# Where are the GOOD HD channel additions?



## lionsrule (Nov 25, 2003)

Yeah, I'm going to sound like a cry baby but........what the hell....

The voom channels are repetitive loops of mostly crap. Admit it, they are a waste of space. 

Dish HAS added some good stuff recently IMO: STARZHD, ESPN/ESPN2HD, HGTVHD. But where is the commercially viable stuff? Ever heard of a little channel called MTV? Guess what, there's an HD version of it. Your local FSN is now available in HD on direct. And what about the new CW network? Seeing as how there are some major changes coming to the "superstation package" (former WB and UPN affiliates), why not offer New York and LA feeds of CW in HD? You know we want it DISH!!! 

The blame is not all on dish. What about the content providers? HD is NOT a gimmick anymore. Voom needs to go far away and lets bring in the conversion of the most watched "cable" channels in HD. ComedyHD,MTVHD,USAHD,FXHD,TBSHD,VH1HD,NICKHD,etc.....

Let's make it sooner rather than later that these channels don't need to put the HD behind them......


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair... "good" is very subjective. I, for one, am not holding my breath at all for MTV in HD. I could be just fine if that never happens... so I wouldn't list it as good.

I agree that the Vooms are sometimes repetitive... and yet I also keep missing one or two movies that I've been meaning to watch.

As for CW... Dish can't add it until it exists!

Officially the WB and UPN are still broadcasting and in business right now. I forget when the final air dates are supposed to be to sign off those networks... and while I guess the CW will go "live" sometime the end of the summer... it really won't matter until the fall season starts on the CW.

I do hope Dish is able to add CW in HD as well as a PBS by that time of the year in HD as well... so we'll see what happens.


----------



## Gremraf (Jun 30, 2006)

September is when the new CW starts. At least that is what they say.


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

Hey, I enjoy a number of the Voom channels. They are repetitive, but so is HDNET, HBO, etc. The repetition pattern is very different. On the other hand, I'd take any of the Voom channels before MTV and VH1. In fact, I'd pay extra to not get MTV and VH1.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

HDMe said:


> To be fair... "good" is very subjective. I, for one, am not holding my breath at all for MTV in HD. I could be just fine if that never happens... so I wouldn't list it as good.


I fell exactly the same way.

DISH has some very good HD channels but I do feel the VOOM need to re-package their channels and consolidate and/or eliminate some of them. They also need a LOT of new HD material. You can only repeat some programs so many times before people start complaining.

I would like to see DISH carry a few more of the movie channels in HD. Two that come to mind are Cinemax HD and Encore HD. I also would like to see some other new channels added but, quite frankly, there isn't a lot of good HD available that DISH doesn't already carry. We can blame the program providers for that. They are waiting until there is "critical mass" demand for HD. That hasn't happened yet and likely won't for a couple of years.

If you compare what DISH is offering in HD with what most cable companies offer you will likely see that we are FAR better off when it comes to available channels. The cable companies (because of their lack of bandwidth) are what is holding back the program providers from going HD. Why provide a product when very few vendors can carry it?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Didn't Encore hd go out of business last year? I think it went bust when Voom as an individual sat provider did.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lionsrule said:


> The voom channels are repetitive loops of mostly crap. Admit it, they are a waste of space.


When I've seen everything, I might chime in, but I have yet to run out of something interesting to watch. If all else fails, I fall back on Gallery HD or Equator and chances are pretty good I won't walk away.


> But where is the commercially viable stuff? Ever heard of a little channel called MTV? Guess what, there's an HD version of it.


Does anyone really care about MTV anymore? Is any of their content in HD?


> Your local FSN is now available in HD on direct.


This would be cool IFF there were any interesting HD content. As it is, most everything in my region is SD.


> And what about the new CW network?


We can't complain about getting channels like FoodHD that don't exist.

Only after more than a few hours of true HD programming is available each day (some of those channels run on a 12 hour schedule which doesn't count) should we get all whiney about having them. The bulk of the music videos and cartoons are produced for SD. Even the letterboxed videos are substantially that: letterboxed SD. There would have to be some serious HD concert footage to warrant my interest in MTV or VH1. For that, I'm largely satisfied with HD Net and Rave.

