As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
Dish Network.

Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
for foodies?

I watch FoodNetwork (AKA FoodTV) and occasionally
pick up a odd show here and there, like Emeril Live
of some local shows, or travel shows. Personally, I
think Food Network has seen better days.

I am unimpressed by The Ace of Cakes, Robin Miller,
Sandra Lee and the Neeleys.

In Your opinion, I'd like to know which you prefer and
why.

Let the games begin.

TIA

Alex

Chemiker wrote:

> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.

Are you talking about cable? That's unaffected by the digital
changeover. That has to do with over-the-air broadcasts.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Chemiker wrote:
> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.
>
> Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
> for foodies?
>
> I watch FoodNetwork (AKA FoodTV) and occasionally
> pick up a odd show here and there, like Emeril Live
> of some local shows, or travel shows. Personally, I
> think Food Network has seen better days.
>
> I am unimpressed by The Ace of Cakes, Robin Miller,
> Sandra Lee and the Neeleys.
>
> In Your opinion, I'd like to know which you prefer and
> why.
>
> Let the games begin.
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

I may have read this wrong - but you said "current provider" - do you
mean a cable provider? If you already get cable - you are all set. At
least that's what I am led to believe.

I do feel a cold coming on - and even though I read the above a couple
times - I just wanted to make sure I didn't read it wrong.

I have Verizon - for the record.

-Tracy

Chemiker wrote:
> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.

Sounds confusing. The only mandate is that over the air analog
broadcasting must cease. Cable/satellite providers etc are not required
to do anything different. Who is your mystery current provider?

>
> Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
> for foodies?
>
> I watch FoodNetwork (AKA FoodTV) and occasionally
> pick up a odd show here and there, like Emeril Live
> of some local shows, or travel shows. Personally, I
> think Food Network has seen better days.
>
> I am unimpressed by The Ace of Cakes, Robin Miller,
> Sandra Lee and the Neeleys.
>
> In Your opinion, I'd like to know which you prefer and
> why.
>
> Let the games begin.
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

In article >,
Chemiker > wrote:

> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog.

Your only option is to get rid of all your tvs and buy 17 new ones, at
an average cost of about US$2000 each. Call the total US$35000,
including a new antenna for your roof. Might as well upgrade that one,
too. You DO have an antenna on your roof, right? To receive those OTA
signals from your local TV station?

> One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.

The new cutover only applies to OTA (over the air) tv. Anyone who has a
dish or cable is unaffected by this US cutover.

If you are happy with what you have now, you don't need to do a thing.
If you want to switch to HD, I doubt that now is a good time here in the
US. In fact, maybe now would be a good time to pick up a top of the
line used analog tv that someone is getting rid of to get an HD.

> Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
> for foodies?

We have Dish Network, and have had it forever, maybe longer. I doubt
that there is much difference between the two. There are web sites for
both that explain what is offered on what plan. If you decide to go
with HD, either one offers it.

NOTE - for those who have read this far, and have OTA with analog tvs,
my first paragraph above was a friendly lie. You can buy a box for
about US$50 that will convert the new signals to work on your old tv.
The US government was almost completely subsidizing these, although at
this late date they may have run out of the coupons.

My prediction for the future, is that as more and more analog tvs die
and don't get fixed because it isn't worth it, and more and more people
have digital tvs, that the market base will make it economically
desirable for cable and satellite providers to drop analog channels. I
believe that currently, some channels are offered as both. There will
be no government mandate, and I suspect that it will happen piecemeal,
but don't be surprised if at some time, your favorite channel will no
longer be available in analog. That's just my guess, based on no solid
knowledge. Whether that will start happening in two years, five years
or ten years I couldn't say. I know that when my present monster analog
CRT tv dies, I will look real hard at a large flat screen with HD.
Whether I actually get HD reception will depend on price and
availability.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

I was not ckear, it seems.

I have satellite. A channel last night demonstrated
whether or not their signal would be properly processed,
by switching from analog to digital. We lost. Picture disappeared
and we got a test pattern for 5 minutes. I know I need to buy
the convertor box OR upgrade OR switch sat, providers.

So, which is the better? DIsh or DIrectTV? MY stomach
depends on the answer.

Alex
"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.
>
> Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
> for foodies?
>
> I watch FoodNetwork (AKA FoodTV) and occasionally
> pick up a odd show here and there, like Emeril Live
> of some local shows, or travel shows. Personally, I
> think Food Network has seen better days.
>
> I am unimpressed by The Ace of Cakes, Robin Miller,
> Sandra Lee and the Neeleys.
>
> In Your opinion, I'd like to know which you prefer and
> why.
>
> Let the games begin.
>
> TIA
>
> Alex

Harry Buskin wrote:

> I was not ckear, it seems.

