Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone get a letter from Brighthouse regarding WFLA?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
August 18, 2004 6:45:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi,

Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
(Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.

Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
longer tune to that station...


-Steve
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 4:50:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I got the letter too. Good move by Brighthouse from a PR point of view -
covering themselves by sending out the letter. Lots of people are annoyed by
lack of Olympics in HD. I'm not sure what the deal is, but I'm going to call
WFLA tomorrow to get more info. Since all the other major networks worked
out agreements with Brighthouse and since WFLA resisted even a short term
deal to bring the Olympics in HD on cable, that makes me think that WFLA is
probably acting overly stubborn. But I'm going to look into it further. I
wonder what's the deal with ESPN HD too, Brighthouse has been working on
that for a while too, and there was no mention of that in the letter. If
they were about to offer ESPN in HD you'd think they would have mentioned
that in the letter. So it looks like there's a disappointment re: ESPN too.

"Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28d774b4.0408181345.7df55542@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
> (Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
> agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.
>
> Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
> acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
> are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
> the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
> sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
> longer tune to that station...
>
>
> -Steve
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 2:19:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28d774b4.0408181345.7df55542@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
> (Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
> agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.
>
> Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
> acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
> are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
> the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
> sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
> longer tune to that station...
>
>
> -Steve

Have you seen what WFLA (8) is broadcasting? Or any of the other digital
stations in our area. Cable companys want to limit the station to one SD
channel or slightly higher bandwidth HD channel. They would eliminate 8.2
and 8.3. WUSF has 4 digital stations and ch 40 has two, ch 40 proper and a
24 hr news program. WEDU (3) has 3, Ch 66 has 4,

WFLA wants the cable company to broadcast the entire 6 MHZ bandwidth as IS.
In the future I believe there are many uses for the full bandwidth. The
channels that Brighthouse and Comcast are offering below 79 are 6 mhz analog
channels.

The OTA stations might even give cable some competion. Just imagine that
each station can broadcast 4 channels of super clean digital picture
quality. That's 10 times 4 channels. That doesn't include the two religious
and two spanish digital channels.

Get an antenna, a cheapy antenna $50.00 is more than enough to get 20
digital channels from Tampa.
Related resources
August 19, 2004 7:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Get an antenna, a cheapy antenna $50.00 is more than enough to get 20
> digital channels from Tampa.

I don't have an OTA converter. I have a box from Brighhouse. I'm
not going to buy one just to get a few more stations. If WFLA wants
to act like a child having a tantrum then I will treat it like one:
Ignore the outburst and take away a treat (sponsor) or two. Does
anyone know who're WFLA's top ten sponsors? If they get enough heat
from the money side maybe things will change...

-Steve
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 7:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I did try an antenna -- a Zenith ZHDTV1 HDTV, which seemed to get excellent
reviews from where I looked. Channel 8 comes in very weak, and it's the
strongest signal.

I live in an apartment and am limited to indoor antennas. My TV (Sony
KF42WE610) manual says don't use indoor antennas - there's too much
interference. Despite that I tried the Zenith antenna and it doesn't work
well. So antennas don't work for me. I'm limited to cable. Bright House and
WFLA need to work something out. If Brighthouse gets WFLA and also ESPN in
HD, with all else they have, I will be very happy with the service, and
cable will suit my needs perfectly.

