the service I require, I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. That's how the marketplace works. If you don't like a Ford, buy a Chevy


You said that several pages ago. . . may the Chevy be with you!


----------



## rbmcgee (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> You said that several pages ago. . . may the Chevy be with you!


There seems to be quite a few posters who think I'm wrong or foolish or both or who think this should be no big deal to me or think I should get over it and I guess stay w/ DTV. I don't exactly understand where they are coming from. They seem to think I owe something to DTV.

Actually, it's a pretty juvenile crowd.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

For those of you tired of the blackouts year after year, read up on this. A bipartisan attempt at the US Senate to solve some of these problems.

If you agree or disagree, you may wish to let your voice be heard with your US Senator.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/choice-words-local-choice/133163

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/capital-letters/local-choice-simple-solution-end-broadcast-tv-blackouts-once-and-all/383134

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/atva-cbs-radio-rejects-local-choice-ad/133527


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

NR4P said:


> For those of you tired of the blackouts year after year, read up on this. A bipartisan attempt at the US Senate to solve some of these problems.
> 
> If you agree or disagree, you may wish to let your voice be heard with your US Senator.
> 
> ...


Back to the real reason of this thread, looks interesting!


----------



## bigglebowski (Jul 27, 2010)

Always love when I find this out for the first time when playing a DVR recording and it's WAY too late to improvise an antenna.

Thanks Raycom/Directv

And before replying with "It's not their fault" _*I KNOW*_, it's mine.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

NR4P said:


> For those of you tired of the blackouts year after year, read up on this. A bipartisan attempt at the US Senate to solve some of these problems.
> 
> If you agree or disagree, you may wish to let your voice be heard with your US Senator.
> 
> ...


Isn't this just a la carte?

Would be nice to try this with sports channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> Pretty much every market has multiple .1 channels, but otherwise, +1


Pretty much? It would be difficult to find a digital station that didn't have a .1 feed. And difficult to find a market that did not have multiple stations. .1 channels OTA are ubiquitous.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

James Long said:


> Pretty much? It would be difficult to find a digital station that didn't have a .1 feed. And difficult to find a market that did not have multiple stations. .1 channels OTA are ubiquitous.


I'll admit that "pretty much" wasn't the best choice of words.

A neighboring station of mine was a .2 feed *only* station for a while. I think that has changed recently.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Alan Gordon said:


> I'd bet that a DirecTV supported setup would record correctly. I haven't tried it as there's been nothing to record that interested me.


yep this dudes problem is that he is using a non-DIRECTV supported set up and blaming DirecTV for everything


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

boukengreen said:


> yep this dudes problem is that he is using a non-DIRECTV supported set up and blaming DirecTV for everything


+10000 :righton:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> May your Chevy work well for you...


Maybe because I'm watching Star Wars IV, but "may the Fords be with you?"


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rbmcgee said:


> It's unfortunate, but if DTV has decided that they no longer want to provide the service I require, I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. That's how the marketplace works. If you don't like a Ford, buy a Chevy


I think I asked in another thread, but which provider will factor your equipment into their technical or policy decisions? Unless you go purely OTA of course.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

rbmcgee said:


> There seems to be quite a few posters who think I'm wrong or foolish or both or who think this should be no big deal to me or think I should get over it and I guess stay w/ DTV. I don't exactly understand where they are coming from. They seem to think I owe something to DTV.
> 
> Actually, it's a pretty juvenile crowd.


Who is saying you "owe something" to Directv? If you're this unhappy, cancel and sign up with a cable company. But cable receivers don't support OTA, so you're going to have to do what you should have done in the first place, and have your DVRs use their tuner to record a perfect digital copy directly off your antenna instead of passing through a receiver and giving up quality.

I don't understand why you would use Directv to record OTA with a third party DVR. Don't any of your DVRs have a built in ATSC tuner? If not, why didn't you buy a better DVR when you have three different brands? You can buy an iView 3500 for under $40, add your own hard drive, and record off its ATSC tuner without involving Directv at all. This is what you're going to have to do if you cancel Directv and go with cable, because exactly ZERO cable companies integrate OTA into their receivers.

If you have a poorly thought out setup and want to blame Directv for your failure to come up with the best solution, that's your right. But acting like it is the end of the world is another matter. And if you think it is the end of the world, call up Directv first thing tomorrow and cancel. You'll be glad you did.


----------



## Helidoc (Jan 7, 2012)

NR4P said:


> For those of you tired of the blackouts year after year, read up on this. A bipartisan attempt at the US Senate to solve some of these problems.
> 
> If you agree or disagree, you may wish to let your voice be heard with your US Senator.
> 
> ...


I've been posting about this for a bit via facebook and a few other places and glad to see someone bring it up here. My only regret with this latest round of the Raycom/D* blackout is that I did not have a AM21 set up to receive the stations I lost, though that will be solved tomorrow as soon as it arrives via UPS. Working away from home I DVR just about everything. :bang Live and learn.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rbmcgee said:


> BTW, I don't use IR blasters of any kind and haven't even held a DTV remote in years. I've got a box of them somewhere but, if I had to, it would take me a while to even find them. All box commands (channels, on/off, etc/etc/etc) are sent across the network. I can change a channel on any of my boxes from the couch or from a hotel in London (not that there's any real benefit to that) . That way there is never a missed "catch", speed of button presses is irrelevant and response is instantaneous.
> 
> I should not have to pull up the guide to choose a channel. I should not have to press channel up after typing in "13.1". I should be able to type in a channel and have the box take me there. Due to a terrible decision on DTV's part, they have made that impossible


First off this is really Raycoms fault. I blame them to be 95% at fault DirecTV at 3% and you at 2%.

The reality is you use a system that I bet not even 100 people out of their 20 million customers use.

I have a couple suggestions on how to get around the issue at this time. First off I would assume you have an over the air tuner on your computer system. Use that And not your am21. I would do that anyway as it would probably be more reliable. Plus Id suspect you could record multiple channels at once this way.

Next can you set your thing to record whatever signal is on from any given timeto any given time? If so you have timer ability on these receivers. You can set it to go to a certain channel at a certain time based on the guide data for a program. you might give that a shot by going into the guide data choosing a program on the second 13-1 and telling the receiver to tune to that station at whatever time a program starts that you want and then simply have your computers begin recording at that time whatever signal it's getting. It sets up just like a recording on a directv dvr but tunes instead of records basically.

I take it you can't program your Computer to hit the channel up or the channel down button?

What shows are you missing that you wanted to record? Maybe you can get them from the on-demand options. Not likely if it's your local news but any of the primetime series you should be able to.

I can barely blame directv for this simply because you may actually be the only person this is truly affecting adversely. There's probably a couple others but so few it's hard to see in issue with it. And in your market you may truly be the only one. One thing they're trying to do in my opinion by having 13 - one show a nag screen as well as a 13 - one for the actual channel is to make sure the people that use over the air and not the satellite channel also see the nag screen and understand and know what's goingon with the channel at this time. That's simply called propaganda and marketing which both are doing.

As Memory recalls there is also a law in place at this point where the scroll at the bottom of the screen and nag screens must exist for channels that are involved in disputes like this. I don't know that this particular issue is caused by that law but I wouldn't dismiss it. It's too bad they can't have a - zero channelthat would fix this whole issue.