I suppose.

> I have satellite.

Then you likely have no concerns with the switchover.

> A channel last night demonstrated
> whether or not their signal would be properly processed,
> by switching from analog to digital.

I assume the channel was one of the broadcast ones.

> We lost. Picture disappeared

Doesn't matter, unless you're getting your local channels via antenna
to supplement satellite. If that's the case, then you haven't explained
the situation.

> and we got a test pattern for 5 minutes. I know I need to buy
> the convertor box OR upgrade OR switch sat, providers.

Does your satellite provider not give you local channels or something?




Brian

I don't know how to make this any easier.

1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.

2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.

3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
the digital transition.

4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
better in terms of food programming.

If this is not simple enough, I give up.

Harry
"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Buskin wrote:
>
>> I was not ckear, it seems.
>
> I suppose.
>
>> I have satellite.
>
> Then you likely have no concerns with the switchover.
>
>> A channel last night demonstrated
>> whether or not their signal would be properly processed,
>> by switching from analog to digital.
>
> I assume the channel was one of the broadcast ones.
>
>> We lost. Picture disappeared
>
> Doesn't matter, unless you're getting your local channels via antenna
> to supplement satellite. If that's the case, then you haven't explained
> the situation.
>
>> and we got a test pattern for 5 minutes. I know I need to buy
>> the convertor box OR upgrade OR switch sat, providers.
>
> Does your satellite provider not give you local channels or something?
>
>
>
>
> Brian

Harry Buskin wrote:

> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>
> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>
> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.

Then there's no concern. No matter what you saw, you are not losing any
channels.

> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
> the digital transition.

As you are badly confused, you should be.

> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
> better in terms of food programming.

You can pursue that question if you want, but it has nothing to do with
the transition.

That. Is. Only. For. Broadcast. Not. Satellite.

Got it?


> If this is not simple enough, I give up.

You have fundamental misconceptions about what is happening, so your
simplifications are incorrect.

If you want to change providers for some reason, that's one thing.
However, changing because the over-the-air (antenna, not satellite or
cable) broadcasters must switch to digital is not a valid reason.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Harry Buskin wrote:
> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>
> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>
> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>
> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
> the digital transition.
>
> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
> better in terms of food programming.
>
> If this is not simple enough, I give up.
>
> Harry

I would like to help but can't since I've only had DirecTV since it has
existed. I also don't know anyone with Dish Network so again I can't ask. I
suggest you got to DirecTV website and compare it with Dish Networks then
decide which has the most. I think you will probably find they both offer
about the same though the price might vary a bit.

--

Joe Cilinceon

In article >,
"Joe Cilinceon" > wrote:

> Harry Buskin wrote:
> > I don't know how to make this any easier.

I'll give it a try here.

> > 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.

Sounds good to me. We have Dish Network and are happy with it.

> > 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.

That simplifies your life a lot.

> > 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
> > the digital transition.

Good. You shouldn't have to be.

> > 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
> > better in terms of food programming.

I suspect that they are the same. See below.

> > If this is not simple enough, I give up.

That's not a bad idea, either. Since you shouldn't have to do anything,
if you do nothing, then everything should work fine.

> I would like to help but can't since I've only had DirecTV since it has
> existed. I also don't know anyone with Dish Network so again I can't ask. I
> suggest you got to DirecTV website and compare it with Dish Networks then
> decide which has the most. I think you will probably find they both offer
> about the same though the price might vary a bit.

Excellent advice. The offerings and prices vary.

I suspect that the problem you had with the test, was due to a failure
of your satellite provider. You do not need to do anything. You don't
need to buy a box or switch providers. I would also suggest, that since
you don't need to do anything, that you don't try to change anything at
this time. Other people are going to need to make some changes, and the
technical folks are going to be swamped.

For some additional assurance, log into your satellite provider's web
page (you didn't specify which one you have). I know that Dish Network
has step by step instructions. Based on what you've told us, you don't
need to do anything.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

FInally, a sensible answer.

You see the problem. I have Dish, I don't have
Direct.

DIsh has FoodTV and a few extras.

DIrect has (What?).

I know what channels are offered. As you say, that is
available from the websites.

(I exaggerate here...) Does the Polish channel have
food shows? DIsh has CNBC but not FoxBusiness.
DIsh has FoodTV, but what does DIrect have that
might not be obvious?

