Sinclair shuts down HD on Comcast

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

Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
carriage of their over-the-air DT service.

Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
data service instead of HDTV.

For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.

I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
39 answers Last reply
More about sinclair shuts comcast
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <cr-dnWdE86k1wr7fRVn-2g@comcast.com>, Randy Sweeney says...
    >
    >Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    >down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    >that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    >carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    >Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >data service instead of HDTV.
    >
    >For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    >signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    >of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    >ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >
    >I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >
    >


    Same Sinclair that contributes heavily to Republican party and sees nothing
    wrong with airing politcal propaganda and calling it a documentary. They aren't
    likely to be interested in your appeal for fair treatment.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    LOL
    You will probably have to wait for the 700 Club to
    start broadcasting in HD, then you will be good to go
    with Sinclair. :-)

    Randy Sweeney wrote:

    >Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    >down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    >that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    >carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    >Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >data service instead of HDTV.
    >
    >For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    >signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    >of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    >ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >
    >I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Ric Seyler
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

    >Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    >down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    >that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    >carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    >Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >data service instead of HDTV.
    >
    >For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    >signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    >of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    >ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >
    >I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >

    FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
    http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com>,
    Tim Keating <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:

    > FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
    > http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml

    Oh, good; they're not in my state at all.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Interesting, the channel they run here in Cincinnati has a very good digital
    feed but I've never seen anything HD on there, but then does the WB show
    ANYTHING in HD??


    "Tim Keating" <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
    news:416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    > <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
    shutting
    > >down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair
    feels
    > >that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    > >carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    > >
    > >Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    > >modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    > >data service instead of HDTV.
    > >
    > >For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT
    over-the-air
    > >signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a
    pair
    > >of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    > >ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    > >
    > >I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    > >lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    > >
    >
    > FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
    > http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "BillJ" <BillJ_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message

    > Same Sinclair that contributes heavily to Republican party and sees
    > nothing
    > wrong with airing politcal propaganda and calling it a documentary. They
    > aren't
    > likely to be interested in your appeal for fair treatment.

    forget an appeal to fair treatment - TURN THEM OFF and let them know
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bobukcat wrote:
    > Interesting, the channel they run here in Cincinnati has a very good digital
    > feed but I've never seen anything HD on there, but then does the WB show
    > ANYTHING in HD??

    Well, they did show Wizard of Oz back in December in HD. A remastered
    in HD version too. Most of their scripted shows are in HD, although not
    all. Pasting from their website from an old press release (IIRC,
    Commando Nanny never made it):

    BURBANK, CA (August 4, 2004) - The WB Network continues its
    commitment to the latest in television technology as it will broadcast
    9.5 hours, or 63% of its schedule, in high definition this fall, it was
    announced today by Garth Ancier, the network's Chairman.

    The WB, which has had a substantial percentage of its programming in
    1080-I HDTV since Fall, 2003, will broadcast dramas EVERWOOD, GILMORE
    GIRLS, ONE TREE HILL, SMALLVILLE, THE MOUNTAIN and JACK & BOBBY as well
    as comedies WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU, COMMANDO NANNY and REBA.

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

    Randy Sweeney wrote:
    > Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    > down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    > that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    > carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    > Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    > modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    > data service instead of HDTV.
    >
    > For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    > signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    > of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    > ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >
    > I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    > lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >

    Take a look at their web site!

    <http://www.sbgi.net/>

    Proud Supporter Of My Free HDTV

    AS *IF*!!

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    My city has the "pleasure" of having Stinklair owning the Fox affiliate and
    operating the WB affiliate. Double whammy. At least I'm not suffering like
    the folks in the cities where they own/run a major affiliate. I'd hate to
    lose "Lost" or "CSI".
    YMMV
    --
    "Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
    - Anon