And I can completely understand why they don't understand what you're having an issue with. There's very few that would get it because yours is as I said before probably the only one that has the issue with this particular dispute. I would probably reply and explain to them that it doesn't appear that they understood your actual issue. And that you don't have an issue with the channel being taken off satellite but rather simply the placement of the next screen and ask if maybe the next screen could be moved to channel 13-2 or 13-0 and that that in and of itself would solve your issue.

I still think the best answer is for you to use an over the air tuner in your computers to record the over the air station. Can you tell us why you can't do that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

rbmcgee said:


> This problem is 100% related to DTV equipment/decisions.
> 
> If I pick up my remote, point it at the box, type in "13.1", the box does not tune to the OTA feed of channel 13 (like it should and always has.) That's the problem.
> 
> ...


I totally understand why your angry and not saying you shouldn't be as your setup has worked in the past but you have a very complicated setup, way over complicated than it truly needs to be if you ask me.... but hey who my to judge. Basically what the other posters are saying is your issue is very very unique to you and maybe you alone... 
You are not using directv as it was intended to be used, which is your right.... just need to step back and realize what that implies.

And again you have a right to be angry but I think it's misplaced.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Yep the local CBS here in Cleveland. They're threatening to pull the signal this weekend.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> Yep the local CBS here in Cleveland. They're threatening to pull the signal this weekend.


Wait, you're still getting CBS? It should have been pulled with the rest.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Wait, you're still getting CBS? It should have been pulled with the rest.


Actually I'm not sure as I hardly watch CBS. Only for football and Big Bang Theory do I watch that network. I guess it's off now that I read through the thread


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'd never heard of one station of a group staying up, but figured anything was possible.

Fortunately in Cincinnati, our Raycom is Fox. We have one game scheduled for that network, and I'm betting this will be over well before that.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was back by Sunday.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I think I asked in another thread, but which provider will factor your equipment into their technical or policy decisions? Unless you go purely OTA of course.


Well, I know of none that provide an integrated "cable"/OTA solution other than DirecTV.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

I was thinking of getting the AM21 but having read here that they have messed with the .1 channels and what the computer records is the D* nag screen and there is no way to get the system to record the proper OTA signal, so did not move. Anyway, if this is still going on once the new season of shows starts, can get Blacklist via on demand.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Who is saying you "owe something" to Directv? If you're this unhappy, cancel and sign up with a cable company. But cable receivers don't support OTA, so you're going to have to do what you should have done in the first place, and have your DVRs use their tuner to record a perfect digital copy directly off your antenna instead of passing through a receiver and giving up quality.
> 
> I don't understand why you would use Directv to record OTA with a third party DVR. Don't any of your DVRs have a built in ATSC tuner? If not, why didn't you buy a better DVR when you have three different brands? You can buy an iView 3500 for under $40, add your own hard drive, and record off its ATSC tuner without involving Directv at all. This is what you're going to have to do if you cancel Directv and go with cable, because exactly ZERO cable companies integrate OTA into their receivers.
> 
> If you have a poorly thought out setup and want to blame Directv for your failure to come up with the best solution, that's your right. But acting like it is the end of the world is another matter. And if you think it is the end of the world, call up Directv first thing tomorrow and cancel. You'll be glad you did.


I think if all your receivers get ota, then you should be allowed to drop locals to save money,

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

seern said:


> I was thinking of getting the AM21 but having read here that they have messed with the .1 channels and what the computer records is the D* nag screen and there is no way to get the system to record the proper OTA signal, so did not move. Anyway, if this is still going on once the new season of shows starts, can get Blacklist via on demand.


DirecTV DVRs with an AM21 (or the HR20 with the tuner built in) receiving the channel via an OTA antenna will record the CORRECT channel.

Unsupported equipment most likely will not.

You should be safe.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

seern said:


> I was thinking of getting the AM21 but having read here that they have messed with the .1 channels and what the computer records is the D* nag screen and there is no way to get the system to record the proper OTA signal, so did not move. Anyway, if this is still going on once the new season of shows starts, can get Blacklist via on demand.


Sharon, as Alan says above no problem with the AM21 or HR20s. I'm using an HR20 to catch CBS until the debacle is over. It's recorded everything perfectly.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Thanks guys, I was going by earlier discussions related to confusion of the system over the x.1 sub channels. With some posters saying they had set the AM21 to record something and got the "nag screen".


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

seern said:


> Thanks guys, I was going by earlier discussions related to confusion of the system over the x.1 sub channels. With some posters saying they had set the AM21 to record something and got the "nag screen".


If you use the guide to record a program the AM21 works fine. If you set up a recording manually then the .1 is going to default to the nag channel.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

NR4P said:


> If you use the guide to record a program the AM21 works fine. If you set up a recording manually then the .1 is going to default to the nag channel.


Thanks, I always set up recordings using the guide so will order one. With my luck as soon as it arrives they will settle.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

seern said:


> Thanks, I always set up recordings using the guide so will order one. With my luck as soon as it arrives they will settle.


But then you will get subchannels. If you get good OTA reception, the AM21 is a good thing.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Just installed my am21 on my hr34 today and it's working great...


----------



## Helidoc (Jan 7, 2012)

AM21n came in today installed easy on the hr34 was able to set up some of my recordings on the OTA chans that were missing since Raycom went dark and was surprised that the quality was a bit better than was I was getting before. Could be my old eyes playing tricks. Either way I'm happy and don't have to deal with this. Was even surprised with a few channels that were not on my D* locals that were sub channels with different programming and in HD win all the way around and worth the money spent.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I just want the people, who receive more of my money than my power company every month, to be able to tune me into another FOX affiliate during the outage.
The ability should be available to watch the National networks during the pi**ing contests these companies get into with our local affiliates.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

armophob said:


> I just want the people, who receive more of my money than my power company every month, to be able to tune me into another FOX affiliate during the outage.
> The ability should be available to watch the National networks during the pi**ing contests these companies get into with our local affiliates.


Except that it wouldn't be much of a "pi**ing contest" for one side if this were allowed is the problem.

The local TV stations would lose almost total bargaining leverage in any dispute with the MVPDs. They know the network programming they outlet is the real jewel in the crown and what people mainly watch them for. Not their local originated programs except for maybe their newscasts primarily during local emergencies.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

usnret said:


> Just installed my am21 on my hr34 today and it's working great...





Helidoc said:


> AM21n came in today installed easy on the hr34 was able to set up some of my recordings on the OTA chans that were missing since Raycom went dark and was surprised that the quality was a bit better than was I was getting before. Could be my old eyes playing tricks. Either way I'm happy and don't have to deal with this. Was even surprised with a few channels that were not on my D* locals that were sub channels with different programming and in HD win all the way around and worth the money spent.


Glad to hear these ....

And consider yourselves fortunate since the local station database the AM21 relies upon is way out of date and stop being updated by DIRECTV a long time ago. Leading a number to derisively refer to it as the "shAM21." 

The popular "out of market/wrong guide info." workaround trick notwithstanding.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

seern said:


> Thanks, I always set up recordings using the guide so will order one. With my luck as soon as it arrives they will settle.


Today, it's Raycom Media, but next month it could be one of your other stations. There's nothing wrong with being prepared. 

I'm not as big on sub-channels as some are, but MeTV does have a lot of good programming. The only two sub-channels I really care about personally though is ABC and The CW, and DirecTV carries both (not ABC at the moment since it's Raycom, and sadly DirecTV only offers The CW in SD, but I can't receive it OTA, so it's better than nothing).


