# D* vs. E* HD. Split: What does D* offer in HD that E* doesn't that you really want?



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> Rushed in? DirecTV announced agreements and discussions with a large number of these channels at the beginning of 2007 - 9 months + before they lit them up. Why are you putting all of this blame on DirecTV without knowledge? Is it not possible that the channels themselves made some comittments YOU don't know about regarding their HD launches?
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=948332&highlight=
> 
> Easy to blame WITHOUT facts. I don't have them either, but I don't assume that this is all on the back of DirecTV either.


I remember back in September D* made a call of "giant leap in HD history" and named a few HD channels to be added soon, and when people asked the heads of those channels about what was going on, they had no idea what D* was talking about.

Your facts actually proved my point, D* rushed those channels into signing the agreements to beef up it's claim as far back as 9 months ago and they went along, even though they had no real plans to go HD any time soon. Let's face it, they had 9 months to get their acts together, had their intention been sincere as D* wanted us to believe, we would be watching real HD content left and right by now.

I don't know if any of you still remember when many of those pioneer HD channels made their launch announcements, there was always the mentioning of how many hours of HD programming they had in their library for the kick off? We used to laugh at the sometimes meager inventories, but at least they had some. When was the last time you heard those new HD channels said anything about how much HD they had in their library or what are they working on for the near future? Heck when was the last time we even heard words from those new HD channels at all, other than D* making all the noise for them?

I am all for D* bringing this HD buzz word to the forefront, but I am also not going to stick my head in the sand either. No doubt some are making the effort but quite many of them are just placeholders for now.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> I remember back in September D* made a call of "giant leap in HD history" and named a few HD channels to be added soon, and when people asked the heads of those channels about what was going on, they had no idea what D* was talking about.
> 
> .


Well that doesnt hold water. If they had NO IDEA you would think that NONE of the channels would have HD on them, or have the HD logo set after their names on the tv screens. They obviously had SOME IDEA.
Basing info off of what may have spread around some internet message board without verification isnt the best idea in the world

Which ones are you looking forward to them adding jacm?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Your facts actually proved my point, D* rushed those channels into signing the agreements to beef up it's claim as far back as 9 months ago and they went along, even though they had no real plans to go HD any time soon. Let's face it, they had 9 months to get their acts together, had their intention been sincere as D* wanted us to believe, we would be watching real HD content left and right by now.


You have no facts to base any of this on as DirecTV being the cause AND the blame for what a content provider did or didn't do.

I am hard pressed to believe that another multi-billion dollar company like Viacom (as an example) would allow itself to be pressured by DirecTV. Disney was announced as well, but BOTH DirecTV and Disney said that they were launching in 2008 - why was Disney NOT pressured the same way?

Your theory doesn't fly as I see it.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> You have no facts to base any of this on as DirecTV being the cause AND the blame for what a content provider did or didn't do.
> 
> I am hard pressed to believe that another multi-billion dollar company like Viacom (as an example) would allow itself to be pressured by DirecTV. Disney was announced as well, but BOTH DirecTV and Disney said that they were launching in 2008 - why was Disney NOT pressured the same way?
> 
> Your theory doesn't fly as I see it.


I never said D* is the cause for lack of HD nor blame them for such. But the fact is many of those HD channels went along with D* so they can claim a spot before the bandwidth becomes an issue again, I don't blame them at all, but don't pretend they have a real HD plan in place and even are making good effort.

So the point is the 100 HDs is much less impressive than it sounds. Nevertheless, the promotional aspect of such plan is brilliant, becasue most people already think they are watching HD when they are not, so it makes no difference if the new HDs are real or not, people will respond by feeding their newly acquired HD sets with the "best HD plan" out there. Not blaming anyone just stating the fact.

And here comes the benefit we all share, whether we like the half assed HD content or not, D* has turned up a new form of competition, and as a result I got free HD for 6 months from E* so they don't lose me to D*. And I am free to jump ship anytime I wish. In the meantime E* will try its best to offer HD content. I fully expect to ride this wave of new competition and benefit from it, whether I am with E* or D*, knowing full well there still isn't mcuh HD to watch or worth watching

So to answer the OP's question, do I wish E* has all what D* has now and may be more? Of course, but I really have not yet come up with anything I really want in HD that D* has but E* does not.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I never said D* is the cause for lack of HD nor blame them for such. But the fact is many of those HD channels went along with D* so they can claim a spot before the bandwidth becomes an issue again, I don't blame them at all, but don't pretend they have a real HD plan in place and even are making good effort.


You have presented an argument that it was DirecTV pressuring these companies to put on a HD channel - frankly I don't buy that argument and see no proof that it is in ANY way true.

As I see it, it is in the content providers BEST INTEREST to sign a HD carriage agreement with the pay providers NOW and here is why - ALL of them (D*, E*, cable) stilll only have limits on number of channels that they can or will be able to carry in HD (whetther its 150, 200, etc.). To guarantee THEMSELVES a place in that group, it is in their own benefit to get on the system as soon as possible. Remember there are many more than 200 SD channels on these systems. Some are not going to have any room.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> You have presented an argument that it was DirecTV pressuring these companies to put on a HD channel - frankly I don't buy that argument and see no proof that it is in ANY way true.
> 
> As I see it, it is in the content providers BEST INTEREST to sign a HD carriage agreement with the pay providers NOW and here is why - ALL of them (D*, E*, cable) stilll only have limits on number of channels that they can or will be able to carry in HD (whetther its 150, 200, etc.). To guarantee THEMSELVES a place in that group, it is in their own benefit to get on the system as soon as possible. Remember there are many more than 200 SD channels on these systems. Some are not going to have any room.


We are really saying the same thing if you read me carefully. So may be my use of word "rush" was misleading, both sides want to jump on the bandwagon, even though many have no intention to bring ture HD content soon. In a sense D*'s HD plan "rushed" many of the providers into launching their HD channels before they actually can be called an HD channel.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> We are really saying the same thing if you read me carefully. So may be my use of word "rush" was misleading, both sides want to jump on the bandwagon, even though many have no intention to bring ture HD content soon. In a sense D*'s HD plan "rushed" many of the providers into launching their HD channels before they actually can be called an HD channel.


I still don't really see it that way - I have to believe that DirecTV would want them all to be broadcasting TONS of HD material - that only increases the value to its subs - doesn't it?

And it of course is true for DISH, FiOS, cable, as well. If DirecTV just wanted to add HD channels, they would have even more on the system today - geez that would be easy to do.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

D* would have to have the permission of the content providers.
Perhaps the other providers are a little less cavalier about their brands?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

This was split out of the other thread since it quickly went far away from the topic. So feel free to continue this conversation here.... Keep it civil and respect other peoples opinions..


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> This was split out of the other thread since it quickly went far away from the topic. So feel free to continue this conversation here.... Keep it civil and respect other peoples opinions..


Thanks Ron - great idea.

jac - to repeat my feelings, I have neither heard nor seen any supporting info to support your theory - and to be fair I have heard none on the other side either - that being said, you are only guessing that it is pressure by DirecTV - it very well could be DESIRE on the part of those providers to be on the system while there is still room for them.

