Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why no HD Superbowl in San Jose, CA???

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
February 7, 2005 11:27:29 AM

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

I just don't get it!!

According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
BUT NOT ME!!!!

I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
HD SUPERBOWL!!!!

On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
have to pay extra for?

Why does this process have to be so lame?

Sincerely,
Disgusted in San Jose :-(

More about : superbowl san jose

February 7, 2005 2:01:58 PM

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

Mack & Alan,

That's good information. I'l check the OTA antenna option.

Thanks a bunch!

-Albert
San Jose, CA
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 2:24:17 PM

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

If you call Directv, they will try to waivers for you to pick up the HD West
Coast feed from LA. ABC, NBC and CBS all gave those waivers to me and I get
the HD feeds, FOX said no. Isn't Fox owned by the same guy that owns
Directv?

"Albert" <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?
>
> Sincerely,
> Disgusted in San Jose :-(
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:50:40 PM

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

In article <mqPNd.36$hu6.52@news.oracle.com>,
"Fred Bloggs" <SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you call Directv, they will try to waivers for you to pick up the
> HD West Coast feed from LA. ABC, NBC and CBS all gave those waivers
> to me and I get the HD feeds, FOX said no. Isn't Fox owned by the
> same guy that owns Directv?

If you live in a market where the ABC, NBC, CBS, and/or FOX stations are
owned by the network, you can get the distant stations, but if the
station is an affiliate, you won't get the waiver. I live in the
Phoenix area, and the FOX station is owned by FOX, so I got the waiver
and receive FOX HD from Los Angeles on channel 89. The other network
stations are affiliates, so I did not get a waiver.

My solution was to install an OTA receiver, so now I get the OTA digital
stations--and that includes the OTA HD broadcasts.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:17:30 PM

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

Albert wrote:
> I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?
>
> Sincerely,
> Disgusted in San Jose :-(

Yes, it is a complicated situation. The issue with DirectTV enabling
the networks for you depends on if the local station is network owned or
not to a large extent. If it is owned by the network, they allow
DirectTV to pass the signal, as I understand it. If owned by someone
else, then it is up to that company to provide waivers or work it out
with DirectTV. That is why you may read about these upgrades spot beam
broadcasts which will allow DirectTV to send the local stations to the
specific area.

Do you have an ATSC tuner to pick up the local digital stations?
www.antennaweb.org shows only several digital stations for San Jose -
NBC, PBS, PAX. Checking the list of HD digital stations by city, San
Francisco has the following entry at www.avsforum.com:
San Francisco, CA - ABC (7) - CBS (5) - FOX (2) - NBC (11) - PBS (9) -
UPN (44) - wb (20).

Can you pick any of the San Fran stations up with a rooftop antenna
and an ATSC tuner? antennaweb.org indicates many of them are possible
with a medium directional antenna, assuming you are not blocked by terrain.

If you want more HD channels, the good news is that it should get
better over time.

Alan F
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:54:05 PM

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

"Albert" <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?

Since there are not enough satellite channels available yet, the HD channels
on DirecTV aren't local channels (unless you live in NY or LA).

As others have mentioned, the network affiliates that are "O and O" or owned
and operated by the networks, have no problem allowing you to watch the
network feed out of NY or LA. It brings more viewers to their networks, and
they still have the big bucks from the nationwide advertisers. The locally
owned affilliates, through FCC approved rules, can deny giving you access to
an out of town signal through satellite if you can receive the over the air
signal sufficiently. If on the other hand you can prove that you can not
receive the OTA signal, they may have to give you a waiver. I don't know
what it takes to convince them, but living in San Jose, you may find it
difficult to get a clear shot at Sutro Tower, and your signal may be bad
enough to qualify.