I'm beginning to think there might be no significant difference
and I might as well stay where I am.

And watch Robin Miller.

Well, back the the kitchen.

Harry

"Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Buskin wrote:
>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>
>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>
>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>
>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>> the digital transition.
>>
>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>> better in terms of food programming.
>>
>> If this is not simple enough, I give up.
>>
>> Harry
>
> I would like to help but can't since I've only had DirecTV since it has
> existed. I also don't know anyone with Dish Network so again I can't ask.
> I suggest you got to DirecTV website and compare it with Dish Networks
> then decide which has the most. I think you will probably find they both
> offer about the same though the price might vary a bit.
>
> --
>
> Joe Cilinceon
>
>
>

Harry Buskin wrote:

> FInally, a sensible answer.

You were given many sensible answers, even though you failed to provide
a sensible question.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Chemiker > wrote:

> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.

You're not up on this TV thing, are you. Analog TV will work just
fine with any cable or satellite service.

-sw

Chemiker > wrote:

> Let the games begin.

This is just a troll that goes by 4 or 5 names here in RFC. None of
the posts are worth reading, not responding to.

-sw

Chemiker wrote:
> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.
>
> Question: Which of the two offers the best programming
> for foodies?
>
> I watch FoodNetwork (AKA FoodTV) and occasionally
> pick up a odd show here and there, like Emeril Live
> of some local shows, or travel shows. Personally, I
> think Food Network has seen better days.
>
> I am unimpressed by The Ace of Cakes, Robin Miller,
> Sandra Lee and the Neeleys.
>
> In Your opinion, I'd like to know which you prefer and
> why.

I happen to have both DirecTV and Dish Network right now. I had Direct
for 7 years before switching to Dish, but when MLB made an exclusive
deal with DirecTV to carry the out-of-market baseball games, we had a
problem. We tried to switch back to DirecTV, but their "free"
installation was $110. Also their technology falls short of Dish's.

What we wound up doing is installing DirecTV for only one TV in a guest
room. (that install was free) That one has the basic package and MLB
Extra Innings plus the sports package. We turn it on for baseball season
and off the rest of the year so we aren't paying for their terrible
"basic" package.

IMO, as someone who has extensive experience with both companies, Dish
Network has DirecTV beat hands town in technology (one receiver works
and DVRs 2 TVs) Dish's support is far, far better than DirecTV's. Dish's
technical support people speak American. Direct is hit or miss and
it's a big miss when you need technical help and can't understand
English spoken with a thick Indian accent. (JMHO)

Both companies have the same channels to offer when it comes to food.
Check their web sites for the packages.

Dish http://www.dishnetwork.com/

DirecTV http://www.directv.com/

My house now has 4 satellite dishes. One for Dish Network regular TV,
One for Dish Network HD (opted for two small dishes rather than the mega
dish), one for DirecTV and one that is for my ISP that comes over radio
waves as we don't have cable, DSL or modern phone lines. Since I live
about 4 miles from the Mexican border, I'm waiting for Homeland Security
to come knocking on my door to ask about all the dishes.

Harry Buskin wrote:
> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>
> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>
> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>
> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
> the digital transition.
>
> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
> better in terms of food programming.

They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.

Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.

Sqwertz wrote:

> Chemiker > wrote:
>
> > Let the games begin.
>
> This is just a troll that goes by 4 or 5 names here in RFC. None of
> the posts are worth reading, not responding to.


At least he's not "engaging" PL like you are, Steve...so *who* is the
"troll", d'ya think...???


--
Best
Greg

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Harry Buskin wrote:
>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>
>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>
>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>
>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>> the digital transition.
>>
>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>> better in terms of food programming.
>
> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>
> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
a good picture before.

No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:49:12a, George Shirley told us...

> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>
>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>
>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>
>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>> the digital transition.
>>>
>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>
>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>
>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
> a good picture before.
>
> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
> the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
> that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>

I'm much happier with cable in our area. Everything is fiber optic right
up to the cable box. Picture is much clearer and more consistent than any
satellite I've seen locally, and it's cheaper.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 17hrs 58mins
************************************************** **********************
On the other hand, you also have 5 fingers.
************************************************** **********************

George Shirley wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>
>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>
>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>
>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>> the digital transition.
>>>
>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>
>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>
>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
> a good picture before.
>
> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
> the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
> that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.

Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and can
reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising etc is
all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases your reach
to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to charge them?

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> Dish Network.
>
Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
to convert your Analog to Digital.

http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/

Jill

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
.. .
>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>> Dish Network.
>>
>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
>to convert your Analog to Digital.
>
>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/

I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
The whole thing is stupid to begin with.

