HD Locals via OTA

[Tom Bombadil]

We read a lot of clamor about the need for E* to provide HD LIL and about how D* is getting ahead in this race, and how important this is.

Now I'm not going to say that providing HD locals via satellite is meaningless because millions of people cannot receive them either at all or without a rather sophisticated antenna.

That said, how many households are capable of receiving all four major networks via an antenna? The answer is that 77% of all households in the USA are located within at least a Grade B area for not one, but all four networks.

There is a lot of noise about how D* will be providing HD locals to cities like Atlanta and Dallas. Well, anyone living within 15-20 miles of these cities should be able to pick up those locals with even an indoor antenna.

D* and eventually E* will be dropping hundreds of millions of dollars to provide HD locals to millions of people who can already get them for the one-time cost of an antenna.

Only 8% of American households are located outside of areas where one should be able to get at least two of the major networks in HD.

Conversely, as D* and E* can only provide locals in HD where locals exist in HD, out of the 210 DMAs in the USA, only 38% have all four networks in HD. 51% have 0 to 2 HD locals. So even if E* had HD local capabilities in all 210 DMAs, only half of them would be able to watch at least 3 networks in HD.

These are reasons why I don't think it is a BIG deal yet for E* to have to move immediately to provide HD locals. A) Tens of millions can already get them. Indeed, the vast majority of HDTV owners should be able to get them. And B) Even if E* provided the service, a lot people who don't get their locals in HD now, still wouldn't get them. So people living in Lake Charles LA, or Idaho Falls, or Clarksburg WV, or Laredo TX, or Helena MT would gain nothing or almost nothing right now.

Most of the people who would benefit from DBS-provided HD locals would be those who live on the fringes of large cities, who can't pick them up now, but live in a DMA that provides all of the HD networks.

 

[GeorgeLV]

Had enough Kool-aid? How many digital stations are broadcasting at full power? How many are on low-vhf? Are the transmitters for all your stations in the same orientation or do you need a rotator? How exactly are apartment dwellers supposed to erect outdoor directional antennas?

Denver is obviously the worst case, but I'd wager the percentage of the population that can't easily receive the big 4 ota is much larger than you're arguing.

 

[SimpleSimon]

I'd wager the percentage of the population that can't easily receive the big 4 ota is much larger than you're arguing.

And you'd win that bet.

Tom must be reading NAB propaganda.

 

[riffjim4069]

Sorry, but that 77% is accurate in my opinion...the problem is that most people are too lazy - don't wish to spend the money - don't want "ugly" antennas on their rooftop - or there are simply too few skilled OTA antenna installers in their area. I have two OTA antennas and I receive: DC (55+ miles) and Baltimore City (90+ miles) with the northward facing antenna and Richmond VA (51+ miles) and Charlottesville (53+ miles) with the southward facing antenna. I do not live in an elevated area (in fact, I live on a reservoir which is lower than the surrounding area) and everyone told me it was not possible to receive OTA reception in my area (out of 76 homes in my subdivision I am the only one with an OTA antenna).

People will gladly have two or three satellite dishes on their rooftops, but will whine and pout when they can't receive all of their digital locals with a pair of rabbit ears. I certainly understand there are a variety of valid reasons why people cannot receive reliable OTA reception, however the vast majority of people CAN...the FCC and broadcasters are not lying to you:

1. Be ready to place your OTA antennas on the roof.
2. Be ready (god forbid) to install multiple antennas, use filters (jointennas), A/B switches, a distribution system, etc.
3. Use a spectrum analyzer or contact an installer who will walk the roof in order to the find the best possible placement for your antennas (or check whether reception is even possible).
4. If you have not done #3 just shut-up and stop your whining...you have no reason to complain!
5. Be prepared to pay upwards of $500-$1000 for professional installation.

Sorry if this hurts anyones feelings, and there will certainly be a large number of people who will have OTA reception problems no matter what they do, but the overwhelming majority of the population can receive their locals with a little effort. I keep seeing this time and time again. I just drove out to a co-workers home because he paid an installer $300 to install an OTA antenna in his attic and, just like the installer predicted, it only picks up two of his locals. Anyway, I took along a spare CM-4228 and placed it next to his HDTV in the basement and within 30 seconds he was pulling in all local digitals. We then moved his antenna to the other side of the attic and viola! This OTA stuff actually works!

