Anyone else fill out the form at www.iwantmyhdtv.com?

[MikeF]

I saw the announcement on CH#136. Don't know if it will help but I filled it out. I would gladly take down my 13' RS antenna if I can get HD locals from Charlie

 

[GaryPen]

If your locals broadcast DTV, you won't get the waiver under the proposed plan. It sounds like your locals broadcast DTV.

 

[snathanb]

I'd sure rather see that bandwidth used for something else.

 

[briani]

HDTV feeds of major networks

I visited the web-site and entered my zip code and the system responded
with the statement: "no record found" I live rural Arizona and I get the Phoenix Locals on Dish but live too far away to recieve a digital OTA signal.
The ONLY way I will ever recieve HD feeds of the four major networks is from
DBS providers. I think original network programming is what Charlie wants for
his HD customers, and probably the only chance of getting more HD from Dish!
I strongly advise everyone to let your representatives hear your voice......if
you are really interested in more HD content.

 

[snathanb]

Well, I already get every major network OTA in HD...

However, if getting HD to millions of people is what compels the network to air more HD content.. then I guess in the end it's a good thing.

Though, truthfully, I spend about 5% of my TV watching time on network programming.

 

[GaryPen]

HD replication of local network programming. Yeah. That's compelling and unique. Even with HD, Charlie's got locals on the brain.

Let's do the math...adding east and west HD feeds of NBC, ABC, and Fox. That's 6 more channels of scarce and valuable HD bandwidth!

Show of hands...How many would prefer those 6 channels to be TNT-HD, Bravo-HD, Max-HD, HBO-HD West, and the like, instead of the same network programming you already receive in HD via OTA or SD via Dish?

 

[briani]

Well, Gary, there is already a DBS provider that provides all the channels you seem to want..........its called VOOM! I also agree that the premium movie channels are more
"Compelling programming" , but you also have to look at the price. What would Dish and Direct TV charge for HD network feeds? Not everyone can afford the
extra $35-40 a month for premiums.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

What a joke. There is not enough bandwidth available. If Dish were granted additional bandwidth do you think they would use it for HD locals? Hell no we would get more PPV and International Channels.

And IF dish were to offer HD locals, I am sure they would cost about $7.95 a month to get them.

I am thinking of registering http://www.iwantmyfirewireonmy921.com

I believe Dish is NOT serious about HDTV.

 

[briani]

Scott,
I believe the law would allow DBS providers to broadcast "Distant networks" feeds
to subscribers........like they currently do with CBSHD from New York(61.5) and
Los Angeles(148)......not locals! But your zip code would have to qualify you, you
would have to live out of the range of the nearest OTA signals.

 

[babakanoosh]

I think there is more to this. Where I live, in mountainous terrrain, all the local stations have multiple repeaters for their analog signals so everyone in the area can get them. I was told that with the DTV rollouts a few years ago, each station was allocated only one frequency for digital transmission. So even if the locals wanted to add digital repeaters they could not. So the FCC makes rules that prevent wide distribution of digital signals and now proposes to penalize the stations for not doing it. I want my HDTV too, but this campain will not succeed.

One thing it does confirm to me is the ultimate battleground is HDTV Locals. The Satellite providers can never do this. That is why I predict Cable will win out in the long run. I was wondering when D* and E* would start dealing with this and how.

 

[Grandude]

HD replication of local network programming.
Show of hands...How many would prefer those 6 channels to be TNT-HD, Bravo-HD, Max-HD, HBO-HD West, and the like, instead of the same network programming you already receive in HD via OTA or SD via Dish?

Well Gary, I for one would like the network feeds in HD from Dish. Where I live and I would guess where a LOT of people live, getting OTA HD is very problematic. I would love to be assured that I could watch the Olympics and pro football in HD. I do get the left coast CBS-HD feed now and really like the picture quality when HD network shows are broadcast.