Lou

On Jan 7, 5:16*pm, "Harry Buskin" > wrote:
> FInally, a sensible answer.
>
> You see the problem. I have Dish, I don't have
> Direct.
>
> DIsh has FoodTV and a few extras.
>
> DIrect has (What?).
>
> I know what channels are offered. As you say, that is
> available from the websites.
>
> (I exaggerate here...) Does the Polish channel have
> food shows? DIsh has CNBC but not FoxBusiness.
> DIsh has FoodTV, but what does DIrect have that
> might not be obvious?
>
> I'm beginning to think there might be no significant difference
> and I might as well stay where I am.
>
> And watch Robin Miller.
>
> Well, back the the kitchen.
>
> Harry
>
> "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Harry Buskin wrote:
> >> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>
> >> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>
> >> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>
> >> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
> >> the digital transition.
>
> >> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
> >> better in terms of food programming.
>
> >> If this is not simple enough, I give up.
>
> >> Harry
>
> > I would like to help but can't since I've only had DirecTV since it has
> > existed. I also don't know anyone with Dish Network so again I can't ask.
> > I suggest you got to DirecTV website and compare it with Dish Networks
> > then decide which has the most. I think you will probably find they both
> > offer about the same though the price might vary a bit.
>
> > --
>
> > Joe Cilinceon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Look for my response - I told you about what food events I get on
DirecTV.....it couldn't be plainer! This is now officially a dead
horse.

N.

jmcquown wrote:
> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>> Dish Network.
>>
> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter
> box to convert your Analog to Digital.
>
> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>
>
> Jill


I don't think you can get a coupon any longer. Check this out.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/15646..._of_money.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/92xgba

Tracy

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:49:12a, George Shirley told us...
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
>> a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
>> the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
>> that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>>
>
> I'm much happier with cable in our area. Everything is fiber optic right
> up to the cable box. Picture is much clearer and more consistent than any
> satellite I've seen locally, and it's cheaper.
>
Cable sure isn't cheaper here Wayne. That's one of the reasons we
switched to satellite eleven years ago. Damned cable companies kept
going up on price and cutting the number of channels on basic.

We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.

AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!

George wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>> getting a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>
> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and can
> reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising etc is
> all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases your reach
> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to charge
> them?

I feel the same way, don't know what the reason is. Called the main
local channel and talked to the station manager. He says the satellite
companies don't want to pay what the station wants so the hell with
them. I think maybe they're just greedy.

"Tracy" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>> Dish Network.
>>>
>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter
>> box to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>
>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>> Jill
>
>
> I don't think you can get a coupon any longer. Check this out.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/15646..._of_money.html
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/92xgba
>
> Tracy


Just trying to help I don't have to worry about it since the house I'm
living in has cable.

Jill

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>> Dish Network.
>>>
>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter
>>box
>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>
>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>
> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>
> Lou



I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital. It's not like analog
television hasn't been the norm for the last nearly 70 years. I can only
imagine government kow-towed to the cable and satellite TV lobby. Who else
cares about how we receive television signals?

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in
:

> I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital. It's not like
> analog television hasn't been the norm for the last nearly 70 years.
> I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable and satellite TV
> lobby. Who else cares about how we receive television signals?

Fire, police and paramedics.

The frequencies currently being used for TV are going to be allocated to
emergency responders so their equipment can have greater range and stronger
signals. The broader frequency selection will also prevent interference
from neighboring jurisdictions.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 08:08:48a, George Shirley told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:49:12a, George Shirley told us...
>>
>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>>
>>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>>> getting a good picture before.
>>>
>>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to
>>> control.
>>>
>>
>> I'm much happier with cable in our area. Everything is fiber optic
>> right up to the cable box. Picture is much clearer and more consistent
>> than any satellite I've seen locally, and it's cheaper.
>>
> Cable sure isn't cheaper here Wayne. That's one of the reasons we
> switched to satellite eleven years ago. Damned cable companies kept
> going up on price and cutting the number of channels on basic.

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
If that were the case here, George, I might do the same. However, we have
a cable TV, high-speed broadband, and digital phone bundle which costs us a
lot less and the overall quality is better.

> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.

The local phone system and their DSL offering here really sucks big time.

> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>



--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 14hrs 49mins
************************************************** **********************
Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules. Mathematics is a
game with rules and no objectives.
************************************************** **********************

George wrote:

> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and
> can reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising
> etc is
> all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases your reach
> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to
> charge them?