Like others, I'd actually like to see MTV moved to some other planet where they like watching Paris _or_ Nicole.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IIRC: FoodHD began broadcasting on June 30th ... E* will add it.

CW Network depends on the local stations and the desire to have a fifth satellite provided HD channel in each market. CBS is the only 'national' HD channel on E* and it isn't available in most markets. Perhaps a national CW-HD will appear but I wouldn't count on it.

Charlie won't even look at a "HD" channel unless it has significant HD content.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Didn't Encore hd go out of business last year? I think it went bust when Voom as an individual sat provider did.


My cable company still has it on their list but you are correct. Encore HD ceased broadcasting on March 31, 2005.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

But what would that content look like in HD? I hardly ever watch TNT HD due to stretch and upconversion. I’d rather have actual HD content that was shot in HD. I wouldn’t mind a channel like Universal HD from News Corp and Time Warner, featuring a variety of HD content from their respective spinoffs.

As for MHD, (MTV HD) you can have it, I don’t. Last thing the world needs in MTV’s Pimp My Mom or VH1’s I Love Top 100 Countdowns Countdown in upconverted HD. I’d rather programming distributors focus on shooting new episodes of programming in HD. I don’t want a barrage of general entertainment cable channels that feature nothing but reruns of Full House, Home Improvement, 90210, Seinfield and Life Goes On in stretched HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

UniversalHD is probably a bad comparison against TNTHD if you mean to compare "true" HD...

UniversalHD doesn't stretch, but they do a lot of zooming... for instance when they were showing Knight Rider and the Equalizer, old TV progs, they were zooming for 16x9 rather than showing in the original 4:3 ratio.

In my book, one is about as bad as the other. I would prefer the old TV shows to be shown in 4:3 if they were not shot in widescreen... and have grey or otherwise sidebars. I don't care for TNT's stretching or Universal's zooming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

At least with Universal they seem to be transferring from the original film stock on those old shows. It isn't a matter of taking a 480i tape of a show and upconverting it (like most programs) but a matter of 'converting to HD' from the original stock.

Hopefully they are getting enough clarity out of the film transfer to make it worthwhile to show these programs in HD. It is a trade off though to lose a percentage of the original image height in order to gain in number of pixels available to view.


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

I have to agree, I will watch TNT SD verses HD. I cant' stand the stretched version of the show. 

Ken


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

The thing with MTV-HD is it is not showing the same material as MTV like TNT/TNTHD does. It has a different schedule, and mostly of GOOD stuff, like the Unplugged episodes from the 1990s and $2 Bill. In other words: they are actually showing music, and good music at that.

I was visiting relatives in Salina, KS of all places. He has the HD package from Cox cable there, and it blew me away. Aside from the VOOM channels, if there's an HD channel available anywhere, it seems he has it. Channels I didn't even know about, like InHD and InHD2. Why do we not have those? Great stuff. Seems to be only a matter of time until cable overtakes satellite in all areas.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Channels I didn't even know about, like InHD and InHD2. Why do we not have those? Great stuff.


The InHDs are from InDemand, a joint venture between Comcast, Cox and TW. They're the company that provides digital cable systems with the sports season packages like MLB EI, NBA LP and NHL CI and exclusives like Nascar InCar and Howard TV. In short, the InDemand HD channels will never be on satellite.

I love the content the channels show, they simulated OLN HD NHL playoff coverage so I got to see the Sabres in HD, they have MLB games weekly and great movies and other shows in HD.


----------



## LASooner (Jan 24, 2005)

James Long said:


> At least with Universal they seem to be transferring from the original film stock on those old shows. It isn't a matter of taking a 480i tape of a show and upconverting it (like most programs) but a matter of 'converting to HD' from the original stock.
> 
> Hopefully they are getting enough clarity out of the film transfer to make it worthwhile to show these programs in HD. It is a trade off though to lose a percentage of the original image height in order to gain in number of pixels available to view.


