Jay_Zollar's Blog

I have recently purchased a HD TV and got HD receiver from DirecTv. Fox11 looks very blurry compared to any other local channel. Is that Fox or what?

So, you have no problem with people receiving your HD signal over the air for free, but won't allow people to receive it over cable for free? Your logic confuses me. People subscribe to cable not only for more station choices, but conveniences such as DVR, as well. That won't work with your over-the-air solution.

From what I have read, your stance is that it is not fair for cable companies to rebroadcast your signal for free, while they pay others, such as ESPN. When a Packer decides to hold-out for more money and misses games, do you think the fans feel sorry for him? Not really. They would much rather see him play AND work things out.

Your stance continues to shun customers everyday that this hold-out continues. When I search for something to watch, I always first scan the HD signals. Guess which station gets skipped.

Same here, I don't watch much non-HD channels due to the quality compaired to the HD channels. Maybe the advertisers on that station should hear about us not watching the channel because of them not offering it to us in HD.

If the cable company wants to rebroadcast the local channels in HD they can pay for the signal just like they do with every other channel. The cable company will charge me $10.00 extra per month to get the local channels in HD, so why can't they use some of the that money to buy the signal they are selling. I don't think the local broadcast stations need to be in the business of helping the poor little cable companies make more profit. They can figure out how to make a profit on their own without wanting to charge a fee for rebroadcasting a signal that they get for free.

I realize that it may be easy to get the FOX 11 in HD in The valley but in Fond du Lac not so easy. Also why should I buy an antenna thats why I pay for cable.

It is clear to me when I read these just how confusing this issue is to people. That is what I meant when I said that it is not possible to get people to feel good about our position. Yesterday I tried to get WFRV in HD over the air. Entered Ch 39 into my set (set for antenna) and there it was. WFRV in HD over the air. It takes me a matter of less than a minute to switch from cable to antenna and get our digital and HD signal over the air. Why is this option to those of you who really want HD so difficult?

There is no confusion on the part of the customers. We know what is going on. It is a dispute between two greedy companies. We also are fully aware that we are the ones that are marginalized through this process.

You seem to be the one that is confused.

What is so hard to understand that WE don't want to have to buy additional equipment to receive what we get for FREE from the other stations. What about those Time Warner customers that want to record House in HD? How do they do that? Having an antenna and a HD tuner won't help you there.

As more and more people purchase HD sets you will see more and more customers upset with Fox11. I don't think that you realize that you may be losing customers that you will never get back. I know that I have personally boycotted your news broadcasts (and most of your regular programming). Because of this I have settled into watching other channels for my local news. You have lost me permanently as a customer for your local news broadcast. How many people are you willing to lose?

Yea you'll generally need a stronger antenna to receive the signal if you're in the Valley or Oshkosh, many of which would require mounting on the roof or in the attic and I'm sorry but that's just not worth it to me for one station. you can go to http://www.antennaweb.org and see what kind of antenna they recommend for you though. So in my opinion, the solution is not as easy as you say Mr Zollar. I will just choose to watch one of the other stations until it's available to me through cable, the only thing I really watch Fox for is the Packer games anyways. Unfortunately in these kinds of situations it is us the customers who suffer.

Maybe you will understand how much it bothers us about fox 11 not giving us what we want when we start calling the companies that advertise on your station, and letting them know we are going to stop shopping at their stores and businesses.

Mr. Zollar:
Let me give you some additional perspective on the HD/Cable issue.

I have a significant amount invested in a home theater that uses a DLP projector to display HD images on a 102" screen in my basement. To get broadcast images I use a cable box, because there is no TV tuner in the projector. I can easily switch to satellite, but not "over the air". When I view HD content broadcast on WFRV-DT, WBAY-DT, WPNE-DT, WGBA-DT, etc., the picture quality is AWESOME! In addition, the sound that comes across in this spectrum, when played through my sound system really adds to a great entertainment experience!

When I tune to channel 12: WLUK/FOX (on the TIme-Warner-Fox Cities system), the picture quality on this set-up is frankly AWFUL... not to single out WLUK, but any standard defintion, analog broadcast looks bad in this set-up.

So, it's no surprise which content we watch... and it's not WLUK. Which is too bad, because I think there is some quality content available on FOX. But in the end, it's about an overall entertainment experience. I line in Appleton and would be happy to have you drop by to see what this experience is all about!

As far as the economics go, I pay $6.95/month for "HD Access". This has not changed, even though the number of HD channels available is increasing monthly! So, when WLUK-DT is added, the cable company will not get one penny more from me, the consumer. So, I'm having difficulty following your logic.

I also remember when cable was starting to take hold and grow, the networks and local affiliates lobbied hard to get le