# New HD Channels in September



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Aside from the History Channel HD, there have been suggetions that E* would add other HD channels in September. Dish Magazine reports they will add 9 new HD PPV channels next month. Not exactly what most of us were hoping for. Let's hope they will also add a few HD channels to the HD package or premium movie channels packages as well.


----------



## bobl (Jan 17, 2004)

And how about turning on some of the seven HD RSN's which have been uplinked for a long time but are still unavailable. Mine is Fox Sports Net Bay Area which I believe was uplinked just about a year ago but has still not been turned on. Twently-five HD RSN's are uplinked but as of today only eighteen have been turned on.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

bobl said:


> And how about turning on some of the seven HD RSN's which have been uplinked for a long time but are still unavailable. Mine is Fox Sports Net Bay Area which I believe was uplinked just about a year ago but has still not been turned on. Twently-five HD RSN's are uplinked but as of today only eighteen have been turned on.


Hey, they finally got Comcast Chicago HD activated. I'd begun to think they would never get an agreement with Comcast. Still only active for a limited HD programming schedule but it's a start.


----------



## Taco Lover (Jan 8, 2007)

bobl said:


> And how about turning on some of the seven HD RSN's which have been uplinked for a long time but are still unavailable. Mine is Fox Sports Net Bay Area which I believe was uplinked just about a year ago but has still not been turned on. Twently-five HD RSN's are uplinked but as of today only eighteen have been turned on.


I agree. Get it turned on in time for hockey season!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I thought more RSNs were "in the pipe" as part of the "coming soon" rumors. Could be remembering wrong on that point though.

As for the new HD PPV... I think it is smart. Dish will most likely share the bandwidth between those part-time RSNs in HD and the PPVs... so instead of having dead transponders while airing those slates in the off-times... they can have more HD PPV choices available.

This seems like a very smart move to give consumers more HD PPV (something I have seen more folks express an interest in) and make more efficient use of existing allocated bandwidth at the same time. Win-win in my book.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

Yeah, I need a reason to re-point my 61.5 dish to 129 -- give us Fox Sports Bay Area already...


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

joebird said:


> Yeah, I need a reason to re-point my 61.5 dish to 129 -- give us Fox Sports Bay Area already...


Charlie says no cost two much no Bay Area cost to much.


----------



## johnmcm (Aug 13, 2007)

bobl said:


> And how about turning on some of the seven HD RSN's which have been uplinked for a long time but are still unavailable. Mine is Fox Sports Net Bay Area which I believe was uplinked just about a year ago but has still not been turned on. Twently-five HD RSN's are uplinked but as of today only eighteen have been turned on.


My biggest gripe, too! There's got to be somewhere to apply some consumer pressure. How about through ATT since they partner with dishnetwork with the Homezone and also sponsor the Giants' ballpark? I contacted FSN and they claim it's all in dish's hands. Obviously it's about money.


----------



## Hunter Green (May 8, 2006)

My vote, for what it's worth, is for more HD locals, like the ones scheduled to be rolled out by the end of 2006 for instance.


----------



## TvilleBee (Feb 11, 2007)

ditto on the hd locals. Norfolk, VA locals were slated for late 2006 & I'd really like to see them. I only get CBS, PBS, & ABC HD w/ my antenna & would really love to get atleast NBC & Fox HD from Norfolk


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

Taco Lover said:


> I agree. Get it turned on in time for hockey season!


Yes, or I'm going to Directv!


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

HDlover said:


> Yes, or I'm going to Directv!


I pinged [email protected], and it's status quo:

"We will be adding more HD Regional Sports Networks in the future, but do not currently have a launch date for RSN Bay Area. Unfortunately we do not have any additional information regarding the possible future additional of this channel."


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

I hope that they will carry my favorite channel Comedy Central,
in HD by the end of the year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair... most folks don't like to announce what they may or may not be doing a week from now, or beyond... and companies protect that info even moreso.

I like to know as much as the next person, but I also understand why companies don't just spray the news around all the time either.


----------



## krazy k (Apr 27, 2003)

I pay an average of 40. a month for wwe ppv,s
i wish someone would ping the ceo on my behalf cause for the amount i pay a year it would be sure nice to have the ppv's in HD.......
we got boxing in hd.
we got UFC in hd,.
WWe ,,,, we need it in hd,,,,
Krazy


----------



## Sat4me (May 13, 2006)

Dishnet HD for $20 per month is vastly overcharging based on what they are providing. If they don't get moving, I'm betting Directv steals a lot of customers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Sat4me said:


> Dishnet HD for $20 per month is vastly overcharging based on what they are providing. If they don't get moving, I'm betting Directv steals a lot of customers.