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> Except that it wouldn't be much of a "pi**ing contest" for one side if this were allowed is the problem.
> 
> The local TV stations would lose almost total bargaining leverage in any dispute with the MVPDs. They know the network programming they outlet is the real jewel in the crown and what people mainly watch them for. Not their local originated programs except for maybe their newscasts primarily during local emergencies.


Yeah, when this whole thing began, I remember wondering if DirecTV would import a "Significantly Viewed" ABC into my county, and then I remembered that that SV station was a Raycom station as well... !rolling


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

I'm surprised DTV isn't importing Birmingham NBC to the Huntsville DMA because I don't think that one is owned by Raycom


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Today, it's Raycom Media, but next month it could be one of your other stations. There's nothing wrong with being prepared.
> 
> I'm not as big on sub-channels as some are, but MeTV does have a lot of good programming. The only two sub-channels I really care about personally though is ABC and The CW, and DirecTV carries both (not ABC at the moment since it's Raycom, and sadly DirecTV only offers The CW in SD, but I can't receive it OTA, so it's better than nothing).


Oddly enough, in all the years I've been with DirecTV, a dispute has never ended up actually affecting me (Hearst, Sinclair, Scripps and Raycom). A lot of other subscribers probably have a similar experience.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Oddly enough, in all the years I've been with DirecTV, a dispute has never ended up actually affecting me (Hearst, Sinclair, Scripps and Raycom). A lot of other subscribers probably have a similar experience.


I've never been affected either for locals. The closest was a Sinclair dispute that put stupid banners on my screen, but they settled before it went off the air.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Another tip for people - If you have cable for internet like TWC or Comcast and your tv has QAM like most do, run coax from the cable line to your tv and scan. Locals are almost always unencrypted. You can't record to your DVR, but you can watch live.


----------



## CincySaint (Jan 16, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Oddly enough, in all the years I've been with DirecTV, a dispute has never ended up actually affecting me (Hearst, Sinclair, Scripps and Raycom). A lot of other subscribers probably have a similar experience.


Same here probably because I watch virtually no network (Big 4) TV. But this year as fate would have it, Fox is showing the Saints-Falcons game in 50% of the US and it's on a Raycom station here in Cincy. So I'm blacked out despite my Sunday Ticket subscription. Urgh!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Oddly enough, in all the years I've been with DirecTV, a dispute has never ended up actually affecting me (Hearst, Sinclair, Scripps and Raycom). A lot of other subscribers probably have a similar experience.


DirecTV launched my locals four years ago, so this is the first time I've experienced one.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Another tip for people - If you have cable for internet like TWC or Comcast and your tv has QAM like most do, run coax from the cable line to your tv and scan. Locals are al


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

'Ceptin' the



sigma1914 said:


> Another tip for people - If you have cable for internet like TWC or Comcast and your tv has QAM like most do, run coax from the cable line to your tv and scan. Locals are almost always unencrypted. You can't record to your DVR, but you can watch live.


Comcast "fixed" this oversight in the East Bay of SF about six months ago. The box they send for free does only SD. Fortunately, I can get OTA in the apartment at the West window.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> 'Ceptin' the
> 
> Comcast "fixed" this oversight in the East Bay of SF about six months ago. The box they send for free does only SD. Fortunately, I can get OTA in the apartment at the West window.


I think Mediacom in my market has done something similar as well.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Another tip for people - If you have cable for internet like TWC or Comcast and your tv has QAM like most do, run coax from the cable line to your tv and scan. Locals are almost always unencrypted. You can't record to your DVR, but you can watch live.


Got TWC internet here;

But years ago when they were Comcast, a tech installed a band reject filter on my drop line at the customer tap-off on the phone pole to block what was then just analog basic broadcast channels when I didn't want to pay for them.

It's been that way ever since and apparently, assuming there are any, it's blocking any unencrypted QAM channels too since I cannot receive any of them either.

And yes I note the irony. It was Comcast who originally did this, and it soon may become Comcast again here if the merger is approved.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> I've never been affected either for locals. The closest was a Sinclair dispute that put stupid banners on my screen, but they settled before it went off the air.


Same here, The only blackout I have experienced with DirecTV® is the Viacom channels, I used the interwebs to catch on missed episodes...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> I've never been affected either for locals. The closest was a Sinclair dispute that put stupid banners on my screen, but they settled before it went off the air.


Almost a perfect record here in L.A.

Just a brief two day (I think) outage of our local CW station KTLA-5 during the dispute with Tribune a while back.

Easily received it through the AM21 though. And retention even sent me another one free for one of my other DVRs, though the dispute ended the same day as the delivery.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

CincySaint said:


> Same here probably because I watch virtually no network (Big 4) TV. But this year as fate would have it, Fox is showing the Saints-Falcons game in 50% of the US and it's on a Raycom station here in Cincy. So I'm blacked out despite my Sunday Ticket subscription. Urgh!


Yeah, I have a friend that was talking about watching the Browns game and I nervously checked the schedule. Was relieved when I saw that no Browns games were scheduled for WXIX. My wife watches the Bengals games, but even on the off chance they don't resolve it in October, she probably wouldn't miss it too much.


----------



## Vinny* (May 18, 2008)

seern said:


> I was thinking of getting the AM21 but having read here that they have messed with the .1 channels and what the computer records is the D* nag screen and there is no way to get the system to record the proper OTA signal, so did not move. Anyway, if this is still going on once the new season of shows starts, can get Blacklist via on demand.


Sharon

Problem is NBC12 is the hardest signal for me to get with an indoor antenna. Hows your reception?


----------



## gilbert_c (Apr 6, 2006)

Ya well, who's lying? DTV or RayCom. One of them is lying. Reminds me of the old tongue twister: A skunk sat on a stump, the shunk said the stump stunk and the stump said the skunk stunk. If you ask me, they both stink. I left Dish because they did the same thing with FX and a couple other favorites. I'll be damned if I'll go back to Dish or Cox Cable. So, I guess I'll just have to badmouth DTV and see what I can get out of them. DTV is doing the same thing with the PAC12 Network, (which also sucks) but at least we'd be able to get more of the games. RayCom has been out since the 10:00 news last Friday. The bad thing is, DTV is still getting the feeds from RayCom's channel 13 that we're still paying for. Thanks a lot.....for nothing!


----------



## gilbert_c (Apr 6, 2006)

Trouble is, the big boys have us all by the short hairs. If there was only another option. Same with the internet.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sounds like there are no good guys in your world.


----------



## CincySaint (Jan 16, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Yeah, I have a friend that was talking about watching the Browns game and I nervously checked the schedule. Was relieved when I saw that no Browns games were scheduled for WXIX. My wife watches the Bengals games, but even on the off chance they don't resolve it in October, she probably wouldn't miss it too much.


 Yes -- and the Cleveland CBS affiliate is a Raycom station so the locals there cannot watch their game vs. Pittsburgh!!!! Gonna be some unhappy Browns fans.

Bengal fans in Cincinnati missed a potential bullet in week 2. ATL is @ CIN so that would normally be a Fox game and therefore unavailable on Cincy's Raycom Fox station. But with the flex scheduling that game has been moved to CBS.


----------



## nyzorro99 (Aug 29, 2006)

I get my locals from Charlotte NC,went to Walmart and bought a $10 indoor antenna so i can get CBS,turned out pretty good cause I can now also get the old shows i watched growing up on METV and Antenna TV...