I don't understand, the new 25,000 should get it for free?
Regardless, you'd do the same if you owned a company,
you'd take the opportunity to make money.

nancy

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:37:27 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>> Dish Network.
>>>
>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>
>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>
> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>
> Lou

i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
yet.

your pal,
blake

Nancy Young wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and
>> can reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising
>> etc is all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases
>> your reach
>> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to
>> charge them?
>
> I don't understand, the new 25,000 should get it for free?
> Regardless, you'd do the same if you owned a company,
> you'd take the opportunity to make money.
>
> nancy

Lets say you are Young broadcasting and have a license to transmit your
TV signal over channel 99 in Podunk. You use the conventional model of
advertiser supported programming. Your signal has a finite range plus it
is affected by things such as mountains and buildings so you can't
really serve all of Podunk and to get your signal some may have to go
through extreme means such as erecting elaborate antennas. So the bottom
line is there is only a limited set of subscribers you can easily reach.

Acme Cable installs a cable system that allows users in fringe areas or
blocked by mountains or even downtown to receive your signal. They
charge practically nothing for their cost to provide your signal and get
to sell premium services. You gain say an additional 20% of subscribers.
Why should Acme Cable (or satellite) pay you since it is really a win-win?

I have DISH network and Im very happy with it.

My friend has DIRECT TV and she's very happy with it. We seem to get
about the same basic programming and I pay a lot more, but she has a
basic "package" while I have the "150 package" plus HBO and Cinemax. I
think the basic package is about the same price.

Im not too keen on the TV cooks you listed, either....but I like Bobby
Flay, Tyler Florence, Mario, Guy Fiere and Paula Dean. Ive learned
quite a lot from Alton what'shisname, too.

Good luck!

PS---whichever company you choose, consider adding HBO to your package.
They seem to have the first run of movies, plus GREAT stuff produced by
HBO--TRUE BLOOD, ROME, DEADWOOD BIG LOVE and OZ are worth the 10 bucks
a month even if there were NO movies.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:37:27 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >>>
> >>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
> >>to convert your Analog to Digital.
> >>
> >>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
> >
> > I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
> > out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
> > The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
> >
> > Lou
>
> i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
> yet.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Takes about five minutes to do! Anyone who has a coupon needs to use it
before the expiration date. We have one to spare; got two but bought one
new TV and one covertor box.
Email me: arrilondon at mad.scientist.com if you want the coupon.

George wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and
>>> can reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising
>>> etc is all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases
>>> your reach
>>> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to
>>> charge them?
>>
>> I don't understand, the new 25,000 should get it for free?
>> Regardless, you'd do the same if you owned a company,
>> you'd take the opportunity to make money.

> Lets say you are Young broadcasting and have a license to transmit
> your TV signal over channel 99 in Podunk. You use the conventional
> model of advertiser supported programming. Your signal has a finite
> range plus it is affected by things such as mountains and buildings
> so you can't
> really serve all of Podunk and to get your signal some may have to go
> through extreme means such as erecting elaborate antennas. So the
> bottom line is there is only a limited set of subscribers you can
> easily reach.
>
> Acme Cable installs a cable system that allows users in fringe areas
> or blocked by mountains or even downtown to receive your signal. They
> charge practically nothing for their cost to provide your signal and
> get to sell premium services. You gain say an additional 20% of
> subscribers. Why should Acme Cable (or satellite) pay you since it is
> really a win-win?

Gotcha. I thought you were talking about the cable company.
Told you I didn't understand.

nancy

jmcquown wrote:

> "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>
>>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
>>>converter box
>>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>
>>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...to-give-money-
for-
>>>converting-your-analog-tv/
>>
>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has
>> run out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the
>> changeover. The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>
>> Lou
>
>
>
> I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital.

You don't have to go digital, so there's no force; you can stop
watching television. If you choose to watch television, you can
use the technology that is in use.

> It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
last nearly 70 years.

Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.

> I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> television signals?

Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

George Shirley wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>
>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>
>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>
>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>> the digital transition.
>>>
>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>
>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>
>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
> a good picture before.
>
> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
> the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
> that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.

You can get "distant networks" on Dish. There is a channel with the info.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:49:12a, George Shirley told us...
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were getting
>> a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches to
>> the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite receiver and
>> that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>>
>
> I'm much happier with cable in our area. Everything is fiber optic right
> up to the cable box. Picture is much clearer and more consistent than any
> satellite I've seen locally, and it's cheaper.
>

Not all of us live in areas served by cable. We don't have any choice
but satellite or over-the-air