How will DirecTV HD locals affect Dish?

[DishNet_Fan]

With DirecTV launching local high-def services in Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia today, I think this is a big blow to Dish. Thoughts?

[dwcobb]

Speaking for SF, I don't think it is going to matter too much. SF is very compact and OTA works very well from anywhere inside it. Now the greater bay area, maybe, is a bigger deal. And even being less than a mile from the antenna I still have reception drop out sometimes.

/shrug. Hard to say. I hope it means that SF is in the early group of HD locals for Dish when they deliver them.

[n8dagr8]

Speaking for SF, I don't think it is going to matter too much. SF is very compact and OTA works very well from anywhere inside it. Now the greater bay area, maybe, is a bigger deal. And even being less than a mile from the antenna I still have reception drop out sometimes.

/shrug. Hard to say. I hope it means that SF is in the early group of HD locals for Dish when they deliver them.

I think the deal is, most people don't want to put up an antenna to get local HD. This will make D* more competitive with local cable companies (as far as providing local HD channels).

[pdxsam]

With DirecTV launching local high-def services in Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia today, I think this is a big blow to Dish. Thoughts?


I think it's a big blow to HDTV enthusiasts... they're clearly going to have to do "HD Lite" to make all these channels happen.. even under an MPEG4 scenario and that's just going to dilute the product... especially if E* thinks D* is getting customers because of it.. Dish will end up doing HD-LIte LIL and we all suffer.

[boylehome]

I think the deal is, most people don't want to put up an antenna to get local HD. This will make D* more competitive with local cable companies (as far as providing local HD channels).
I expect that the quality of OTA vs. HD Sat to be fairly close but who knows, It may end up looking less perfect if there is too much compression.

[UTFAN]

With DirecTV launching local high-def services in Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia today, I think this is a big blow to Dish. Thoughts?

Chas, the legendary (so says the media) poker player that he is, likely will compete.

I've been with DISH since 1999, and the past few months have considered switching to DirecTV.

But I have a 921 that works most of the time, along with a 721 and 508 which work just great plus a DISH 500 Antenna along with two additional antenna to get CBSHD East, VOOM etc.

I look at all the gear, look at all the wiring in place, and say, it ain't worth the hassle of switching.

All the program providers have advantages and minuses, the industry certainly is maturing. Just look at the value of both DISH and DirecTV stock. Pretty poor showing for both this year.

DirecTV might pop up here with something cool, DISH will pop up elsewhere with something else.

But HD locals where I live would be a reason to switch and I think whoever delivers then where I live first, might just get my business.

[navychop]

Remember, there aren't that many HD sets out there, and some HDTV owners won't pay for HD. I have a relative like that.

[James Long]

This time next year we will be looking back at this thread and laughing. D* may be "first to market" in these areas - even though they still have a lot of areas that remain uncovered by SD locals. E* won't let them keep that lead for long.

JL

[Stewart Vernon]

I wouldn't classify this as a big blow. First, it is only 4 cities... so it could only be a blow in those particular cities. But as someone already pointed out, if you get OTA HD for free then you won't care either way.

In my area I'm able to get almost all of my locals digital OTA (most in HD even) via the cheap UHF remote antenna plugged into my antenna port instead of the UHF remote port! With just a little tweaking, I'm able to run a small length of cable and relocate that (or a better indoor antenna) to get everything in my local market.

Anybody who can get it OTA free with similar setups will prefer that to via cable or satellite.

When it comes to more complicated indoor antennas OR outdoor antennas, or people who don't know technically how to set things up, the HD locals on satellite become a feature they like.

I do see, though, that DirecTV is doing what I've hoped Dish wouldn't... and that is going after the big markets who can probably largely already get OTA for free... rather than going for the rural areas who can't get OTA.

I've always felt that locals should be offered to the rural areas first, because they need it the most.

[BillJ]

I'm waiting to see if D* really offers all the locals in HD. Insight Cable has supposedly offered Chicago locals here for more than a year but only have ABC and NBC. No CBS. No FOX. No WB. No PBS. We'll see if D* can do better.

And I expect E* will have Chicago locals within 6 months anyway.

[BoisePaul]

I've always felt that locals should be offered to the rural areas first, because they need it the most.