Hmm.. Dish has almost 3 times the HD that DirecTV does, and only charges twice what DirecTV does. How is that overcharging? Unless you expect everything to be free?


----------



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

IN that $20.00 price you are paying to subsidize VOOM . The origional hd pack was $ 9.99 and they added 10 channels of VOOM for $5.00 more back in May of 2005 , then they added another 5 channels for $5.01 more last year. So you now have $20.00 for the hd pack. IF Voom was a premium pack you could add ala carte instead of forced on you DISH would be at the same price for hd access as Directv. But that is what happens when your provider is part owner of VOOM. They got to make that money somewhere to keep Voom running.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> But that is what happens when your provider is part owner of VOOM.


While the theory sounds interesting and has been repeated often, I have yet to see any evidence to support it. Do you have evidence?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krazy k said:


> I pay an average of 40. a month for wwe ppv,s
> i wish someone would ping the ceo on my behalf cause for the amount i pay a year it would be sure nice to have the ppv's in HD.......
> we got boxing in hd.
> we got UFC in hd,.
> ...


You'll need to take that up with another CEO: Mrs. Linda E. McMahon.


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

What really irks me about Dish's HD package is that we pay a $20 separate charge to get the HD channels, then they tie some of those HD channels to the level of service you subscribe to. 

Ken


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

I would agree, but do you think that they get the HD feeds of those channels for free from the network's owner?


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

From the channel list for D* floating around, it looks like there are 3 new HD channels - CNN, TBS and Smithsonian. I look forward to getting these on E* as well ...


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

harsh said:


> While the theory sounds interesting and has been repeated often, I have yet to see any evidence to support it. Do you have evidence?


Harsh,

If you want Proof that Dish has a minority equity stake in VOOM I suggest you read Dish Networks stockholders report.

I love the DirecTV Subs posting about how they are going to get HD versions of a bunch of Channels, whom's Ownership does NOT know WHEN they will be offering a HD version of their content to cable and DBS Providers.

Well over half of the 70 HD channels DirecTV has in "ENGINEERING mode" are not and will NOT be available in HD this year. Some of those HD additions will be up-converts of SD, and I thought HD-lite was bad. DirecTV will then have a bunch of NO-HD, HD channels, WOW, now that will be some "MUST SEE TV".

With all that said DBS will likely be the best choice of HD providers, be that Dish or DirecTV, for quite some time to come. In general Cable lags very far behind either Dish or DirecTV.

John


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IN that $20.00 price you are paying to subsidize VOOM . The origional hd pack was $ 9.99 and they added 10 channels of VOOM for $5.00 more back in May of 2005 , then they added another 5 channels for $5.01 more last year. So you now have $20.00 for the hd pack. IF Voom was a premium pack you could add ala carte instead of forced on you DISH would be at the same price for hd access as Directv. But that is what happens when your provider is part owner of VOOM. They got to make that money somewhere to keep Voom running.


If you are going to play the numbers game... you should also mention that Discovery HD Theater was $7.99 as an a la carte channel... so $7.99 of that $9.99 HD pack was for the Discovery HD channel alone!

Also... when that $5.01 was added to make the current charge $20... a lot more than just 5 Voom channels was added. Back then we also got ESPN2HD, UniHD, and since that time a bunch more HD as well.

No matter how you slice it, we are getting a lot more bang for the buck than anyone else right now for HD programming.


----------



## jgurley (Feb 1, 2005)

I see that CNN has gone HD as of 9/1

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2007/09/cnn_stakes_clai.php

Anyone know if Dish plans on carrying this? I like to keep a bit of a balance in my news watching, so occasionally I do tune into CNN.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

jgurley said:


> I see that CNN has gone HD as of 9/1
> 
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2007/09/cnn_stakes_clai.php
> 
> Anyone know if Dish plans on carrying this? I like to keep a bit of a balance in my news watching, so occasionally I do tune into CNN.


I'd love it if FNC went HD. Give me Janice Dean and Courtney Friel in HD anyday. :heart: :dance:


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

Cyclone said:


> I would agree, but do you think that they get the HD feeds of those channels for free from the network's owner?


No, but if it is a question of cost, then raise the price of the hd package rather than tying the additional hd channels to a higher tier. I'm not going to subscribe to a higher tier when I only watch a handful of channles on the 120 tier.