 

[MikeF]

It sounds like your locals broadcast DTV

Yes, I can get CBS and FOX digital OTA at the moment. But it takes a 13' antenna and the biggest booster I could find. The CBS is almost 90 miles away and the FOX is close to 80. If we have any kind of weather other than CLEAR, I lose both to the infamouse 49% bug with my 811. And even though the Fox station is digital, they do not seem to brodcast the ED. I know 24 is never in Widescreen and I cannot even watch a Nascar race as the picture goes to slide-show if there is any fast-moving action on the screen.

Remember, not everyone lives in big cities. There are some of us who have different needs.

 

[GaryPen]

Well, Gary, there is already a DBS provider that provides all the channels you seem to want..........its called VOOM! I also agree that the premium movie channels are more
"Compelling programming" , but you also have to look at the price. What would Dish and Direct TV charge for HD network feeds? Not everyone can afford the
extra $35-40 a month for premiums.

A-Voom's satellite is in the wrong part of the sky for me.
B-I am already a Dish customer tied to a contract.
C-I pay $17/mo for HBO/Max.
D- TNT and Bravo are not premium.

 

[GaryPen]

Well Gary, I for one would like the network feeds in HD from Dish. Where I live and I would guess where a LOT of people live, getting OTA HD is very problematic. I would love to be assured that I could watch the Olympics and pro football in HD. I do get the left coast CBS-HD feed now and really like the picture quality when HD network shows are broadcast.

It would be a wonderful thing. However, there is limited bandwidth. As such, if one had to choose, it makes more sense to provide HD programming that would benefit ALL HD subs rather than SOME HD subs.

 

[waltinvt]

What a joke. There is not enough bandwidth available. If Dish were granted additional bandwidth do you think they would use it for HD locals? Hell no we would get more PPV and International Channels.

And IF dish were to offer HD locals, I am sure they would cost about $7.95 a month to get them.

I am thinking of registering http://www.iwantmyfirewireonmy921.com

I believe Dish is NOT serious about HDTV.

I do believe you've hit the nail on the head.
None of them are going to get any more serious about Hd than they are forced to by competition and with the FCC and NAB giving the edge to cable, it's going to be a slow painfull process for us Sat customers and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

Unless maybe we go in from the back door. This is a copy of something I posted this on the HDTV forum:

We know that for now, providers are probably only going to offer the bare
minimum HD they can get away with (and stay competitive) due to associated bandwidth costs and equipment problems but it seems to me that with all the widescreen tvs already out here and many more predicted for this year, that they'd be smart enough to realize the market potential for more widescreen programming now. I believe, in addition to the many
viewers that already own a widescreen tv, there are many more riding the
fence and just waiting for a sign before they take the plunge. More decent widescreen programming could be that sign.

The trouble is, the average tv viewer doesn't really understand the
technology and sees this mostly as just an HD issue, which currently
doesn't present much of a reason to go out and buy new equipment.

Most people that spend 2 to 4 grand on a widescreen tv very quickly become
aggravated every time they have to watch 4:3 programming on it. I think
most of them would be a lot more patient with the slow transition to HD if
bigger percentage of their SD programs were at least presented in a true widescreen format.

I'm not even talking enhanced definition. Take the "LBX" version of PPV
movies, they look real decent on a 16:9 tv. Personally, I no longer even
consider PPV unless it is in Letterbox. Even some ads are now being
presented in a wider aspect ratio and they look good. I don't believe it
costs much or any more to present an image in a wider format, it just takes
making the decision to do so.

Instead, if anything, they're cutting back. Letterbox PPVs is a good
example.

I'd be willing to bet that, if polled, most viewers would find having to
watch 4:3 programming on their 16:9 tv (zoomed, stretched or otherwise) is
as much, if not more, aggravating than the lack of HD.

Don't get me wrong, HD is great - anyone sees it - they love it - but most
of us live with the reality that it's going to take a while. I believe aspect ratio is a more relevant, every-day-aggravating issue and the signal
provider that addresses it first is going to have the biggest market share
of viewers while HD is still plodding along.

