DirecTV's pickup of local channel broadcasts: OTA or landline? [Archive]

tkrandall

07-09-09, 03:07 PM

n3ntj

07-09-09, 03:59 PM

As more and more local channels begin to add 1 or 2 subchannels to their OTA broadcasts, I can't but realize OTA PQ will start to suffer more. But that got me to thinking about how does DirecTV pickup the local signals typically? Take Atlanta market for example. WXIA has 2 subchannels plus the main 1080i channel. Does DirecTV use an OTA antenna and capture the signals that way or do the stations send it to the DirecTV collection center via a land line? If the latter, then I am wondering if the signal the stations send via landline might be a stream that has not yet been compressed for OTA broadcast on account of the need to make room for the sub channel bits.

Some of the local stations that D* carries are obtained via OTA locations and some stations signals get to D* via a fiber feed. I don't think there is any way to find out what local stations are OTA feeds and which ones are fiber.

To answer your question, I would expect each subchannel would need a separate OTA feed. Not sure about this if fiber is used.

kevinturcotte

07-09-09, 04:25 PM

Is there a list of how they collect the signals by each DMA?

SamC

07-09-09, 06:46 PM

The process works like this:

DirecTV establishes a "POP" which is where they uplink the signal from. Each local station is responsible to deliver its signal to that location in whatever manner they wish, at their expense. DirecTV is responsible from that point onward. Often the "POP" is one of the local TV stations, a radio station, computer repair shop, or other place where a tech savy person is around to do quick repairs if needed.

In my area, where the TV stations are in different towns and thus spread out among an area of about 60 miles, the POP is where the joint ABC/Fox transmitter's final microwave link is. NBC and CBS are about 25 miles away, and while receivable OTA, are microwaved in. The PBS, which is also 25 miles away is just picked up OTA. Another PBS (Kentucky's KET) is just added in from the Lexington locals at DirecTV HQ. The Ohio PBS, which is over 60 miles away and not receivable OTA, is a landline feed that Ohio taxpayers pay the bills for.

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 12:29 AM

Is there a list of how they collect the signals by each DMA?
No, the only way to find out is to talk to some insiders in each market. The vast majority of HD LILs are OTA, but a larger number of SD LILs are fiber. The problem with delivering HD to DirecTV via fiber is that the station would need two encoders in order for there to be any benefit, unless DirecTV simply can't pick up the OTA signal.

paulman182

07-10-09, 04:00 AM

In my area, where the TV stations are in different towns and thus spread out among an area of about 60 miles, the POP is where the joint ABC/Fox transmitter's final microwave link is. NBC and CBS are about 25 miles away, and while receivable OTA, are microwaved in. The PBS, which is also 25 miles away is just picked up OTA. Another PBS (Kentucky's KET) is just added in from the Lexington locals at DirecTV HQ. The Ohio PBS, which is over 60 miles away and not receivable OTA, is a landline feed that Ohio taxpayers pay the bills for.

I don't believe the Ashland KET station is added from the Lexington locals. You must have some bad info somewhere.:)

bidger

07-10-09, 07:01 AM

carl6

07-10-09, 07:58 AM

Regardless of how the local feed gets to DirecTV, it is very likely that the local station is providing DirecTV the exact same signal that it is transmitting (with regard to compression, etc.).

GP245

07-10-09, 08:30 AM

Regardless of how the local feed gets to DirecTV, it is very likely that the local station is providing DirecTV the exact same signal that it is transmitting (with regard to compression, etc.).

More than likely - NO!

The feed being provided to satellite or cable companies "should" be derived
before bit rates are assigned to the various channels the station will transmit.

Stuart Sweet

07-10-09, 08:40 AM

I must disagree with you, sir.

I've been told that DIRECTV receives the signal post-compression, not pre-compression.

GP245

07-10-09, 08:50 AM

If that's the case, it makes absolutely no sense!

veryoldschool

07-10-09, 08:52 AM

In my DMA all the HD are from OTA. Since they're OTA, they are the EXACT same feed I can get with my own antenna.

veryoldschool

07-10-09, 08:54 AM

If that's the case, it makes absolutely no sense!
DirecTV gets an MPEG-2 feed and re-codes it to MPEG-4.

RAD

07-10-09, 08:57 AM

I know that in Austin DirecTV's receiving their ATSC channels via OTA, not fiber, at least for KTBC-DT. That's know since KTBC is at low power since 6/12 and DirecTV's signal is having issues like everyone using OTA to receive them.