I just don't know or understand the need to even have to point a finger at either right now - for it is more than obvious that one thing DirecTV HAS DONE - is get a lot of these content providrs off their butts and get something going. You can't believe for one second that it is only a coincidnece that this all came to a head just as D10 was launched and lit. Saying that - it is good for ALL HD enthusiasts that this happened - no matter which service you pay for.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2007)

Most of the new channels have at least some HD content on them. If you like "Stargate: Atlantis" and "Battlestar: Galactica", you can now watch them in HD, whereas you couldn't before those new channels were added. What does it really matter if a lot of content you don't watch anyway is SD?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Most of the new channels have at least some HD content on them. If you like "Stargate: Atlantis" and "Battlestar: Galactica", you can now watch them in HD, whereas you couldn't before those new channels were added. What does it really matter if a lot of content you don't watch anyway is SD?


Thats the point I have been TRYING to make for a while. People seem to be hung up on the fact that some of the content isnt in HD and miss the fact that nearly all of the Original series content and movies are.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Another point is that with over *80* HD channels now on the system, at all times it seems there are *30-50 or MORE *different HD programs to choose from - that is awesome considering that a little over 2 months ago there were only about 10 total channels.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Another point is that with over *80* HD channels now on the system, at all times it seems there are *30-50 or MORE *different HD programs to choose from - that is awesome considering that a little over 2 months ago there were only about 10 total channels.


Yes, it is amazing, and good for BOTH companies in the long term


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> ...jac - to repeat my feelings, I have neither heard nor seen any supporting info to support your theory - and to be fair I have heard none on the other side either - that being said, you are only guessing that it is pressure by DirecTV - it very well could be DESIRE on the part of those providers to be on the system while there is still room for them...


Do I have a theory? If so let me try to figured it out now.

Let's see fact one, in the last year or two D* was pretty much the only one making all the announcements and claims of the big HD plan, and making agreements with all the providers, the lack of enthusiasm from those "HD" providers was pretty obvious;

Fact two, in September when D* announced some more HD channels to launch in the conference call and when people asked the heads of those providers they either did not know what was it about or had no comments, at a minimum a show of lack of enthusiasm again in my view;

Fact three, many of those channels worked on the agreement with D* 9 months before the launch still today simply un-convert SD and called it an HD channel, providing no plan of their own what will be true HD content in their arsenal or in the near future to come.

So yes I would say many of the channels were dragged into the frenzy, I never said it was a bad thing, just that many of them have no real intention or care to make much effort to bring true HD content to their supposed new HD channels.

It is of course not the fault of D* that those channels do not have real HD content, what needs to be pointed out is the so called "100 HD's" are not what general public who just purchased their new HD sets, really getting what they think they are getting. But since most people are happily convinced they are watching HD just because they have an HD set, whether connected to an HD source or not, it matters very little anyway.

The HD revolution D* has brought about, at least at this very moment, and for me personally, is not the abundance of HD content, rather the perception of it, that benefits me from E* doing more than usual to keep me happy as their customer, if not adding HD, at least giving more programming discounts, and likewise make D* do the same to attract people like me, when they already have the lead in HD count, but still can sweeten the HDDVR deals more to match E*.

So yes I am nothing but happy to see it evolve, not for the reason I thought it was, but still...


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Do I have a theory? If so let me try to figured it out now.
> 
> Let's see fact one, in the last year or two D* was pretty much the only one making all the announcements and claims of the big HD plan, and making agreements with all the providers, the lack of enthusiasm from those "HD" providers was pretty obvious;
> 
> ...


It still doesnt hold up to me.

For the first fact, what makes you think they didnt show enthusiasm? That sounds more like an opinion on your part than based on fact.

For the second, which particular channels are you talking about? And can you show links where they were asked about this. The only one that comes to mind for me is the weather channel. I recall them saying something to the effect that the majority of their HD programming would be done in 08, however they do have HD content now. In no small part because D* gave them a way to get it out.

For the third point, i simply say that it takes time to convert the studio, or even build a new one to get the HD broadcasts to where they want them. This doesnt happen overnight. This has been the case with most all channels that have converted to HD.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Do I have a theory?


Yes, you have a theory, and I repsect it even though I don't really agree with it.

Facts? No unless you can show me PROOF. Without PROOf, it is only theory, that's the difference. You support your facts with speculation and inneuendo, but NO PROOF.

It is OPINION, and thus valid as such.

BTW, mine is OPINION ALSO.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The questions to answer are:
1) Would the provider have a "HD" channel if it were not for D*'s carriage?
2) When will there be regular HD content on each channel?
3) Does any other carrier carry the "HD" version of the channel?

Based on the past I have no problem blaming TBS for their non-HD channel. TBS and TNT were the first of the worst for upconverting SD content and calling it "HD". But there are channels that I can not imagine taking that leap without considerable "encouragement" from D*. What that was is left to our imagination.

BTW: Voom has positive answers to the three questions. The provider originally created the channels for their own system, not for E* or D*. The provider is regularly providing HD on their channels. The provider has their channels on another carrier (Cablevision).

The answers would vary per network ... one can't blanket state that _every_ channel D* has in "HD" that isn't carried elsewhere exists as a result of undue pressure from D*. But there are channels that don't seem to have any reason to exist other than to fill bandwidth and add to a count without adding HD content.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> ...But there are channels that don't seem to have any reason to exist other than to fill bandwidth and add to a count without adding HD content.


Exactly my theory, and I have provided three facts repeatedly to support such theory, I don't know how to find PROOF to a fact.

Of course no one has to agree with my theory based on the facts I provided.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> The questions to answer are:
> 1) Would the provider have a "HD" channel if it were not for D*'s carriage?
> 2) When will there be regular HD content on each channel?
> 3) Does any other carrier carry the "HD" version of the channel?
> ...


Then I guess VOOM DIDN'T qualify until THIS AUGUST - after all they were NOT on Cablevision for the time period of May 2005 thru August of 2007. Yep, even the company that owns VOOM didn't have them on for OVER 2 YEARS.

Nice try. Good spinning.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Then I guess VOOM DIDN'T qualify until THIS AUGUST - after all they were NOT on Cablevision for the time period of May 2005 thru August of 2007. Yep, even the company that owns VOOM didn't have them on for OVER 2 YEARS.
> 
> Nice try. Good spinning.


I agree. Number three is irrelevant. You cant honestly think E* WOULDNT add these channels if they had the capability available. They are proving that with the upcoming release of Sci-FI and USA


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > The questions to answer are:
> ...


Perhaps you forgot a little satellite company that had them BEFORE E* picked up the channels?


> Nice try. Good spinning.


Nice try, good insulting. 



msmith198025 said:


> I agree. Number three is irrelevant.


#3 is important. It shows the opinion of other providers as to whether or not the channel is "HD" enough to be carried or is just an unfunny joke. All three questions should be taken together.



> You cant honestly think E* WOULDNT add these channels if they had the capability available. They are proving that with the upcoming release of Sci-FI and USA


The addition of those channels proves that they have the capacity - or at least can get it if they wanted to. E* is simply making choices in their own time, based on the quality of the channels. USA and Sci-Fi are apparently worth adding ... perhaps some day the others will catch up.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> #3 is important.