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

gilbert_c said:


> Ya well, who's lying? DTV or RayCom. One of them is lying. Reminds me of the old tongue twister: A skunk sat on a stump, the shunk said the stump stunk and the stump said the skunk stunk. If you ask me, they both stink. I left Dish because they did the same thing with FX and a couple other favorites. I'll be damned if I'll go back to Dish or Cox Cable. So, I guess I'll just have to badmouth DTV and see what I can get out of them. DTV is doing the same thing with the PAC12 Network, (which also sucks) but at least we'd be able to get more of the games. RayCom has been out since the 10:00 news last Friday. The bad thing is, DTV is still getting the feeds from RayCom's channel 13 that we're still paying for. Thanks a lot.....for nothing!


Not every time there is a dispute is somebody lying. What is anyone lying about? Maybe they just set a different value for the services. Sometimes it is just an honest disagreement.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> If you have cable for internet like TWC or Comcast and your tv has QAM like most do, run coax from the cable line to your tv and scan. Locals are almost always unencrypted. You can't record to your DVR, but you can watch live.


Problem with that though is if you knowingly and willingly split the incoming line and connect it to your TV that is most definitely *cable theft*; unless you're actually paying for Limited Basic or equivalent level of service through your cable company. The cable companies still pay retransmission fees just as the telco and satellite providers do.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

DirecTV says that they asked Raycom to allow broadcasting the game, but were told no.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

coolman302003 said:


> Problem with that though is if you knowingly and willingly split the incoming line and connect it to your TV that is most definitely *cable theft*; unless you're actually paying for Limited Basic or equivalent level of service through your cable company. The cable companies still pay retransmission fees just as the telco and satellite providers do.


When I had my cox Internet installed the installer actually hooked the TV up that was in the room with the modem for me so I could watch HD locals for free, he commented "we can't stop you from watching the locals for free so I will go ahead and hook this TV up for ya if you like", I said sure. Just good customer service I thought.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I know with Comcast here in this area locals through TV's QAM tuner are encrypted, Some DMA's aren't yet but will soon.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

What is "this area"? Illinois is a large state.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Chicago


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

After the FCC allowed encryption in 2012, I'd expect it to start happening.


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

This is like watching politics. You have no idea who is telling the truth but the bottom line is the consumers are getting screwed.

http://www.wistv.com/story/26454737/raycom-medias-offer-to-put-viewers-first-declined-by-directv


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

CincySaint said:


> Yes -- and the Cleveland CBS affiliate is a Raycom station so the locals there cannot watch their game vs. Pittsburgh!!!! Gonna be some unhappy Browns fans.
> 
> Bengal fans in Cincinnati missed a potential bullet in week 2. ATL is @ CIN so that would normally be a Fox game and therefore unavailable on Cincy's Raycom Fox station. But with the flex scheduling that game has been moved to CBS.


Yea the Browns fans here in Cleveland aren't too happy to say the least. But being a Raiders fan it's won't be affecting me until October when they play the Browns so hopefully the dispute is over by then.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

shy007 said:


> This is like watching politics. You have no idea who is telling the truth but the bottom line is the consumers are getting screwed.
> 
> http://www.wistv.com/story/26454737/raycom-medias-offer-to-put-viewers-first-declined-by-directv


To me, previous history of Raycom disputes is telling.


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

I have no horse in the race. All I know is I don't have my local station and the company that is saving me money is making billions in profits.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> To me, previous history of Raycom disputes is telling.


If you look at the timing, and the wording of the 2 statements, it starts to show a picture of truth (?)

Raycom's statement was that they would allow the stations to stay up as of September 1st, with a temporary agreement (most likely based on the terms that Raycom wanted out of the perm agreement, though that is not stated) and Directv declined to agree to those terms.

Directv's statement says that they asked for ONLY the football games to be let through the black out NCAA and NFL, and that after a contract was reached Directv would pay whatever rate was required based on the terms of the new contract, for any NFL and NCAA shows that were turned on during the dispute. (This offer is reasonable, and in the best interest of their customers) Raycom refused this offer.

Don't know if Directv's offer was genuine, or just PR spin to make Raycom look bad.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

shy007 said:


> I have no horse in the race. All I know is I don't have my local station and the company that is saving me money is making billions in profits.


First, you do have a horse in the race, you are a viewer of your local stations that are no on.

Without getting into it too deep... Yep, they are making billions in profits... did you expect them to be a charity? They are not a church, they are a publicly traded company (who are required BY LAW to protect their investors, and maximize their return). Their stock price supports million of investors, including the retirement funds of pensions and 401k's of teachers, cops, firemen, grocery store employees, and many, many of the 99%. If Directv's stock price drops, that brings money out of a huge number of everyday middle class people's wallets. This is truly how the world works, when the news media (also making billions) isn't shortening the story down to 6 word headlines, that catch people's attention, but don't tell anything about the story.


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

I do know how the game works and I am not upset at either party for making profits. Just frustrated but not having my station.

You hit my point, neither side is telling the story correctly. More than likely, Directv made an offer and Raycom said no and by contract the channels had to be removed. Both sides probably could have given an inch but opted not to.

Trust me, I have been with Directv since 2001 and I really love the service. This will pass and all will be forgotten.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And we can hook up OTA if we really want it. I plan to dive into looking for antennas at the end of next week if this isn't over (and I expect it will be).


----------



## shy007 (Apr 11, 2003)

I do have an antenna, it's just a little aggravating. I did use it to watch the Packers/Seahawks last night. I just hope it gets settled here real soon.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

boufa said:


> If you look at the timing, and the wording of the 2 statements, it starts to show a picture of truth (?)
> 
> Raycom's statement was that they would allow the stations to stay up as of September 1st, with a temporary agreement (most likely based on the terms that Raycom wanted out of the perm agreement, though that is not stated) and Directv declined to agree to those terms.
> 
> ...


When big name companies make public statements like that it went through an internal review. I am confident it is genuine.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

From Montgomery Advertiser article

Jeff Rosser, senior vice president at Raycom Media, said Thursday evening that DIRECTV's statement that Raycom is asking for more than twice as much in fees is true.

"That sounds like a lot, doesn't it?" he said. "Twice as much. But you have to stop and think, twice as much as what. Twice as much of a little bit can still be a little bit.

"Since we can't share the details on the fees because they are highly, highly confidential, it makes it easy for them to use that percentage to make it look like we are just being very greedy but we are not asking any more of them than we have achieved with others or asking an amount that is more than is being paid to others that are not viewed nearly as much as our over-the-air broadcast television stations or network affiliates."

Greed at it's finest.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

shy007 said:


> This is like watching politics. You have no idea who is telling the truth but the bottom line is the consumers are getting screwed.
> 
> http://www.wistv.com/story/26454737/raycom-medias-offer-to-put-viewers-first-declined-by-directv


Well, that statement is, at best, misleading. They state that Directv is somehow using this conflict to help them lock down Sunday Ticket with the NFL and if offering "free sports service" instead of allowing them to show the game, etc. Which is nonsense but the unknowing would believe it. From that statement:

*"Rather than allow the stations to be restored pending a temporary resolution, DirecTV chose to keep the stations dark and offer its customers free trials to their premium sports offerings. This comes as no surprise since DirecTV is competing with DISH Network to secure the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. This negotiation is complicated further by AT&T's pending offer to purchase DirecTV for $49 billion. According to Sports Business Journal, if DirecTV cannot close a deal with the NFL, AT&T has the right to back out of their agreement to purchase DirecTV."*


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Football be damned. Its the "Blacklist" season premiere that has me worried. (NBC-WAFF) :sure:


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Well I have an AM21 on the way so even if this drags on past the state of the new season, I will be able to get Blacklist.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

seern said:


> Well I have an AM21 on the way so even if this drags on past the state of the new season, I will be able to get Blacklist.


