Sinclair shuts down HD on Comcast

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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
>
>
>
>

 

[curmudgeon]

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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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