I'd also guess that since the ATSC migration that many places are trying to get away with OTA vs. fiber since with ATSC it's either you get a signal or you don't, no issues with ghosting like you could see with NTSC. Why spend the money on fiber if it's not buying you anything?

Stuart Sweet

07-10-09, 08:57 AM

If that's the case, it makes absolutely no sense!

I understand that you might get a better signal on network stuff if you got the virgin feed before it was bitstarved to make room for subchannels. At least at the install I'm familiar with, it doesn't happen that way. All production for the -1 feed is done to the broadcast bitrate, network stuff is reshaped to that bitrate before local commercial insertion, and the final signal ready for broadcast goes three places... to the broadcast tower, to DIRECTV's backhaul facility and to the cableco.

paulman182

07-10-09, 09:09 AM

I'd also guess that since the ATSC migration that many places are trying to get away with OTA vs. fiber since with ATSC it's either you get a signal or you don't, no issues with ghosting like you could see with NTSC. Why spend the money on fiber if it's not buying you anything?

Fiber would buy more reliability in some areas where DirecTV's uplink center is a long distance from some of the towers and the OTA signal levels vary. It also insures a feed even if the station has transmitter or antenna problems.

RAD

07-10-09, 09:28 AM

Fiber would buy more reliability in some areas where DirecTV's uplink center is a long distance from some of the towers and the OTA signal levels vary. It also insures a feed even if the station has transmitter or antenna problems.

I would hope that if D*'s LRF couldn't pick up a signal via OTA reliably then they would install alternative means to receive that signal, just saying if they can receive a good signal fiber would be a waste of $'s. As for the second point, while there could be transmitter or antenna problems there can also be problems within the stations infrastructure that even a fiber feed wouldn't help so is it worth the extra dollars every month to run fiber to Directv, the cable head end and Dish (if they're also present)? If they need to spend too many $'s on this then the retransmission fees go up and we could end up loosing the channel if D*/E*/cable isn't willing to pay.

gregjones

07-10-09, 09:29 AM

Fiber would buy more reliability in some areas where DirecTV's uplink center is a long distance from some of the towers and the OTA signal levels vary. It also insures a feed even if the station has transmitter or antenna problems.

Nobody doubts fiber being better. But who wants to shell out the money for a difference that only a small percentage of your viewership would recognize?

bonscott87

07-10-09, 09:47 AM

If that's the case, it makes absolutely no sense!

Sure it does. DirecTV uses the same OTA signal you or I use to pick up the channel. Do you think the OTA signal from the broadcast station is "pure" and unmolested? That would be incorrect. The OTA signal itself is already compressed and bit starved and that's before a channel takes even more bandwidth away for their subchannels. Total OTA bandwidth is only 19 mbit. A full HD signal is much more then that. So even if a station doesn't do any subchannels they are already bitstarving and compressing it.

Anyway, as to the original question, most stations in most markets are picked up OTA as a fiber feed would cost the local channel and most aren't going to go to that expense. Fiber would be more common in the largest markets then anywhere else.

GP245

07-10-09, 09:53 AM

veryoldschool

07-10-09, 10:04 AM

You've misunderstood my point.

The point is - if a station is connected via fiber, why provide a compressed signal using fiber vs. a composite "dirty" signal which includes commercials and promos vs. a lower quality one?

That is the part that makes no sense to me.
I think the fiber is leased. I know my CBS uses fiber for SD and OTA for HD to the DirecTV uplink center. I know the fiber could carry both, but there much be a cost factor. They also did "play/test" HD over fiber, but this was in conjunction with a local fiber supplier and tuned out to be temporary. In this economy it may all come down to cents [sense].

tkrandall

07-10-09, 10:31 AM

I understand that you might get a better signal on network stuff if you got the virgin feed before it was bitstarved to make room for subchannels. At least at the install I'm familiar with, it doesn't happen that way. All production for the -1 feed is done to the broadcast bitrate, network stuff is reshaped to that bitrate before local commercial insertion, and the final signal ready for broadcast goes three places... to the broadcast tower, to DIRECTV's backhaul facility and to the cableco.

Stuart - thanks - this is the root question of my original posting - are the feeds the same or different. What I am hearing here is the stations when encoding consider the addition of subchannels so far upstream in the process that it will "starve" the -1 feed provided to DirecTV just as much as it does the -1 feed provided to the OTA broadcast tower.

In the situation you are referring to, how are DirecTV and the cableco getting the signal delivered? OTA pickup or the same signal sent via a wired link?