Again - only your opinion - and as we see not so to everyone.

:nono2: :nono2: :nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As tis YOUR opinion that general acceptance of the channel in the marketplace is unimportant.

If the quality of "HD" on all the psudo-HD channels created in the past couple of months for D* was worth carrying then other providers would be clamoring to add those channels. At this point they seem to be D* exclusives because _no one_ else wants them. 

And in most cases, it seems that the providers were uninterested in creating the channels until D* asked for them.


----------



## OneOfOne (Sep 19, 2006)

this entire thread is nothing but a stupid pissing contest that should be held in private.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> .
> 
> If the quality of "HD" on all the psudo-HD channels created in the past couple of months for D* was worth carrying then other providers would be clamoring to add those channels. At this point they seem to be D* exclusives because _no one_ else wants them.


Exactly as with VOOM I guess - no one seems to want to add them (gosh it even took their owner OVER 2 years to add them on) - and they have been available to ALL providers for 2 1/2 years now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Exactly as with VOOM I guess - no one seems to want to add them (gosh it even took their owner OVER 2 years to add them on) - and they have been available to ALL providers for 2 1/2 years now.


Every other provider has capacity problems. E* added them at a time when there were not many other channels to add ... they had the space freely available and having the channels gave their subscribers something special ... channels that are HD 24/7.

Now D* finally has the bandwidth. They have made a choice ... instead of adding 24/7 HD channels (that are partially owned by E*) they are adding partial HD channels (some that have been described as having no HD). Perhaps they don't want E* to make money off of the carriage of the channels. Perhaps they don't like the price that Rainbow DBS is asking. You guess is as good as mine. (I'm sure I'll be reading your guess the next time I read this thread.)

But the point is that those channels existed before E* chose to carry them and were not created out of SD. Voom are real honest HD channels. Not upconverts passed off as "HD".

BTW: Thanks for agreeing that no one wants to add the majority of D*'s upconvert HD channels. I'm sure that they will appear on other providers as HD begins to appear on each channel. When the quality is worth the carriage.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> #3 is important. It shows the opinion of other providers as to whether or not the channel is "HD" enough to be carried or is just an unfunny joke. All three questions should be taken together.
> 
> The addition of those channels proves that they have the capacity - or at least can get it if they wanted to. E* is simply making choices in their own time, based on the quality of the channels. USA and Sci-Fi are apparently worth adding ... perhaps some day the others will catch up.


It shows nothing. It could just as easily show that D* has exclusive contracts and no one else can add them. Which isnt the case(i dont think), its just not as one sided as you make it seem.

The addition of those channels proves they have (or found) the capacity for those two channels. It speaks nothing about the quality of the others.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

JL - If you read what I said - 

I said it even took CABLEVISION over 2 years to add THEIR OWN VOOM channels - they obviously had the bandwith all along. I guess there was NO clamor prior to August, huh? 

As far as adding all of the new HD channels that DirecTV now has - DISH can't add them - they DON'T have the bandwidth - and won't until at least mid-2008 when they can get a new satellite up in the air and turned on.

You also DON'T know why they do or don't add specific channels - what you do is spin EVERYTHING they do into your neat little DISH is perfect world.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> If the quality of "HD" on all the psudo-HD channels created in the past couple of months for D* was worth carrying then other providers would be clamoring to add those channels. At this point they seem to be D* exclusives because _no one_ else wants them.
> 
> And in most cases, it seems that the providers were uninterested in creating the channels until D* asked for them.


They other providers may not have the capabilities at this point James. You are stating your opinion or idea, and thats fine(you are entitled), but that doesnt mean thats exactly how it is.

What if they were interested but didnt have a provider that was able to give them an outlet? Werent SOME of these shows shot in HD before D* put the channels up? That seems to be SOME interest to me


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Every other provider has capacity problems.
> 
> .


That was your response on why no one added Voom, and i agree with it.

I dont see why you cant admit that this MIGHT be a reason that some providers arent adding the new stuff D* is.
And to say NO ONE is false also. Some cable companies have added several of them


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> That was your response on why no one added Voom, and i agree with it.
> 
> I dont see why you cant admit that this MIGHT be a reason that some providers arent adding the new stuff D* is.
> And to say NO ONE is false also. Some cable companies have added several of them


No one having bandwidth is not true. CABLEVISION added it this summer - they did not do any upgrades to give themselves additional bandwidth this summer - the impression is they added the HD so that they could compete just when DISH added about 7-8 HD channels this past summer, and just as DirecTV was going to be starting its industry leading HD expansion. And for gosh sakes they OWN VOOM and kept it OFF of their system for OVER 2 years.

There are other cable companies that also have plenty of available bandwith to carry VOOM - they just have chosen to wait to add more meaningful channels that most people have heard of and want, as DirecTV has identified and correctly has advertised.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

OneOfOne said:


> this entire thread is nothing but a stupid pissing contest that should be held in private.


You know... the thing about pissing contests is that eventually everyone ends up being pissed on.:eek2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Something else worth mentioning about Voom... Recently it has taken (justifiably so in my opinion) some hits for the increased repeats... like MonstersHD only showing 2-3 movies per day on a repeating schedule.

It is worth noting that IFC and AMC are doing the exact same thing on their SD channels... and Rainbow Media owns Voom as well as IFC and AMC. I haven't checked WE, since I don't watch that channel, but wouldn't be surprised if it was doing a similar thing.

I'm of the mind to think this is less about Voom HD and more about some new direction Rainbow is trying on all their channels (SD and HD) for repeating more movies and less variety.

Not sure I like the direction... but it seems like this is not just constrained to the HD channels as some have been focussing. Seems more like a Rainbow problem.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> JL - If you read what I said -


And I do ...


> You also DON'T know why they do or don't add specific channels - what you do is spin EVERYTHING they do into your neat little DISH is perfect world.


Thanks for another insult. When you're ready to discuss DBS I'll be here.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Some cable companies have added several of them


Is this the same as the "most RSNs play non-game HD" claim?

Which cable companies have added which apparent D* exclusive channels?

Having another company carry a channel helps on the three questions I asked. Or are you saying that wide carriage of some low HD channel such as TBS or TNT means that _every_ low HD channel (or no HD channel) is a content provider driven offering that D* happens to be interested in carrying regardless of actual HD content?

When I asked the three questions I explained that "The answers would vary per network." If a cable company has picked up the channel it would give it's existence more value.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

HDMe said:


> You know... the thing about pissing contests is that eventually everyone ends up being pissed on.:eek2:


Not in this case. In the end we'll all have it all. If this latest D* pass for the lead doesn't last over two years then I'll feel like it all worked out in the end.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Is this the same as the "most RSNs play non-game HD" claim?
> 
> .


No, ALL 24/7 hd RSNs carry non game HD at some point. SOME cable companies carry a variety of the HD channels that D* has launches. No other one company carries them all.
The answer WOULD vary per cable network
Way to pick and edit which parts you want to respond to


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James, hoenst question. Will you mark Sci fi and USA off of your list of insignificant HD channels that no one wants when E* gets them? You dont seem to target anything else other than those that E* doesnt have.
Honestly, just wondering.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> James, hoenst question. Will you mark Sci fi and USA off of your list of insignificant HD channels that no one wants when E* gets them? You dont seem to target anything else other than those that E* doesnt have.
> Honestly, just wondering.


