Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Why so few HD channels


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   westfield60

westfield60

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 34 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

Posted 29 April 2006 - 08:55 PM

Two weeks ago I became a HD subscriber from Dish and was surprised at the sparse programming in HD. On the local channels only ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX are in HD and that is only in primetime and late night, otherwise it is SD for most of the day. Dish doesn't offer PBS in HD which I has one of the best qualities in HD.

On the cable side there is nothing, unless I subscribe to Dish's HD package, which really doesn't appeal to me with the ESPN packages and Discovery channels . I can't understand why at least CNN, FOX News and MSNBC are not in HD considering that they are some of the more popular cable choices. What about Comedy Channel, E channel, SFI channel? When will these guys move to HD?

I had heard somewhere that everyone will be broadcasting in HD by 2009? is this true and why are some many stations waiting till the last minute to change over, is it the expense involved?

How often does Dish add new HD programming?

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 OFFLINE   boylehome

boylehome

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 2,143 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2004

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:09 PM

The SD to HD conversion (if you want to call it that) has and is a slow process. I don't think there is any specific law that says all will be HD in 2009. In 2009 analog gets switched off, digital then becomes the means of TV broadcasting. If I understand it correctly, TV stations have different options at their discretion. They can do digital: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, and who knows what other methods will be standard in the next three years? Logically, HD programming should continue to increase.

#3 OFFLINE   julesism

julesism

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 215 posts
Joined: Feb 24, 2004

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:13 PM

it's not everyone has to switch to HD.... everyone has to switch to DIGITAL from analog, and I think that only pertains to OTA (over the air, TV antenna stuff)TV.

cable and sat are not under those guidelines, so it's just a content + expense thing.

someone stop me if I'm wayyyy off plz :D

**EDIT**
I knew I'd be beaten to it before I hit submit ;)

#4 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:21 PM

...
I had heard somewhere that everyone will be broadcasting in HD by 2009? ...

Popular misconception. 2009 isn't the magic number for total HD. Digital, yes. Hd, no.

Most of the network scripted programming now is HD, and much of the sports is HD, so I wouldn't expect much more HD from the networks. Local stations will ramp up news in HD, and slowly, popular cable networks like Comedy Channel and TCM will add an HD channel.

#5 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,912 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:57 PM

It probably is worthwhile once again to mention how long it was before all TV was color, when the first color sets were introduced way back when.

It was many years before there were no more new black & white TV shows... but still every once in a while people will make black & white new movies for effect.

I suspect we will have a faster adoption to HD than we did to color back in the day... but there still may be some 4:3 TV or movies for dramatic effect in the future... plus of course the legacy of all the existing 4:3 stuff that will still be worth re-watching.

Also worth noting... The original poster says he just subscribed to HD programming within the last 2 weeks. Well, HD has been available since at least 1995... so if it took him as a consumer more than 10 years to buy his first set and go for HD, it should come as no surprise that the broadcasters are slow on the uptake as well. Knowing that he is like most of the consumers in the country, the major networks haven't just gone spend-happy buying all the new HD cameras and transmission equipment for the relatively small minority of us who actually can receive and watch the HD signals in HD.

#6 OFFLINE   John W

John W

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 571 posts
Joined: Dec 19, 2005

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:37 AM

"On the cable side there is nothing, unless I subscribe to Dish's HD package..."

Damn, wish we could get hd without subscribing to it.How's that work?

#7 OFFLINE   jmsteffen

jmsteffen

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 48 posts
Joined: May 04, 2005

Posted 30 April 2006 - 05:13 AM

One would think, considering the high cost of upgrading camera's and equipment, that the "big guys" would be the first to broadcast in HD. When you get beyond ESPN, TNT, and Discovery, the channel lineup consists of several "unknowns". For example:

Bigger Smaller
MTV / VH1 Rave
SciFi MonsterHD

etc...

I don't understand why companies, such as Fox Broadcasting, would not make the commitment to HD for all of their programming, not just for sports and their primetime lineup.

#8 OFFLINE   boylehome

boylehome

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 2,143 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2004

Posted 30 April 2006 - 07:04 AM

The reason for delay in converting to HD is two fold. The expense is high and the percentage of HD users is still very low. The money profit is still in the SD market. I don't know of any TV stations broadcasting their news/local events in HD. I would like to know how much it would cost to convert a TV station from SD equipment to HD equipment (putting the digital channel transmitter aside). GMA is now in HD but most of the equipment used is still SD. Sports is getting better but still the conversion to HD is a slow process.

#9 OFFLINE   Fifty Caliber

Fifty Caliber

    Banned User

  • Banned User
  • 979 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 07:44 AM

It probably is worthwhile once again to mention how long it was before all TV was color, when the first color sets were introduced way back when.

It was many years before there were no more new black & white TV shows... but still every once in a while people will make black & white new movies for effect.

I suspect we will have a faster adoption to HD than we did to color back in the day... but there still may be some 4:3 TV or movies for dramatic effect in the future... plus of course the legacy of all the existing 4:3 stuff that will still be worth re-watching.


If the FCC screws things up like they did in the 1980's with AM Stereo, it could take longer than you think.
Gun control is racist.

#10 OFFLINE   rsprague

rsprague

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 39 posts
Joined: Feb 26, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 08:39 AM

When you consider that HD Television sales have just begun to pickup the last year or so, I think there are quite a few HD channels available. With the 20 or so channels that Dish offers along with the network primetime shows in HD, that is quite a bit of viewing. I too get tired of the same old programing available in HD, but I sure enjoy the picture quality.
With more and more HD televisions arriving in homes everyday, I'm sure broadcasters, satillite companies, and cables companies will be feeling the pressure to ramp up the HD production...

