# Another National HD Rant



## 79MI (Jan 23, 2004)

I understand the business reasons for E* wanting to get local HD to every DMA. But, every time I read about someone complaining that their area isn't available it bugs me. I'm in the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City-Michigan DMA (65), which is not that large of an area, and is easily covered by all OTA transmitters. Granted, I've got a DB4 antenna mounted outside my house, but I'm located on the north-western edge of the area, and still able to receive all local digital broadcasts (including PBS) with 68-99% signal strength. 

I've also read that not all of my local stations are even available via E* HD locals....so why waste any of the bandwidth on local HD (I'm sure it doesn't look as good as OTA anyhow)?? 

Maybe it's a 129 vs 61.5 deal, but I'd much rather see them add more national HD (speed, FX, FoxNews), and focus on local HD where it's actually needed.

This isn't another case of wanting to "see the foxnews ladies in HD" post....it just plain looks like crap on my HD set, and I'm tired of watching CNN HD.

Yeah, and brooming the snow off the dish because of the 129 wobble crap is getting old too....

just ranting
622/46" Bravia


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

Agreed.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

Well I can't get my local NBC or FOX via OTA because there's a mountain between me and their transmitters, so of course I would like Dish to carry my locals in HD.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

razorbackfan said:


> Well I can't get my local NBC or FOX via OTA because there's a mountain between me and their transmitters, so of course I would like Dish to carry my locals in HD.


If you are not willing to wait there is another DBS provider whom does carry Fayetteville locals in HD. Just an FYI in case you were not aware.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

I know Direct has them, I'm in a two year contract with Dish and REFUSE to have Cox cable.


----------



## springdale_sam (Jan 14, 2006)

I agree Cox is horrible


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

79MI said:


> I understand the business reasons for E* wanting to get local HD to every DMA. But, every time I read about someone complaining that their area isn't available it bugs me. I'm in the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City-Michigan DMA (65), which is not that large of an area, and is easily covered by all OTA transmitters. Granted, I've got a DB4 antenna mounted outside my house, but I'm located on the north-western edge of the area, and still able to receive all local digital broadcasts (including PBS) with 68-99% signal strength.
> 
> I've also read that not all of my local stations are even available via E* HD locals....so why waste any of the bandwidth on local HD (I'm sure it doesn't look as good as OTA anyhow)??
> 
> ...


Just another viewpoint.

Locals on sat may not be important to you, but they are to a lot of people with satellite because not everyone has reliable OTA. What is the height of the tallest hill in lower Michigan, like 600 feet? In the east we are dealing with 2500 to 5300 foot peaks and OTA reception can be quite tricky for a lot of people. I'm sure it's worse further south in the Appalachian corridor over the eastern third of the country. Out west I couldn't imagine. I get most of the locals here somewhat reliably in good weather, but friend of mine a mile from my house can only get 1 OTA channel. One HD channel hardly ever comes in. Many people would prefer to see DISH add more of their local HD than another stretchovision so-called HD channel. Many would prefer the opposite, but everyone pretty much argues their viewpoint. Bottom line is they'll add it when they add it.


----------



## 79MI (Jan 23, 2004)

david_jr said:


> Just another viewpoint.
> 
> Locals on sat may not be important to you, but they are to a lot of people with satellite because not everyone has reliable OTA. What is the height of the tallest hill in lower Michigan, like 600 feet? In the east we are dealing with 2500 to 5300 foot peaks and OTA reception can be quite tricky for a lot of people. I'm sure it's worse further south in the Appalachian corridor over the eastern third of the country. Out west I couldn't imagine. I get most of the locals here somewhat reliably in good weather, but friend of mine a mile from my house can only get 1 OTA channel. One HD channel hardly ever comes in. Many people would prefer to see DISH add more of their local HD than another stretchovision so-called HD channel. Many would prefer the opposite, but everyone pretty much argues their viewpoint. Bottom line is they'll add it when they add it.


I definitely understand where you're coming from, lower MI is very flat, terrain is pretty much a non-issue for anyone across the lower peninsula (and most of the U.P.). That's what I'm saying, why did they provide so much of this state with local HD when there are other states that actually need it?? Just seems like such a waste.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Many people have cable or sat because they do not want an outdoor OTA antenna. Just try and get all of the local channels with an OTA antenna from SW MI when channels come from both Battle Creek and Grand Rapids. WWMT is lots of fun to pull in! A local antenna installer has a two antenna solution for sale at $350 installed. At $5 per month to would take 70 months of Dish fees to pay for it.