I can't and don't speak for James... but I don't care whether Dish has it or not... if a channel doesn't have much HD (TBSHD for instance) it is a waste of a channel.

There are channels that I don't watch, but I recognize that other people watch them. So I don't bash channels just because they aren't on my favorites list... but I bashed TBSHD before Dish got it, and I'll continue to bash it now that Dish has it unless and until it actually has some HD on it.

I have heard that USAHD has some good HD on it... and that at least the new shows on SciFiHD are actually HD... but if and when Dish adds them, if they do not have much HD on them then I certainly will not change my opinion just because of Dish having the channels.

If I were a DirecTV customer, I wouldn't be all that happy about some of the new "HD" channels. As a Dish customer I am not in a hurry to see some of those channels added and taking bandwidth that could be used by a channel that had more HD on it.

I don't have a "sour grapes" response just because DirecTV has added a bunch of new channnels that I don't have with Dish. But I have also seen in DirecTV forums where DirecTV customers have been disappointed with the lack of actual HD on some of these new channels... so it isn't like they are all happy campers over there either.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

We already have that answer - I think it was mentioned that DISH carefully selects the channels that it adds.

I quote:
*"E* is simply making choices in their own time, based on the quality of the channels. USA and Sci-Fi are apparently worth adding ... perhaps some day the others will catch up."*

Of course Sci-Fi is one of the channels that is showing a smaller amount of HD than most of the others, but if DISH adds it, then we know it is worth adding!

MGM, SMITHSONIAN, the STARZ movie channels and others with far more HD content are also obviously NOT worth adding. The quality of those channels is thus below USA and SciFi I guess.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

HDMe said:


> If I were a DirecTV customer, I wouldn't be all that happy about some of the new "HD" channels. As a Dish customer I am not in a hurry to see some of those channels added and taking bandwidth that could be used by a channel that had more HD on it.
> 
> I don't have a "sour grapes" response just because DirecTV has added a bunch of new channnels that I don't have with Dish. But I have also seen in DirecTV forums where DirecTV customers have been disappointed with the lack of actual HD on some of these new channels... so it isn't like they are all happy campers over there either.


You are so right - there is disappointment whatever any of these companies do - it is hard to please 16+ (or 13+) million customers. There are indeed unhappy campers - with ALL of the pay providers. And it's nothing new.

But as far as DirecTV, they have abundant bandwidth, so adding all of those channels is no issue. As far as DISH, they are scrounging around for bandwidth to ba able to add a couple of channels, they HAVE to be a bit more selective I dare say at ths time.

But with over 80 HD channels to select from, there seems to ALWAYS be a very large choice of HD programming to choose from.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Is this the same as the "most RSNs play non-game HD" claim?
> ...


And that is how one moves the cheese. "Most RSNs" now becomes "all 24/7 HD RSNs". The question remains unanswered:

Which cable companies have added which apparent D* exclusive channels?



msmith198025 said:


> James, hoenst question. Will you mark Sci fi and USA off of your list of insignificant HD channels that no one wants when E* gets them? You dont seem to target anything else other than those that E* doesnt have.
> Honestly, just wondering.


I don't have such a list. Just a definition.

E* has a couple of nearly worthless channels ... unfortunately they are carried by many different carriers - so they would not make "the list" you apparently think I have.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I quote:
> *"E* is simply making choices in their own time, based on the quality of the channels. USA and Sci-Fi are apparently worth adding ... perhaps some day the others will catch up."*
> 
> Of course Sci-Fi is one of the channels that is showing a smaller amount of HD than most of the others, but if DISH adds it, then we know it is worth adding!


Perhaps E* is making a wrong decision. It isn't up to me. If you have complaints about what E* is carrying email [email protected] ... or use the comment forms on DishNetwork.com

D* adding a channel doesn't make it worth adding, does it?



> MGM, SMITHSONIAN, the STARZ movie channels and others with far more HD content are also obviously NOT worth adding. The quality of those channels is thus below USA and SciFi I guess.


Quality of channel isn't the only factor. I'm surprised the other Starz! channels have not been added - I would have put them on (along with TMC-East) months ago. There are likely other considerations that neither of us can divine.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Perhaps E* is making a wrong decision. It isn't up to me. If you have complaints about what E* is carrying email [email protected] ... or use the comment forms on DishNetwork.com
> 
> D* adding a channel doesn't make it worth adding, does it?
> 
> Quality of channel isn't the only factor. I'm surprised the other Starz! channels have not been added - I would have put them on (along with TMC-East) months ago. There are likely other considerations that neither of us can divine.


Nope - DirecTV adding a channel does NOT automatically make it worth adding - never said it did. It was your direct (sic) quote that DISH DOES make these quality selections.

Of course I know that quality is not the only factor. But DISH is bandwidth starved at the moment (yes it will change), and they have to pick and choose as they reclaim space to throw new HD up in the air. That in a nutshell is the other considerations.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I can't and don't speak for James... but I don't care whether Dish has it or not... if a channel doesn't have much HD (TBSHD for instance) it is a waste of a channel.


I know, which is why i asked james.

As for the rest, i repect your opinion. It is yours to have. If you enjoy sci fi and usa anyway, you will LOVE them in HD


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> And that is how one moves the cheese. "Most RSNs" now becomes "all 24/7 HD RSNs". The question remains unanswered:
> 
> Which cable companies have added which apparent D* exclusive channels?
> 
> ...


James i think we are still having a confusion from an earlier argument. That being the difference between the RSNs that E* offers as game only and the "few" that D* offers 24/7. Of which all offer at least some HD other than games at some point. BIG difference.

If they wouldnt make "the list" though simply because they are on E* (which is fine) "the list" is a little biased. 
You may not be that way james, it just comes across to me(an unbiased observer) is all i am saying.
It seems to be that E* is on a whole different level for you, and thats fine(if thats the case, hey you are happy with your sat company). Just doesnt seem fair for people wanted impartial info. Just the way i see it, hope that doesnt offend you.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Nope - DirecTV adding a channel does NOT automatically make it worth adding - never said it did. It was your direct (sic) quote that DISH DOES make these quality selections.
> 
> Of course I know that quality is not the only factor. But DISH is bandwidth starved at the moment (yes it will change), and they have to pick and choose as they reclaim space to throw new HD up in the air. That in a nutshell is the other considerations.


I agree with you on this


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Perhaps E* is making a wrong decision. It isn't up to me. If you have complaints about what E* is carrying email [email protected] ... or use the comment forms on DishNetwork.com
> 
> D* adding a channel doesn't make it worth adding, does it?
> 
> Quality of channel isn't the only factor. I'm surprised the other Starz! channels have not been added - I would have put them on (along with TMC-East) months ago. There are likely other considerations that neither of us can divine.


An impartial observation. James, now this is the kind of post i like to hear from you.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Nope - DirecTV adding a channel does NOT automatically make it worth adding - never said it did. It was your direct (sic) quote that DISH DOES make these quality selections.