Not very helpful... actually kinda juvenile. Great you can watch it... Wohoo for you. Enjoy your AM21 finally paying off. This conversation is about the people who are NOT getting the service, and what is being done about it.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

What we need to do is boycott and put pressure on the local channels advertisers.

Think about it... will many of us actually leave Directv? No, because all of the providers have this problem at some time. So the few that leave will be offset by the ones that leave cable at the next dispute. So there really is nothing we can do to Directv.

Do we have any leverage with Raycom... not directly. We are only numbers to them, and not very large numbers. I guess if this continues long enough, there might be some cumulative cost to them... Directv is obviously not paying them anything right now.

So how do we use dollars to our advantage.... Contact the local advertisers... car dealerships, etc. Tell them 2 things... ask them to stand up for us viewers, we are their customers too. Ask them to take a more direct stand against the stations. After all, they are financially supporting a business who is screwing us over! Plead with them to pressure their contacts at the stations. They are also not getting their advertising money worth, since we are all cut off from their message.

The advertisers have the biggest interest in this process, and they are the ones we might be able to get on our side! Anyone got any lists of who they are?!?!


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Just got mine seem. IT'S GREAT...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

boufa said:


> Not very helpful... actually kinda juvenile. Great you can watch it... Wohoo for you. Enjoy your AM21 finally paying off. This conversation is about the people who are NOT getting the service, and what is being done about it.


While I have no sympathy for a friend of mine that didn't get an AM21 when I warned him about this happening, what people have to remember is that it is not an option for everyone.


----------



## a_greer (Jul 1, 2013)

I am fortunate enough to live in a market not impacted by this but I did get nailed when TWC had a big fight a couple years ago so I have experiance in this...and I say GO DIRECTV! Stick to your guns - I live in a hi rise apt and rabbit ears dont work, there is no antenna on the roof (just the satalite dish) so I have no option to get it ota so I use cable (or in this case Directv) for the reason it was originally intended, a "shared comunity antenna" concept. and the premium channels...I am paying directv from an OTA prespective - to get the content from the air waves floating over my building down ointo my apartment. I am not paying them for the content.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

boufa said:


> Not very helpful... actually kinda juvenile. Great you can watch it... Wohoo for you. Enjoy your AM21 finally paying off. This conversation is about the people who are NOT getting the service, and what is being done about it.


I personally consider working on a solution ourselves as the opposite of juvenile.

This is a conversation about people who are NOT getting the service, and what can be done about it. Purchasing an AM21 is something that can be done about it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I personally consider working on a solution ourselves as the opposite of juvenile.
> 
> This is a conversation about people who are NOT getting the service, and what can be done about it. Purchasing an AM21 is something that can be done about it.


I think some may consider it rubbing it in to talk about an AM21 as a solution or viable workaround. While it is for many, it is not an option for everyone's for some, over sat is the only option.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> I think some may consider it rubbing it in to talk about an AM21 as a solution or viable workaround. While it is for many, it is not an option for everyone's for some, over sat is the only option.


I receive two locals via DirecTV that I cannot receive via OTA antenna. I don't hold it against those who receive all their locals OTA.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> Yea the Browns fans here in Cleveland aren't too happy to say the least. But being a Raiders fan it's won't be affecting me until October when they play the Browns so hopefully the dispute is over by then.


Browns fans in Cleveland haven't been happy for a number of years. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Billzebub said:


> Browns fans in Cleveland haven't been happy for a number of years.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 and I don't think that will change even with Johnny football


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Not sure it would work but it's free streaming http://wwitv.com/television/251.htm


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Billzebub said:


> Browns fans in Cleveland haven't been happy for a number of years.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


This is true! Lol


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Billzebub said:


> Browns fans in Cleveland haven't been happy for a number of years.


Pretty sure Browns' fans anywhere aren't real happy....

:blackeye: 

:rolling:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jerrylove56 said:


> Football be damned. Its the "Blacklist" season premiere that has me worried. (NBC-WAFF) :sure:


Get over it.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

seern said:


> Well I have an AM21 on the way so even if this drags on past the state of the new season, I will be able to get Blacklist.


Yeah, I have 2 but strangely enough my local RAYCOM channel's signal strength have magically dropped since their removal from DTV lineup. Coincidence, probably. Hopefully, Hulu will rebroadcast it.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Paul Secic said:


> Get over it.


People like what they like and have the right to voice their approval or disapproval.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Billzebub said:


> Browns fans in Cleveland haven't been happy for a number of years.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I would have thought with Lebron back and now Kevin Love on the Cavaliers, except for the hard core, real interest in the Browns or any other local teams in Cleveland are pretty much in eclipse for now anyway ...


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

If they agree to a deal, package price will increase, Well it'll increase anyway regardless but I'll pay for it even though my locals aren't Raycom owned.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The goal for DirecTV is to agree to the lowest price deal possible to help avoid raising prices - or to make even more money when (not if) they raise prices early next year. (It all depends on how cynical one is.)

There will be an agreement ... and the terms will be undisclosed so both sides can claim victory. I just wish they could do these agreements BEFORE the old agreements expired.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Facebook has some very unhappy customers right now.
It's quite entertaining.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

When a couple of our locals went to the brink of blackout a few years ago (this was with Dish, but same thing) the local news radio (not affilaited in any way with the networks) did a news piece on fights between locals and cable/satellite providers and they did some interviews and polls. One interesting thing that came out was that MOST people would believe what the local network said over the satellite provider because their local CBS or whatever network was "their" network - they felt like they knew the people on the local news and weather and morning shows, saw them doing remotes at fairs, etc. - while Dish (or Directv) was this huge entity that was easy to paint as the big bad guy. No matter that the guy who owned their local networks may own 7 of them around the country and live in New York City. The polls showed some quite big majority sided with the local networks.

We sometimes forget that most people with Directv (or Dish) don't spend time reading forums about stuff like this and aren't very sophisticated. There was also a sizeable number of people who dumped Dish when it happened here and went with Directv or cable, they didn't care about the details, they just wanted to watch their shows.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

damondlt said:


> Facebook has some very unhappy customers right now.
> It's quite entertaining.


Does that surprise you?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

fudpucker said:


> One interesting thing that came out was that MOST people would believe what the local network said over the satellite provider because their local CBS or whatever network was "their" network - they felt like they knew the people on the local news and weather and morning shows, saw them doing remotes at fairs, etc. - while Dish (or Directv) was this huge entity that was easy to paint as the big bad guy. No matter that the guy who owned their local networks may own 7 of them around the country and live in New York City. The polls showed some quite big majority sided with the local networks.


What I'm seeing on Facebook here is people are blaming Raycom more than DirecTV.