    "Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:TZWdnTLl-8wuNL7fRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > bobukcat wrote:
    >> Interesting, the channel they run here in Cincinnati has a very good
    >> digital
    >> feed but I've never seen anything HD on there, but then does the WB show
    >> ANYTHING in HD??
    >
    > Well, they did show Wizard of Oz back in December in HD. A remastered in
    > HD version too. Most of their scripted shows are in HD, although not all.
    > Pasting from their website from an old press release (IIRC, Commando Nanny
    > never made it):
    >
    > BURBANK, CA (August 4, 2004) - The WB Network continues its commitment
    > to the latest in television technology as it will broadcast 9.5 hours, or
    > 63% of its schedule, in high definition this fall, it was announced today
    > by Garth Ancier, the network's Chairman.
    >
    > The WB, which has had a substantial percentage of its programming in
    > 1080-I HDTV since Fall, 2003, will broadcast dramas EVERWOOD, GILMORE
    > GIRLS, ONE TREE HILL, SMALLVILLE, THE MOUNTAIN and JACK & BOBBY as well as
    > comedies WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU, COMMANDO NANNY and REBA.
    >
    > Alan F
    >
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Well, I don't watch much sitcom or series stuff but I'll have to tune in and
    see if any of these shows are in HD on the local Sinclair channel but from
    what I'm seeing here I guess it won't be. Thanks for the info!

    Bob K.

    "Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:TZWdnTLl-8wuNL7fRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > bobukcat wrote:
    > > Interesting, the channel they run here in Cincinnati has a very good
    digital
    > > feed but I've never seen anything HD on there, but then does the WB show
    > > ANYTHING in HD??
    >
    > Well, they did show Wizard of Oz back in December in HD. A remastered
    > in HD version too. Most of their scripted shows are in HD, although not
    > all. Pasting from their website from an old press release (IIRC,
    > Commando Nanny never made it):
    >
    > BURBANK, CA (August 4, 2004) - The WB Network continues its
    > commitment to the latest in television technology as it will broadcast
    > 9.5 hours, or 63% of its schedule, in high definition this fall, it was
    > announced today by Garth Ancier, the network's Chairman.
    >
    > The WB, which has had a substantial percentage of its programming in
    > 1080-I HDTV since Fall, 2003, will broadcast dramas EVERWOOD, GILMORE
    > GIRLS, ONE TREE HILL, SMALLVILLE, THE MOUNTAIN and JACK & BOBBY as well
    > as comedies WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU, COMMANDO NANNY and REBA.
    >
    > Alan F
    >
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable companies
    what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw you".
    I would bet real money that it's Comcast looking for a way to avoid carrying
    duplicate analog and digital programming that the villain here.

    "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:cr-dnWdE86k1wr7fRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    > Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
    > shutting down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently
    > Sinclair feels that they should be paid even more per cable customer to
    > allow cable carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    > Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    > modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    > data service instead of HDTV.
    >
    > For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT
    > over-the-air signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal
    > literally from a pair of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD
    > transmission of a snowy ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >
    > I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    > lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <9gRUd.38149$Rl5.37779@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
    "curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:

    > So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable
    > companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply
    > "screw you".

    And the consumer gets screwed. But that's the purpose of the consumer,
    isn't it--to get screwed?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
    news:9gRUd.38149$Rl5.37779@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    > So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable
    > companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw
    > you".
    > I would bet real money that it's Comcast looking for a way to avoid
    > carrying duplicate analog and digital programming that the villain here.

    absolutely... so what?
    So I am no longer going support Sinclair with my eyes.

    It takes a lot to make the cable guys into the good guys but Sinclair has
    done it.
    The local paper reports that Comcast has offered to pay for HD but Sinclair
    wants $0.50 per month per subscriber more than offered.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob, the avsforum list of HD stations by market shows WB as a HD & 5.1
    station for Cincinnati, OH. Unless the list is wrong, you should find
    some HD programs on the WB digital channel (assuming you are posting
    from Cincinnati, Ohio, not, say Cincinnati, Iowa).
    (Complete list at
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=422073).

    I don't watch any of the WB shows on more than a occasional basis, but
    I had my HD TV only a week or so last December when they aired Wizard of
    Oz in HD. Few of us have ever seen it shown in 35 mm on a big screen. I
    watched only the early part of the movie where it switches to color, but
    it was a showpiece HD transfer of a 65+ year old movie. Not widescreen
    mind you as it was in the 4:3 OAR, but the colors were amazingly vivid.
    May be worth checking out if WB airs it again next Holiday season for
    anyone who can get the WB HD broadcast.

    As for Sinclair, you would think the networks & studios who having
    spent serious bucks upgrading their shows to HD would require their
    affiliates to eventually upgrade to HD as well. But I expect there are a
    lot of legal contract issues there.

