Multicasting Yes or No

[Gregg Lengling]

Here's your chance to let the stations that multicast whether you like it or not.

[shawn123]

I could not be more opposed to multicasting during HD events.  It creates subpar picture in a medium with so much potential, and at this point so much confusion.  Nothing like explaining to a room full of people why there is pixelazation and motion artifacts during the masters or the final four.  You should have seen the looks, when I switched to the spanish channel!  I have never seen the window effect on anything but the full throughput being dedicated to the HD feed.  Go ahead multicast when there is no HD on, but please give us the full 19.4MBPS throughput when HD is available.  CBS PBS PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!

[Gregg Lengling]

Now if you had read my post yesterday about multipath and the FCC's decision to go 8VSB you should be happy as to get the full data throughput on COFDM like Sinclair wanted...you wouldn't have the bandwidth to do it and we'd be like the UK and Europe who are using COFDM with NO HD at all......

[Matt Heebner]

I am against mult-casting, but with a few caveats:
I will say that when there is no HD programming on, multi-cast away. I don't even really mind when it's just a sit-com, and PQ is not  as important. Multi-casting should be stopped for all movement intensive broadcasting such as sports, and anything else that could benefit from using the entire bandwidth.

I think that is a fair compromise. Until every last show is done in HD, and analog totally stops (which is a long way away), I would be okay with multicasting.

I sure hope that Jim Hall considers giving us the full bandwidth for HD football ESPECIALLY if the Packers are CBS's chosen game.


Matt

[StarvingForHDTV]

I'm more upset with the local PBS multicasting.  I don't understand the time shift deal.  I don't understand why widescreen shows are not being shown.  I can't imagine why anyone would want  a channel devoted to mono classical music that even if it were stereo would create burn in on a screen.  Put a screen saver up if you are going to send music.  I can understand sending out channel 36's signal until they are on the air, at least when there is no HD content on 10-1.  I could definitely live without PBS Kids and PBS You.

I do agree special HDTV events such as sports should be given the full bandwidth.  CBS can definitely remove 1-2 and 1-3 if they are asking me.

I don't agree with multicasting as a concept, unless there is no high definition content available for a time slot.

Starving

[Greg Oman]

Well, I echo most of the setiment here.  High activity programming should have more bandwidth.  One thing I have not been able to figure out though is that for me, when I see PBS in HD, it seems to have a little extra sparkle, a little more sharpness, than other content-- yet they multicast.  Combine that with the fact that they use ch 8, and I have a UHF only antenna, lots of wire, etc., and I'm even more befuddled why that picture looks as good as it does.  Like now, I see 5 channels running what I think is the PBS demo HD loop.  I have to think that they are re-mapping and I'm really only receiving one feed here.

Starving-- CBS probably can't remove 41 and 63.  The need to be broadcasting them digitally as well, this is much more cost effective.  As much as I agree that it impedes picture quality, you have to remember that until the transition is done, it's probably not going to change.  Once completed though, if their picture quality suffers, competition will probably prevail as the economics will be there.

Besides, I can't imagine that any of the major networks won't be upgrading the transmission gear as advances and audience increase.

Greg O.

[Joseph S]

No!!!!!

I received a comment of "Man, that looks way worse than regular TV" in comparing Univision and 41 to other stations during Sat's Master's coverage. The NBA on Telemundo and the futbol games are even worse. It can't be done technically and both the multicast and the HD broadcast suffer as a result.

[Ken Smith]

There is another choice that is not available on this poll.  BOTH!
Most of the stations have some association with another broadcasting facility:  Channel 4 and Pax, Channel 10 and 36, 58 has 41 and 63.

The main Digital channel could be dedicated to full time HD, while the other could have 5 SD channels (a bit of an OTA competition to cable).  58 could have 10 SD programs if it so desired without affecting the High Def.  

This is probably for the future until the cost of Transmitters comes down and more users join the Digital Revolution - allowing the station owners to make some needed advertising revenue.

[Tom Snyder]

Channel 4 and Pax, Channel 10 and 36, 58 has 41 and 63.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that PAX, 41 or 63 have had dedicated digital frequencies assigned to them. Not sure what the FCC intends to have happen to them when they take back the analog band.

Anybody know for sure?

[Ken Smith]

Found the PAX assigned Digital 40.

[MarkS]

I answered "no" to the survey but have to admit that I did like the ability to watch multiple games during the NCAA's.  My only other option would have been to subcribe to the Direct TV package (and pay $50).  I found the picture quality to be from poor to fair but, again, I appreciated Jim Hall having multicast all of the games.

Outside of March Madness, I hate losing the bandwith to multicasting.

[Skipjack]

I say NO to multicast because stations are having trouble coming up with decent content for just one channel!  Could you imagine the tripe that'll be out there if they multicast!?!?