A lot of that has to do with Raycom's fight with DISH last year. Some people even took the local affiliate's advice to switch to DirecTV, so they're really perturbed hearing Raycom tell people to switch to DISH now.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> What I'm seeing on Facebook here is people are blaming Raycom more than DirecTV.
> 
> A lot of that has to do with Raycom's fight with DISH last year. Some people even took the local affiliate's advice to switch to DirecTV, so they're really perturbed hearing Raycom tell people to switch to DISH now.


How many are complaining about DirecTV not carrying The Blaze? I pretty much stopped looking at comments on there because everything seemed to complain about that, or them carrying Al Jazeera.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> How many are complaining about DirecTV not carrying The Blaze? I pretty much stopped looking at comments on there because everything seemed to complain about that, or them carrying Al Jazeera.


I was referring to my local affiliate's Facebook page.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> Does that surprise you?


Not at all.
I always stop by to see what the majority complaints are.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> What I'm seeing on Facebook here is people are blaming Raycom more than DirecTV.
> 
> A lot of that has to do with Raycom's fight with DISH last year. Some people even took the local affiliate's advice to switch to DirecTV, so they're really perturbed hearing Raycom tell people to switch to DISH now.


I am not surprised that's what your seeing.
I'm seeing about 1 in 10 not blaming directv.
But I don't hang out at Networks Facebook page. 
Just Directv.

And 2 money hungry billion dollars companies, most times I choose not to take sides, considering they didn't get filthy rich by looking after the customers best intrest.

I look at it this way, if Directv can't provide a customer local networks for which they signed up for while under contract, then the customer should have a right to leave without penalty. 
Locals are more important then any other channels when it comes to emergencys and important information.

The customers have no control over what happends at the round table.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I see different on Facebook people blaming more Directv on most comments on Directv profile, unless it's a local affiliate's website than they blame Raycom is just what Alan said.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

Billions in sales doesn't always equal profitable. It does in directv's case however. 

As for caring for their customers, well that is a matter of perspective. Speaking up for us and refusing to sign a deal that will force even more increase next year does actuality sound like caring for their customers.

Also note.... Those who switched last year during the dish, etc fight with Raycom are still under their 24 month contract term. 

As for letting you out early.. No single chanel is promised in the contract. It would take a substantial change to the program offerings to allow you out of your contract early. I imagine this thing will be over well before you could even get an appointment to install with someone else.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think Raycom is a billion dollar company. And I don't think anyone lets you leave with no penalty for a dispute. Heck, I have a friend that was going to buy a cable modem to save the monthly fee from Time Warner, and they told him to do that, he would have to pay an ETF, as not using their modem would constitute a termination of the contract.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't think Raycom is a billion dollar company. And I don't think anyone lets you leave with no penalty for a dispute. Heck, I have a friend that was going to buy a cable modem to save the monthly fee from Time Warner, and they told him to do that, he would have to pay an ETF, as not using their modem would constitute a termination of the contract.


That's just abuse, how can they charge ETF for just buying a cable modem? Doesn't make sense.
You're not obligated to use their own modem.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> That's just abuse, how can they charge ETF for just buying a cable modem? Doesn't make sense.
> You're not obligated to use their own modem.


They said that since the cost of the rental was bundled in his package, there would be an ETF. He did the same with his parents and didn't have a problem. I'd write it off as a bad rep, but a coworker of mine had issues with them and his contract when he moved, even though he was keeping their service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

acostapimps said:


> That's just abuse, how can they charge ETF for just buying a cable modem? Doesn't make sense.
> You're not obligated to use their own modem.


Depends on the wording of the contract. If it says in the fine print that you have to maintain service, including renting a cable modem or whatever, he's screwed. Not saying that's not abuse, but unfortunately the law is on the side of big companies adding crap like that to the fine print and screwing over consumers.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

damondlt said:


> I am not surprised that's what your seeing.
> I'm seeing about 1 in 10 not blaming directv.
> But I don't hang out at Networks Facebook page.
> Just Directv.


You may not be surprised, but I am. If you'd remember the beginning of this thread, I stated the following:



Alan Gordon said:


> Most of the people on my local Raycom affiliate(s)' Facebook page seem to be blaming DirecTV.
> 
> Many are talking about how great DISH is, and how glad they are to have DISH... apparently forgetting that DISH took their NBC and ABC affiliates off the air last year due to a fee dispute with Raycom.


Things changed after the stations were pulled.

I've only been to DirecTV's Facebook page once several years ago after a channel launch was announced on there, so I can't say what happens there, but it'd make sense that it would be more complaints than the opposite.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

My local FOX station is off of Directv due to Raycom.
Found it interesting that today's message on the channel from Directv mentions that Raycom pulled their signal previously from Cox and Dish and Directv can't show today's football games.

Wonder how long this will continue?


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

I know it is a far from perfect solution but... NFL Game Rewind is an option to watch the games online. However all of the sunday games get posted after the conclusion of the Sunday NIGHT game. You can also pay for weekly access (9.99) so it isn't too costly.

The delay is the bad part. I love to watch football, but once I know the score it ruins it for me, and I don't see much point in watching it then.

I found it by going through my local teams website, but I bet you can get to it via NFL.com too.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Kinda of ironic that the New Orleans FOX station is owned by the Saints owner yet he turned it over to Raycom to run it...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

NR4P said:


> My local FOX station is off of Directv due to Raycom.
> Found it interesting that today's message on the channel from Directv mentions that Raycom pulled their signal previously from Cox and Dish and Directv can't show today's football games.
> 
> Wonder how long this will continue?


Yeah, those were last year. Personally, I think it will end this week.


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

I might be reading too much into it, but both sides have gotten quiet in the last 12-24 hours. The locals are still clucking out the company BS, but Directv has gone to the "Were working on it" response, and Raycom hasn't been as vocal either. Might be a good sign.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

fox came back in my area

I do not know if it is only back on to allow viewing of the football games


----------



## paule123 (Dec 14, 2006)

WOIO Cleveand channel 19 just came on the air at noon, so it appears the dispute is resolved and we'll see the Browns game today !!


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

WAVE3 in Louisville is back


----------



## CincySaint (Jan 16, 2008)

It's on in Cincinnati!!!!!


----------



## boufa (Dec 24, 2007)

Driectv posted on their website that it is OVER!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

> Raycom Media Restores 43 Local Stations
> To DIRECTV Homes
> 
> Channels Already Beginning to Return into Customers' Homes, Guaranteeing Saints, Browns and Other NFL Fans
> ...


http://directvpromise.com/keeping-you-connected-to-your-local-stations/


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Glad that those in the affected areas can now watch football. :righton:

Now...let the debate begin on who "caved". :box: :rolling: :rotfl:


----------



## DTVBUDDY (Dec 28, 2012)

http://www.wsfa.com/story/26468580/raycom-media-reaches-agreement-in-principle-with-directv


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Settlement with Raycom reached. Channels to be turned on immediately per tweet.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Question is, how many years is this agreement good for. 3?


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

WAFF is on in Huntsville


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Glad that those in the affected areas can now watch football. :righton:
> 
> Now...let the debate begin on who "caved". :box: :rolling: :rotfl:


Most likely both caved to a certain extent. Raycom didn't get as much of an increase as they wanted probably.


----------



## drwdbs (Sep 14, 2010)

The power of the NFL- think this would have been resolved on a Sunday morning if this wasn't opening day in the NFL??

Not a chance....