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 10:38 AM

All production for the -1 feed is done to the broadcast bitrate, network stuff is reshaped to that bitrate before local commercial insertion
Stuart, I think you must be mistaken. It wouldn't make any sense to develop an air chain in that manner. All broadcast equipment uses HD-SDI at 1.5Gbps, so cutting the bitrate down to ATSC levels at any point before the final encoder is pointless. It would also require multiple encoders, which not only increases cost and adds points of failure, but effectively reduces PQ because the final encode will be done from a lower-quality source.

The only sensible system keeps the video at the highest bitrate until it absolutely must be cut down for broadcast.

Stuart Sweet

07-10-09, 10:40 AM

Stuart - thanks - this is the root question of my original posting - are the feeds the same or different. What I am hearing here is the staions when encoding consider the addition of subchannels so far upstream in the process that it will "starve" the -1 feed provided to DirecTV just as much as it does the -1 feed provided to the OTA broadcast tower.

In the situation you are referring to, how are DirecTV and the cableco getting the signal delivered? OTA pickup or the same signal sent via a wired link?

In that case, there are dedicated lines to each. I know for sure the DIRECTV feed is fiber. The cableco might be copper.

paulman182

07-10-09, 10:59 AM

Nobody doubts fiber being better. But who wants to shell out the money for a difference that only a small percentage of your viewership would recognize?

If the same fiber feed is used for both satellite companies, in many markets there would be a rather large percentage of viewers whom it would benefit.

If the OTA signal is weak there can be frequent dropouts.

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 11:01 AM

If the same fiber feed is used for both satellite companies, in many markets there would be a rather large percentage of viewers whom it would benefit.
If it were used for all satellite, cable, and telco providers. But I believe gregjones was referring to a small percentage of people actually noticing/caring about the improvement, not how many would receive it.

DarinC

07-10-09, 01:11 PM

The point is - if a station is connected via fiber, why provide a compressed signal using fiber vs. a composite "dirty" signal which includes commercials and promos vs. a lower quality one?

That is the part that makes no sense to me.

So, what you're suggesting is: the local affiliate should incur the cost and maintenance of a second encode stream so they can provide a stream to cable/satellite that can run at a higher bitrate than ATSC (or what's left of it after subchannels)? That may make sense to you, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the station managers. ;)

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 01:18 PM

So, what you're suggesting is: the local affiliate should incur the cost and maintenance of a second encode stream so they can provide a stream to cable/satellite that can run at a higher bitrate than ATSC (or what's left of it after subchannels)? That may make sense to you, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the station managers. ;)
Actually, it may make more sense than you think. Broadcasters are eager to take advantage of new technologies like ATSC-M/H that would enable mobile TV reception. The problem is that every single thing they add is going to end up taking away from the PQ on their HD channel. Eventually it could get to a point where advertisers (aka the MONEY) are tired of seeing their ads turned into a blocky mess, and will do more business with stations that provide a separate encode for cable/satellite, where most viewers reside. Once that starts happening, everyone will jump on that bandwagon.

That would also allow cable/satellite to advertise the fact that they provide superior PQ to the inferior OTA signal. They wouldn't mind touting that, and would certainly join the advertisers in pressuring stations to do it. The stations could even go as far as converting their OTA HD channel to 16:9 480i, maximizing their OTA bandwidth usage while still providing a high quality HD signal to cable/satellite subscribers.

bonscott87

07-10-09, 01:37 PM

Problem is it won't happen. Heck, our local CBS station won't even spend the money to get updated equipment. They only recently got the ability to record the HD sat stream from CBS corporate. For example, if there isn't a late NFL game on Sunday CBS network would stream the Sunday Prime Time shows right after the early games were done. Thus if the local affiliate wanted to show prime time in HD they had to be able to record this so they could show it in prime time. My local CBS is cheap (as are most stations) and thus Sunday prime time would be in SD if there wasn't a late game.

Only one station in our market has made the purchase of equipment that allows station crawls (weather alerts, school closings) to overlay the HD signal. All the others must drop out of HD to SD when they show a weather alert crawl or closings.

It all comes down to costs and most affiliates aren't going to spend the money to do it right. At least in most markets out of the top 5-10. Thus they aren't going to spend extra money to encode their signal separate to send by fiber to the sat providers. Especially since they aren't going to spend the money on a fiber connection anyway and just provide their signal OTA to the sat providers.