    Alan F


    bobukcat wrote:
    > Well, I don't watch much sitcom or series stuff but I'll have to tune in and
    > see if any of these shows are in HD on the local Sinclair channel but from
    > what I'm seeing here I guess it won't be. Thanks for the info!
    >
    > Bob K.
    >
    > "Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:TZWdnTLl-8wuNL7fRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >
    >>bobukcat wrote:
    >>
    >>>Interesting, the channel they run here in Cincinnati has a very good
    > digital
    >>>feed but I've never seen anything HD on there, but then does the WB show
    >>>ANYTHING in HD??
    >>
    >> Well, they did show Wizard of Oz back in December in HD. A remastered
    >>in HD version too. Most of their scripted shows are in HD, although not
    >>all. Pasting from their website from an old press release (IIRC,
    >>Commando Nanny never made it):
    >>
    >> BURBANK, CA (August 4, 2004) - The WB Network continues its
    >>commitment to the latest in television technology as it will broadcast
    >>9.5 hours, or 63% of its schedule, in high definition this fall, it was
    >>announced today by Garth Ancier, the network's Chairman.
    >>
    >>The WB, which has had a substantial percentage of its programming in
    >>1080-I HDTV since Fall, 2003, will broadcast dramas EVERWOOD, GILMORE
    >>GIRLS, ONE TREE HILL, SMALLVILLE, THE MOUNTAIN and JACK & BOBBY as well
    >>as comedies WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU, COMMANDO NANNY and REBA.
    >>
    >> Alan F
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    > In article <9gRUd.38149$Rl5.37779@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
    > "curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable
    >>companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply
    >>"screw you".
    >
    >
    > And the consumer gets screwed. But that's the purpose of the consumer, isn't it--to get screwed?
    >
    Actually the consumer saves money by just putting up an antenna and
    getting the content for free.

    Isn't that why we gave broadcasters spectrum? Isn't that what it is
    supposed to be used for?

    What is happening here is that Sinclair has tested 5th gen LG receivers
    and is starting to think about reclaiming its customers from cable or at
    least being a bit more feisty as a competitor to cable than they have
    been. Just in time I say since the OTA broadcaster does not seem to be a
    favorite in DC these days from what I see on the vote against must
    carry, demand for rent for digital stations, truncating of media
    ownership rules, obscenity fines and etc.

    The next big idea they will have, if they haven't thought of it yet,
    (they have actually) is the need for MPEG4 and with that comes the
    opportunity to revisit the modulation issue. Paxson has already had a
    light bulb go off. He is thinking of asking the FCC for the right to use
    "other modulations" which would include a number of different COFDM
    types. Others will in the coming weeks be thinking and talking about
    similar thoughts. Some of this will come into the open at the NAB
    convention.

    Got to give them time to recover from the must carry debacle.

    I have predicted since 1999 that broadcasters would lose the must carry
    of multicasting FCC decision and that when they finally did it would be
    a wake up call to re-discover their OTA broadcasting transmitters.

    They are waking up.

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

    In article <0PTUd.806$L17.60@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > >>So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable
    > >>companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply
    > >>"screw you".
    > >
    > >
    > > And the consumer gets screwed. But that's the purpose of the
    > > consumer, isn't it--to get screwed?
    > >
    > Actually the consumer saves money by just putting up an antenna and
    > getting the content for free.
    >
    > Isn't that why we gave broadcasters spectrum? Isn't that what it is
    > supposed to be used for?

    If I have a sat receiver or cable service capable of receiving digital
    and HD signals, why should I have to spend the additional money to buy
    an OTA antenna in addition? And what if I can't receive the OTA signals
    in the first place?

    And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I want
    to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them offer an
    OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)

    > What is happening here is that Sinclair has tested 5th gen LG
    > receivers and is starting to think about reclaiming its customers
    > from cable or at least being a bit more feisty as a competitor to
    > cable than they have been.

    Reclaiming? What difference does it make whether I get their
    programming and commercials OTA or via a dish?

    What, if any, are the advantages to the consumer to receiving OTA
    signals rather than the same content via the dish?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I want
    > to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them offer an
    > OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)

    Every satellite DVR that can receive OTA digital broadcasts can also record
    OTA digital broadcasts.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActualCode.gif
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1c8de538c7e67457989be8@news.nabs.net>,
    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

    > > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I
    > > want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them
    > > offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
    >
    > Every satellite DVR that can receive OTA digital broadcasts can also
    > record OTA digital broadcasts.