16mm and 35mm film is much higher resolution than 1080i, I think this an acceptable form of "upconversion", but my wife still doesn't understand how Hogan's Heroes could have been shot in HD. :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fortunately there is digital processing involved. Film stock can look pretty bad converted to 480 TV ... DVDs of old TV seem to do better due to the processing. Of what I've seen on UniHD it seems they do a good job of giving a crisp picture.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

My DVDs of Knight Rider look better than what I saw on UniversalHD... and my DVDs are in 4:3 not zoomed with stuff cutoff.

And yes, I realize that I just publically admitted to owning DVDs of Knight Rider!


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

For the life of me I can't understand why there is an HD channel that shows paintings all day and no Sci-fi HD.


----------



## Hunter Green (May 8, 2006)

Presence said:


> In other words: they are actually showing music, and good music at that.


Given MTV's track record, how long could that possibly last?


----------



## wwfmike (Jul 17, 2006)

Isn't there a law that everything has to be in HD by the end of 2007? or is that only for broadcast channels?


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Presence said:


> Channels I didn't even know about, like InHD and InHD2. Why do we not have those? Great stuff.


After having HD in my home for over 6 years now I think the definition of "Great Stuff" is simply any HD channels that a person knows exists but doesnt happen to get from their current provider.

At first Dish had SHO HD and Disc HD and CBS HD when D* didnt (cable couldnt spell HDTV at the time). That was great stuff. Then I switched to cable once they did offer HD largely because they had the InHD's and Cinemax HD and Starz! HD and Dish didnt. Great stuff.

Recenly I switched back to Dish because they have the Vooms and TNT HD and Uni HD and HGTV HD and the HDNets etc etc.. and Comcast doesnt. Great stuff.

So I guess to me great stuff would be having all the HD channels going like you said about your relatives.. but just in principle more than anything. And even when I did "give away" a couple channels by switching... the HDNets the first time around by leaving Dish and the InHD's recently by leaving Comcast.. I didnt really miss the channels over that period of time.

Besides, even if I got every HD channel known to man, I already know I'd only watch about 10% of em anyway. Not unlike the old SD only world where even if I got 150 channels, I only ever watched about 15 of em based on content.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

wwfmike said:


> Isn't there a law that everything has to be in HD by the end of 2007? or is that only for broadcast channels?


No, what the law says is that all full power broadcast analog broadcast channels will be shut off on February 17, 2009 (that date could be moved back). They must be *digital* by that time and they don't have to carry any HD program.

Cable companies can continue to do analog tranmissions after that date although many are expected to go all digital by that time.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

He Save Dave said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why there is an HD channel that shows paintings all day and no Sci-fi HD.


Sci-Fi doesn't have a HD channel at the present time. I think that we all need to write Sci-Fi and tell them we want one. Their address is [email protected]


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

lionsrule said:


> Yeah, I'm going to sound like a cry baby but........what the hell...where is the commercially viable stuff? Ever heard of a little channel called MTV? Guess what, there's an HD version of it...


If your idea of commercially viable HD "stuff" is MTV, then perhaps
you should just stick with SD or streaming video where it belongs.

Leave the good HDS programming to those of us with the intelligence
to appreciate it and the maturity to enjoy it.


----------



## dslate69 (Apr 11, 2006)

Nick said:


> If your idea of commercially viable HD "stuff" is MTV, then perhaps
> you should just stick with SD or streaming video where it belongs.
> 
> Leave the good HDS programming to those of us with the intelligence
> to appreciate it and the maturity to enjoy it.


Nicely said.

Where does someone fall in that doesn't care about M-TV in HD but also admits to owning Knight Rider DVDs ? :lol:

It is funny how these threads get bogged down with people complaining about not having HD channels that don't even exist.

As much as I would like to have Scifi-HD when it is created, we will probably see VOOM create a SciFi themed channel first.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dslate69 said:


> Where does someone fall in that doesn't care about M-TV in HD but also admits to owning Knight Rider DVDs ? :lol:


That would be the category of viewer who is clamoring for Sleuth HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bill R said:


> Sci-Fi doesn't have a HD channel at the present time. I think that we all need to write Sci-Fi and tell them we want one.


In the interim, we have Universal HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> That would be the category of viewer who is clamoring for Sleuth HD.


Nope... I'm not looking for Sleuth either!