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 01:44 PM

Problem is it won't happen.
The same was said about HD itself when it was in it's infancy. Now, try and find a Big Four affiliate that isn't broadcasting in HD. There aren't many of them left. The bottom line is that encoder and bandwidth prices are always dropping. A day will come where it will simply not make sense for a station not to provide a separate encode, just like it doesn't make sense not to broadcast in HD today.

Saying it won't happen is just foolish. Just a few years ago, local HD newscasts were nothing but a dream. Now, there are stations launching HD newscasts every week. A growing number of markets don't even have SD newscasts anymore. And the costs involved in doing an HD newscast are significantly higher than those involved in a separate cable/satellite encode. The value proposition is there, it's just going to take a while for it to be realized and acted upon.

DarinC

07-10-09, 01:56 PM

The same was said about HD itself when it was in it's infancy. Now, try and find a Big Four affiliate that isn't broadcasting in HD.

And look how many of them are perfectly happy degrading the quality of the signal due to extra sub-channels. They appear to believe there's more value (revenue) in splitting the bandwidth up than maximizing quality. I don't deny the appeal of a higher bandwidth feed, I simply don't see many affiliates being interested in paying for it. I wouldn't equate this to "going HD"... HD sells, but I expect their perception is that "HD with more bits" would fly over the heads of the majority of their viewers, and would therefore have limited value. And they may be right.

Jeremy W

07-10-09, 02:02 PM

HD sells, but I expect their perception is that "HD with more bits" would fly over the heads of the majority of their viewers, and would therefore have limited value. And they may be right.
I was talking about advertisers, not viewers. The advertisers will have to be the ones to force this change, and as -1 bitrates continue to fall, I would not be surprised at all to see advertisers start taking notice.

DarinC

07-10-09, 02:16 PM

You are clearly more optimistic than I am. ;)

bonscott87

07-10-09, 07:50 PM

The same was said about HD itself when it was in it's infancy. Now, try and find a Big Four affiliate that isn't broadcasting in HD. There aren't many of them left. The bottom line is that encoder and bandwidth prices are always dropping. A day will come where it will simply not make sense for a station not to provide a separate encode, just like it doesn't make sense not to broadcast in HD today.

Saying it won't happen is just foolish. Just a few years ago, local HD newscasts were nothing but a dream. Now, there are stations launching HD newscasts every week. A growing number of markets don't even have SD newscasts anymore. And the costs involved in doing an HD newscast are significantly higher than those involved in a separate cable/satellite encode. The value proposition is there, it's just going to take a while for it to be realized and acted upon.

Maybe in the bigger markets but none of that is true around here. Heck, most of the local channels are laying people off like flies and 3 of the 4 now all use the same recorded video for events, they each just do different cuts and voice overs for their news. They are broke and aren't spending a dime extra for anything.

Oh well. Glad your market is one of the lucky few doing well. Not many are.

Jeremy W

07-11-09, 01:03 AM

Maybe in the bigger markets but none of that is true around here.
You have big four affiliates that aren't broadcasting HD?

kevinturcotte

07-11-09, 01:27 AM

You have big four affiliates that aren't broadcasting HD?

Our Fox was broadcasting in SD only until this past February.

bonscott87

07-11-09, 08:05 AM

You have big four affiliates that aren't broadcasting HD?

Only one has started testing local news in HD. None of the others are even thinking about it at this point. And our CBS is only HD because CBS corporate forces them to be HD, they have no interest in HD at all.

SamC

07-11-09, 09:36 AM

None of my locals (market size in the 60s) broadcast anything in HD other than network programming. Even syndicated programming that is feed in HD, such as Jeopardy, SEC football, etc, is broadcast in SD.

I think that is typical below the major markets, and will be for years.

GP245

07-11-09, 09:46 AM

"Even syndicated programming that is feed in HD, such as Jeopardy, SEC football, etc, is broadcast in SD."

Here's one for the books!

The "Ellen" show in syndication from Warner Bros., this past September moved to a new HD-equipped studio on the lot, and WNBC, the flagship of the NBC Television Network - located in the #1 television market, since day one of this season has been unable to broadcast "Ellen" in HD!

gregjones

07-11-09, 10:46 AM

If it were used for all satellite, cable, and telco providers. But I believe gregjones was referring to a small percentage of people actually noticing/caring about the improvement, not how many would receive it.

Correct, Jeremy. I'd say that probably only 10% (being generous) of the viewers out there would notice. 10% of the share that goes to a particular satellite provider would be a fairly small viewership. Keep in mind that the POP in many markets is different between Dish and DirecTV.