    But will that always be the case?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > > > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I
    > > > want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them
    > > > offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
    > >
    > > Every satellite DVR that can receive OTA digital broadcasts can also
    > > record OTA digital broadcasts.
    >
    > But will that always be the case?

    Why would it change? Recording satellite and OTA digital are done the
    same way: record the raw bitstream. If a DVR can tune OTA digital, then
    disabling the recording ability would do nothing to reduce costs and a
    *lot* to piss off customers.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInternet02.gif
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Now I understand while I will never see CSI in HD On Comcast
    Time to get an LST-4200.................

    In article <416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com>, Tim Keating
    <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    ><rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    >>down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    >>that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    >>carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >>
    >>Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >>modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >>data service instead of HDTV.
    >>
    >>For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    >>signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    >>of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    >>ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >>
    >>I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >>lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >>
    >
    >FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
    >http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    David wrote:

    > You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
    > lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name
    "ROBMX".
    > Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
    >
    > That was the last I heard from you.
    > So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old
    lie.
    >
    > Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital
    television
    > forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England,
    Australia
    > and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
    >
    > Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power

    > [COFDM] transmitting system the
    > broadcasters there use.
    >
    > You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably

    > continue.

    This guy is the most deceitful, lying SOB I've ever seen on any forum
    or ng. Thank God AVS had the good sense to ban him from there due to
    his chronic lying. Unfortuantely, on usernet, anyone can say anything
    and not be challenged. Fortunately most people here are aware enough to
    recognize a lie when they see it. But yes, nothing will stop this
    slimebag from continuing to lie. He is a very desperate 'man'. What I
    still find more incredible than anything, is the fact that somehow he
    thinks that even if he could deceive people here, it would make a
    difference. What possible difference could he think it would make to
    deceive a handful of people here who are in no way the decision makers
    he needs to convince. The guy would be just as 'successful' if he went
    to his local McDonalds and sat down at a table and convinced that table
    how great COFDM is and how miserable 8VSB is. The man is truly an
    idiot. Just simply amazing.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    > In article <0PTUd.806$L17.60@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw you".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>And the consumer gets screwed. But that's the purpose of the consumer, isn't it--to get screwed?
    >>>
    >>
    >>Actually the consumer saves money by just putting up an antenna and getting the content for free.
    >>
    >>Isn't that why we gave broadcasters spectrum? Isn't that what it is supposed to be used for?
    >
    >
    > If I have a sat receiver or cable service capable of receiving digital and HD signals, why should I have to spend the additional money to buy
    > an OTA antenna in addition? And what if I can't receive the OTA signals in the first place?

    Good question. I don't suggest that you should have to. In fact I would
    ask the Chairman of the FCC why he had decided to make you buy an OTA
    receiver if you want to buy a TV set even if you don't want OTA and have
    cable or satellite.

    But you asked the question a different way. Why should you have to buy
    an antenna. You should have said receiver since the antenna is an
    insignificant cost with COFDM. Maybe $2 and it will come built in to
    most TV sets. This will be true in the US also once we have changed to a
    modern modulation. Even 8-VSB 5th gen receivers have far less need for a
    fancy antenna.

    But again your question suggest that you shouldn't have to buy an
    "antenna/OTA receiver" to RECEIVE content delivered by OTA broadcasters.
    Why not I say since OTA broadcasters are in competition with cable
    companies. The question to me is why are broadcasters giving their
    content to cable and satellite competitors in the first place.

    And if you can't receive the OTA signals in the first place the
    broadcaster and the FCC should be making sure that the US has a
    modulation system and a network design to go with it that would insure
    OTA reception in all parts of the country. Other countries are doing
    that, why can't we?

    Britain, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Australia,
    Japan, China and many others have or are working on building country
    wide OTA broadcast networks.

    Even in the US Qualcomm and Crown Castle are building national DTV
    networks that will have ubiquitous coverage. It is possible and desirable.

    The only reason we have such a lousy modulation as 8-VSB is because our
    broadcasters were not paying attention to OTA broadcasting and relied on
    must carry. They let others make the decision on what modulation they
    would be required to use. INSANE?
    >
    > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
    >
    >
    >>What is happening here is that Sinclair has tested 5th gen LG receivers and is starting to think about reclaiming its customers from cable or at least being a bit more feisty as a competitor to
    >>cable than they have been.
    >
    >
    > Reclaiming? What difference does it make whether I get their programming and commercials OTA or via a dish?

