DirecTV vs. Time Warner Cable - Pros and Cons

[JeeperOne]

Since I live in an apartment building that DOES NOT have a clear view of the southern horizon, Satellite isn't a viable option now as it once was at my old place

BTW.....When I did have DirecTV service, I was VERY satisfied with it although it was vulnerable to going out during heavy rain & thunderstorms

Cheers & 73

 

[LKellerIII]

BTW.....When I did have DirecTV service, I was VERY satisfied with it although it was vulnerable to going out during heavy rain & thunderstorms

Cheers & 73

I keep hearing that, so I keep waiting for it to fail in heavy rain, and it hasn't yet. I'm in California, which has had practically no rain for about 5 years, but this year has had some considerable El Nino related storms. But at least so far, the reception has been bullet-proof.

The only problem I ever have is downloading On Demand content, which goes slow, and keeps re-buffering. It appears to be because of my slow AT&T internet connection, so not DirecTV's fault. Sadly, the only alternative where I am is to subscribe to Comcast's faster internet, but I'd sooner shoot my big toe off that go back to Comcast for anything.

 

[K.M. Richards]

BTW.....When I did have DirecTV service, I was VERY satisfied with it although it was vulnerable to going out during heavy rain & thunderstorms

Cheers & 73

I keep hearing that, so I keep waiting for it to fail in heavy rain, and it hasn't yet.

Back in the fall of 2003 when I was still a public transit governing official, I was sent to a weekend conference in Baltimore, right at the start of their rainy season. The hotel where the conference was being held (and therefore where I was staying) had a hybrid DirecTV and CATV distribution system, and one evening it started thunderstorming hard. One by one, each of the channels went out and was replaced by the receiver's "searching for signal" screen. (That, in fact, is how I found out they were using DirecTV.)

The storm lasted somewhere around 20 minutes and it took the system close to another ten to fully restore all the channels (they were even using DirecTV to receive the Baltimore locals). The last ones to come back, IIRC, were the HBOs.

 

[frankberry]

We have Dish Network and occasionally lose all or part (multiple satellites) of the signal during very heavy rain.

During the Winter months, excessive snow build-up on the dish will cause the loss of signal.

It really doesn't happen too often. When it does, I have "rabbit ears" on the TV set in my living room. Using the rabbit ears, I can receive over a dozen channels (including sub-channels).

When all else fails, I have a cable internet connection. All in all, I've found that satellite TV is less expensive than cable.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Well, you might have phrased your concern to make that clearer.

To add to my original answer with that in mind, you still won't notice much of anything, because in the larger markets the stations feed a DirecTV uplink site via fiber optic from their control rooms and what happens at the transmitter has no effect.

Market #26 is very likely one of those larger markets.

I'm on Time Warner, which means the subchannels are in a premium package, or at least I think they are. But my concern is that I have basic basic, which means only WGN America, Pop, a couple of public access/community and shopping channels and that News 14 Channel in addition to the broadcast stations that are currently .1, and no .2 or above.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Your responses make it harder to answer you, chimp ... but I will try again to clarify.

What I said back in post #17:

Let's say channels 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are actually transmitting from channel 48, and in the repacking they start using channel 36's transmitter, which already has channels 7.1 and 7.2 on it. 4.1 would become the third stream on 36, but it would still be displaying as 4.1 via PSIP.

Channel 4.1, which is probably just channel 4 on your cable, would be the third stream on broadcast 36 post-repack, but it would still be 4.1, so you won't notice anything because it will still be channel 4 on your cable.

But ... what I said in post #20:

To add to my original answer with that in mind, you still won't notice much of anything, because in the larger markets the stations feed a DirecTV uplink site via fiber optic from their control rooms and what happens at the transmitter has no effect.

The same thing applies to cable systems. They're likely getting a fiber optic feed from the control room, so it doesn't matter where the broadcast signal is coming from.

Even if they were picking it up off the air, 4.1 would still be 4.1 and you still wouldn't notice.

Bottom line: I think you worry too damned much about this, but I'd rather accuse you of overthinking than of being dense.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Okay, thanks, I missed post #17. So that's something about repacking that I missed.

I'm writing the Wikipedia article about repacking, so I need to know this stuff.

It would be nice if I got contributions from others since that's how Wikipedia works, but not much has been added to that article that I didn't put there.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I'm writing the Wikipedia article about repacking, so I need to know this stuff.

With all due respect, IMO Wikipedia articles should never be written or edited by people who don't already know the subject of same.

 

[vchimpanzee]

The reason they don't is simple. They don't have enough satellite bandwidth to do that with the "spot beams" they use to deliver local stations to their individual markets, and if the diginets made a deal with DirecTV to carry them as a single national feed it would probably violate the terms of their carriage agreements with the local stations in each market.



And you won't even notice, because the PSIP information will not change, regardless of which transmitter a station is using.

Let's say channels 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are actually transmitting from channel 48, and in the repacking they start using channel 36's transmitter, which already has channels 7.1 and 7.2 on it. 4.1 would become the third stream on 36, but it would still be displaying as 4.1 via PSIP.

You might have to rescan after packing, but that's about it.

Okay, I missed the second sentence here because I only noticed the rescan part, which is something I would do with an antenna, and I knew that part was irrelevant to my cable service.

Hopefully (and this is going off topic) the repacking taking place in my area will use the channels I receive best. Because some of these channels are not in my market and, with one exception (for now) not on my Time Warner service.

 

[vchimpanzee]

With all due respect, IMO Wikipedia articles should never be written or edited by people who don't already know the subject of same.

Right. But I saw I need, and I attempted to fill it. If someone else can do a better job, they're welcome to try.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Hopefully (and this is going off topic) the repacking taking place in my area will use the channels I receive best.

Won't know that until we see who bids for what and who arranges with which survivors.