Jeremy W

07-11-09, 11:08 AM

Only one has started testing local news in HD. None of the others are even thinking about it at this point.
I was referring to HD period, including network HD.

bonscott87

07-11-09, 11:42 AM

Jeremy, the point is that the vast majority of TV stations around the country outside the very top markets are in financial trouble. Most are doing things as cheaply as possible including not even upgrading their internal equipment to handle the most recent network changes. Many TV stations are laying people off left and right and are close to going under. Somehow I don't think paying tens of thousands (if not more) a month for a dedicated fiber line to DirecTV, Dish or cable is at the top of the list of priorities. Especially when the PQ difference wouldn't be noticed by 99% of the population.

Anyway...

SamC

07-12-09, 05:52 AM

... the point is that the vast majority of TV stations around the country outside the very top markets are in financial trouble.

I would be interested in seeing some material on that. Revenues are down, and there are some localized issues (New Orleans, the bottom markets, etc) and there is retard-run Young Broadcasting, but owning a network-affiliated TV station in a market about about #125, remains what it has been since 1950, which is a government granted near monopoly and liscense to print money.

newsposter

07-13-09, 07:50 AM

Sure it does. DirecTV uses the same OTA signal you or I use to pick up the channel. Do you think the OTA signal from the broadcast station is "pure" and unmolested? That would be incorrect. The OTA signal itself is already compressed and bit starved and that's before a channel takes even more bandwidth away for their subchannels. Total OTA bandwidth is only 19 mbit. A full HD signal is much more then that. So even if a station doesn't do any subchannels they are already bitstarving and compressing it.

if the direct signal i'm getting isnt pure, then why is it the same channels on the HR20 have more frequent 'irregularities' ( i'm forced to watch abc on the hr20 because they went vhf here but other locals have the same errors)

bonscott87

07-13-09, 10:01 AM

if the direct signal i'm getting isnt pure, then why is it the same channels on the HR20 have more frequent 'irregularities' ( i'm forced to watch abc on the hr20 because they went vhf here but other locals have the same errors)

Not understanding what you're asking or what your problem is.

All I said is that the signal I get on my antenna to my TV via OTA is the exact same signal that DirecTV gets via antenna OTA.
Of course from there it's all different. My TV processes the signal.
DirecTV takes the same signal and then uplinks it up to a sat and back down to the broadcast center which then converts it to MPEG4 (amoung other processing I'm sure) and then uplinks it up to the sat and down to my receiver.

Grentz

07-13-09, 10:05 AM

I did want to add one other side note, even cable companies work in a similar way.

I know right where a Comcast local collection station is that is really just a building with a ton of OTA antennas on a tower outside. They collect the signals OTA from the locals and then broadcast them through their cable network.

So what Directv does is not completely weird or different to other providers.

bonscott87

07-13-09, 12:53 PM

Most cable companies around here also pick up the locals via OTA.

mx6bfast

07-13-09, 01:30 PM

Kheldar

07-13-09, 03:38 PM

Is there a list of how they collect the signals by each DMA?

No, but there is a list of where the signals are received:
Local Receive Facilities (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P1400108)

bobnielsen

07-13-09, 06:12 PM

No, but there is a list of where the signals are received:
Local Receive Facilities (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P1400108)

Since the digital pickup is now used for both SD and HD, do they still have separate LRFs? Separate backhauls?

RAD

07-13-09, 06:16 PM

Since the digital pickup is now used for both SD and HD, do they still have separate LRFs? Separate backhauls?

Don't know about elsewhere, but in Austin it's been the same LRF since even before HD went active. I also would doubt that there's seperate backhauls, makes no sense to do that, send the HD signal back to the uplink site and do the processing for the SD channel there IMHO.

Jeremy W

07-13-09, 07:06 PM

So what Directv does is not completely weird or different to other providers.
Many cable companies do not add any additional compression to local channels like DirecTV does. What you receive OTA is exactly what you receive via cable. It's actually cheaper for them to do it this way, since two 19.2mbps ATSC signals fit perfectly in a 38.4mbps QAM channel. They don't need to spend any extra money on additional encoders.

texasbrit

07-13-09, 09:50 PM

Many cable companies do not add any additional compression to local channels like DirecTV does. What you receive OTA is exactly what you receive via cable. It's actually cheaper for them to do it this way, since two 19.2mbps ATSC signals fit perfectly in a 38.4mbps QAM channel. They don't need to spend any extra money on additional encoders.
It's becoming less true. Many Comcast cable systems, and I know my local TWC system, are squeezing three ATSC HD signals into one QAM channel.

