MeTV?

[KAB]

I wonder if Dish is going to start carrying all the local subchannels for all markets.

All subs in all markets? Not a chance!

 

[bluegrassboy75]

All subs in all markets? Not a chance!

I didn't think so...

 

[pattykay]

I wonder if Dish is going to start carrying all the local subchannels for all markets.

That would be a good use for the bandwidth being freed up on the spotbeams on the Western Arc by the 8PSK transition.

 

[bobvick]

That would be a good use for the bandwidth being freed up on the spotbeams on the Western Arc by the 8PSK transition.

I think more HD content and perhaps some 4K would be a much better use of bandwidth than repeats of MeTV, This, Movies!, Grit, etc... from markets. Now, if your talking about spot beams, then yes, that would be good.

 

[pattykay]

Now, if your talking about spot beams, then yes, that would be good.

Yes that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

 

[bobvick]

Yes that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

Sorry, I overlooked that in the thread.

 

[KAB]

Yes that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

Well, it was rather ambiguous as to what you favored.

 

[dare2be]

good use for the bandwidth being freed up on the spotbeams

not ambiguous to me.

 

[pattykay]

Well, it was rather ambiguous as to what you favored.

How so? I quoted a post that said:

I wonder if Dish is going to start carrying all the local subchannels for all markets.

Then, I said:

That would be a good use for the bandwidth being freed up on the spotbeams on the Western Arc by the 8PSK transition.

I thought it was clear that I was supporting the idea of putting local subchannels on the Western Arc spotbeams after the local channels are converted from QPSK to 8PSK. What part was I unclear about?

 

[TheKrell]

I was supporting the idea of putting local subchannels on the Western Arc spotbeams after the local channels are converted from QPSK to 8PSK.

I didn't do any calculations, but I don't think there's enough bandwidth to do that.

 

[pattykay]

I didn't do any calculations, but I don't think there's enough bandwidth to do that.

Not necessarily all subchannels, but there would be bandwidth available to add some subchannels, which would still be better than none.

 

[TheKrell]

Not necessarily all subchannels, but there would be bandwidth available to add some subchannels, which would still be better than none.

OK, I'll buy that. But then Dish might trigger some "carry one - carry all" rule and not be able to cherry pick subchannels. <-- just a wag

 

[pattykay]

OK, I'll buy that. But then Dish might trigger some "carry one - carry all" rule and not be able to cherry pick subchannels. <-- just a wag

I don't think there is such a rule, although I would support it if the bandwidth were available.

 

[Bobby]

The San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose DMA has 58 sub-channels. That excludes the main channels. Los Angeles has 68 sub-channels, excluding the main channels. Get the picture?

 

[pattykay]

The San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose DMA has 58 sub-channels. That excludes the main channels. Los Angeles has 68 sub-channels, excluding the main channels. Get the picture?

A subchannel "carry one - carry all" could be phased-in starting with the smallest markets, like they did for HD "carry one - carry all." It would still be up to the service provider to decide whether or not to offer any subchannels in each market. Add the channels where you can. The largest markets already get more main channels than we do, yet we pay the same price for our programming package that they do. Why shouldn't the smaller markets get subchannels added to help level the playing field?

 

[gowrone]

No sub channels are being carried here in Springfield, MO.

 

[primestar31]

What good is it for Dish to carry all sub-channels, if they continue to REFUSE to add guide data for those channels?

They'll never agree to add all sub-channels, because they think it doesn't make them any money to do so, and it probably costs more to setup all the guide data feeds.

 

[ekilgus]

Why does Dish need to go the sub-channel route with MeTV? Why couldn't they simply add the channel like they did for CoziTV, except full time. This would effectively separate MeTV from the sub-channel issue. Let me guess, there are probably all sorts of issues preventing Dish from adding MeTV, right?

 

[KAB]

What good is it for Dish to carry all sub-channels, if they continue to REFUSE to add guide data for those channels?

They'll never agree to add all sub-channels, because they think it doesn't make them any money to do so, and it probably costs more to setup all the guide data feeds.

I think you are confusing issues here...as are apparently many. There are some subs in some markets that Dish is apparently absorbing into their Sat feeds (if that is indeed the case). That does not mean they are obligated to provide OTA guide data in the markets they do not.

 

[talk000]

Why does Dish need to go the sub-channel route with MeTV? Why couldn't they simply add the channel like they did for CoziTV, except full time. This would effectively separate MeTV from the sub-channel issue. Let me guess, there are probably all sorts of issues preventing Dish from adding MeTV, right?

Not carried in the Greenville area. Many of us can not get it OTA either in our far flung DMA. . From those who can or on cable, I understand it is a very good addition. Dish let's add it.