Being from a rural area, I must say I agree with this. Unfortunately, I doubt that the subscriber count justifies the bandwidth in the more rural DMAs such as mine (Wilkes Barre, PA, DMA # 54 by population). I live over 80 miles from the towers that serve this market, and with the Central/NE PA terrain, OTA just isn't an option.

[lakebum431]

It honestly makes no difference to me. I already get all networks very well with a small indoor antena. I know that I may be in the minority here. But I would much rather we had ESPN2HD than local HDs

[BoisePaul]

But I would much rather we had ESPN2HD than local HDs

Why not both? HD LiL's will more than likely end up on spotbeams and the wings (and maybe on the FSS birds), so it shouldn't preclude any additional national HD. Except for the distant nets, it wouldn't make sense to use CONUS transponders at the core slots for HD locals.

Disclaimer: The above is pure speculation. To quote Sgt. Schultz, "I know nutzing."

[Greg Bimson]

I believe it won't be a big blow, either.

For example, the FCC rulemaking to determine the qualifications for distant digital stations is in full swing. And instead of the current analog requirements of a 30 foot antenna, Dish Network is trying to argue that HD digitals should be given to those who cannot receive local channels with a set-top antenna.

Even if Dish Network were to win (and I doubt it), I don't believe that the effect would be too great. I live 22 miles from two different sets of network towers, and have no problem picking up either city with a set-top antenna.

Until the HD movement picks up more steam, the availability of local digital stations in just a "premium package". Once the analog cut-off is complete, then we'll talk.

[wingnut1]

I can get all of my locals Digitals from an antenna so I would rather they use the bandwidth to provide HD on other channels like Fx, USA, ESPN2, etc...

[waltinvt]

I do see, though, that DirecTV is doing what I've hoped Dish wouldn't... and that is going after the big markets who can probably largely already get OTA for free... rather than going for the rural areas who can't get OTA.

I've always felt that locals should be offered to the rural areas first, because they need it the most.

Finally a statement that makes sense. Hopefully Dish realizes too that (for a variety of reasons) there are a LOT more people that can't get acceptable digital (HD)OTA than many realize.

It's a bigger market that the powers that be want you to know but looks small on the surface for a variety of reasons. One, the majority of people in less than grade "B" signal areas (for digital) have yet to make the leap into HDTV, so they're not talking about the problem - they don't realize yet what they'd be denied once they wanted them.

The problem however is that the NAB has had the majority of control over what you can and can't watch on your tv and every thing that's happened in recent years has been decided by them. Their main goal is to restrict your being able to get any network signals from anyplace other than from the people that pay their saleries - the local afilliates. Of course these afilliates want their cake and eat it to - that you be forced to watch them and they be allowed to invest as little as possible to assure that.

This is why "E" didn't jump into dns the same way "D" did and probably still won't unless something is going to change. It's not worth investing in something your only allowed to market to so few.

We thought some of that was supposed to change for digital but because the legislation of SHVERA was so ambiguous and the FCC (for reasons we can guess at) refuses to do anything about determing who is really "digitally unserved", a large segment of the tv viewing population has been denied watching their networks in HD.

It was my understanding that the FCC had a year from last December to work out a better way of accuratly defining the "digital white area". Instead they actually removed what little means viewers had to prove they couldn't get the digital signal. The signal testing rules were basically nullified if your DBS provider offers analog LiLs in your area.

IF Dish is going to change their position about marketing digital DNS, then something must have changed. I don't think they'd bother unless they figure they can provide them to the REAL market that's out there and not just the O&O areas and DMAs where most people can get the siginal OTA.

[Greg Bimson]

We thought some of that was supposed to change for digital but because the legislation of SHVERA was so ambiguous and the FCC (for reasons we can guess at) refuses to do anything about determing who is really "digitally unserved", a large segment of the tv viewing population has been denied watching their networks in HD.

It was my understanding that the FCC had a year from last December to work out a better way of accuratly defining the "digital white area". Instead they actually removed what little means viewers had to prove they couldn't get the digital signal. The signal testing rules were basically nullified if your DBS provider offers analog LiLs in your area.The FCC's rulemaking procedure for signal testing should be published by 7 December. However, that is only for testing. It appears the qualification for distant digital signals using analog coverage will still be the rule, until the distant digital testing can start for the top 100 markets on 30 April, 2006.