Jeremy W

07-14-09, 12:07 AM

It's becoming less true. Many Comcast cable systems, and I know my local TWC system, are squeezing three ATSC HD signals into one QAM channel.
Comcast's corporate policy is that they do 2 per QAM, so any systems that may be doing 3 are in the wrong. I know TWC is bad about it, though.

bonscott87

07-14-09, 09:34 AM

Charter also crams 3 HD channels per QAM channel. Needless to say the PQ on DirecTV or Dish blows them away.

pdh0490

07-14-09, 10:23 AM

ok heres how E and D get ur locals ok the local ch uplinks there ch to a sat then E and D picks up on that and that is how it makes it way to ur sat at home not hard at all

trainman

07-14-09, 10:25 AM

SEC football is shown live. Sounds like the switch is not getting flipped at the station.

Sounds like, in the original poster's case, the local stations have dedicated HD receiving equipment for their network feeds, but no other HD equipment, period -- therefore, they aren't able to pass along even live HD satellite feeds, such as the syndicated SEC football broadcasts, that would be coming from someone other than their network.

The same thing happened with color broadcasts in the 1960s, and even into the early 1970s in a few cases -- some local stations could pass along color broadcasts from the networks, but didn't have any other color equipment, so anything that wasn't coming straight off their network feed was in black-and-white.

mx6bfast

07-14-09, 10:32 AM

ok heres how E and D get ur locals ok the local ch uplinks there ch to a sat then E and D picks up on that and that is how it makes it way to ur sat at home not hard at all
It's harder to read this post than it is to understand it.

newsposter

07-14-09, 11:34 AM

Not understanding what you're asking or what your problem is.

r.

the same local channels on the hdtivo and hr20 have different results. The hdtivo never stutters, pixelates or has a bad picture whereas the hr20 does have that issue with locals. I do try to record all the OTA i can on the hdtivo but conflicts and space dont always make that possible at this time.

veryoldschool

07-14-09, 11:56 AM

It's harder to read this post than it is to understand it.
Quite true and also in error about the SAT link too. Each local station isn't uplinking to a SAT.

veryoldschool

07-14-09, 11:59 AM

the same local channels on the hdtivo and hr20 have different results. The hdtivo never stutters, pixelates or has a bad picture whereas the hr20 does have that issue with locals. I do try to record all the OTA i can on the hdtivo but conflicts and space dont always make that possible at this time.
Your Tivo is recording MPEG-2 and the HR20 is recording MPEG-4.
You might want to read this: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2157254#post2157254

Grydlok

07-14-09, 07:38 PM

I know in Richmond, and Norfolk the locals are collected OTA.

ThomasM

07-15-09, 09:05 AM

No, the only way to find out is to talk to some insiders in each market.

Wrong.

The location of the DirecTV pickup point for each market is buried on the DirecTV web site. It's hidden under press releases or media relations or something like that. I stumbled on it one day while poking around. The reason for the list is to advise local stations where they have to deliver their signal (either via fiber or OTA) to be carried by DirecTV.

In Milwaukee, WI, it's at 2305 S. 5th Street. Being nosy, I drove over to see what this thing looked like. It turned out to be a cellular tower with TV antennas on it!! There was also a satellite dish (presumably for the uplink to DirecTV).

Jeremy W

07-15-09, 09:08 AM

Wrong.
Right. :rolleyes:

Re-read what I quoted. He was asking for a list of how they collect the signals, not where.

veryoldschool

07-15-09, 09:46 AM

In Milwaukee, WI, it's at 2305 S. 5th Street. Being nosy, I drove over to see what this thing looked like. It turned out to be a cellular tower with TV antennas on it!! There was also a satellite dish (presumably for the uplink to DirecTV).
I just used google maps and went to the street view. It was easy to see the tower. :D

n3ntj

07-16-09, 03:14 PM

Here is a link to the D* local receive facility page:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P1400108

Can we assume these markets are all OTA capture of HD signals? Not sure how often this site is updated, but just because these markets are listed doesn't necessarily mean all HD channels that D* carries in each market are OTA capture.

kevinturcotte

07-16-09, 03:22 PM

For those in the Portland, ME area who are interested, I emailed the local stations. I didn't hear from 10 or 13, but all the other stations said that Directv was picking up their signals via OTA, and then was being fed by fiber down to Boston for uplink.