"Jeff Rigby" <jeffg212@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o tKdnW1W5cJdK7ncRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
> "Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:28d774b4.0408181345.7df55542@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
> > (Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
> > agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.
> >
> > Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
> > acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
> > are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
> > the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
> > sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
> > longer tune to that station...
> >
> >
> > -Steve
>
> Have you seen what WFLA (8) is broadcasting? Or any of the other digital
> stations in our area. Cable companys want to limit the station to one SD
> channel or slightly higher bandwidth HD channel. They would eliminate 8.2
> and 8.3. WUSF has 4 digital stations and ch 40 has two, ch 40 proper and
a
> 24 hr news program. WEDU (3) has 3, Ch 66 has 4,
>
> WFLA wants the cable company to broadcast the entire 6 MHZ bandwidth as
IS.
> In the future I believe there are many uses for the full bandwidth. The
> channels that Brighthouse and Comcast are offering below 79 are 6 mhz
analog
> channels.
>
> The OTA stations might even give cable some competion. Just imagine that
> each station can broadcast 4 channels of super clean digital picture
> quality. That's 10 times 4 channels. That doesn't include the two
religious
> and two spanish digital channels.
>
> Get an antenna, a cheapy antenna $50.00 is more than enough to get 20
> digital channels from Tampa.
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 1:19:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28d774b4.0408191451.130b7628@posting.google.com...
> > Get an antenna, a cheapy antenna $50.00 is more than enough to get 20
> > digital channels from Tampa.
>
> I don't have an OTA converter. I have a box from Brighhouse. I'm
> not going to buy one just to get a few more stations. If WFLA wants
> to act like a child having a tantrum then I will treat it like one:
> Ignore the outburst and take away a treat (sponsor) or two. Does
> anyone know who're WFLA's top ten sponsors? If they get enough heat
> from the money side maybe things will change...
>
> -Steve
It seems to me that you are mad at the wrong company!

You can get WFLA (8) as an analog channel. If you want HD then you should
be able to get all of HD not a truncated HD channel. What happens if CH 8
decides to transmit in FULL HD using the entire 19 mega bits/sec 6 Mhz
bandwidth. This would eliminate the pixilization of fast moving objects and
give you a much higher resolution. The cable company would have to
downconvert (truncate and reduce the resolution) to keep it in the 1.5 mhz
bandwidth that they seem to want all OTA channels presented on cable.

The flexability of the HD standard is in the ability of the station to
change the resolution/bandwidth to meet the needs of the content. For
Example; they can transmit 4 digital channels with various content or for
the olympics they can eliminate two channels have a higher bandwidth on one
(the Olympics) and broadcast their normal content on another with SD
quality. If the content is slow moving they can reduce bandwidth, and show
highlights of yesterdays Olympic events on a third channel. This can all be
done on the fly without advance notice. Your receiver automatically
receives them, no need to memorize channels again. The Guide function has
the options updated automatically from the station. THIS IS WHAT WFLA IS
DOING NOW! On cable with the current business policy this can't be done.
So YOU LOOSE. Get an antenna!

I can't stress enough that the TV stations are in a NEW race new game with
HD TV. They now have more flexability and tools to capture your attention
and fill your needs. This is great for us! You want them, thru cables
business policy, to eliminate all of HD's features except a slightly better
picture 1/3 of a HD quality picture (1.5 Mhz vs 6 Mhz)

Steve, you purchased a 2K television receiver and now don't want to pay $250
for antenna and receiver. Think about it!
August 21, 2004 7:42:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff,

What I want right now are nice pictures on my TV.
Channels 10, 13 and 28 are on my Brighthouse HD Box. Their HD comes
in great, anyone down here see the Patriot a couple of months back? I
see no reason what so ever why WFLA shouldn't enter into a short term
agreement with Brighthouse 'just to test things out'. The Olympics
would have been the best time. If there was any reduction in image
quality then WFLA could have taken out space in a few of Tampa's
upscale magazines with a: "This is what you got:" - "This is what
you could have had:"


-Steve

PS: -Reality Check- We're here having a fun debate over TV of all
things while folks about 70 miles south (St. Pete here) are stuck in
the 19th century waiting for the Water and Ice Man to come...