The caveat here is that if the satellite company does not wish to do the signal test, the subscriber, in accordance with the satellite company, can perform the test. If a digital signal is available OTA at the residence, then the subscriber will pay for the test.

There is also a waiver for the stations. If there are certain issues with limited digital signal coverage, the station can ask for, and be granted a waiver from testing. This means stations can opt out of a digital signal test, and your ability to receive distant digital service from the satellite company can be severly impacted.

[waltinvt]

The FCC's rulemaking procedure for signal testing should be published by 7 December. However, that is only for testing. It appears the qualification for distant digital signals using analog coverage will still be the rule, until the distant digital testing can start for the top 100 markets on 30 April, 2006.

The caveat here is that if the satellite company does not wish to do the signal test, the subscriber, in accordance with the satellite company, can perform the test. If a digital signal is available OTA at the residence, then the subscriber will pay for the test.

There is also a waiver for the stations. If there are certain issues with limited digital signal coverage, the station can ask for, and be granted a waiver from testing. This means stations can opt out of a digital signal test, and your ability to receive distant digital service from the satellite company can be severly impacted.

You always explain things so much better Greg. I tend to just get pissed off and ramble on.:D

Anyway, so I and others understand this:

Even though SHVERA requires the FCC to come up with a more appropiate method to determine ones digital reception, they're going to continue to allow the old, unreliable analog predictive method.

Then those who want to appeal the determination (because they know from their own experience they can't get the friggen signals) can't do so unless they want to foot the cost themselves. Keeping in mind they've already gone the big bucks antenna route and wouldn't be subjecting themselves to this BS if they could get digital OTA.

So meanwhile us back-in-the-hills, rural area, "digitally challenged", likely to not be in the top 100 dmas, woodchucks get to wait until what - 2007 for something that can help us get what we rightly deserve - a decent digital network signal.

[harsh]

Finally a statement that makes sense. Hopefully Dish realizes too that (for a variety of reasons) there are a LOT more people that can't get acceptable digital (HD)OTA than many realize.They can tell you, with great certainty, how many homes are affected. They know that serving up "locals" in the entire state of Wyoming (population somewhat larger than 500,000) would weigh in at about 160th on the DMA listing. Also consider that Wyoming proper contains a grand total of three digital stations; two of them HD. One website I looked at didn't even place an NBC affiliate on Wyoming soil.It's a bigger market that the powers that be want you to know but looks small on the surface for a variety of reasons. One, the majority of people in less than grade "B" signal areas (for digital) have yet to make the leap into HDTV, so they're not talking about the problem - they don't realize yet what they'd be denied once they wanted them.I submit that if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Remember that there are a number of conditions that the DBS providers have little control over that significantly affect their ability to offer local content:

1. The broadcasters must be willing and able to uplink
2. The content providers must be on board and allowed to cast their content to the wider audience.
3. Enough people have to care about what is offered to be willing to chase after it.

[Stewart Vernon]

I submit that if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Unless it is a Platypus!

;)

[waltinvt]

Remember that there are a number of conditions that the DBS providers have little control over that significantly affect their ability to offer local content:

1. The broadcasters must be willing and able to uplink
2. The content providers must be on board and allowed to cast their content to the wider audience.
3. Enough people have to care about what is offered to be willing to chase after it.
I agree but whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the many many people that have invested big bucks in HD equipment and antenna systems shouldn't be penalized by being denied their only real option for the major networks in HD by being labeled "served" when they're clearly NOT "served".

[dwcobb]

I think the deal is, most people don't want to put up an antenna to get local HD. This will make D* more competitive with local cable companies (as far as providing local HD channels).

San Francisco proper is a tiny city, albeit a bit hilly.

I get very good reception with a small indoor antenna that is not a big deal to install. While I may be a bit better situated than some, most people in SF proper will have no problem getting OTA with an indoor antenna.

I wll grant, of course, that if you go to the suburbs and Oakland and such the story would probably be different.