 

[MikeD-C05]

$500 - $1000 for a professional installation? Now I see why more people want satellite and cable to pick up their hd locals. I think the whole- put up an antenna to get your ota channels, is a bit like going back to the 1950's. I use a terk 44 clip on antenna on my sat dish. I get all my analog /digital channels diplexed with my sat signal on one cablefor about $80.00 IF it was this easy for all sat customers to do the same , I suspect there wouldn't be any griping.

But this antenna didn't work that well the first time. Before Hurricane Rita hit , I had my sat dish on a pole in front of my metal out door building. I got a lot of multi-path rejection. My signal would do fine during the day on my strongest hd signal and at night my strength would drop by 20 - 25 points and my picture would tile and pixelate.

After the hurricane destroyed my building and my sat dish, I moved my sat dish to the opposite side of my yard and my building to the other side of the yard. No more multi-path rejection. I get a strong consistent signal now on all of my digital channels.

My point is that I went for over a year and a half with bad ota reception. After Mother Nature intervened, I now have great reception. I imagine there is a lot of people out there that don't have the yard to do what I have done. Those living in Apartment buildings would be limited to rabitt ears , which don't always work.

Digital is a much harder signal to get and keep than analog. I see a real need for the sat companies to provide the digital /hd ota stations over the satellite. I also don't see many people paying the $500 - $1000 ota antenna installation either.

 

[Brewer4]

I am 20 miles within my towers. Its been a battle. Its cost me hundreds erecting different setups. I have had to climb my roof countless times. My PBS is still not up yet. UPN and WB on candle power. CBS, NBC and Fox were late to get their towers up. They played games with extensions. I have thousands of 50 foot oak trees around me. I use 2 separate antennas with rotators. One antenna is a combined two 6 foot Yagis. I have an elaborate combination wiring method. My ABC decided to be different and do VHF. The tower is 90 degrees from the other majors.

Does that sound like something Joe TV watcher wants to deal with? I actually get all that I need for locals NOW and I am happy but give me a break. I would not wish this on my worst neighbor. Sats need to carry local HD. Period.

 

[webtent]

Knowledge is key

I stuggled until getting on this list. If a person researches before trying every little possibility out there, they deserve a hard time. It's like people buying a Celeron PC and then wondering why it runs sooo slow

I ask here which antenna to buy and bought a DB-4 from antennasdirect.com, then I had the problem with multi-directional and asked here, someone suggested a channel master rotator, did that. Now I get ALL my digital locals ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, UPN, PBS, PAX and a couple of others I don't care to watch. Research, if you can't do, then yes, you need a professional installation. However, my professional installer that put the satellite's in put my OTA on two splitters, this was an issue until someone told me on this list to do a direct connect. In my opinion it is not rocket science, if you don't know, ask.

Granted, I live in the Tampa FL, in range, no hills, etc. I have plenty of trees all around the property, but that doesn't seem to matter to my UHF antenna, but knocks out the satellite on breezy days. If my UHF has problem, I just use the rotator and all is well. Like today and yesterday, lots of rain, very hard at times yesterday and NO problems, at least with my UHF, I can honestly say I have more of an issue with my satellite reception than UHF these days

 

[datwell]

Well, my siuation is exactly the opposite. I'm on the back side of a hill - E* is just fine, but OTA is iffy at best - even with a CM4228, rotor, amp, etc. I for one can't wait until E* has my locals in HD.

-Doug

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'm on the backside of a hill and sitting about 10 miles from two different towers and I can pull them in with an amplified Silver Sensor sitting on top of my equipment rack.

Riffjim is pulling them in and he would be counted in the 23% as he is too far away to be included in the 77%.

I wasn't saying that sats should never carry HD, but rather was pointing out that doing it right now on a large scale isn't practical. They would be incurring a huge cost and the number of people who would get all 4 networks who can't right now, might be only 20% of the population. The 23% who can't right now, still couldn't. Then let's say that out of the 77% within coverage, that a fourth of them actually can't get it. That's around 20% of the population.