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Football schmootball. Now I get to watch tennis US Open finals.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

How long is the agreement for? Are we going to have to go thru this in another 3 years from now?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rob37 said:


> How long is the agreement for? Are we going to have to go thru this in another 3 years from now?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


That's what I'm expecting.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rob37 said:


> How long is the agreement for? Are we going to have to go thru this in another 3 years from now?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


Regardless of how long the new contract is for we'll go through this again whenever it runs out.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I called it right before kickoff, because football is important to a lot of people.



That sucks having ST and not being able to watch your local team, even if it gets blackout locally, only out of market teams
Unless they come to an agreement before the first game, Speaking of games I have a feeling they'll come to a deal at the last minute

As they usually do before the contract expires, except it'll probably be before the kickoff.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I guess mods should change the title.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> I called it right before kickoff, because football is important to a lot of people.
> 
> 
> That sucks having ST and not being able to watch your local team, even if it gets blackout locally, only out of market teams
> ...


You'd need to get the NFL to agree to that, along with the FCC. And good luck


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> You'd need to get the NFL to agree to that, along with the FCC. And good luck


The FCC is not involved as ST is not a rebroadcast of an out of market channel. It is the network feed. It is purely up to the NFL and their contract with the networks and their affiliates.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

drwdbs said:


> The power of the NFL- think this would have been resolved on a Sunday morning if this wasn't opening day in the NFL??
> 
> Not a chance....


The reason the contracts are written to run out on Sept 1st and Feb 1st is the NFL. Start of season and Super Bowl.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It was moved to September. Last time the contract expired at the end of the year.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> The FCC is not involved as ST is not a rebroadcast of an out of market channel. It is the network feed. It is purely up to the NFL and their contract with the networks and their affiliates.


They are involved in blackouts.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> They are involved in blackouts.


Not in the way you imply. They actually make the nfl NOT blackout games locally if they are sold out 72 hours in advance. The FCC is NOT blacking out nfl games. The nfl is.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I know it's their right to charge for content, But I think Raycom should get sued somehow,
Think of all that money they collected over the years with Comcast,Dish and now Directv twice.

It should be illegal to charge twice or three times as much, and on top of that baiting customers to switch, when they know very well that they'll do the same thing to any TV providers, I know is all PR stunts to see who will cave, But it's customers who get screwed.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> I know it's their right to charge for content, But I think Raycom should get sued somehow,


Someone that switched from Dish To D* during the Raycom dispute with them, because switching was what Raycom said to do, and then lost football on a Raycom station because of the D* dispute might have sued.

Not saying that they'd have much of a case. People sue for lots of reasons. My neighbor sued me because I wouldn't cut his grass. You can sue for any reason. Winning is another matter.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

dualsub2006 said:


> Someone that switched from Dish To D* during the Raycom dispute with them, because switching was what Raycom said to do, and then lost football on a Raycom station because of the D* dispute might have sued.
> 
> Not saying that they'd have much of a case. People sue for lots of reasons. My neighbor sued me because I wouldn't cut his grass. You can sue for any reason. Winning is another matter.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


My inlaws were forced into mediation because they had a tree that dared to drop leaves on their neighbors yard, he wanted them and others on the street to be forced to cut them down. He very much lost 

But yeah, someone suing over this dispute, either Raycom or DirecTV for changing the channel lineup wouldn't have a case.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

dualsub2006 said:


> My neighbor sued me because I wouldn't cut his grass.


 !rolling


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> !rolling


I'm serious. Guy had prostate cancer and informed me that I'd be responsible for his grass cutting until he recovered.

Sued me to recover what it cost him to have his grass mowed for 2 months.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Why on earth would he think it's your responsibility and that you'd do it or free? That's hilarious.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

In Small Claims? I trust it was promptly thrown out, where ever it was filed.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Why on earth would he think it's your responsibility and that you'd do it or free? That's hilarious.


"It's the neighborly thing to do". Seriously.



Laxguy said:


> In Small Claims? I trust it was promptly thrown out, where ever it was filed.


We don't have small claims court here, but that's what it was in essence. It went something like this:

Neighbor: he didn't cut my grass
Me: not my responsibility 
Neighbor: I had cancer
Me: not my fault
Judge: dismissed.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

OMG! This could be the kernel of a new TV series on ridiculous suits. (Not the funny looking kind nor badly cut ones, but law suits.)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

rbmcgee said:


> Have you personally compared the 2 side-by-side? Because ABC is actually taking pictures at 720. I don't understand how turning 720p into 1080i matters if it happens at the station, in the DTV box or on the display device. It is not necessary to discuss whether viewing a 720p source at 1080i vs 720p is superior because that conversation goes nowhere.
> 
> I can prove, that at least in Indianapolis, grabbing the OTA is better than having DTV compress it and rebroadcast it.


I am going to venture a guess that the reason the DirecTV feed is superior (if it really is) is because the .2 subchannel is bit starved even at 720p. The station is supplying a higher bitrate feed directly to DirecTV, which is why it looks superior to the bit starved OTA. This is common on a station that has 2 of the 4 major networks on one signal.

The fact that it is 1080 v 720 is irrelevant. In fact, bandwidth could be conserved by keeping it at 720p instead of upconverting redundant lines of resolution and it would look even BETTER.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Mfrays12 said:


> This is my first time on this site. I am quite impressed by your knowledge and understanding. Do you have any knowledge about Direct TV vs. Raycom media dispute? Like who is te greedy money grabber here? Thanks


Just wait. You'll learn to hate me.

Despite this being a DirecTV forum, the ball was entirely in DirecTV's court.

NBC is demanding x amount per sub of affiliates from their retransmissions agreements. If Raycom agreed with DirecTV's early lowball offers, they would have ended up paying out of their pockets to NBC.

Bottom line, look at the graph on the original post. Is NBC with 20 or so NFL games this year really worth less than NFL Network with maybe about the same number - and about half also on CBS....not to mention all the other programming on NBC besides NFL football where nothing else really exists on NFL Networks anyone cares about?

NFL Network is putting the first half of the Season's Thursday Night Games on CBS because the viewership is so low on their Network on Thursday Night. In essence they are "advertising" their Thursday Night Games on CBS.

But, if Raycom/NBC was not valuable to DirecTV, then why did they finally relent and put it back on?

It's not like we did not know how this was going to turn out.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am going to venture a guess that the reason the DirecTV feed is superior (if it really is) is because the .2 subchannel is bit starved even at 720p. The station is supplying a higher bitrate feed directly to DirecTV, which is why it looks superior to the bit starved OTA. This is common on a station that has 2 of the 4 major networks on one signal.
> 
> The fact that it is 1080 v 720 is irrelevant. In fact, bandwidth could be conserved by keeping it at 720p instead of upconverting redundant lines of resolution and it would look even BETTER.


I think this situation where two HD channels (typically two networks) share an RF channel is the only one where Directv's feed would ever be better than the OTA feed. Even then it probably has to be a DMA without too many channels, or a DMA just large enough to have two spot beams assigned to it (to keep Directv from over compressing to fit all the locals into a single transponder)

In my DMA Directv carries the four major networks, plus CW and PBS (plus the national Ion feed, which doesn't consume the spot beam) No subchannels. Six HD feeds fit nicely in the 8PSK spotbeam transponder, so they aren't overcompressing the signal, but the difference between OTA and Directv is still noticeable. Directv's quality has improved over the last few years, I assume from better encoders or stat muxes, so the difference isn't as great as it used to be.