Just checking. It seems much of the time the argument for E* to add a channel is limited solely to it's carriage on D* ... which at this point seems to be even beyond the bar of "if it exists, we'll add it" into the realm of "upconvert your SD and we'll add it".

No explanation is needed for saying E* adds quality channels. They have added a couple of duds (all are on D* so no comparison there).



> Of course I know that quality is not the only factor. But DISH is bandwidth starved at the moment (yes it will change), and they have to pick and choose as they reclaim space to throw new HD up in the air. That in a nutshell is the other considerations.


Not really. It doesn't explain why Sci-Fi and USA's HD channels are apparently coming before the six premium movie channels or full time HD channels. One cannot blame that decision on a lack of available bandwidth. If they have room for these two part time HD channels they have room for MGM HD and Smithsonian ... or two of the four Starz! channels not carried.

E* made a choice. I expect as time goes by we will see more choice selections.

Why is E* apparently adding Sci-Fi and USA instead of one of the other 14 upconvert/simulcast channels? I believe they have chosen the best two channels to add.



msmith198025 said:


> James i think we are still having a confusion from an earlier argument. That being the difference between the RSNs that E* offers as game only and the "few" that D* offers 24/7. Of which all offer at least some HD other than games at some point. BIG difference.


I'm referring to the statements you made where most became some and then a few. Now that you are narrowing down your definition to the 24/7 HDs I can agree with you. Your initial statement did not have it narrowed down.



> If they wouldnt make "the list" though simply because they are on E* (which is fine) "the list" is a little biased.


There are insignificant HD channels on E*. There are just many more of them on D* at the moment.



> Just doesnt seem fair for people wanted impartial info.


Other than about four of us I suspect most people just want us all to shut up and watch some HD. There are a handful of people interested in this conversation ... I can't imagine most care at all.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Just checking. It seems much of the time the argument for E* to add a channel is limited solely to it's carriage on D* ... which at this point seems to be even beyond the bar of "if it exists, we'll add it" into the realm of "upconvert your SD and we'll add it".
> 
> No explanation is needed for saying E* adds quality channels. They have added a couple of duds (all are on D* so no comparison there).


Again not true - while there is SOME interesting VOOM content, there is also plenty of stuff not many people care about - there are some dud channels in that package as well (and NONE of them are on DirecTV).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'm referring to the statements you made where most became some and then a few. Now that you are narrowing down your definition to the 24/7 HDs I can agree with you. Your initial statement did not have it narrowed down.
> 
> There are insignificant HD channels on E*. There are just many more of them on D* at the moment.
> 
> Other than about four of us I suspect most people just want us all to shut up and watch some HD. There are a handful of people interested in this conversation ... I can't imagine most care at all.


Actually james, my intent the whole time has been 24/7 RSNs. If you misunderstood that i apologize. I thought i was clear, but its possible that i wasnt.

Looking back I said many of the RSNs, refering to the 24/7 ones. Which are quite a few. So I guess I should have just said 24/7, although i dont doubt that you knew that was what i meant.

That depends on what you consider insignificant. Some people consider a few(or all) of the Voom channels insignificant(although i dont think all of them are). So there can be just as many or more on E* depending on what you want to watch.

No, im sure everyone is enjoying this convo


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Not really. It doesn't explain why Sci-Fi and USA's HD channels are apparently coming before the six premium movie channels or full time HD channels. One cannot blame that decision on a lack of available bandwidth. If they have room for these two part time HD channels they have room for MGM HD and Smithsonian ... or two of the four Starz! channels not carried.
> 
> E* made a choice. I expect as time goes by we will see more choice selections.


In no way does them adding these two mean they have room for more. You state it as fact, can you show proof for it? If they had the bandwidth why are they cutting rez on some of the channels?
I dont doubt they WILL add them. I just think it is more than likely it will be next year when the new sats go up and more bandwidth is available.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Off topic but my wife and I are heading to the hospital to have our first child this evening!! I will continue this discussion as time allows. 
James dont take my absence to mean i dont have a counter argument


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> In no way does them adding these two mean they have room for more. You state it as fact, can you show proof for it? If they had the bandwidth why are they cutting rez on some of the channels?
> I dont doubt they WILL add them. I just think it is more than likely it will be next year when the new sats go up and more bandwidth is available.


Why would he need FACT? He said it, it's true!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Just checking. It seems much of the time the argument for E* to add a channel is limited solely to it's carriage on D* ... which at this point seems to be even beyond the bar of "if it exists, we'll add it" into the realm of "upconvert your SD and we'll add it".
> ...


OK ... throwing Voom back in. Now I have to figure out what in my quoted post you are responding to.



msmith198025 said:


> In no way does them adding these two mean they have room for more. You state it as fact, can you show proof for it?


They can't add any two channels without having (or making) room for the two channels. The ISSUE comes down to which two channels they are adding. Why Sci-Fi and USA?

I believe that these are (in E*'s opinion) the best two channels they can add. I don't believe E* is picking two crap channels when there are more than a dozen to choose from. There are channels I'd consider better (in my opinion) than Sci-Fi and USA. The mere "lack of space" claim does NOT explain why Sci-Fi and USA would be chosen over any other two channels.



msmith198025 said:


> Off topic but my wife and I are heading to the hospital to have our first child this evening!!


Congrats!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> They can't add any two channels without having (or making) room for the two channels. The ISSUE comes down to which two channels they are adding. Why Sci-Fi and USA?
> 
> I believe that these are (in E*'s opinion) the best two channels they can add. I don't believe E* is picking two crap channels when there are more than a dozen to choose from. There are channels I'd consider better (in my opinion) than Sci-Fi and USA. The mere "lack of space" claim does NOT explain why Sci-Fi and USA would be chosen over any other two channels.
> 
> Congrats!


I understand that they had to make room for those two. So its obvious that they had a little space left. You said the COULD add the others. What makes you thnk they have the bandwidth left to do that? The general consensus is that they dont until next year.

Thanks! We are leaving now


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Bandwidth limitation" is a good reason for not adding a third new channel ... but when they are adding two channels we're beyond that issue. The question comes down to why THOSE two. And "bandwidth limitation" isn't the answer.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> I understand that they had to make room for those two. So its obvious that they had a little space left. You said the COULD add the others. What makes you thnk they have the bandwidth left to do that? The general consensus is that they dont until next year.
> 
> Thanks! We are leaving now


You are 100% correct, they do NOT have bandwidth. They will though in about 7 months, then they should be able to add the other channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They have bandwidth for Sci-Fi and USA ...
There are still some obvious places to put channels without waiting for a new satellite.

It is just a matter of choice. Theirs, not yours or mine.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Well let's see how many, not which ones they add. 

I predict it will be very few until they get their new sat. They just can't.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> Well let's see how many, not which ones they add.
> 
> I predict it will be very few until they get their new sat. They just can't.


Wait a minute... How can you say Dish has no bandwidth to add new channels, and at the same time predict they will only add a few?