I'm just a rare breed who liked Knight Rider as a kid... can't help myself. It isn't great classic theatre or anything, but an entertaining diversion sometimes!

In the meantime, I also agree that we have virtually all of the available HD with Dish, minus a couple of newcomers to the scene that are probably coming soon... so the complaint is better directed on the content providers for not taking a more proactive approach and bringing us more HD for the channels already in existence.


----------



## ClevelandRob (Jun 22, 2006)

I'd go for MHD... hopefully more live performances like RAVE. I would imagine a large part of new music videos are shot in HD as well considering the budgets of those things now-a-days... Give them a few years until they ruin it with bad reality TV and college students partying 24/7.

I'm way too young to have seen Flipper originally, but I think it is sweeet! The transfer looks great.. brilliant colors. That darn fish rules! 

I might have to give Knight Rider a whirl again. I haven't seen that since I was a kid.


----------



## nitz369 (Dec 15, 2005)

Okay maybe you could call me an "average" HD customer and not what most of you are on here which I would call HD Rubes, or HD fanatics.

I am all for more HD Content, Voom is worthless for the most part. and channels like: ComedyHD, MTVHD, TBSHD, FXHD, and so on would bring MANY MANY more people to the HD world. As long as those channels show the same shows as on their SD channel like TNTHD.

I am PERFECTLY fine with upconverted shows, they look much better than the SD, not many people could argue with that, plus the DD too.

I call myself average because I sell DISH and alk to thousands of customers a month almost all want the same thing as I do. All of those channels listed above playing a combo of upconverted shows and if they have original shows like MTV start taping those in HD, for example, Real World etc.

I sure hope all of the HD fanatics aren't ruining DISHs HD content by voicing your opinion of exactly what you want! They need to start providing to the masses and not to the small amount of people that want to bicth about everything! Sometimes I think the wrong people voice opinions about stuff to Dish and not enough of the average customer.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

nitz369 said:


> Okay maybe you could call me an "average" HD customer and not what most of you are on here which I would call HD Rubes, or HD fanatics.
> 
> I am all for more HD Content, Voom is worthless for the most part. and channels like: ComedyHD, MTVHD, TBSHD, FXHD, and so on would bring MANY MANY more people to the HD world. As long as those channels show the same shows as on their SD channel like TNTHD.
> 
> ...


Generally, I agree with your stated goals. But, don't holler at Dish for not providing access to programming that doesn't exist yet. Holler at the program providers, e.g. Viacom, Turner, Fox, etc. The only thing Dish could offer in HD that doesn't come from some other provider is Channel 101 (Info, Charlie Chats).


----------



## nitz369 (Dec 15, 2005)

Mikey said:


> Generally, I agree with your stated goals. But, don't holler at Dish for not providing access to programming that doesn't exist yet. Holler at the program providers, e.g. Viacom, Turner, Fox, etc. The only thing Dish could offer in HD that doesn't come from some other provider is Channel 101 (Info, Charlie Chats).


I understand I am not really complaining about Dish or the providers, just all of the people that want to sh**t on anyone that thinks these mainstream channels would be worthless for Dish to carry IF the providers offered them. Also the fact that some people are soooo fanatical that they won't watch something in HD unless it is broadcast perfectly to their extreme high end standards. Now I am a person who always wants the best, I spent quite a bit of money on my HT and of course I want better quality, BUT that doesn't mean that I won't watch TNTHD because of the stretch/zoom issue. The quality and picture is still much better than the SD channel.


----------



## dslate69 (Apr 11, 2006)

nitz369 said:


> I understand I am not really complaining about Dish or the providers, just all of the people that want to sh**t on anyone that thinks these mainstream channels would be worthless for Dish to carry IF the providers offered them. Also the fact that some people are soooo fanatical that they won't watch something in HD unless it is broadcast perfectly to their extreme high end standards. Now I am a person who always wants the best, I spent quite a bit of money on my HT and of course I want better quality, BUT that doesn't mean that I won't watch TNTHD because of the stretch/zoom issue. The quality and picture is still much better than the SD channel.


Your hypothetical argument about what you think some people would do IF a channel were to ever exist in real life, is too mind numbing to comment on. Although my soon to be ex-wife loves to debate such things. 