Brad Houser
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:55:35 PM

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

To get a broadcast in HD, it has to start in HD, obviously, then your local
affilliate has to send it on in HD, then you must pick it up over the air
from the station or via a cable or satellite provider that must carry it to
you in HD. A failure at any point and you have no HD. Some affilliates in
small markets are not set up for HD yet. Some (like the FOX affilliate here
in Austin) broadcast in HD only at low power and via cable. Some cable
systems don't carry HD because they don't have fiber optics for digital
cable. You just have to check out your particular situation. Most people
can now get most of the HD broadcasts, one way or the other.

mack
austin


"Albert" <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?
>
> Sincerely,
> Disgusted in San Jose :-(
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:52:02 PM

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

"Albert" <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?

There is something wrong with this picture. I live near NYC and receive ABC,
NBC, CBS, FOX, and various other stations in HDTV format from the satellite.
A year or so ago, only CBS HD was carried by DirecTV so I had to use OTA,
with varying results. Ever since DirecTV starting carrying all these
stations, I have had no problems with HDTV reception. The only remaining
channel I need to get OTA is the WB, which is broadcast on 11-1 in my area.
I fail to understand why you cannot receive the stations DirecTV is
carrying. When I have experienced such problems, I have called DirecTV
support and they have changed something in their internal setup to fix the
problem. If I were you , my first call would be to them. Their support lines
are open 24/7. Call when you are sitting in front of your TV. Good luck, and
let us know how things work out.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:26:17 AM

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

>Some (like the FOX affilliate here in Austin) broadcast in HD only at low
>power and via cable.

Hi Mack,

I use a Radio Shack indoor antenna and I have never gotten the FOX
affiliate in Austin HD broadcast and I live less than five miles from the
towers. I get PBS just great and occasionally I can get KXAN, KVUE and
KNVA. I suspected that FOX was broadcasting the HD in low power. I had
hoped they would have boosted their signal for the SuperBowl. Pretty sad
when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD transmission.

-Rob


>
>
> "Albert" <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I just don't get it!!
>>
>> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
>> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
>> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>>
>> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
>> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
>> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>>
>> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
>> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
>> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
>> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
>> have to pay extra for?
>>
>> Why does this process have to be so lame?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Disgusted in San Jose :-(
>>
>
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:26:18 AM

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

RobH wrote:
> Pretty sad
> when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD transmission.
>

It's been like that around here for decades on NTSC. Why should ATSC be
any different?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:40:14 AM

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

"RobH" <r.heady-no-spam@liant.com> wrote in message
news:D WRNd.39136$iC4.25718@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Some (like the FOX affilliate here in Austin) broadcast in HD only at low
>>power and via cable.
>
> Hi Mack,
>
> I use a Radio Shack indoor antenna and I have never gotten the FOX
> affiliate in Austin HD broadcast and I live less than five miles from the
> towers. I get PBS just great and occasionally I can get KXAN, KVUE and
> KNVA. I suspected that FOX was broadcasting the HD in low power. I had
> hoped they would have boosted their signal for the SuperBowl. Pretty sad
> when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD transmission.
>

They really can't just boost their power for a specific broadcast. It's a
whole big deal that requires money, permissions, equipment and so on. They
say they should be up and running at full power by July.

mack
austin
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:14:39 AM

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

In article <x4VNd.2232$5T5.2162@fe10.lga>, "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> There is something wrong with this picture. I live near NYC and
> receive ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and various other stations in HDTV format
> from the satellite. A year or so ago, only CBS HD was carried by
> DirecTV so I had to use OTA, with varying results. Ever since DirecTV
> starting carrying all these stations, I have had no problems with
> HDTV reception. The only remaining channel I need to get OTA is the
> WB, which is broadcast on 11-1 in my area. I fail to understand why
> you cannot receive the stations DirecTV is carrying.

If the local channels do not broadcast HDTV, you can't receive HDTV on
the local channels. Further, even if they do, DirecTV and Dish do not
carry HD programming from local channels except in NYC and Los Angeles.
In order to receive the local channels from NYC or LA from DTV or Dish,
you must either be in an area that doesn't receive locals OTA or via
cable, or must have a waiver from the network. The network will issue a
waiver only if it owns the local station in your area.