No one has ever said Dish was overflowing with bandwidth like DirecTV is at the moment... just that Dish can add more new HD if they want to. The question has remained IF they would and if so what and when... but there has never been a "general consensus" from anyone who takes a look at the usage charts that concludes Dish couldn't add some more HD if they wanted.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I apologize, what I meant to say was they have little to NO available bandwidth. They are now doing as they stated at the last 'chat' reclaiming some bandwidth. They are using new encoders and moving things around as I hear the discussion.

No biggie. Let's see what they can pull off - my feeling is very little until the new sat is up and running. And you know what, I hope I'm wrong - I hope they light them all up, no skin off my nose.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> "Bandwidth limitation" is a good reason for not adding a third new channel ... but when they are adding two channels we're beyond that issue. The question comes down to why THOSE two. And "bandwidth limitation" isn't the answer.


Bandwidth limitation also "was" a good reason for not adding the first two. From most accounts a good bit of moving stuff around and new encoders allowed them to do that.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Wait a minute... How can you say Dish has no bandwidth to add new channels, and at the same time predict they will only add a few?
> 
> No one has ever said Dish was overflowing with bandwidth like DirecTV is at the moment... just that Dish can add more new HD if they want to. The question has remained IF they would and if so what and when... but there has never been a "general consensus" from anyone who takes a look at the usage charts that concludes Dish couldn't add some more HD if they wanted.


The way i read that one, he said they didnt have the bandwidth to add many more, if any. Thats what i got when i saw which post he was quoting


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> The way i read that one, he said they didnt have the bandwidth to add many more, if any. Thats what i got when i saw which post he was quoting


Actually, to get the full effect you had to go back a couple of posts before Scobuck predicted not many channels for Dish... where he had just said they had no bandwidth and couldn't add anything until 7 months from now.

That's what I was questioning... but Scobuck has already addressed his own disconnect that he had not meant to say zero bandwidth just that it was very little.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> jac - to repeat my feelings, I have neither heard nor seen any supporting info to support your theory - and to be fair I have heard none on the other side either - that being said, you are only guessing that it is pressure by DirecTV - it very well could be DESIRE on the part of those providers to be on the system while there is still room for them.


The president of TWC made a pretty compelling case for the idea that DIRECTV was pushing when she stated that DIRECTV would have to provide their own HD feed. Obviously, something happened and it happened five months ahead of schedule.

While it may not be the case with all of the providers, it seems like a few of them were influenced in some way.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> The president of TWC made a pretty compelling case for the idea that DIRECTV was pushing when she stated that DIRECTV would have to provide their own HD feed. Obviously, something happened and it happened five months ahead of schedule.
> 
> While it may not be the case with all of the providers, it seems like a few of them were influenced in some way.


I don't have the answer for sure (as I already said), by the same token I take the statements of the president of a rival company in the same light as any other competitor - it is spun for the benefit of TWC I am certain.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I don't have the answer for sure (as I already said), by the same token I take the statements of the president of a rival company in the same light as any other competitor - it is spun for the benefit of TWC I am certain.


TWC in this case is "The Weather Channel".


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> The president of TWC made a pretty compelling case for the idea that DIRECTV was pushing when she stated that DIRECTV would have to provide their own HD feed. Obviously, something happened and it happened five months ahead of schedule.
> 
> While it may not be the case with all of the providers, it seems like a few of them were influenced in some way.


Yes, that has been pointed out here before. That is the only one that anyone could mention, and somehow that became "None of the new channels showed any interest in a HD channel at this point". 
If you think about it, TWC is one of the ones that has had at least some HD from day one


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Yes, that has been pointed out here before. That is the only one that anyone could mention, and somehow that became "None of the new channels showed any interest in a HD channel at this point".
> If you think about it, TWC is one of the ones that has had at least some HD from day one


When one has channels that are not showing any HD one has to question how eager the providers were at getting a HD channel up.

Is SD PQ on D* that bad that providers want to be on in upconvert HD just to get a decent picture to the end customers?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> Is SD PQ on D* that bad that providers want to be on in upconvert HD just to get a decent picture to the end customers?


I don't know if the providers want it for that reason, but some of the SD channels blown up to big screen size certainly make some of us DirecTV subscribers want the upconversion!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> When one has channels that are not showing any HD one has to question how eager the providers were at getting a HD channel up.
> 
> Is SD PQ on D* that bad that providers want to be on in upconvert HD just to get a decent picture to the end customers?


One can question anything james, but there are hardly any facts to back up that assumption. I have asked for them from another poster, and got nothing.

Its no worse than what is in SD on E* from what i can see on my two systems.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> I don't know if the providers want it for that reason, but some of the SD channels blown up to big screen size certainly make some of us DirecTV subscribers want the upconversion!


I honestly wouldnt know why any sub of either company wouldnt until a few more shows are shot in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm fortunate to have a TV (37" Philips tube set) that displays SD upconverted by my ViP-622 DVR (or my ViP-211) quite well. I even zoom letterboxed shows to full screen from my local channels.

Yes, I do prefer full HD (such as the local that broadcasts Smallville) and can tell the difference. But it's not bad.

I saw some upconvert on an LCD screen over thanksgiving. I can see where people scream!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'm fortunate to have a TV (37" Philips tube set) that displays SD upconverted by my ViP-622 DVR (or my ViP-211) quite well. I even zoom letterboxed shows to full screen from my local channels.
> 
> Yes, I do prefer full HD (such as the local that broadcasts Smallville) and can tell the difference. But it's not bad.
> 
> I saw some upconvert on an LCD screen over thanksgiving. I can see where people scream!


Its true, some sets show SD better than others. Tubes generally the best, LCDs not so much


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> One can question anything james, but there are hardly any facts to back up that assumption. I have asked for them from another poster, and got nothing.
> 
> Its no worse than what is in SD on E* from what i can see on my two systems.


Both you and ScoBuck needs to learn a leasson 101 on what is fact what is not. You have both consistently denied this simple fact, that many of the new HD chnannels do not have true HD content, or the amount is meager. Other wise I don't understand why you continue to need facts when it has been given to you time and time again.

Are you to beleive this is not a fact rather an assumption?

Do you not see the logic when we form an opinion from the above fact that those channel providers are not eager in transition to HD, rather to claim bandwith? Are you two just so naive that the heads of those channels must admit such before you can accept this theory, whether you agree or not? Or are you just being argumantitive?

I guess next time smeone says E* is not behind D* in HD, and you tell them no I have all the HDs as a fact to prove you wrong, I can insist that you have no facts because Charlie did not admit that!

Now if we can even get to the subject a little bit, I am acually working hard to get myself a D* HDDVR, and plan to have both services for a while, and I can tell you one thing I hasitate about going D* is I will lose the Cinemax HD which I get from E* for $0.01/year.

On the other hand I am going down the list of HDs D* has but E* does not have, I just can't find anything more compelling, even taking in as a whole, than Cinemax HD I am getting. But that is just me.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> On the other hand I am going down the list of HDs D* has but E* does not have, I just can't find anything more compelling, even taking in as a whole, than Cinemax HD I am getting. But that is just me.