Just my long-winded 2 cents
WaltinVt

 

[bcshields]

Here's the letter I wrote to my senators, from Delaware, Carper and Biden.

Dear Sir,

I am a satellite television subscriber and I would like to ask why there are legal difference between satellite broadcasters and cable broadcasters concerning local channels.

Living in Georgetown, I'm in the Salisbury DMA, which does not rebroadcast local channels to Dish Network or Direct TV. Yet, if I subscribe to Comcast, I can get not only Salisbury channels, but Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington DC.

I do know that it takes satellite space and bandwidth, and other technological advances to 'launch' a city, and that Dish and Direct are working on it. What I don't understand, sir, is why cable companies have the legal ability to rebroadcast across DMA lines, yet satellite can't. It seems unjust and not fair.

Also, it has come to my attention that the Satellite Home Viewers' act has come around again for renewal. One major topic is concerning a second dish to get local channels. Let me tell you my opinion, if I can get locals from anywhere.. Duluth if not Baltimore, not only would I welcome a second dish, I'd put it up myself. Let Joe Consumer decide if the second dish is welcomed. If they're too concerned, they can switch to a different provider.

I feel that satellite is getting unfair treatment in Washington, and it is interfering with free market competition. If I don't like one company, I should be able to switch to another without having to take in account that the laws don't allow certain broadcasters certain channels because they do things differently with the same end result.

Thank you sir, for your time.

Didn't touch on HDTV.... don't have it.

 

[briani]

A-Voom's satellite is in the wrong part of the sky for me.
B-I am already a Dish customer tied to a contract.
C-I pay $17/mo for HBO/Max.
D- TNT and Bravo are not premium.

Gary, thats too bad about Voom, I know the 61.5 location is problem for alot the
country. I realize that TNT and Bravo HD are not premium channels but
if Dish adds all available premium HD feeds(Starz, Showtime, encore,the
movie channel and also Max) you would most likely have to subscribe to
all those packages to recieve them......hence the $35-40. I subsribe to
both Dish and Voom and have two year commitment to Dish(DVR upgrade)
but I'm looking for both quality and quantity in HD programming......the
network feeds are my only missing link.

 

[GaryPen]

I would keep Max in addition to HBO, if Dish had Max-HD. Only $17 for the HBO/Max Pack. (I'm dropping Max at the end of my promotion.) I probably wouldn't spring for Starz and Showtime, though.
The HD Nets will be a great thing for many, I'm sure. But, it should wait until there's more bandwidth. We need channels like Bravo-HD now that ALL HD subs could use. (Not to mention SD channels like Trio, Oxygen, and NFL.)

 

[jlhugh]

I sent the letter. I don't have a HDTV yet, but maybe by the time I get one I cna get the HD locals.

So if you can get the DTV OTA is that the same a HD over the air or is DTV different?

 

[Grandude]

It would be a wonderful thing. However, there is limited bandwidth. As such, if one had to choose, it makes more sense to provide HD programming that would benefit ALL HD subs rather than SOME HD subs.

I guess you really didn't like my hand! Seems to me that there is now a HUGE amount of bandwidth devoted to small segments of the viewer population.
HDTV is the future (I hope) of broadcast AND satellite television, and as such, every effort should be made to migrate in that direction. Hopefully the new satellites going up will reduce the shortage of bandwidth. In the meantime, Dish could reduce the number of useless (note: in my opinion only) channels to free up bandwidth for more HD.
Seems lots of people here are in the know on bandwidth and how much there is, etc. . I am not, so have to take your word for it.
I was just expressing my opinion, you asked for a show of hands, on which I would prefer and it still remains, the locals in HD from Dish or the Networks in HD from Dish. I doubt, BTW, that whatever choice(s) are made, that all HD subs will be happy with the decision.
Oops, sorry, I'm starting to ramble................................