Still, worth it to me to have OTA for the better picture quality, lack of rain fade, and lack of worry if there are ever any disputes here (luckily no Raycom ownership around here, but Sinclair owns two of them and has made a bit of noise in the past)

With the FCC's incentive auction next year, the sharing of RF channels will probably get more common. That won't affect the majors here, but the fact that two have common ownership is always a bit of cause for worry. Fortunately one of them recently switched from RF 51 to 29 (to avoid LTE A block interference via a special FCC ruling) so if they were going to try to combine on one RF channel that would have been the time to do it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> I think this situation where two HD channels (typically two networks) share an RF channel is the only one where Directv's feed would ever be better than the OTA feed. Even then it probably has to be a DMA without too many channels, or a DMA just large enough to have two spot beams assigned to it (to keep Directv from over compressing to fit all the locals into a single transponder)
> 
> In my DMA Directv carries the four major networks, plus CW and PBS (plus the national Ion feed, which doesn't consume the spot beam) No subchannels. Six HD feeds fit nicely in the 8PSK spotbeam transponder, so they aren't overcompressing the signal, but the difference between OTA and Directv is still noticeable. Directv's quality has improved over the last few years, I assume from better encoders or stat muxes, so the difference isn't as great as it used to be.
> 
> ...


As the FCC is violating the Congressional Mandate for the auction - changing the formula for signal calculations, refusing to set a figure for total interference and a number of other things, all against the objections of the NAB who have taken them to court to try and stop - or at least do it the way Congress intended, I suspect we will not know what the current FCC Commissioner (who is in the Cable Companies pocket) will do until this is over and done with.

FWIW, the OTA channels (as well as other channels) on DirecTV has gotten much softer over the past year or so when I compare them to OTA and FiOS.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> FWIW, the OTA channels (as well as other channels) on DirecTV has gotten much softer over the past year or so when I compare them to OTA and FiOS.


That is something which will be highly market dependent. If Directv adds a local to your DMA they would have to crank up the compression to make it fit.

It could also be a deliberate decision on how their encoders are programmed in general - turn down the contrast. I haven't really noticed, but I don't have a cable HD source for a side by side comparison.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> FWIW, the OTA channels (as well as other channels) on DirecTV has gotten much softer over the past year or so when I compare them to OTA and FiOS.





slice1900 said:


> That is something which will be highly market dependent. If Directv adds a local to your DMA they would have to crank up the compression to make it fit.
> 
> It could also be a deliberate decision on how their encoders are programmed in general - turn down the contrast. I haven't really noticed, but I don't have a cable HD source for a side by side comparison.


I agree that it is highly market dependent. I can easily switch between DirecTV and OTA for all but one of my locals, and I do not see a difference. There is one local I can only get on DirecTV.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Is that time again just like we said 3 years ago. Just saw this tweet from my local raycom station

Direct TV is risking your continued access to WAFF 48 after 8/31. Learn how to keep WAFF 48 on the air at buff.ly/2wNj7Fx

That's out of Huntsville, AL


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

boukengreen said:


> Is that time again just like we said 3 years ago. Just saw this tweet from my local raycom station
> 
> Direct TV is risking your continued access to WAFF 48 after 8/31. Learn how to keep WAFF 48 on the air at buff.ly/2wNj7Fx
> 
> That's out of Huntsville, AL


These companies crack me up. This is an article I saw today. So since when does DirecTV shut off a channel? Wouldn't that be the content holder that shuts it down when an agreement is not met? They are the ones asking for the large increase but in their eyes that does not put the customer in the middle of the negotiations? Bottom line the TV stations is saying hey you subscriber, I think I am worth 4 times your paying me now. Pay it or else. How is that DirecTV putting the subs in the middle. They dont really have a choice. Blackouts should never occur but come on, who wants their bill to go up 4 times over? If every increase is passed on, that is where we will be really quickly.

During the last "Consider This" I made a *commitment* to keep DIRECTV viewers informed about ongoing negotiations to keep WXIX, FOX 19 Now on their system.

Our parent company, Raycom Media, continues to work with DIRECTV, but so far, DIRECTV has not agreed to a fair deal to keep this channel on their lineup after Aug. 31.

It wouldn't be the first time DIRECTV left their customers in the dark. In fact, since 2015, DIRECTV has dropped local channels 14 times, affecting millions of viewers.

We regret that this carrier keeps putting their subscribers in the middle of these negotiations. It should not be your problem. After all, you pay 100 percent of your bill every single month to DIRECTV. Why should you have to worry about losing this station?

We will continue to work to reach an agreement without interruption and continue to keep you the viewer informed.

Consider This: DIRECTV may still break critical link between FOX 19 Now, viewers


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep ... the channel could be renewed and viewers would never know that carriage was about to expire. But Raycom decided to put the viewers in the middle.

Set a fair price and carriage renewals won't be an issue,


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They probably put that out a couple weeks early to put pressure on Directv - get customers worried calling them up and threatening to switch providers before football season starts. It is a shady tactic, but given that Directv was recently fined $3.95 billion for deceptive advertising 'shady' is nothing new on the other side


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> They probably put that out a couple weeks early to put pressure on Directv - get customers worried calling them up and threatening to switch providers before football season starts. It is a shady tactic, but given that Directv was recently fined $3.95 billion for deceptive advertising 'shady' is nothing new on the other side


I hear ya I just dont like that it is a lie. They control if the channel is broadcasting on DirecTV, they set the price. DirecTV's involvement is that they are only gonna let them hold a gun to DirecTV's head and they said no, we wanna hold it on all your customers that get us too and see if that helps force your hand. I for one and glad that DirecTV stands up to these people. I also like the idea that DirecTV got bigger with AT&T. These companies are going to have to think twice with some of the bigger companies (as far as how much an increase they want). Other side of that is when companies get to big (say Wal-Mart) they can put someone out if business really easy for not doing what they ask. TV as a business is not really doing that well and the stations answers are to make the customer pay until they price themselves out of the market. They keep wondering why there is a problem and just hide it by saying we need more money. At least ESPN is laying people off to help with their problems.

I loved that Cable One told Viacom to stick it where the sun dont shine even though the NCTC was able to come to an agreement with them. Viacoms respons was we will block your internet customers from watching anything on our sites and on Hulu as well. So I already pay Viacom through DirecTV and Hulu but they still block my IP because I am a Cable One customer (for internet only). I think some of these companies are in for a rude awakening. Their solution is go pay someone else to keep our channel (until we do the same to them). Thats pretty sad. One day, they could be out of luck with all providers.

That being said, the GM that runs CBS and FOX in my DMA told me he would never make a deal with DirecTV to offer the locals in our DMA. He is butt hurt over something that happened years ago. Well a few years ago his deal with Dish Network as about to expire and they were not gonna meet his new asking price so all the sudden DirecTV started offering his channels in our DMA. There are just so low life losers out there that really need to wake up. I get they are a business too and need to make money but what happened to the days the locals were free. Now there not and they are in worse shape today then they were then. I love it when a local says go buy an anetnna. What would they do if everyone did and no one was paying for their channel? They would be screwed and force you to pay for OTA somehow. CBS is already finding other ways to screw us like by having shows only on their online version that costs $7.99 a month on top of their regular TV service you already pay for.

Its a tuff world and the video / TV side of it has some hard hard lessons left to learn in my opinion.


----------