I will say I don't watch TNT-HD or Universal-HD, not because of quality but because of content. Now if Universal-HD showed New BSG episodes it would have me for an hour a week.


----------



## kbdrand (Apr 16, 2006)

Once FoodTV is added to our HD lineup the only two remaining channels that I'm dying to get a SciFi HD and USA HD. Of course they will both probably be 2007 launches (if not later).


----------



## Jolard (Feb 14, 2006)

> Now if Universal-HD showed New BSG episodes it would have me for an hour a week.


Oh Yes!!!

Do we know what will be happening with this? Will Universal HD show these shortly after airing on the Sci Fi channel, or do they only show older series repeats? I also heard a rumor that the show might be moving to NBC this season, which would also be great to have the HD. Here's hoping.

As for channels, I agree that it appears that Dish is pretty much giving us everything that is available. I have a feeling that 2007 is going to be a big year for new channels, but that is only based on a gut feeling. I would love to see HD Sci Fi and HD Comedy central personally. HD USA (for the 4400) would be wonderful too, I have been catching up on DVD and it looked amazing, and then I had to watch the last couple of episodes in SD, and it is just so awful. I know I am spoiled


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I can't verify since I don't have the channel right now... but being of the same ownership as USA... I thought that UniversalHD did show Monk and Dead Zone in HD... so I would think they would start showing 4400 at some point too, though I don't watch that show.

Since they are having troubles filling the time on Universal HD I wouldn't expect to see USA HD anytime soon unless they make some major effort to increase the amount of stuff available in their libraries.


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

Presence said:


> Seems to be only a matter of time until cable overtakes satellite in all areas.


Obviously not true. There are many areas of the country that are served by Charter Cable. I can't speak to other cablecos but Charter ranks dead last in customer satisfaction .... and will probably stay in that position. The Kansas City Royals of Cable.


----------



## Taha24 (Jun 15, 2006)

I'd much rather have MTV had than most of the crappy channels that came from Voom. The only channels I like from Voom are WorldSportHD (for the spanish league), GamePlayHD and just sometimes HDNews.

-TreasureHD? seriously who the hell wants a 24 hour channel about "treasures". a 24 hour art channnel? and a 24 hour fashion channel, good lord, talk about picking hobbies no one cares about. 

-WorldCinema and FilmFest are a joke. They show movies no one cares about, if its world cinema then why dont you show Cinema Paradiso, or Seven Samurai, or some other GOOD foreign movies or hell throw me a bone and show some Indian movies. 

-Kung Fu HD, you could show Enter the Dragon in a continuous loop and it would be better than what you regularly show. Atleast pay a little and try to get Hero or House of Flying Daggers or Ong-Bak, atleast some of the asian movies that got noticed in America.

-And then HDNews just pisses me off completely, its seem they are more after getting some HD footage than actually showing news people care about. Just because you dont have HD footage doesnt mean dont show me ANY important news. For the bombings in Mumbai, they showed this little still picture and talked about it for like 20 seconds :| the Israel/Lebanon crisis it took them like 3-4 days to finally show some decent footage. instead they waste time about some Country folk show or bike riding or something else completely stupid. Atleast show some SD footage in a smaller window or something. 

-Animania has a joke of a selection of animation. Someone please beg Cartoon Network, Nickeldoen and/or Disney to bring their channels in HD (even upconverted HD) cause Animania makes me cry with their horrible cartoons. 

-FamilyRoom I NEVER see anything worth watching. They need to learn from ABC Family on how to make a somewhat watchable channel.

-Discovery, National Geographic, Equator.... how many channels do we need about nature? Its good to show off HD footage, but I cannot sit there watching these shows daily. 

-HDNet Movies claims to show "blockbuster" movies, yet I dont see anything blockbuster about the selection they show.

I think its sad I end up watching TNT HD more than any other non-local HD channel because atleast they have interesting shows to watch, even though the quality is not so great. 

Thank god for the local channels in HD. Which is funny and sad at the same time since im watching something that is free OTA and i'm paying a crapload to DISH for their HD package....and I cant even get WB in HD from Dish, which is probably my favorite local channel.