    Doesn't matter unless in a competitive environment OTA broadcasters
    decide they do not want to support their competitors the cable or
    satellite company by offering them their content.
    >
    > What, if any, are the advantages to the consumer to receiving OTA signals rather than the same content via the dish?
    >

    Cost less, maybe it is content you can't get on your dish. In a
    competitive environment it could be expected that competitors might
    offer exclusive content to steal customers from their competitor.

    Why can't I buy Texico gas at my Mobile station?

    OTA, cable and satellite are three different ways to deliver TV content.
    What is confusing is that for a long time we have written off OTA as if
    it didn't exist. It is making a comeback now that there is a decent
    receiver, 5th gen LG if they ever show up.

    The FCC has thrown the first surprise decision in this new OTA world. It
    has ruled that OTA broadcasters cannot get must carry of more than one
    program on cable. This says to broadcasters mind your knitting, get back
    to OTA spectrum and do something with it. Sinclair is doing something
    with it. They are starting to act as a competitor to cable. Getting feisty.

    Expect OTA broadcasters to with hold all of their content from cable and
    satellite soon. First shot is not to take it away from cable but to
    charge for it and keep raising the fee. Then at some point cable will
    drop the OTA content? Hardly, in a world where OTA works digital cable
    and satellite are the needy ones.

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

    In article <LRUUd.833$L17.147@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > > If I have a sat receiver or cable service capable of receiving
    > > digital and HD signals, why should I have to spend the additional
    > > money to buy an OTA antenna in addition? And what if I can't
    > > receive the OTA signals in the first place?
    >
    > Good question. I don't suggest that you should have to. In fact I
    > would ask the Chairman of the FCC why he had decided to make you buy
    > an OTA receiver if you want to buy a TV set even if you don't want
    > OTA and have cable or satellite.

    When did the chairman of the FCC make me buy an OTA receiver?

    > But you asked the question a different way. Why should you have to
    > buy an antenna. You should have said receiver since the antenna is an
    > insignificant cost with COFDM. Maybe $2 and it will come built in to
    > most TV sets. This will be true in the US also once we have changed
    > to a modern modulation. Even 8-VSB 5th gen receivers have far less
    > need for a fancy antenna.

    Doesn't it depend on the signal strength and distance from the broadcast
    tower? If the signal isn't strong enough for a smaller antenna,
    wouldn't I need a larger one? Also, many houses these days are Faraday
    cages because of the chicken wire and foam construction of the outer
    walls, so it might be necessary to have an antenna outside of the
    structure itself.

    > But again your question suggest that you shouldn't have to buy an
    > "antenna/OTA receiver" to RECEIVE content delivered by OTA
    > broadcasters. Why not I say since OTA broadcasters are in competition
    > with cable companies.

    How are they in competition with cable companies? What difference does
    it make to them whether I receive their content via cable, satellite, or
    OTA?

    > The question to me is why are broadcasters giving their
    > content to cable and satellite competitors in the first place.

    Because that way they get wider distribution of their content?

    > And if you can't receive the OTA signals in the first place the
    > broadcaster and the FCC should be making sure that the US has a
    > modulation system and a network design to go with it that would
    > insure OTA reception in all parts of the country. Other countries are
    > doing that, why can't we?

    I can think of a number of reasons. Let's start with the fact that in
    the US, TV is a private industry; in most of those countries, it is a
    governmental monopoly or near monopoly. In the US, there are
    independent local stations, some of which are affiliated with networks,
    but all of which contain local programming. Signals cannot overlap
    because they would cause interference with each other; therefore, signal
    strength has to be limited, which results in there being holes in
    coverage. Also, in mountainous terrain, there are areas that are
    blocked by the mountains from any signals. Etc., etc.

    > > Reclaiming? What difference does it make whether I get their
    > > programming and commercials OTA or via a dish?
    >
    > Doesn't matter unless in a competitive environment OTA broadcasters
    > decide they do not want to support their competitors the cable or
    > satellite company by offering them their content.

    I ask again, how are they in competition?

    > > What, if any, are the advantages to the consumer to receiving OTA
    > > signals rather than the same content via the dish?
    >
    > Cost less, maybe it is content you can't get on your dish. In a
    > competitive environment it could be expected that competitors might
    > offer exclusive content to steal customers from their competitor.

