Why Is WFN Classified as a HD Channel?

[talljoel]

WFN has zero HD programming. TCM has zero HD programming.

Is the reason WFN is a HD channel and TCM is not a HD channel because TCM does not have the capability to broadcat in HD and WFN has the capaility to broadcast in HD?

Will WFN start showing HD programming in a few days, weeks, months? Can we expect to see HD on WFN - SOON?

[M Sparks]

I don't get your line of thinking. Your initial question is valid, but you lost me after that.

What does TCM have to do with it?

The key difference- TCM has the potential to be 100% HD. They only have two sets (probably both in the same studio) and don't shoot in the field, so converting the studio to HD should be pretty easy. They have thousands and thousands of hours of HD-ready source material. However, it takes time and money to transfer it to HD Masters. I think the reason we don't have TCM-HD yet is because they are waiting until they can do it RIGHT.

On the other hand, while WFN can produce new HD programming, they have a library of programs that are not and never will be in HD.

When TCM goes HD, I expect them to be very impressive, even though Turner has a poor track record. A couple years back, TCM-HD was on most of the lists of "Future HD channels". I suspect they have been slowly making HD transfers for the past few years, and are waiting until they have a sizable library, rather than rushing it on the air like TBS.

[talljoel]

I was just using TCM as an example of a channel that has zero HD content and is considered a non HD channel.

WFN is a channel that has zero HD content and is considerd by Dish to be an HD Channel.

So there must be some reason other than HD content for a channel to be classified as HD. I was wondering if the reason WFN is a HD channel because if they had a HD program they have the capabilty to show it in HD?

I guess the reason I used TCM as an example of a non HD channel is I'd really would like to see TCM go HD.

[Mojo]

Because we are being played. By who I'm not sure.

It should take more then putting "HD" behind your name to make you a HD channel. And Cowboy Charlie should demand some HD content of the channels he sell to us.

[Hall]

It's the new, cool thing .... a channel or network has to have an HD channel nowadays. What do they do ? Take the regular channel and re-transmit it in a 16:9 frame and stick an "HD" watermark in the corner. Put out a press release, add it to their website, get providers to sign up, and they're in business !

To one extent, D*, E*, and the cablecos don't care. They get to say "we added another HD channel". A lot of customers scream "add more HD" and seemingly could care less if there's any HD programming or not.

Personally, I want HD programming, not a bogus, marketing gimmick. A channel like WFN-HD in fact takes away a "slot" for a real HD channel.

[gopherscot]

It's the new, cool thing .... a channel or network has to have an HD channel nowadays. What do they do ? Take the regular channel and re-transmit it in a 16:9 frame and stick an "HD" watermark in the corner. Put out a press release, add it to their website, get providers to sign up, and they're in business !

To one extent, D*, E*, and the cablecos don't care. They get to say "we added another HD channel". A lot of customers scream "add more HD" and seemingly could care less if there's any HD programming or not.

Personally, I want HD programming, not a bogus, marketing gimmick. A channel like WFN-HD in fact takes away a "slot" for a real HD channel.

You said exactly what I feel ... and the only loserin the deal are us.

[M Sparks]

WFN is a channel that has zero HD content and is considerd by Dish to be an HD Channel.

So there must be some reason other than HD content for a channel to be classified as HD. I was wondering if the reason WFN is a HD channel because if they had a HD program they have the capabilty to show it in HD?

Well, the simple answer is that WFN is sending an HD signal to DISH, and DISH is sending an HD signal to us.

Now, if you want to get into WHY they are sending an HD signal and WHY DISH is sending it to us...that's a question I can't answer.

Presumably, WFN will eventually get some HD online. With VOOM gone, DISH needs to justify the HD Ultimate package's price. We may be coming to a time when new channel adds are in HD only. They did it with NHL Network, and they did it with WFN. If they even straighten things out with Fox, they could add Fuel HD and Fox Business HD without adding the SD counterparts. I'm surprised they didn't do this with Chiller...Chilelr HD isn't online yet, but they could have added an upconverted Chiller SD to the HD Ultimate package until the HD is ready.

We could even see them attempt to do this with with rebranded channels, though I'm sure the providers will fight it. For example, in June, Discovery Home is being replaced with Planet Green, and an HD feed will be added. DISH could pull Discovery Home from AT250- claiming it's no longer available- and add the HD feed to HD Ultimate as an "exclusive". Also, next year, Discovery Health is going away, and they are launching OWN in it's place. However, I'm sure that Oprah will demand to be in a basic package.

[M Sparks]

Personally, I want HD programming, not a bogus, marketing gimmick. A channel like WFN-HD in fact takes away a "slot" for a real HD channel.

If bandwidth was unlimited, I wouldn't care if they wanted to upconvert EVERY channel and call it HD. It's like going from Super-VHS to DVD.

However, bandwidth is NOT unlimited, and WFN is a slap in the face.

[Hall]

It would be interesting to see how much bandwidth or bitrate a fake HD channel like WFN takes. I suspect it's pretty low. The black bars are pure "filler" and should take next to nothing.

[M Sparks]

Here's something interesting...


World Fishing Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that there is a special WFN-HD logo at the bottom of the page. But they are showing the standard logo on the air.

Also, DISH is the FIRST carrier of WFN-HD signal. In other words, a week ago, there were ZERO subscribers to WFN-HD.

It's possible that this is a technical issue. 5 StarMax didn't have any HD for the first couple days. Some people blamed this on Cinemax, but I personally think it was an issue at DISH's end. The fact that Max-West HD was working correctly for a while, and then became WMax-SD for about 14 hours makes me think DISH was getting the kinks out of their feeds.

Since WFN-HD had zero viewers a week ago, and this stuff seemingly came out of nowhere, it's possible they simply weren't ready to launch HD broadcasts, or DISH wasn't ready to receive them.

Their website does claim to have some specific shows that are in HD.