I just wish more of the regular cable channels go to HD. They can atleast get and create good programming. CNN, Headline News, Comedy Central, History Channel, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, USA, ABC Family, etc.. Even just a few of those go HD and I will be very happy to actually have programming I care about.

I think the least DISH owes us is to have whatever HD channels are available. MTV HD is out, so get it. I dont like most shows on MTV, but i'll watch Pimp My Ride over watching two Zebra mate on Discovery. and they do show music at night which I can watch while going to sleep. Give us more variety Dish.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

You said...



Taha24 said:


> I'd much rather have MTV had than most of the crappy channels that came from Voom.


and then...



Taha24 said:


> I think the least DISH owes us is to have whatever HD channels are available. MTV HD is out, so get it. I dont like most shows on MTV...


So... you seem to be demanding Dish add a channel that you are already planning on not watching?


----------



## kdwebsol (Jan 29, 2006)

Taha24 said:


> I'd much rather have MTV had than most of the crappy channels that came from Voom.


Same here! If MTV had an HD channel I think I would watch that more then any of the Voom channels. I think the Voom channels are only for the numbers and not the content.

Out of all the HD Channels I only watch TNT, ESPN, HBO, Showtime and Discovery for Monster Garage repeats.

There are just so many good shows on SD channels that I hope the providers will someday provide in HD so Dish can add them.

The only HD channel that is available that Dish does not have yet that I really want is NESN. But, that is a local sports cable channel. I have heard that it might be available this fall but I really do not think so.


----------



## Taha24 (Jun 15, 2006)

HDMe said:


> You said...
> 
> and then...
> 
> So... you seem to be demanding Dish add a channel that you are already planning on not watching?


Well if you didnt read the rest of that last statement then I did mention some shows that I would watch. I said most of their shows arent good, but they do have some that are good. Its better than right now where a majorit of the HD channels have NOTHING worth watching.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

rbyers said:


> Obviously not true. There are many areas of the country that are served by Charter Cable. I can't speak to other cablecos but Charter ranks dead last in customer satisfaction .... and will probably stay in that position. The Kansas City Royals of Cable.


That's all you have -- that cable will not overtake satellite just because of customer satisfaction? Think again. Dish's customer service sucks already.

The satellite companies already cannot do network "On Demand" service (HBO On Demand, etc). And guess what is coming? How would you like to be able to turn to any channel and be able to rewind that channel? An eight-hour buffer of every single channel, on demand. Satellite cannot do that. Cable is working on it.

That's why I think it is important for Dish to start stocking up its HD lineup now. Attract and bring on as many new customers while the getting is good. Because soon enough cable will be rich with more features than Dish or DTV can provide.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Taha24 said:


> Well if you didnt read the rest of that last statement then I did mention some shows that I would watch. I said most of their shows arent good, but they do have some that are good. Its better than right now where a majorit of the HD channels have NOTHING worth watching.


I did read the rest of your post. It just confused me that you were so in favor of adding a channel (MTV) that while you would watch a few programs on it, you already know you don't like most of the programming on it.

So I was confused as to how this would net a vast improvement over the current HD selection on Dish. Seems like it would be a very minor addition to the package.


----------



## Taha24 (Jun 15, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I did read the rest of your post. It just confused me that you were so in favor of adding a channel (MTV) that while you would watch a few programs on it, you already know you don't like most of the programming on it.
> 
> So I was confused as to how this would net a vast improvement over the current HD selection on Dish. Seems like it would be a very minor addition to the package.


I didnt say it would be a vast improvement. I just said it would be an improvement, minimal, but still an improvement over what we have right now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For the record... I do share some of the sentiment in regards to lack of HD variety in content right now... but in what I have seen of other channels not yet on Dish, and proposed "soon to be coming" channels... I honestly don't see a big spike in HD content aside from what is already on network prime time TV.

I hope the future gets here soon!


----------



## Taha24 (Jun 15, 2006)

I just hope the prices on Blu-Ray and HD DVD fall and TV shows start coming out on the format. Then I can just enjoy shows whenever I want and not really care about HD programming.