    How are they competitors? The stations get their revenue from their
    advertisers; the more people who see the advertisements/commercials, the
    better for the advertisers and for the stations. So, transmitting their
    content via cable and/or satellite adds numbers of viewers or potential
    viewers.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >You should have said receiver since the antenna is an insignificant cost
    >with COFDM.

    A few days ago, I pointed out to you that this is not true.

    You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
    lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name "ROBMX".
    Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.

    That was the last I heard from you.
    So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.

    Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital television
    forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England, Australia
    and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.

    Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
    [COFDM] transmitting system the
    broadcasters there use.

    You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
    continue.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    David wrote:
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You should have said receiver since the antenna is an insignificant cost
    >>with COFDM.
    >
    >
    > A few days ago, I pointed out to you that this is not true.
    >
    > You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
    > lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name "ROBMX".
    > Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
    >
    > That was the last I heard from you.
    > So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.
    >
    > Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital television
    > forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England, Australia
    > and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
    >
    > Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
    > [COFDM] transmitting system the
    > broadcasters there use.
    >
    > You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
    > continue.

    For all the good it has done him.

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

    In article <MPG.1c8e08a7cef844ca989be9@news.nabs.net>,
    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

    > > > > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why
    > > > > would I want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not
    > > > > all of them offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
    > > >
    > > > Every satellite DVR that can receive OTA digital broadcasts can
    > > > also record OTA digital broadcasts.
    > >
    > > But will that always be the case?
    >
    > Why would it change? Recording satellite and OTA digital are done
    > the same way: record the raw bitstream. If a DVR can tune OTA
    > digital, then disabling the recording ability would do nothing to
    > reduce costs and a *lot* to piss off customers.

    OK. Thanks. That makes sense.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:17:59 -0500, "MrMike6by9"
    <MrMike6by9@tepidmail.com> wrote:

    >My city has the "pleasure" of having Stinklair owning the Fox affiliate and
    >operating the WB affiliate. Double whammy. At least I'm not suffering like
    >the folks in the cities where they own/run a major affiliate. I'd hate to
    >lose "Lost" or "CSI".
    >YMMV

    In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
    Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
    Thumper
    To reply drop XYZ in address
  28. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:26:29 -0500, "curmudgeon"
    <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:

    >So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable companies
    >what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw you".
    >I would bet real money that it's Comcast looking for a way to avoid carrying
    >duplicate analog and digital programming that the villain here.
    >

    That's just plain bullshit.
    Thumper
    >"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:cr-dnWdE86k1wr7fRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    >> Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
    >> shutting down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently
    >> Sinclair feels that they should be paid even more per cable customer to
    >> allow cable carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >>
    >> Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >> modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >> data service instead of HDTV.
    >>
    >> For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT
    >> over-the-air signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal
    >> literally from a pair of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD
    >> transmission of a snowy ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >>
    >> I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >> lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >>
    >>
    >

    To reply drop XYZ in address
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:26:34 GMT, here@there.com wrote:

    >Now I understand while I will never see CSI in HD On Comcast
    >Time to get an LST-4200.................
    >

    Does the station broadcast HD?
    Thumper
    >In article <416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com>, Tim Keating
    ><NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    >><rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
    >>>down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
    >>>that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
    >>>carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >>>
    >>>Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
    >>>modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
    >>>data service instead of HDTV.
    >>>
    >>>For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
    >>>signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
    >>>of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
    >>>ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
    >>>
    >>>I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
    >>>lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
    >>>
    >>
    >>FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
    >>http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml

    To reply drop XYZ in address
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1109690657.723246.130310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > David wrote:
    >> You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
    >> lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name
    > "ROBMX".
    >> Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
    >> That was the last I heard from you.
    >> So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.
    >> Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digitaltelevision
    >> forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England,
    > Australia and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
    >> Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
    >> [COFDM] transmitting system the broadcasters there use.
    >> You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
    >> continue.

    > This guy is the most deceitful, lying SOB I've ever seen on any forum
    > or ng.


    Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s
  31. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    David wrote:
    > Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s

    Now Dave, you know I was speaking of the BOOBSTER and not you! ;)
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message

    > In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
    > Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
    > Thumper

    Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
    signal and calling it DT-SD?
  33. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Randy Sweeney wrote:
    > Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
    > shutting down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently
    > Sinclair feels that they should be paid even more per cable customer
    > to allow cable carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
    >
    I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network affiliate to
    make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened in Baltimore (FOX 45)
    Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how out-of-market
    locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the station
    they should have the option to provide the network in another way. If not
    WTTG then WNYW.