#11 OFFLINE   The intimidator

The intimidator

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 67 posts
Joined: Apr 14, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 09:09 AM

Hd with Dish is def worth it.
:stickman:
:goodjob:
:new_smili

#12 OFFLINE   bhenge

bhenge

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 83 posts
Joined: Mar 02, 2005

Posted 30 April 2006 - 09:10 AM

I don't know of any TV stations broadcasting their news/local events in HD.


Just FYI, WRAL-DT in Raleigh NC has been broadcasting their local news in HD for over 6 years. WRAL was one of the first to adopt HD OTA and as far as I know, the first to broadcast local news and events in HD.
======================
Beam a little microwave to me!

#13 OFFLINE   westfield60

westfield60

    Mentor

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 34 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:06 PM

KABC here in Los Angeles has started broadcasting the local news in HD about 6 months ago and it looks spectacular. I've started watching their news only because it looks so good in HD. You'd think that should be incentive enough for broadcasters to invest in new equipment if their ratings gets boosted.

#14 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,912 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:06 PM

Just FYI, WRAL-DT in Raleigh NC has been broadcasting their local news in HD for over 6 years. WRAL was one of the first to adopt HD OTA and as far as I know, the first to broadcast local news and events in HD.


You beat me to saying it!

Yep, WRAL built a brand new newsroom years ago to do their high-def local news. They also have hi-def weather radar now, and supposedly just invested in high-def cameras for their newscopter for aerial views in HD!

They also carry around the portable HD cameras to record those in-the-field reports... and during the sports segments often have HD footage & clips from local sports (college and high school) to show during the newscast.

They've also taken some cameras around the mountains of NC and to a few places in Europe to record some documentary-style stuff that has been pretty neat. I remember a trip to a museam, and a nice history of trains show.

But as far as I can tell, WRAL is relatively unique in the level of HD they have introduced beyond the network programming when compared to the rest of the country. They appear to have some deep pockets funding them plus the same company owns WRAZ so they are both a CBS and a FOX affiliate in this area.

#15 OFFLINE   PeggyD

PeggyD

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 93 posts
Joined: Apr 05, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:14 PM

KOMO (local ABC) in Seattle has been broadcasting their local news in HD for at least 2 years. Just recently I've noticed that all (or close to all) of the local remotes are also in HD. KING (local NBC) has the news in HD. Now, if KIRO & KCPQ (CBS & Fox) would, I'd be very happy.

#16 OFFLINE   westfield60

westfield60

    Mentor

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 34 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:25 PM

What's actually funny is that I was listening to the Howard Stern show last week and he mentioned that he was getting two new $20,000 LCD TV's (I didn't even think they were that expensive anymore) installed in his apartment and upgrading to the HD signal on his satellite.

Once installed he had the same gripe that I had. He couldn't find more than 4 or 5 channels in HD and since he is not a sports fan he wasn't interested in subscribing to the ESPN HD sports channels So he felt ripped off by the consultant that convinced him to invest that much money to upgrade the TV's and signal to HD only to have four channels to watch with the regular SD programming not looking so good as they had on the old TV.

That has been my experience exactly and it was ironic to have him upgrade almost exactly at the same time I did with one major exception, I didn't pay upwards of $40,000 for my upgrade.

#17 OFFLINE   John W

John W

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 571 posts
Joined: Dec 19, 2005

Posted 30 April 2006 - 01:20 PM

What's actually funny is that I was listening to the Howard Stern show last week and he mentioned that he was getting two new $20,000 LCD TV's (I didn't even think they were that expensive anymore) installed in his apartment and upgrading to the HD signal on his satellite.

Once installed he had the same gripe that I had. He couldn't find more than 4 or 5 channels in HD and since he is not a sports fan he wasn't interested in subscribing to the ESPN HD sports channels So he felt ripped off by the consultant that convinced him to invest that much money to upgrade the TV's and signal to HD only to have four channels to watch with the regular SD programming not looking so good as they had on the old TV.

That has been my experience exactly and it was ironic to have him upgrade almost exactly at the same time I did with one major exception, I didn't pay upwards of $40,000 for my upgrade.


Howard doesn't have Dish HD if what he has said is true.

#18 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,421 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 30 April 2006 - 02:03 PM

"On the cable side there is nothing, unless I subscribe to Dish's HD package..."

Damn, wish we could get hd without subscribing to it.How's that work?

Apparently there is movement to call national content "cable". The world is a funny place

I'm also baffled that people think that because they bit the bullet, everything should rightfully move in lockstep with their decision to upgrade.

I can't imagine what CNN or Headline News would be with more acreage to stuff rolls, crawls, videos and stills in. I can barely stand to watch it now. I have to say that I'm not all that enthralled with HDNews.

#19 OFFLINE   Bill R

Bill R

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,498 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2002

Posted 30 April 2006 - 02:53 PM

I have to say that I'm not all that enthralled with HDNews.


I feel the same way. The problem with HDNews is content -- they just don't have enough of it. They repeat some stories more than four times an hour.
Bill R

#20 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,421 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 30 April 2006 - 02:56 PM

I feel the same way. The problem with HDNews is content -- they just don't have enough of it. They repeat some stories more than four times an hour.

Then again, what 24 hour news channel doesn't?




Protected By... spam firewall...And...