"Jeff Rigby" <jeffg212@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<F6-dnWdXs82HZ7jcRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
> "Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:28d774b4.0408191451.130b7628@posting.google.com...
> > > Get an antenna, a cheapy antenna $50.00 is more than enough to get 20
> > > digital channels from Tampa.
> >
> > I don't have an OTA converter. I have a box from Brighhouse. I'm
> > not going to buy one just to get a few more stations. If WFLA wants
> > to act like a child having a tantrum then I will treat it like one:
> > Ignore the outburst and take away a treat (sponsor) or two. Does
> > anyone know who're WFLA's top ten sponsors? If they get enough heat
> > from the money side maybe things will change...
> >
> > -Steve
> It seems to me that you are mad at the wrong company!
>
> You can get WFLA (8) as an analog channel. If you want HD then you should
> be able to get all of HD not a truncated HD channel. What happens if CH 8
> decides to transmit in FULL HD using the entire 19 mega bits/sec 6 Mhz
> bandwidth. This would eliminate the pixilization of fast moving objects and
> give you a much higher resolution. The cable company would have to
> downconvert (truncate and reduce the resolution) to keep it in the 1.5 mhz
> bandwidth that they seem to want all OTA channels presented on cable.
>
> The flexability of the HD standard is in the ability of the station to
> change the resolution/bandwidth to meet the needs of the content. For
> Example; they can transmit 4 digital channels with various content or for
> the olympics they can eliminate two channels have a higher bandwidth on one
> (the Olympics) and broadcast their normal content on another with SD
> quality. If the content is slow moving they can reduce bandwidth, and show
> highlights of yesterdays Olympic events on a third channel. This can all be
> done on the fly without advance notice. Your receiver automatically
> receives them, no need to memorize channels again. The Guide function has
> the options updated automatically from the station. THIS IS WHAT WFLA IS
> DOING NOW! On cable with the current business policy this can't be done.
> So YOU LOOSE. Get an antenna!
>
> I can't stress enough that the TV stations are in a NEW race new game with
> HD TV. They now have more flexability and tools to capture your attention
> and fill your needs. This is great for us! You want them, thru cables
> business policy, to eliminate all of HD's features except a slightly better
> picture 1/3 of a HD quality picture (1.5 Mhz vs 6 Mhz)
>
> Steve, you purchased a 2K television receiver and now don't want to pay $250
> for antenna and receiver. Think about it!
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 4:45:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

WFLA is apparently under the impression that OTA TV is of some kind of
importance now, or will be in the future. They should really be
advised that MUST CARRY WILL DIE!!!!

OTA is NOT important. Their stations are on the TIVO buggy-whip To DO
list.... someday NBC (and other networks) are going to realize that
between satellite and cable they can cover 85% of the nation without
paying the local stations a penny.... and the local stations will die.

RIP !

On 18 Aug 2004 14:45:19 -0700, tunet@tampabay.rr.com (Steve) wrote:

>Hi,
>
> Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
>(Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
>agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.
>
> Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
>acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
>are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
>the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
>sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
>longer tune to that station...
>
>
> -Steve
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28d774b4.0408211442.9f99e4c@posting.google.com...
> Jeff,
>
> What I want right now are nice pictures on my TV.
> Channels 10, 13 and 28 are on my Brighthouse HD Box. Their HD comes
> in great, anyone down here see the Patriot a couple of months back? I
> see no reason what so ever why WFLA shouldn't enter into a short term
> agreement with Brighthouse 'just to test things out'. The Olympics
> would have been the best time. If there was any reduction in image
> quality then WFLA could have taken out space in a few of Tampa's
> upscale magazines with a: "This is what you got:" - "This is what
> you could have had:"
>
The channels you list are not broadcasting multiple channnels. I wonder
why? They are also not setting aside their normal programming and
broadcasting large blocks of time for special events like the Olympics.
WFLA IS because they can carry their normal programming on another channel
they broadcast.

So we are in the position where the stations that broadcast multiple
channels (except PBS and I believe one other) don't get carried on Cable.
IE: Ch 20, 26 & 46 (Fort Meyers/Cape Coral), Ch 66 (Tampa), Ch 16 (Tampa),
Ch 40 (Sarasota) Also What happened to 32, 38, 44?

There are duplications in networks in the above channels but there are large
blocks of time where local content is broadcast and is different between the
channels. News was very interesting from the Fort Meyers stations during
the Hurricane event.

If the cable companys were smart they would cede ch 2-6 (the full 6mhz
bandwidth) and a couple of mid band channels to HD TV as those channels are
usually snowy because of bad connections in the cable. Digital channels
would be snow free even in the low VHF. Also, channels above 63 seem to
suffer from noise due to loss in cable runs. That's why cable generally
uses channels above 71 for digital TV.