I love these types of responses, such and such service has channel X and that's all I want. That's good for you but what about the person that wanted Sci-Fi for the BSG Razon episode or Stargate Atlantis? Or the person that wanted FX so they would watch Nip/Tuck. Then you have the NASCAR fan that wants to see all the Daytona stuff coming up on Speed next month. So I'm glad you're happy with your Cinemax HD but there's a bunch of other folks out there that want more then that and are not happy with E* dragging their feet adding these channels.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> I love these types of responses, such and such service has channel X and that's all I want. That's good for you but what about the person that wanted Sci-Fi for the BSG Razon episode or Stargate Atlantis? Or the person that wanted FX so they would watch Nip/Tuck. Then you have the NASCAR fan that wants to see all the Daytona stuff coming up on Speed next month. So I'm glad you're happy with your Cinemax HD but there's a bunch of other folks out there that want more then that and are not happy with E* dragging their feet adding these channels.


Who is stopping them from going over to D*? If all they can do is ***** about it, I am not too sure if you want them to be in your camp either.

How much do you want to bet chances are I will be adding D* before any of those people? What do you have to say about that?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> Who is stopping them from going over to D*? If all they can do is ***** about it, I am not too sure if you want them to be in your camp either.
> 
> How much do you want to bet chances are I will be adding D* before any of those people? What do you have to say about that?


If you do get D* good for you. It's just that I've seen a lot of posts from folks where he wants only that channel, she wants only this one, and the kids want another one and right now. By E* adding just one or two channels will still leave a bunch of folks ticked off because what E* added wasn't what they wanted. Now it would be nice if Charlie would have said what channels E* would be adding but that would probably work against them. If E* said we can't add Speed HD until 3rd qtr probably a bunch of NASCAR folks would leave, if we can't add Sci-Fi until 6/1 that would tick off all the folks that want BSG's last season in HD which starts before then. So what's the point, IMHO to make the current E* folks happy the answer to the original question is to add all of them.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> If you do get D* good for you. It's just that I've seen a lot of posts from folks where he wants only that channel, she wants only this one, and the kids want another one and right now. By E* adding just one or two channels will still leave a bunch of folks ticked off because what E* added wasn't what they wanted. Now it would be nice if Charlie would have said what channels E* would be adding but that would probably work against them. If E* said we can't add Speed HD until 3rd qtr probably a bunch of NASCAR folks would leave, if we can't add Sci-Fi until 6/1 that would tick off all the folks that want BSG's last season in HD which starts before then. So what's the point, IMHO to make the current E* folks happy the answer to the original question is to add all of them.


But even a three-year-old would understand E* can not add those channels, just as D* could not do anything before the new sat was up, so what is the point of waiting? Well the only point would be that E* has a better deal for the HD's they have. If you can get the CinemaxHD for $0.01/year then that is it, if you don't care about that you should be a D* sub already!

What else do you expect I say when the thread asks what is that E* has that you would miss with D*, or the other way around?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There is space available on the transponder where Sci-Fi and USA are allegedly "uplinked" for those two channels. With limited shuffling (not including the activation of E12 spotbeams at 61.5°) E* could put more than a dozen channels up.

Personally if there is a technical reason I'd blame it on the availability of the newest encoders that can do 6 HDs per TP without the customer visually knowing the difference - not on the satellite delays. Getting the satellites up will help (to a certain extent) but it isn't the final answer.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> But even a three-year-old would understand E* can not add those channels, just as D* could not do anything before the new sat was up, so what is the point of waiting? Well the only point would be that E* has a better deal for the HD's they have. If you can get the CinemaxHD for $0.01/year then that is it, if you don't care about that you should be a D* sub already!
> 
> What else do you expect I say when the thread asks what is that E* has that you would miss with D*, or the other way around?


If your major concern is the cheapest provider then stay where are, nobody's cheaper then Charlie. And if it wasn't for Charlie being caught in the bandwidth crunch do you think you'd be seeing that deal?

As for adding channels, why then does JL here and a number of others say that E* has room to add channels now, I believe that around 10 is the number that's ben thrown around, no satellites need to be launched, the capcity is there NOW, not in a number of months. Looking at requests posted here by E* subs it looks like Sci-FI, USA, FX, and Speed are the ones I see posted most often, that's only 4, really only 2 more since Sci-Fi and USA are supposed to be up on 110 already. So wouldn't it be nice if Charlie came out and said on 2/1 (which is a date I've seen thrown around) were going to add these to make his customers happy and maybe keep someone from leaving?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

New channels on 2/1 would be nice. The sooner the better.

I wonder about the quality of the sample at DBSTalk ... do we reflect the average user? I don't believe so. While I'm sure we have members from all levels of subscription and interest the noise comes from a select few (including me ... only Earl has been noisier on this site).

If we were to go by noise level look at the complaints about E* "raising the price of AEP+HD $10" last year (which was a $5 increase in AEP w/o HD and making HD $20 for all customers - no $5 discount). Based on the noise level one might think that most customers subscribe to AEP+HD ... but E* has millions of customers below the top level of subscription. The same goes for complaints about HD ... relatively few E* customers have HD but read this and other DBS sites and one would think HD penetration was 90%.

So I wonder if SciFi, USA and Speed are really the top three requests of ALL E* customers or just the noisy ones on the internet? Getting those three channels would certainly make the forums quieter ... until the next "missing" channel was bought into focus.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Sunday Ticket
MLBEIHD
March Madness


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Both you and ScoBuck needs to learn a leasson 101 on what is fact what is not. You have both consistently denied this simple fact, that many of the new HD chnannels do not have true HD content, or the amount is meager. Other wise I don't understand why you continue to need facts when it has been given to you time and time again.
> 
> Are you to beleive this is not a fact rather an assumption?
> 
> ...


Look, I am going off of what I see, as I assume Sco was before he got banned.

I have admitted that there are a few channels that have not shown any HD at this point, 5 maybe 6(i would have to count). I have admitted that there are many chanels that do not show 24/7 HD content. I also stand behind the fact that of those (the non 24/7 ones) most if not ALL show HD content at the very least during primetime, with some showing much more. I dont know how you define true HD, but honestly, it sounds to me like you have not seen any of the channels that I am talking about (and I flipped through at a friends house one time at midnight does not count).

For the heads of those channels not wanting HD channels at all, again, I ask for proof. Not someones opinion because of what is or is not on said channel. That being said, if it makes you feel better to not count the 5 or 6 channels that have not shown HD content yet, go ahead. It will not bother me at all.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> Look, I am going off of what I see, as I assume Sco was before he got banned.
> 
> I have admitted that there are a few channels that have not shown any HD at this point, 5 maybe 6(i would have to count). I have admitted that there are many chanels that do not show 24/7 HD content. I also stand behind the fact that of those (the non 24/7 ones) most if not ALL show HD content at the very least during primetime, with some showing much more. I dont know how you define true HD, but honestly, it sounds to me like you have not seen any of the channels that I am talking about (and I flipped through at a friends house one time at midnight does not count).
> 
> For the heads of those channels not wanting HD channels at all, again, I ask for proof. Not someones opinion because of what is or is not on said channel.


First off I am sorry to hear Sco was banned.