Here in the Phoenix area, NBC, CBS, ABC, WB, and UPN are affiliates, and
are not owned by the network; however, FOX owns the FOX station here.
So, I have a waiver from FOX, and receive FOX HD from DirecTV, but do
not receive any other network HD programming. I do have an OTA antenna,
so I get HD programming over the air.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:44:34 PM

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

"RobH" <r.heady-no-spam@liant.com> wrote in message
news:D WRNd.39136$iC4.25718@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Some (like the FOX affilliate here in Austin) broadcast in HD only at low
>>power and via cable.
>
> Hi Mack,
>
> I use a Radio Shack indoor antenna and I have never gotten the FOX
> affiliate in Austin HD broadcast and I live less than five miles from the
> towers. I get PBS just great and occasionally I can get KXAN, KVUE and
> KNVA. I suspected that FOX was broadcasting the HD in low power. I had
> hoped they would have boosted their signal for the SuperBowl. Pretty sad
> when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD transmission.
>
> -Rob

Just out of idle curiousity, why would you think it sad that PBS would have
a good signal? Don't you watch PBS? Not enough reality shows for you?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:06:49 PM

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

In article <RvOdnZCwDZseZ5XfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

> > Pretty sad when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD
> > transmission.
> >
> > -Rob
>
> Just out of idle curiousity, why would you think it sad that PBS
> would have a good signal? Don't you watch PBS? Not enough reality
> shows for you?

I think he means that it's sad that commercial channels don't have as
good a signal as PBS's, not that PBS's is good.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:06:50 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-3FE6E3.13064908022005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <RvOdnZCwDZseZ5XfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>> > Pretty sad when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD
>> > transmission.
>> >
>> > -Rob
>>
>> Just out of idle curiousity, why would you think it sad that PBS
>> would have a good signal? Don't you watch PBS? Not enough reality
>> shows for you?
>
> I think he means that it's sad that commercial channels don't have as
> good a signal as PBS's, not that PBS's is good.


I for one think it's a great thing that the PBS stations were at the
forefront of terrestrial HDTV broadcasting in the United States. His
off-the-cuff statement about it is a sad testiment to the true nature of the
public's perception and appreciation for public broadcasting and some of the
finer arts. It's almost as if he's putting PBS in the same category as a low
production value community access channel or something similar.



>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:15:56 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:qYGdnaUP-fiNuZTfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> news:michelle-3FE6E3.13064908022005@news.west.cox.net...
>> In article <RvOdnZCwDZseZ5XfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
>> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Pretty sad when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD
>>> > transmission.
>>> >
>>> > -Rob
>>>
>>> Just out of idle curiousity, why would you think it sad that PBS
>>> would have a good signal? Don't you watch PBS? Not enough reality
>>> shows for you?
>>
>> I think he means that it's sad that commercial channels don't have as
>> good a signal as PBS's, not that PBS's is good.
>
>
> I for one think it's a great thing that the PBS stations were at the
> forefront of terrestrial HDTV broadcasting in the United States. His
> off-the-cuff statement about it is a sad testiment to the true nature of
> the public's perception and appreciation for public broadcasting and some
> of the finer arts. It's almost as if he's putting PBS in the same category
> as a low production value community access channel or something similar.
>

How can anyone say bad things about PBS, the ones that brought us Monty
Python, among other things!! Back when we only had ABC/NBC/CBS OTA (and
actually had to get up and physically turn the channel with a twist of the
wrist while repositioning the matchbook), it was (and still is) one of the
best things going to fight boredom!

