Actually my area is nearly perfect, but we won't be seeing HD locals for quite a while. Took until Dec 2005 to get them in SD...
Knoxville serves a large area, including south east Ky (which is where I live). They also have alot of subs in the Knoxville viewing area. They may be going by how many subs they have in an area. Why put up hd locals in a area where you don't have as many subs?
Once again, what is Dish supposed to do, negotiate with the top "x" markets until a deal is made with all of them ? What if other markets are willing to make deals with Dish *now*, ignore them ? It's clearly obvious that Dish works with the stations in a market and if it's going nowhere, they move on to another one.
fair enough.... one would think though that since they have negotiated deals with analog locals, the process of negotiating HD locals would be easier. It is to the benefit of the locals to by available by all providers. Most people don't have OTA these days.
Dish is NOT alone in this. My local Time Warner doesn't carry NBC or WB/CW in digital/HD yet. They do carry CBS, ABC, and FOX though. TW says the stations want too much; the stations say TW wants it for free. Blah, blah, blah.... Who knows what the truth is.
Do a search for LIN Broadcasting or Sinclair Broadcast and see how "eager" they are to have their digital channels carried by cable and satellite providers.
IMO, the stations are going to "lose". So few people get television via antenna only nowadays that when the analog shutoff comes along these stations will lose 75-85% of their viewers if they're not available on cable or satellite. I say that the cable and satellite companies hold their ground and wait for the stations to ask them to be carried !
Our local TWC also doesn't have CBS in HD. In their case it has to do with an ongoing dispute with the local CBS station.
There's nothing "HD" about it, it's digital. The TV stations have to convert to digital on their own by Feb 2009 regardless if they're carried by any cable or satellite company.I think these stations want satellite and cable companies to pay for their equipment and costs for converting to HD.
I do think it works both ways and that the cable companies want the channel for free, likely just like the analog is currently free, invoked by "must carry" by the TV station. The TV stations got the wise idea not to invoke the must carry clause and instead asked for payment.Local morons won't deal and this has been going on for over a year!
That e-mail is from October 2004. Hey, at least they're "close". Neither channel is carried yet today. All of this was on-going before Oct '04 too, of course.Here is what I know at this point. Our corporate office is in negotiations with NBC to carry WDTN-HD. WB, it is just a matter of time before we carry this channel in HD. I understand we're close.
There's nothing "HD" about it, it's digital. The TV stations have to convert to digital on their own by Feb 2009 regardless if they're carried by any cable or satellite company.
No, you have a misunderstanding of this. The stations do NOT have to do anything in/with HD. They do not have to do their news or their own programming in HD, therefore no new "technology" is req'd. They can continue to use the same cameras, same sets, etc, etc that they use today. The programming that we watch from these stations, i.e. prime-time shows, comes from the network in HD, not the station. The stations just pass it along as-is.I understand that. I'm talking about something else. Regardless of the 2009 deadline, most stations are/will transmit HD as well. That requires new technology (ex HD cameras).
None can get the three listed and 61.5.
.
No, you have a misunderstanding of this. The stations do NOT have to do anything in/with HD. They do not have to do their news or their own programming in HD, therefore no new "technology" is req'd. They can continue to use the same cameras, same sets, etc, etc that they use today. The programming that we watch from these stations, i.e. prime-time shows, comes from the network in HD, not the station. The stations just pass it along as-is.
I guess Dish will be replacing a lot of dishes , or loosing a bunch of customers as directv offers the locals in hd on one dish. If i can get all of the programming on one dish with say 61,110, and 119, or whatever 3 sats i would need, great. if not, i am not putting 2 dishes on the house.
It seems like it will be awfully expensive to switch out all of the dishes in a certain area, if the locals are put on a sat, that is currently not being used in that area. If dish says you need 2 dishes, i think most people will drop dish and go to directv. Funny, when i signed up(11/2006), the cr said the hd locals would be up before xmas 2006. Not only did that not happen, he definitely didnt say i would need a 2nd dish.Well see what happens.