----------



## coolbreeze (Dec 19, 2005)

Taha,

You make valid points...the VOOM programming isn't the best in the world, but you know what? At this point, quantity is what Dish excels at. I chose Dish over DirecTv and Comcast solely based on HD content. Simply stated, Dish has the most. I just got a 42" LCD and I wanted the most content for it, period.

Could it be improved upon? You bet...but for now, it's the best we have. In time we will see more and more mainstream channels added to HD, and Dish seems committed to providing HD programming (VOOM is an example).

So I remain optimistic that Dish is more committed than any other provider. Time will tell, but for now I'd rather watch obscure Kung-Fu in HD than nothing.


----------



## wwfmike (Jul 17, 2006)

When and what channel are the Enterprise episodes going to start in HD?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I believe Enterprise is coming this September to HDNET.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Presence said:


> The satellite companies already cannot do network "On Demand" service (HBO On Demand, etc). And guess what is coming? How would you like to be able to turn to any channel and be able to rewind that channel? An eight-hour buffer of every single channel, on demand. Satellite cannot do that. Cable is working on it.


In case anyone missed the news, Dish recently invested $20million in CinemaNow. My assumption is that this could easily lead to real OnDemand for anyone with a high speed internet connection. Those ethernet ports have been included in new Dish receivers for a reason.

So anyway, do not count SAT out because cable is ahead for On Demand services. That could change rather quickly.


----------



## tegage (Sep 3, 2005)

lionsrule said:


> The blame is not all on dish. What about the content providers? HD is NOT a gimmick anymore. Voom needs to go far away and lets bring in the conversion of the most watched "cable" channels in HD. ComedyHD,MTVHD,USAHD,FXHD,TBSHD,VH1HD,NICKHD,etc.....
> 
> Let's make it sooner rather than later that these channels don't need to put the HD behind them......


I couldn't agree more. I haven't upgraded my 942 to a 622 becuase so few of the mainstream channels are in HD. I rent my movies via Netflix (yes, DVD quality is good enough for me - especially since its widescreen material - and netflix is so cheap and so fast...), so I really don't care about DISH's movie channels. I'm like many people, I have satellite service so I can get Comedy Central, USA, Biography, SCIFI, various news channels, etc. and can do name-based OTA recording in HD.

Personally, I never got the VOOM thing. It seems like watching TV just for the sake of seeing HD, instead of being able to enjoy one's favorite shows in HD.

I downgraded to the basic 60 package a few months ago and will stay there until the more mainstream channels are offered in HD.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Gremraf said:


> September is when the new CW starts. At least that is what they say.


The CW and MTNY or whatever it's called both start Sept 5th.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Taha24 said:


> I'd much rather have MTV had than most of the crappy channels that came from Voom. The only channels I like from Voom are WorldSportHD (for the spanish league), GamePlayHD and just sometimes HDNews.
> 
> -TreasureHD? seriously who the hell wants a 24 hour channel about "treasures". a 24 hour art channnel? and a 24 hour fashion channel, good lord, talk about picking hobbies no one cares about.
> 
> ...


In 14 more months if this stays the same I will be cancelling my HD. I'm sure things will improve in this time but IMHO the crap that is shown is not worth $20 a month that they charge for HD.

It is a shame that I still watch "much" more Discovery SD than Discovery HD because they still put the better stuff on the SD channel. I love my Mythbusters but why not in HD???

I still fail to understand why we cannot see older "classics" in true HD that were filmed in 35mm - sure we get one every now and then on HDnet but IMHO they should load up on this stuff. It can't be expensive as the movies are older and considering what they show now who would not rather see some really good movies (not this 1 and 2 star crap!) in true HD for the very first time. Most of us have never seen these movies in the theater so seeing them in HD would be a real treat... almost like seeing them for the first time.

2010 was great but how about 2001 being shown before that? Same goes for the monster channel. Am I going nuts or do all their marathons "start" with the second movie and move on..... IE Halloween 2, 3, 4, 5 but never 1 or Jaws 2 or 3 or 4 but never the first.

I'm sure this is all about $$$. The good stuff cost more but I would rather pay an extra $5 and see "good" movies instead of the crap they show now.