Ken


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

kstevens said:


> No, but if it is a question of cost, then raise the price of the hd package rather than tying the additional hd channels to a higher tier. I'm not going to subscribe to a higher tier when I only watch a handful of channles on the 120 tier.
> 
> Ken


The thing I don't get... I see people complaining that they don't get an HD channel that is on a higher tier than they currently subscribe... but that means you haven't been watching the SD channel... so its not like you are losing something.

If you don't qualify for the tier that has Science HD, then you aren't currently watching Science SD either... which tends to imply you didn't want to watch that channels programming... so why should you be bothered missing the HD version of a channel you already don't watch?


----------



## An-Echo-Star (Jan 8, 2007)

joebird said:


> I pinged [email protected], and it's status quo:
> 
> "We will be adding more HD Regional Sports Networks in the future, but do not currently have a launch date for RSN Bay Area. Unfortunately we do not have any additional information regarding the possible future additional of this channel."


How about NESNHD for the Red Sox fans whose team is in first place? NESNHD is the most watched RSN in the country and has the most HD content. That's the biggest mystery to me.


----------



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

harsh said:


> While the theory sounds interesting and has been repeated often, I have yet to see any evidence to support it. Do you have evidence?


 Charlie Ergen owns about 20 % of Voom that he got when he bought the Rainbow Satellite that is now at 61.5 . This was a way of keeping Voom alive after the company itself went out of business. You could try a google search on Dish and part owner of Voom and see what comes up. IT has been stated on this board before that this is the truth. I have read it before several times since 2005 when Dish put the Voom channels up on their satellite. You can look back and see that Dish has been part owner in other channels in the past , like the Game4 channel that used to be called something else. I don't know if they still are now but at one time they were .


----------



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

HDMe said:


> If you are going to play the numbers game... you should also mention that Discovery HD Theater was $7.99 as an a la carte channel... so $7.99 of that $9.99 HD pack was for the Discovery HD channel alone!
> 
> Also... when that $5.01 was added to make the current charge $20... a lot more than just 5 Voom channels was added. Back then we also got ESPN2HD, UniHD, and since that time a bunch more HD as well.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, we are getting a lot more bang for the buck than anyone else right now for HD programming.


 Never the less the substantial hd additions were Voom channels and the price increase was added with them. IN Fact many people didn't want the new Voom channels and only paid $9.99 for no Voom channels and $14.99 for just the origional 10 Voom channels, till they recently went all mpeg 4 and they lost the Voom channels entirely. So the Voom channels were the motivating factor for the increase in price .


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The thing I don't get... I see people complaining that they don't get an HD channel that is on a higher tier than they currently subscribe... but that means you haven't been watching the SD channel... so its not like you are losing something.
> 
> If you don't qualify for the tier that has Science HD, then you aren't currently watching Science SD either... which tends to imply you didn't want to watch that channels programming... so why should you be bothered missing the HD version of a channel you already don't watch?


Because I will not go to the next tier just for a couple of channels. It is not worth $20 bucks to me. If the Science channel was on the 120 tier, then I would probably watch some of the content. Now, I am PAYING for the HD package, and I expect HD content to go into that package, whether or not the SD version is in anoher tier. I'll be keeping an eye on how DTV does their HD package with 70+ channels later this year. I might be persuaded to switch if they handle it right.

Ken


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

So do you expect to get HBOHD even though you do not subscribe to HBO?


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

HobbyTalk said:


> So do you expect to get HBOHD even though you do not subscribe to HBO?


It would be nice . I would like them to offer an HD premium channel option. Get HBOHD, SHOHD, etc for a price.

Ken


----------



## grog (Jul 3, 2007)

How about: SHO-E-HD(9460), MAX-HD(9458), HBO-HD(9456) and STARZ-HD(9435) for let's say: $20.00 a month...



kstevens said:


> It would be nice . I would like them to offer an HD premium channel option. Get HBOHD, SHOHD, etc for a price.
> 
> Ken


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

You can get it for a price, just subscribe to HBO and the HD version is free (if subscribed to HD).


----------



## grog (Jul 3, 2007)

This is true... In my case I dropped HBO and STARZ when I went to HD.
Not enough HD to make it worth it for us. When there is more content maybe I would go back... But if I could get just a single HD channel from the major pay players I might go for that package if the price was right. $20.00 for one from each of the main four players seems about right to me. Hey... HBO and STARTZ is $22.00 for all the SD stations on one HD from both providers.

Just an idea for one way to market what is out there right now.



HobbyTalk said:


> You can get it for a price, just subscribe to HBO and the HD version is free (if subscribed to HD).


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> The thing I don't get... I see people complaining that they don't get an HD channel that is on a higher tier than they currently subscribe... but that means you haven't been watching the SD channel... so its not like you are losing something.