It behooves E* to wait and find more cost effective ways to deliver HD LIL if the benefit is only useful to 20% of the people.

 

[Paradox-SJ]

Here is San Jose Ca, all but one of the major nets broacast from San Fran and the one that doesnt is about 15degree off. I guess I have a nice landlord as he let me put up a 4228 on the mast that was already on the roof and I diplexed it in with my SAT. There are over a million people in the south bay and most here can easily get ALL the nets with very little work...no rotars, no pre amps just point and shoot. All stations here are at full power as well.

What it sounds like is a lack of commitment from the local stations to deliver a digital product. Which is a carryover from a lack of commitment to deliever a analog product as they probably are coming from the same tower.

 

[GeorgeLV]

I wasn't saying that sats should never carry [local] HD, but rather was pointing out that doing it right now on a large scale isn't practical.

Even if you estimates are correct (which nobody else who has responded believes), it sure is practical if you happen to have the most advanced spot beam satellites ever made lying around and need to figure out what to do with them when plan A fell through.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Let me take this another step.

Let's say that is around 20% of the population that would now be able to get the networks in HD if E* provided HD LiLs to all 210 DMAs.

E* has what, 11.7M subs. Assuming they are distributed evenly, that would mean that about 2.4M subs would then be able to get HD locals that can't now.

I've heard that approx 5% of Dish's subs have HD receivers. If this also distributes evenly, then 120,000 Dish subs would get HD Locals that can't get them now.

That number is still very low in terms of this being an immediate priority for Dish to address. Given that Dish has stated that MPEG4 is not meeting their expectations and given that they don't have sufficient reliable satellites in place to implement a wide-scale rollout of HD LILs, it is clear that the time is not right for Dish to provide this service in the immediate near-term.

Now, as they introduce more MPEG4 receivers, as they launch satellites with more spotbeam transponders, as they enhance the MPEG4 decoders, as more TV stations convert to HD, and as their subscriber base migrates to HDTVs, then providing HD LiLs becomes feasible. In fact, it becomes necessary.

I suspect it may be necessary for Dish to provide a few large DMAs with HD locals in the coming months, just to give proof that they are moving in that direction. It wouldn't surprise me if they decided to provide some East Coast cities with them from Rainbow-1, using 8PSK.

 

[riffjim4069]

I read my earlier comments and they were a bit harsh...probably because it was during the early pre-coffee morning hours. Sorry! Anyway, I am no fan of DBS providing HD LIL; I do not feel the need justifies the added expense of launching and maintaining a fleet of satellites dedicated for HD-LIL. I wish E* and D* would share the expense of HD-LIL...it would certainly be a lot easier on the paying customer.

 

[mpeltz]

I look forward to E* providing HD LIL because their Dish 942 receiver currently supports only one OTA tuner. This is a serious limitation that needs to be addressed. I've been banking on the notion that eventually E* would provide the HD LIL so that I could record two or maybe even three HD local network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) shows simultaneously.

I'm not sure how this figures into the math except to state that if E* doesn't provide HD LIL, then I will switch to DirecTV because they do. Maybe some percent of E* subscribers would switch as well.

 

[nickg420]

Really the only number it ends up coming down to is......What are you willing to pay??

How much more can your E* bill go up before you decide to complain about paying for the HD-LIL channels you had to have?

Let's say worst case scenario E* charges $15.00 for all channels in your local area in Digital/HD, and not just the 4 majors. We all know when it comes to E* it's the all or nothing packaging they love. No A la Carte here.

So $15.00 at 12 months comes out to $180.00 a year, now for those who want the low low price for the next biggest thing, will probably lease and go with an 18 month commitment, I mean why not you have your locals in HD what else could you possibly need??

So 18 Months at $15.00 is $270, doesn't sound like much but for $270 and a little time and energy most of you wouldn't need E* and their crunched up HD-LIL.