-Steve
>
> PS: -Reality Check- We're here having a fun debate over TV of all
> things while folks about 70 miles south (St. Pete here) are stuck in
> the 19th century waiting for the Water and Ice Man to come...

Yes I wonder how many antennas made it thru the storm one in ten? I wonder
how much better cable fared?

> > >
> > > I don't have an OTA converter. I have a box from Brighhouse. I'm
> > > not going to buy one just to get a few more stations. If WFLA wants
> > > to act like a child having a tantrum then I will treat it like one:
> > > Ignore the outburst and take away a treat (sponsor) or two. Does
> > > anyone know who're WFLA's top ten sponsors? If they get enough heat
> > > from the money side maybe things will change...
> > >
> > > -Steve
> > It seems to me that you are mad at the wrong company!
> >
> > You can get WFLA (8) as an analog channel. If you want HD then you
should
> > be able to get all of HD not a truncated HD channel. What happens if CH
8
> > decides to transmit in FULL HD using the entire 19 mega bits/sec 6 Mhz
> > bandwidth. This would eliminate the pixilization of fast moving objects
and
> > give you a much higher resolution. The cable company would have to
> > downconvert (truncate and reduce the resolution) to keep it in the 1.5
mhz
> > bandwidth that they seem to want all OTA channels presented on cable.
> >
> > The flexability of the HD standard is in the ability of the station to
> > change the resolution/bandwidth to meet the needs of the content. For
> > Example; they can transmit 4 digital channels with various content or
for
> > the olympics they can eliminate two channels have a higher bandwidth on
one
> > (the Olympics) and broadcast their normal content on another with SD
> > quality. If the content is slow moving they can reduce bandwidth, and
show
> > highlights of yesterdays Olympic events on a third channel. This can
all be
> > done on the fly without advance notice. Your receiver automatically
> > receives them, no need to memorize channels again. The Guide function
has
> > the options updated automatically from the station. THIS IS WHAT WFLA
IS
> > DOING NOW! On cable with the current business policy this can't be
done.
> > So YOU LOOSE. Get an antenna!
> >
> > I can't stress enough that the TV stations are in a NEW race new game
with
> > HD TV. They now have more flexability and tools to capture your
attention
> > and fill your needs. This is great for us! You want them, thru cables
> > business policy, to eliminate all of HD's features except a slightly
better
> > picture 1/3 of a HD quality picture (1.5 Mhz vs 6 Mhz)
> >
> > Steve, you purchased a 2K television receiver and now don't want to pay
$250
> > for antenna and receiver. Think about it!
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 3:17:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I called WFLA and as I understand it, WFLA offered Brighthouse one HD
channel - the main, regular NBC channel. But Brighthouse insists on carrying
all of the WFLA digital channels. That's where the log jam is. Sort of the
opposite of what one would have thought. Now I need to inquire of
Brighthouse why don't they settle for the single MAIN NBC channel in HD.
Maybe there will be some inconsistency in the reception as WFLA regulates
the bandwidth between its various channels. But I'm sure that many, such as
me, are mainly interested in getting the prime time programming, sports
events, and Jay Leno in HD. The one channel solution seems like it should be
workable - it should at least get these main NBC programs to us in HD. Seems
like Brighthouse should go for it. But like I said, I'm going to touch base
with Brighthouse on this.

"Steve" <tunet@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28d774b4.0408181345.7df55542@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Got a letter from Brighhouse today stating that WFLA
> (Channel 8, NBC Tampa Bay)would not agree to even a short term
> agreement to carry the Olympics in HD.
>
> Would someone please explain why WFLA (or is it NBC?)is
> acting in such a mannor? Who is at fault? Our local ABC, CBS and FOX
> are in Brighthouse's lineup. If it turns out that its WFLA that is
> the bad one maybe its time to start sending email to their major
> sponsors: Please run your spots somewhere else, I and many others no
> longer tune to that station...
>
>
> -Steve
!