I don't watch SD - because it is unwatchable on my 10' screen.

Anyway, I do think that E* will have to cut down the $20 HD fees once D* puts their 50 national channels. Afterall $20 was worth it because E* had the largest amount of HD ... if that is no longer the case, they woul have to make that a HD enabling fee of $10 or so (like D*, IIRC). Then I can move to the next upper bracket and get the other HD channels too.

Anyway, as I have always said, a la carte is the best option for people like me who watch (or would like to) a few channels that are spread out in various channel brackets.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

nataraj said:


> I don't watch SD - because it is unwatchable on my 10' screen.
> 
> Anyway, I do think that E* will have to cut down the $20 HD fees once D* puts their 50 national channels. Afterall $20 was worth it because E* had the largest amount of HD ... if that is no longer the case, they woul have to make that a HD enabling fee of $10 or so (like D*, IIRC). Then I can move to the next upper bracket and get the other HD channels too.
> 
> Anyway, as I have always said, a la carte is the best option for people like me who watch (or would like to) a few channels that are spread out in various channel brackets.


Nataraj,

Really, ala carte might not be the answer you are looking for. If ala carte was the MSO's business model, we wouldn't be getting 50-100 channels for 30-60 bucks.

Since MSO's need a average revenue of $50-60 per subscriber how much do you think ala carte subs would be paying for 10-15 channels, oooh pick me... pick me... pick me $50 bucks more or less.

Ala Carte subs would be paying about 3-6 bucks per channel so those 10-15 channels would cost roughly the same as the Bundling model MSO's use today.

John


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

JohnL said:


> Really, ala carte might not be the answer you are looking for. If ala carte was the MSO's business model, we wouldn't be getting 50-100 channels for 30-60 bucks.
> 
> Since MSO's need a average revenue of $50-60 per subscriber how much do you think ala carte subs would be paying for 10-15 channels, oooh pick me... pick me... pick me $50 bucks more or less.
> 
> Ala Carte subs would be paying about 3-6 bucks per channel so those 10-15 channels would cost roughly the same as the Bundling model MSO's use today.


I know it is the answer - because I don't care for the 100 channels I now get. I only see a handful. It is not the per channel cost that I care about but the total cost I need to pay. Currently there are some channels in the highest bracket I'd like to get - without paying 20 backs more.

BTW, a la carte doesn't necessarily there shouldn't be any packages. There is no reason we can't have both.


----------



## david803sc (Jun 22, 2006)

Now that their are so many HD Channels what they need is a package say for $49.99 that covers all HD channels, plus locals in HD (Where available) add $10 for each Premium in HD, HBO, Starz, etc. for me i have the everything package and with HD added it is $120 a month, I do not watch any of the SD channels with the exception of FX and Rescue Me. I could live without that for a $30 savings or more per month.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

david803sc said:


> I do not watch any of the SD channels with the exception of FX and Rescue Me.


Same here. Only SD we watch are Comedy Central (Stewart and Colbert) and TBS (Seinfeld Reruns). Don't see why I should subscribe to 100 channels ....


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

IPTV is coming. Internet will be everything. No DVRs. Everything on demand and you'll have to watch the commercials. Comcast has started it. Prices WILL drop!


----------



## zlensman (Jan 15, 2006)

jgurley said:


> I see that CNN has gone HD as of 9/1
> 
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2007/09/cnn_stakes_clai.php


According to the article linked above, CNN HD is "the first 24-hour domestic news network in high definition". Pardon me, but I've had HDNews from Voom running 24/7 in HD for quite some time and it's quite...um, domesticated.

I'm not suggesting that these news organizations are on a par with each other, but it bugs me when the big juggernaut corporation claims to be first when the little-known trailblazer who was really first is completely ignored.

Of course, Voom will need to change their tune as well. Their website still says HDNews is "the only 24/7 hi-definition news channel."


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

HDlover said:


> IPTV is coming. Internet will be everything. No DVRs. Everything on demand and you'll have to watch the commercials. Comcast has started it. Prices WILL drop!


I tried IPTV and while it does work and work pretty well, you can forget great picture quality unless you have a 5Mbit broadband connection or better. I had IPTV with a 3Mbit cable connection and the frame rates were fine but the quality of the picture was that of a VCR recording.

Verizon's system thought would not have this problem because of the huge amounts of bandwidth.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IPTV could be useful in a download now, watch later kind of way... where you buy (or for free) set your receiver to download things you intend to watch later... but I agree, live viewing is going to be sketchy unless the picture quality is low.