>
>
>>
>> --
>> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
>
>
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:01:03 AM

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

In article <1107793649.873941.5990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Albert <albertscats@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I just don't get it!!
>
> According to the Fox website, the 2005 Superbowl was to be broadcast in
> HD. And apparently it was. Some folks in other regions saw it in HD,
> BUT NOT ME!!!!
>
> I subscribe to DirecTV and its HD Channels. I PAY MONEY FOR THE HD
> CHANNELS - yet because of some bizzare local broadcasting situation, NO
> HD SUPERBOWL!!!!
>
> On a similar note, I read on the DirecTV website that HD subscribers
> can receive CBS and ABC in HD "if" they live in certain "markets" (like
> San Francisco). What does this mean? What is the point in having
> expensive HD equipment if we can only receive 4 HD channels, which I
> have to pay extra for?
>
> Why does this process have to be so lame?
>
> Sincerely,
> Disgusted in San Jose :-(


Get a clue son on what you are really getting before you sign-up for a
subscription tv service. I watched the Superbowl in San Jose in
glorious HDTV for free OTA.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:48:36 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:RvOdnZCwDZseZ5XfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>
> "RobH" <r.heady-no-spam@liant.com> wrote in message
> news:D WRNd.39136$iC4.25718@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Some (like the FOX affilliate here in Austin) broadcast in HD only at low
>>>power and via cable.
>>
>> Hi Mack,
>>
>> I use a Radio Shack indoor antenna and I have never gotten the FOX
>> affiliate in Austin HD broadcast and I live less than five miles from the
>> towers. I get PBS just great and occasionally I can get KXAN, KVUE and
>> KNVA. I suspected that FOX was broadcasting the HD in low power. I had
>> hoped they would have boosted their signal for the SuperBowl. Pretty sad
>> when the Public Broadcasting channel has the best HD transmission.
>>
>> -Rob
>
> Just out of idle curiousity, why would you think it sad that PBS would
> have a good signal? Don't you watch PBS? Not enough reality shows for you?


Hi Charles,



I have never watched one of those "reality shows", I don't even watch the
sit-coms or drama shows the networks produce. Some people like those shows
and I don't fault them for it. This is America and consumer choice drives
the free enterprise system. Personally, I think PBS produces a wide variety
of fine programming including news, documentaries, science and nature,
children's shows and special interest programs. When the Spurs aren't
playing I will often see what is on PBS.



What is sad is that a station that is funded by taxpayer dollars and public
support can deliver a strong HD signal but the commercial broadcasters have
not made it a priority to deliver the highest quality product for their
consumers.



Rob
February 9, 2005 7:48:37 PM

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

Seems to me that what he's talking about is the local Fox affiliate not
being owned by Fox, and that the local owner has not agreed to waive
fees to provide the HD fee in that DMA, and that the provider (Dish,
Direct or Cable) is not willing to pay extra money to get it.

That's the situation here in Pgh with Sinclair Broadcasting owning Fox,
preventing cable or D* from showing Fox in HD - even though I get it
OTA. DirecTV has actually done a pretty good job in getting most of
the networks on HD - as opposed to E* which has done a really horrible
job. But, they, along with cable, can't do anything when the local
non-network owned affiliate won't play ball.


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 8:38:16 PM

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

"RobH" <r.heady-no-spam@liant.com> wrote in message
news:E9rOd.43574$iC4.1871@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> What is sad is that a station that is funded by taxpayer dollars and
> public support can deliver a strong HD signal but the commercial
> broadcasters have not made it a priority to deliver the highest quality
> product for their consumers.

The reality of the situation is that there is very little financial
incentive at this point for commercial broadcasters, on the contrary it has
cost them quite a bit of money to make the transition and those who jumped
first already are realizing the first generation equipment they purchased
will have to be upgraded or replaced at great cost before it ever even shows
a profit. As a businessman, if I owned a station I would probably wait as
long as possible to purchase my equipment and make the transition. If HD
disappeared tomorrow the bottom line for stations would not change by 1
cent. They all know they need to have good HD equipment someday to remain
competitive, but right now its a losing proposition financially. Those with
first generation equipment will limp along as long as they can before
reinvesting.
!