----------



## 79MI (Jan 23, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> Many people have cable or sat because they do not want an outdoor OTA antenna. Just try and get all of the local channels with an OTA antenna from SW MI when channels come from both Battle Creek and Grand Rapids. WWMT is lots of fun to pull in! A local antenna installer has a two antenna solution for sale at $350 installed. At $5 per month to would take 70 months of Dish fees to pay for it.


Well, whatever. I'm trying to get at the fact that local HD should be provided as needed.....anyone in my DMA could throw an antenna like mine ($40) out the window and get every local station (with less compression). If your DMA warrants local HD via dish, so be it. Besides, I think the DB4 looks cool. Obviously, you're not interested, but if they want to charge you $275 in labor to install a couple of antennas, keep shopping. Or, you could do the job yourself and take some pride in it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

79MI said:


> I understand the business reasons for E* wanting to get local HD to every DMA. But, every time I read about someone complaining that their area isn't available it bugs me. I'm in the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City-Michigan DMA (65), which is not that large of an area, and is easily covered by all OTA transmitters. Granted, I've got a DB4 antenna mounted outside my house, but I'm located on the north-western edge of the area, and still able to receive all local digital broadcasts (including PBS) with 68-99% signal strength.
> 
> I've also read that not all of my local stations are even available via E* HD locals....so why waste any of the bandwidth on local HD (I'm sure it doesn't look as good as OTA anyhow)??
> 
> ...


I agree we need more national HD chanels. I personally don't watch locals because the programs are dumb.


----------



## terpsmandan (Dec 26, 2008)

At least you have the opportunity to get you locals in HD. There are 10 DMA's in New York state and only 6 are available on Dish. Check the geography. Reception is bad here in the hills and DBS is all we have. Rochester NY LIL is still not in HD yet because they do not have any room left on the 61.5 to add it. So quit whining.....


----------



## Sailor Bill (Mar 1, 2007)

79mi,

I'm located in Northwest lower Michigan and really want Dish to get the Traverse City locals in HD. I have spoken to several of the station engineers and they agree that trying to get them with an antenna is not practical due to the terrain. I know that Direct has them in HD but I have been a Dish customer for many years and don't desire to start over. I will go to direct if Dish continues to refuse to tell me their plans. I have spoken to their CSR"s, their techs and their "special" customer reps and they all say that they have no info. I am going to try calling their corporate offices on Monday.


----------



## 79MI (Jan 23, 2004)

Sailor Bill said:


> 79mi,
> 
> I'm located in Northwest lower Michigan and really want Dish to get the Traverse City locals in HD. I have spoken to several of the station engineers and they agree that trying to get them with an antenna is not practical due to the terrain. I know that Direct has them in HD but I have been a Dish customer for many years and don't desire to start over. I will go to direct if Dish continues to refuse to tell me their plans. I have spoken to their CSR"s, their techs and their "special" customer reps and they all say that they have no info. I am going to try calling their corporate offices on Monday.


Tell them to reallocate resources from my DMA to yours, lol. Seems some people are taking this as an attack against all HD locals.... not the case...ugh.

Trust me, it'll be a while before local HD is all it can be... Primetime IS HD, but the local news is still SD (WEYI), 480 (WNEM), ~720 (WJRT), 4x3 480 (WSMH)... On top of that WEYI leaves leaves it in SD some of the time after interrupting for (poorly timed) commercials.

I have a hard time believing 9&10 up north is any better...

All I know is that I want to see Top Gear in HD ripping around the track in a ZR1! Sports and racing be damned, looks like we do need BBC in HD.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Except for the premiums and HD specialty channels, measured 24/7 no channels offering scripted content are even 50% HD content. And even amidst all the HD content currently available, while it is quite possible to enjoy 3 to 6 hours a day of all HD most people would fail to find 24/7 content of any "definition" worth watching. 

With that said, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The CW do provide alot of new prime time HD content. While I think we ought to be given an East and West feed or maybe four time zone feeds instead of hundreds of locals, the current system is hundreds of locals. The issue is "universal access". My belief is that far more geographic area lacks access to OTA than area that the does have access. When you add cable that ratio gets only slightly better, but not even close to universal. No, I don't buy using population coverage as I believe in the slogan of "No viewer left behind."

Dish and DirecTV fill a major void. So I support their efforts to try for universal access within the United States of America and deplore the fact that our government has made it nearly impossible to see what folks in New York City, Los Angeles and Minot, ND, are seeing on their TV's.


----------