[jrb531]

I'm in Chicago and I get all the HD's with a $20 antenna on the set so why would I care about HD locals on the Dish?

IMHO this is a "huge" waste of bandwidth which could be used for better quality or more channels. As another poster stated it would make far more sence to add HD locals for areas that do not have local HD (netword HD feeds?) but then I guess they figure there are more people in the big cities to justify HD locals there.

So far, HD has been a big bust for me. Sure it's nice and all but for every show on Rave or Discovery in HD you have 10 other shows with crap PQ and/or stretched all out of proportion that have no real use being HD.

For crying out loud has anyone asked Dish why we need a cartoon channel (and a poor one at that LOL) in HD?

Sports in HD is increadble. Rave, Equador and Discovery is also but I keep the $15 HD package for one reason and one reason only - the monster channel which my son loves.

Put a SD moster channel in tho 180 pack and I lose HD and save the $15 or take the $15 and add a movie package.

My two cents :)

-JB

P.S. I'll take high quality SD "anyday" over crap HD. Increase the SD channels to "full" DVD quality (in other words stop overcompressing the stuff!) and you would make far more people happy than the still low number of HD people (I have 1 HD set and 3 SD sets)

[garypen]

San Francisco proper is a tiny city, albeit a bit hilly.

I get very good reception with a small indoor antenna that is not a big deal to install. While I may be a bit better situated than some, most people in SF proper will have no problem getting OTA with an indoor antenna.

I wll grant, of course, that if you go to the suburbs and Oakland and such the story would probably be different.Unfortunately, the SF DMA includes far more than SF "proper". San Jose, a city in its own right, and not a suburb, has a larger population that SF, and can be very difficult to receive HD signals OTA from many stations broadcasting from Sutro and San Bruno towers. It doesn't help that some SJ stations broadcast from a tower in the nearly opposite direction!

[RLMesq]

The San Francisco DMA goes well beyond Oakland and San Jose. Remember, there are many, many affluent communities in the north bay that can't get OTA HD. Despite the lack of HD reception, HD sets seem to be hot sellers every time I visit electronics retailers in Santa Rosa or Ukiah. Dish may lose me if they can't deliver HD locals. Since the NBC & ABC affils in SF are network O&O's, I don't see why they don't just make a West Coast feed available like CBS.

[Paradox-sj]

That satco's have to do this to compete with the cableco's...just that simple.

[dwcobb]

My apologies...I live in the city...and as such, I don't believe any of you really exist ; ). Ok, just kidding.

I realize Oakland and SJ may be more of a big deal. Wasn't sure if there was another tower closer to you. But for SF proper, it is only like 7miles by 2 miles, and many of the suburbs to the south are close.

Still, I would take HD via dish as a back up because as I said I still get signal drop with OTA, and I would sooner have both my local options to be HD rather than one set in HD, one set in regular.

Of course, the other piece of this is that I get all 5 KQED stations by using the OTA and Dish only carries one of them. So I would still probably maintain both.

For me, HD locals are not urgent, and they probably are not for anyone living in SF (affluent in its own right, and I would wager a much higher concentration of bay area dish customers than anywhere but SJ). We will see who goes first, but for me, no big rush.

[waltinvt]

<snip>For example, the FCC rulemaking to determine the qualifications for distant digital stations is in full swing. And instead of the current analog requirements of a 30 foot antenna, Dish Network is trying to argue that HD digitals should be given to those who cannot receive local channels with a set-top antenna.


I must have missed this post last week or got distracted - short attention span and all that ya know:grin: .

Anyway, what do you mean by "full swing" and "Dish arguing" ? Has there been any news released regarding FCC rulemaking for digital qualification? I thought they were supposed to come up with something by this December but didn't think they had released any statments yet.

And what has Dish filed in the form of arguements or petitions with the FCC?

Thanks,
WaltinVt

[UTFAN]

This discussion, along with an article about DirecTV in the current issue of BusinessWeek has be wondering what could have been, if the government had allowed DISH to purchase DirecTV.

All that bandwidth and what the combined company could have been doing with it!

As for the BusinessWeek article (Google is on the cover) either they have it in for Mr. Murdoch or DirecTV's PR department were asleep at the switch.