My two cents

-JB


----------



## jacksg35c (Feb 21, 2003)

the hd channel i want the most is pbs-hd. i don't know why dish does not carry either the local pbs-hd or a national feed in albuquerque. we get the other "locals" in hd (no cbs as cbs want dish and cable to pay a lot to carry cbs hd) but not pbs-hd. comcast carries the pbs-hd channel and i watch it a lot. does anyone know why no pbs-hd on dish. i am staying with cable until dish gets pbs-hd up.


----------



## tegage (Sep 3, 2005)

jacksg35c said:


> the hd channel i want the most is pbs-hd. i don't know why dish does not carry either the local pbs-hd or a national feed in albuquerque. we get the other "locals" in hd (no cbs as cbs want dish and cable to pay a lot to carry cbs hd) but not pbs-hd. comcast carries the pbs-hd channel and i watch it a lot. does anyone know why no pbs-hd on dish. i am staying with cable until dish gets pbs-hd up.


PBS HD would be nice!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am sure Dish is in negotiations to carry PBS-HD... evidence of this is how they have been assigning the LIL HD channels for ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX while skipping a couple of channel numbers in each market. Hopes are that this eventually will fill with a PBS HD and the new CW HD when that launches in the fall.

I would be very surprised if Dish did not want to carry PBS HD... but probably just having to negotiate it right now.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> In 14 more months if this stays the same I will be cancelling my HD. I'm sure things will improve in this time but IMHO the crap that is shown is not worth $20 a month that they charge for HD.
> 
> It is a shame that I still watch "much" more Discovery SD than Discovery HD because they still put the better stuff on the SD channel. I love my Mythbusters but why not in HD???
> 
> ...


2001 was presented before 2010 I DVR'd them that way.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

whatchel1 said:


> 2001 was presented before 2010 I DVR'd them that way.


Wonder how I missed that. Ok me bad on that one 

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I noticed that some days HDNet Movies was just showing 2010... then other days they would show 2001 and 2010 back-to-back... so perhaps you noticed on a day they were just showing 2010?


----------



## jacksg35c (Feb 21, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I am sure Dish is in negotiations to carry PBS-HD... evidence of this is how they have been assigning the LIL HD channels for ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX while skipping a couple of channel numbers in each market. Hopes are that this eventually will fill with a PBS HD and the new CW HD when that launches in the fall.
> 
> I would be very surprised if Dish did not want to carry PBS HD... but probably just having to negotiate it right now.


does anyone know if dish or cable have to pay pbs-hd to carry their signal. seems like any cable or sattelite provider could provide a pbs signal free since it is a government supported channel?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jacksg35c said:


> does anyone know if dish or cable have to pay pbs-hd to carry their signal. seems like any cable or sattelite provider could provide a pbs signal free since it is a government supported channel?


It isn't a completely government supported channel. PBS (hence the yearly pledge-a-thons) also depends on support from "viewers like you"  And there are many corporate sponsors for programs, and you see that either at the beginning or the end of a show in lieu of commercials.


----------



## Taha24 (Jun 15, 2006)

If Dish doesnt get the CW in HD as soon as it comes out I will be mad. Ive been pissed that they dont give me WB in HD, since thats my fav channel, but im just making myself wait by telling myself that Dish will get CW.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Taha24 said:


> If Dish doesnt get the CW in HD as soon as it comes out I will be mad. Ive been pissed that they dont give me WB in HD, since thats my fav channel, but im just making myself wait by telling myself that Dish will get CW.


I think that this just goes to show how different people's viewing choices are. I VERY seldom watched WB.

To me, content is much more important than just having a channel in HD. There was very little content in HD on the old WB that was, for me, worth watching (or SD for that mater). I think the same with be true for the new CW and also for the new MY TV network.

In my market (Cincinnati) the CBS affiliate is going to carry the CW on one of their digital sub-channels so we will never see it (via OTA) in HD.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> It isn't a completely government supported channel. PBS (hence the yearly pledge-a-thons) also depends on support from "viewers like you"  And there are many corporate sponsors for programs, and you see that either at the beginning or the end of a show in lieu of commercials.


At the station where I work "viewers like you" are 37% of our revenue. Don't know how much underwriters bring in but they are a large amount of the $$ for operation.


----------