If someone else can do a better job, they're welcome to try.

I nominate Doug Smith, Scott Fybush, Keith Elston, or Trip Ericson.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I nominate Doug Smith, Scott Fybush, Keith Elston, or Trip Ericson.

And how do we get them to do that?

 

[K.M. Richards]

And how do we get them to do that?

They all read this board. If any of them feel the same as I do -- that someone with little knowledge of the subject should be authoring the Wikipedia entry on it -- they'll step in.

I suppose it will depend on how good a job you are able to do. If you succeed in creating an accurate entry, they'll leave it alone. If you screw it up, they won't be able to resist correcting you.

 

[vchimpanzee]

They all read this board. If any of them feel the same as I do -- that someone with little knowledge of the subject should be authoring the Wikipedia entry on it -- they'll step in.

I suppose it will depend on how good a job you are able to do. If you succeed in creating an accurate entry, they'll leave it alone. If you screw it up, they won't be able to resist correcting you.

I summarize what I read in Broadcasting & Cable magazine, which I can see online. When that didn't seem to be enough I found other sources which looked good to me. It's not a great article by any means, but most of the facts are there.

 

[schmave]

I've been a DirecTV customer most of the time since January 2008. The reason? Sports, plain and simple.
If I wasn't a big sports fan, I would be happy with cable. If I lived in the home market for my favorite sports teams (mostly the Cubs but to a lesser extent other Chicago teams), I would be happy with cable.
My bill is about $110 a month outside baseball season and $150 during. Internet for us is about $60 through Time Warner, so while my girlfriend and I spend more on TV and internet than we would if we bundled, we're fine with splurging a little. She doesn't like Time Warner at all for totally separate reasons so she's perfectly happy having DirecTV.
As for fades, they aren't nearly as frequent as many say, at least not here in Ohio. My satellite also is rooted into the ground, whereas at my former residence it was anchored into a bucket of concrete and far more susceptible to interruption from wind, let alone rain.
We have two TVs hooked up to DirecTV. A third, in the spare bedroom I use as my office, is hooked to a digital antenna to get all Columbus-area channels, including all the subchannels DirecTV doesn't carry. I'm about 12 miles east of the Columbus TV towers so we're good to go.
Lastly, as for the sports packages, I know those are available through cable. But that version is crap next to what DirecTV carries. Satellite carries both feeds of almost all NBA, NHL and MLB games so I can choose my feed (as a Cubs fan, I almost never have to watch the opposing team's announcers) and all games are in HD. Fat chance of that with cable. And when I lived in Houston for two years, there was no other way for me to get Big Ten Network than with satellite, not to mention the regional sports networks I enjoy watching.

 

[KTN Corp]

If I chose to have satellite TV, I would have an OTA antenna hooked up to the VHF/UHF input of the television just in case. You will receive the subchannels that satellite omits and the rest that cable TV doesn't carry (usually the ones NOT piggybacking on the Big 4 or the Big 2 Spanish-language stations). Back in the old-days (c. 2000), there was no local TV option on DirecTV and I had to connect an antenna to my living room television set for local TV. The only other option was to subscribe to (very) basic cable (broadcast-stations only and C-SPAN, already on satellite but required as a public access channel) for a small fee (pre-carriage fees).

You can get the Winegard Flatwave non-Amped indoor antenna at Home Depot if you live close enough to the towers and have a clear line-of-sight. It's cheap enough for occasional use.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I summarize what I read in Broadcasting & Cable magazine, which I can see online. When that didn't seem to be enough I found other sources which looked good to me. It's not a great article by any means, but most of the facts are there.

I give you credit for at least using a credible source, then.

 

[schmave]

If I chose to have satellite TV, I would have an OTA antenna hooked up to the VHF/UHF input of the television just in case. You will receive the subchannels that satellite omits and the rest that cable TV doesn't carry (usually the ones NOT piggybacking on the Big 4 or the Big 2 Spanish-language stations). Back in the old-days (c. 2000), there was no local TV option on DirecTV and I had to connect an antenna to my living room television set for local TV. The only other option was to subscribe to (very) basic cable (broadcast-stations only and C-SPAN, already on satellite but required as a public access channel) for a small fee (pre-carriage fees).

You can get the Winegard Flatwave non-Amped indoor antenna at Home Depot if you live close enough to the towers and have a clear line-of-sight. It's cheap enough for occasional use.

When did DirecTV begin carrying local channels? I know it was before 2001, anyway. The only reason I know is my cousin who lived in Houston at the time had a, well, descrambler we'll call it and got everything on the satellite. I remember the local channels being in the 900s (I do remember not all markets were carried). It was odd sitting at his apartment in Houston watching Columbus news or Charlotte commercials, and the local version of WGN for Cubs games rather than the national superstation feed.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I have had DirecTV since 2006. It has always had my local channels included.
For a long time some of the smaller independent stations were not available in HD though.
They are now. But if I want to watch subchannels like MeTV or COZI I have to use an antenna.

 

[K.M. Richards]

The local stations were carried in the top-20 or top-25 markets by 2001 at the latest, using otherwise unfilled channels on the main DirecTV satellite and letting the set-top box choose the "correct" ones for the subscriber's address.

Obviously, satellite capacity was going to limit the number of markets that they could do this in, so they subsequently launched additional satellites with "spot beam" technology, which allowed the same channels to be used concurrently in different regions of the country with different stations in each region. This allowed them to evolve the "local-into-local" service into the entire country.

However, since there can still easily be a thousand or more local stations on each spot beam, DirecTV is still playing it safe by not carrying subchannels. They would likely need to reconfigure the entire system and add more satellites to do so ... and that would entail a free service call to every affected subscriber to reorient feed horns, etc.

AT&T would sooner try to fix U-verse.