For those of you who would buy your next biggest neatest reciever it's almost a no brainer why throw out another 200 bucks a year after you dropped the 750 or whatever on a reciever?

Just my .02 then again what the hell do I know??

 

[Zookster]

I think the biggest reason that E* should and will provide HD LIL is competition. D*'s movement in this direction is well known on this site. But then there's cable. I currently have both an 811 and Cox Cable's SA8300 DVR. I'm a renter smack dab in the middle of metro San Diego. The HD channels come OTA from three different towers, 10 miles away in three different directions. With the 811, channel surfing is out of the question, as I need to get up to move my indoor antenna each time I change the channel. If I had a 942, I would have to position the antenna in anticiption of which HD network I was recording... and then if I was recording on two different channels the same night... forget about it! With the cable HD DVR... no problems tuning the channels when surfing, can even record two different HD locals at the same time. Imagine that. My 811 contract is up in one month. BYE, BYE 811!

 

[Tom Bombadil]

There is no question that E* will eventually provide HD LiLs. For one thing analog locals are being phased out. So while I think it is a tremendous waste of bandwidth, and it is too bad that this can't be shared between E* and D*, and it is too bad that the FCC doesn't do away with their arcane rules about not allowing everyone to get the national network HD feeds, it is going to happen.

I just hope that E* can hold off until it is more cost economical. Don't run up our annual fees to provide costly HD LiLs to a small audience.

I also think they are an excellent candidate for HD-lite. Give them no more than 9 mbs per channel, use MPEG4, and squeeze as many onto a transponder as possible. As E* (and D*) already squeeze the SD locals, they should do the same on the HDs.

 

[rdinkel]

You will not get my vote! For those of us in the mountains who cannot receive HD OTA, poor quality HD LIL is not the way to go.

 

[JohnC]

I just hope that E* can hold off until it is more cost economical. Don't run up our annual fees to provide costly HD LiLs to a small audience.

I also think they are an excellent candidate for HD-lite. Give them no more than 9 mbs per channel, use MPEG4, and squeeze as many onto a transponder as possible. As E* (and D*) already squeeze the SD locals, they should do the same on the HDs.

E* and D* really began their major growth when they started providing SD LIL and have gotten away with providing SD lite locals. The quality was still close to that of the cable companies. However, this is changing as cable companies move the local channels to the digital tier and seem to be providing very good quality local HD. If E* and D* do not provide good quality HD locals, they are going to lose many customers like me to the cable companies. Being about 62 miles from the Atlanta TV antennas, I have spent about $400 installing a very good system and have pretty good results. I receive the ABC, Fox, WB, TBS, and UPN HD stations perfectly all of the time except for about 15 seconds every time a plane lands at the local airport. I receive the low powered CBS signal most of the time at night, but receive perfect CBS HD from E*. I had been receiving a good picture with some multipath on the VHF NBC signal. When I replaced my rusting out metal storage building with a new metal storage building, the multipath became worse and NBC is no longer watchable. Before the winter olympic games begin, I plan to be with a provider that will provide me NBC HD. It is possible that the newer receivers might be less sensitive to multipath than my 6000.

It appears that E* does have capacity for a substantial amount of national LIL HD with the 61.5 Rainbow and the unused AMC-16 at 85 for the East and the 129 and 148 satellites for the West. The AMC-16 at 85 might cover the mainland, but would require another dish or a dish that could pick up both the 61.5 and 85 satellites.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'm not certain that Joe Sixpack is going to demand the highest quality HD locals. At 9 mbs the quality will be above DVD quality. Most people buying HDTV sets use them primarily for DVDs. Many people believe that DVDs playing back in progressive scan 480p are HD.

Given that the mass market of both D* and E* accepted low quality SD locals, providing them with 9 mbs HD would be a huge improvement.

If E* is bandwidth constrained to provide HD LiL for 210 markets, then I'd rather see them reduce bandwidth on those channels, retain high bandwidth on national HD channels, and possibly save the cost of a satellite, or banks of very expensive multiplexers/decoders. But perhaps with RB-1, E-10, and other birds, they will have sufficient bandwidth to handle all of the channels at higher bandwidths. This I don't know.