I have a 6Mbit internet DSL connection, and HD video is not really possible at high quality over the internet to stream live.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I have a 6Mbit internet DSL connection, and HD video is not really possible at high quality over the internet to stream live.


I can see it now: a new real estate craze for TV fanatics, centered around proximity to COs/DSLAMs for the best IPTV picture quality. :grin:


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

zlensman said:


> Of course, Voom will need to change their tune as well. Their website still says HDNews is "the only 24/7 hi-definition news channel."


No, they really won't because CNN-HD is a part-time HD channel and probably will not be 24/7 HD for 3-5 years.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDlover said:


> IPTV is coming. Internet will be everything. No DVRs. Everything on demand and you'll have to watch the commercials. Comcast has started it. Prices WILL drop!





booger said:


> I tried IPTV and while it does work and work pretty well, you can forget great picture quality unless you have a 5Mbit broadband connection or better. I had IPTV with a 3Mbit cable connection and the frame rates were fine but the quality of the picture was that of a VCR recording.


Is that IPTV or just SD VOD ?

Currently there are, AFAIK, only two IPTV systems - Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse, in the US.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nataraj said:


> Currently there are, AFAIK, only two IPTV systems - Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse, in the US.


FIOS is *NOT* IPTV. FIOS uses the same QAM technology that most conventional CATV companies use.


----------



## godsend1 (Feb 19, 2007)

I noticed they added the Science channel. I have the HD package and it shows red in my program guide. Isn't this channel part of the HD package?


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

godsend1 said:


> I noticed they added the Science channel. I have the HD package and it shows red in my program guide. Isn't this channel part of the HD package?


You have to subscribe to a programming level that has the SD version of it before you get the HD version (AT 250 I think). Same thing is true for National Geographic HD (maybe some others as well).


----------



## godsend1 (Feb 19, 2007)

Thanks Allen.


----------



## krazy k (Apr 27, 2003)

wwe ppv in hd..............
usa network in hd.......
my local wb station from detriot in HD.....
thats my wish list.............


----------



## zlensman (Jan 15, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> No, they really won't because CNN-HD is a part-time HD channel and probably will not be 24/7 HD for 3-5 years.


I see. So, it may be that CNN HD is like the store that is "open 24 hours...just not all in a row". :lol:


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

krazy k said:


> my local wb station from detriot in HD.....
> thats my wish list.............


WB & UPN are history. Maybe your station is now the CW which is what those nets became after the merger. E* only broadcast the big 4 ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC. I would like to see CW in HD as well. I can only get it in SD in my area.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krazy k said:


> wwe ppv in hd..............


You need to be talking with the McMahons about any WWE programming in HD.


> usa network in hd.......


Nothing here either.


> my local wb station from detriot in HD.....


I guess you gotta wish big, but your wasting your time wishing for WWE in HD on any network until the WWE decides it is time for HD.


----------



## krazy k (Apr 27, 2003)

its not like the wwe cant afford to go hd,
and they owe it to there fans,
and with wb detroit,
ya its cw now,
there is a couple of local cw 's thats in hd on dish.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

harsh said:


> FIOS is *NOT* IPTV. FIOS uses the same QAM technology that most conventional CATV companies use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS

FIOS is a hybrid. QAM is used for normal network channels - but IPTV is used for VOD and PPV - that was what I was talking about.



> Another common misconception about FIOS television is that it is all IPTV, when in fact only pay per view, video on demand, and guide data services are delivered via IP


.


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

nataraj said:


> Is that IPTV or just SD VOD ?
> 
> Currently there are, AFAIK, only two IPTV systems - Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse, in the US.


That's not true. ITVN is an IPTV provider here in the US. I had them for a while. They offer a Starz package and Encore, plus sports and an On-Demand music channel.

As far as I can tell, they use the IP protocol.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

booger said:


> That's not true. ITVN is an IPTV provider here in the US. I had them for a while. They offer a Starz package and Encore, plus sports and an On-Demand music channel.
> 
> As far as I can tell, they use the IP protocol.


Yes & No. If you include only closed systems which can gaurantee QOS - then I think you have only u-verse and FIOS. But if you include any Internet TV - which just use your broadband, then there are others.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

There is one CW carried as a Dish HD local, 6399 in Sacramento.


----------



## Taco Lover (Jan 8, 2007)

BobaBird said:


> There is one CW carried as a Dish HD local, 6399 in Sacramento.


No it's not.  CW in HD for Sac is only OTA. Instead we have MyNetwork in HD. 

Ah, I see you update that Local HD page, you might want to change CW to MNT.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Missed that change, puts us back to 0 as l8er tried to tell us . Give me a few minutes to get the correction posted.


----------