But cable has caught up, and in fact, has the lead in several areas including local HD offerings, VOD etc.

Still not enough to make me switch, but the services that the two companies combined could have offered consumers, well, it's a darn shame that government by the people, of the people blah blah blah, got in the way of free enterprise.

There actually would have been more competition, and we would all have benefited from that.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and wish you all a Merry Christmas!:rolleyes:

[James Long]

This discussion, along with an article about DirecTV in the current issue of BusinessWeek has me wondering what could have been, if the government had allowed DISH to purchase DirecTV.D* probably would have found a way to lose anyways. Not merging has kept both companies alert to pricing issues as well as new services.All that bandwidth and what the combined company could have been doing with it!Both are compensating by finding bandwidth elsewhere.But cable has caught up, and in fact, has the lead in several areas including local HD offerings, VOD etc.Local HD on cable is growing ... some places faster than others. There is still not a lot of national channels to choose from. Cable will always have the advantage of local headends and reusable bandwidth. But to do VOD they have to reduce the space they have for ISP service. Everyone deals in bandwidth.There actually would have been more competition, and we would all have benefited from that.While land based MVDS' do compete with the sky based services I believe that having D* and E* compete against each other is having an overall benefit.

I've lost my "if only" alternate timeline glasses ... but I don't see the combo doing any better than the pair.

JL

[Greg Bimson]

Anyway, what do you mean by "full swing" and "Dish arguing" ? Has there been any news released regarding FCC rulemaking for digital qualification? I thought they were supposed to come up with something by this December but didn't think they had released any statments yet.I'm not good at finding the comments at the FCC. However, SkyReport.com (http://www.skyreport.com/view.cfm?ReleaseID=1685) on 21 June, 2005, did have a blurb about this...In its comments, EchoStar said off-air digital TV signals experience more issues than analog signals. "Reception problems for DTV are more dramatic, meaning that the picture cannot be received at all," the company said.

Also, EchoStar said the FCC shouldn't ignore lesser problems such as tiling or other digital artifacts. "Consumers have higher DTV picture quality expectations and should not be expected to tolerate reception of such quality," the company said.

EchoStar recommended a number of items for the FCC to consider, including a revision "upwards" of the digital TV signal strength standard and revisions for testing to reflect the fact that the vast majority of digital TV households have either indoor antennas or imperfectly pointed outdoor antennas.

[waltinvt]

I'm not good at finding the comments at the FCC. However, SkyReport.com (http://www.skyreport.com/view.cfm?ReleaseID=1685) on 21 June, 2005, did have a blurb about this...

Thanks Greg.

All this makes me wonder (speculate) if Dish is preparing to "push the envelope a little and put up the HD dns for any subs that don't clearly have an OTA option and let whoever doesn't like it prove those subs don't qualify. Sort of switch the burden of proof.

It would undoubtedly create a stir and put the spotlight on the FCC to account for why they haven't adequatly addressed the whole "digital white area" issue and on Congress for why their SHVERA is so ambiguous.

I'm not sure they'd get a lot of flack from the nat nets since this allows more viewers to get their prime time HD offerings and does an end run around affiliates that are dragging their feet.

It might account for why Dish has had HD DNS in testing recently.

[Link]

Why is it that Dish doesn't even offer ABC, NBC, and Fox in HD to customers who qualify like Directv does?? These stations from New York and LA should have been added by now and there is no excuse for it really.

[Greg Bimson]

Why is it that Dish doesn't even offer ABC, NBC, and Fox in HD to customers who qualify like Directv does?? These stations from New York and LA should have been added by now and there is no excuse for it really.I believe the problem is two-fold.

1) Dish Network was first when it came to signing an agreement for CBS-HD. All of DirecTV's contracts with those networks appear to mimic the original Dish/CBS-HD carriage agreement. The issue is that a second dish is required for this channel. The more networks up in HD, the more likely Dish Network would have to subsidize more and more wing-dishes.

2) Although Dish Network tends to concentrate more on the rural subs, the digital qualification procedure still follows the analog signals. The only real people that would benefit from the addition of the four major networks from NY and LA in HD are the people that actually live there; Dish Network is not good at marketing in "urban areas".