    But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day after
    tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)
  34. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    As a fellow sufferer in Stinklair Hell I'd like to know what you mean. On a
    side note, I always thought 45 was low-rent years before FOX. I remember
    watching one night (maybe around 11 or so) and I hear woman's voice over a
    static image for the upcoming news broadcast, "You really think you can
    record? Good, you know you really scared the s**t out of me." Then her face
    appears on screen as if nothing went wrong ....
    --
    "Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
    - Anon

    "Drewdawg" <nope@not.here> wrote in message
    news:qg4Vd.90953$Th1.43242@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >>
    > I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network affiliate to
    > make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened in Baltimore (FOX
    > 45)
    > Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how
    > out-of-market
    > locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the station
    > they should have the option to provide the network in another way. If not
    > WTTG then WNYW.
    >
    > But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day after
    > tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:28:37 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >
    >> In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
    >> Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
    >> Thumper
    >
    >Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
    >signal and calling it DT-SD?
    >
    Looks like it to me. I haven't really looked lately because I watch
    my tv on Comcast while my OTA receiver sits collecting dust. Last
    year I had one feed (Comcast) delivering ntsc and one coming from my
    OTA receiver that they said was digital. I switched back and forth
    and only saw a very marginal improvement with the supposed DT feed. I
    wouldn't even have noticed the difference if I wasn't really looking
    for it. It had to be a digitized NTSC signal. Snow, snow, snow.
    Thumper
    To reply drop XYZ in address
  36. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:7mdb219ijmf3ptju9f8cs5vjia7utmbr1e@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:28:37 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    > <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >>> In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
    >>> Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
    >>> Thumper
    >>
    >>Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
    >>signal and calling it DT-SD?
    >>
    > Looks like it to me. I haven't really looked lately because I watch
    > my tv on Comcast while my OTA receiver sits collecting dust. Last
    > year I had one feed (Comcast) delivering ntsc and one coming from my
    > OTA receiver that they said was digital. I switched back and forth
    > and only saw a very marginal improvement with the supposed DT feed. I
    > wouldn't even have noticed the difference if I wasn't really looking
    > for it. It had to be a digitized NTSC signal. Snow, snow, snow.

    Snow and ghosts are dead giveaway on DT
    Just Sinclair showing its disdain for both the FCC and the viewing public
  37. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1109710286.946171.200180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > David wrote:
    >> Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s
    >
    > Now Dave, you know I was speaking of the BOOBSTER and not you! ;)

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

    MrMike6by9 wrote:
    > As a fellow sufferer in Stinklair Hell I'd like to know what you
    > mean.

    Have Comcast run WTTG-DT (FOX D.C.) in the channel vacated by the greedy
    WBFF-DT.

    >On a side note, I always thought 45 was low-rent years before
    > FOX. I remember watching one night (maybe around 11 or so) and I hear
    > woman's voice over a static image for the upcoming news broadcast,
    > "You really think you can record? Good, you know you really scared
    > the s**t out of me." Then her face appears on screen as if nothing
    > went wrong ....

    Can you get WTTG-DT 36 OTA? They're 1MW and I can occasionally get them in
    Dover, DE.
    >
    > "Drewdawg" <nope@not.here> wrote in message
    > news:qg4Vd.90953$Th1.43242@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>
    >> I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network
    >> affiliate to make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened
    >> in Baltimore (FOX 45)
    >> Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how
    >> out-of-market
    >> locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the
    >> station they should have the option to provide the network in
    >> another way. If not WTTG then WNYW.
    >>
    >> But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day
    >> after tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)
  39. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I never took a chance that the topography would not block the signals. I am
    on the other northern side of the large valley formed by the Joppa Ridge.
    When I look in the general direction of "TV Hill", I see the Joppa Ridge on
    the other side of the Beltway. I always heard that OTA digital is
    line-of-sight so I never bought a receiver to test it. I'd love to get WTTG.
    My eyesight was probably ruined years ago straining to see through the snow
    for images of classic monster and horror movies on my old B&W set watching
    Channel 5. Now, even with a roof top antenna

    --
    "Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
    - Anon
    >
    > Can you get WTTG-DT 36 OTA? They're 1MW and I can occasionally get them in
    > Dover, DE.
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV HD Home Theatre