Secondly I never said the heads of those channels do not want HD channels, no, they have no problem having those channels of theirs to occupy a spot, just that they don't care to spend money and effort to make them truely HD.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> New channels on 2/1 would be nice. The sooner the better.
> 
> I wonder about the quality of the sample at DBSTalk ... do we reflect the average user? I don't believe so. While I'm sure we have members from all levels of subscription and interest the noise comes from a select few (including me ... only Earl has been noisier on this site).
> 
> ...


Exactly!

Based on what the CEOs have to say in the last week from both companies, my suspicion is the Q4 numbers will be very much the same trend as Q3, while D*'s number continue to look good, E* continues to suffer. But it will not be because of the new HDs, rather that D* had been very aggressive in acquiring new subs in Q4 with more than usual discounts, more so than in Q3, of course the added HDs could only help to increase the percentage of high end subs. At the same time in Q4, E*'s offer for new subs actually was less attractive than before. But they appeared to try harder to stop churn. Unfortunately if Charlie was right that the Q3's high churn number had to do with the housing market, then it would only have gotten worse.

But HD would not have been the driving force for the above outcome, despite many folks here want to believe. Because back in Q3, D* did not have any new HD's added, and E* was still the true leader in HD.

So whatever I spoke was my personal opinion only, knowing we still are a niche group, no way did I try to pretend that I represent some meaningful demographics when I speak. And if you react to my comments as if I speak for a large audience and therefore become annoyed because you disagree, that is only because you have your own head in the sand thinking you speak for average consumers.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> First off I am sorry to hear Sco was banned.
> 
> Secondly I never said the heads of those channels do not want HD channels, no, they have no problem having those channels of theirs to occupy a spot, just that they don't care to spend money and effort to make them truely HD.


Again that is opinion only. MTV has HD content in videos, same with CMT. Possibly with the rest that arent showing HD at this point this is also true . So there is some interest right there. Perhaps the studios arent converted yet, maybe they dont have all of the HD equipment ready, who knows. I just dont see how that is proof that they dont care to spend the money or make the effort.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> I wonder about the quality of the sample at DBSTalk ... do we reflect the average user? I don't believe so. While I'm sure we have members from all levels of subscription and interest the noise comes from a select few (including me ... only Earl has been noisier on this site).


No way....I would consider us here to be part of the very well educated on D*

Everyone else I know with D* hasn't the faintest clue what they are doing outside of channel changing and paying the bill. Granted, I am sure many others know more but I have learned more here in the last 6 months then I ever thought I would know about D* in my lifetime


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

DawgLink said:


> No way....I would consider us here to be part of the very well educated on D* ...


No doubt but the point was we are in the minority, do not represent average consumers, who may not be as educated, not because they are stupid, simply that many just don't care about TV as much as we do.

So if you read this and a few other forums, you can get the impression that if E* does not add SciFi HD in the next few days they can go bankrupt, when you know as well as I know it is not true.

Now if D* is giving its new subs $20/mo. off for a whole year, and E* has little to combat that, E* can be in real trouble. That is why we keep hearing E* working on pricing and re-packaging, rather saying when SciFi is going to light up, because as far as Charlie is concerned he probably has a lot more things to worry about than this one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> Unfortunately if Charlie was right that the Q3's high churn number had to do with the housing market, then it would only have gotten worse.


I assume that the special "introductory offers" that D* was running will help them with the 4th quarter - at least with people who want to cut costs but expect that the economy will improve. Those hardest hit will just give up on pay TV - or perhaps E* will win a few of them with the AT100 package.



msmith198025 said:


> MTV has HD content in videos, same with CMT.


MTV shows videos? Wow. I thought they gave that up years ago.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I assume that the special "introductory offers" that D* was running will help them with the 4th quarter - at least with people who want to cut costs but expect that the economy will improve. Those hardest hit will just give up on pay TV - or perhaps E* will win a few of them with the AT100 package.
> 
> MTV shows videos? Wow. I thought they gave that up years ago.


haha, they do have the content, they are shown on MHD though, not on MTV. I hope that was clear.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ah, the MHD that will soon be in $10 DishHD Essentials and cost $4.99 more on D*.

I thought you were talking about the MTV HD channel that D* picked up ... the individual MTV channels (MTV, VH1 and CMT) are considered low HD, IIRC.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Ah, the MHD that will soon be in $10 DishHD Essentials and cost $4.99 more on D*.
> 
> I thought you were talking about the MTV HD channel that D* picked up ... the individual MTV channels (MTV, VH1 and CMT) are considered low HD, IIRC.


Two different topics for two different arguments.

MHD includes MTV. MTV has HD content, as shown on MHD. Thus proving that they at least have a passing interest in HD content, if not, why shoot HD videos.

They are included in different channel packages on different providers. Yes, to get THAT channel on E* you will pay less than on D* (I doubt that channel will factor into may peoples decision when they choose the different channels). You going to keep those voom channels James? What will be YOUR total HD bill? If so, MHD will not cost YOU more than $10.

I dont want to get into a pissing match over that channel, but do you really want to compare channel per dollar here?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd like to be intellectually honest about it.

You said MTV had videos in HD ... I was surprised MTV was still showing videos ... you said those were on MHD not MTV ... which E* customers have today and E* has nicely placed in the soon coming Essentials level.

It doesn't matter what I subscribe to ... anyone who gets DishHD gets MHD - and that will continue past February 1st regardless of if they are paying $10, $20 or $29.95 (for the non-SD package). At D* they are running their "free three months" but that channel WILL cost extra.

If you don't want a "pissing match" don't piss.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> Ah, the MHD that will soon be in $10 DishHD Essentials and cost $4.99 more on D*.
> 
> I thought you were talking about the MTV HD channel that D* picked up ... the individual MTV channels (MTV, VH1 and CMT) are considered low HD, IIRC.


Is this how we should call them now, low HD?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'd like to be intellectually honest about it.
> 
> You said MTV had videos in HD ... I was surprised MTV was still showing videos ... you said those were on MHD not MTV ... which E* customers have today and E* has nicely placed in the soon coming Essentials level.
> 
> ...


MTV (the company) has HD content (videos) that they show on MHD. This was used to show that the COMPANY must have at least a small interest in shooting HD content. Why they do not show them on the MTV channel I do not know, I was simply using the fact that the company does have HD content as part of my original argument that these channels (or more specifically their owners) are making an effort.

Yes, MHD will be part of the HD extra pack and cost more than the original $10. No doubt about it.
Has there been an official press release by E* that states what channels will be in the different HD tiers, or are you giving us opinion? If there is I have not seen it, although I am not saying it isnt there.

I have to go take a piss


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Has there been an official press release by E* that states what channels will be in the different HD tiers, or are you giving us opinion?


There was a slide shown at the DISH Network/EchoStar press conference at CES with the package breakdown.

The owner of AMC and WE have a lot of HD content ... does that mean that we will see it on AMC HD or WE HD? No. We'll see that content on the Voom HD channels. Should we give AMC some sort of bonus credit for being committed to HD because their owner produces or purchases content for some other 24/7 HD content channels they own? That's what it seems that you are doing for MTV.

MTV Networks is a good HD company because they purchase HD music videos ... but MHD is the good channel where you can see those videos.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> There was a slide shown at the DISH Network/EchoStar press conference at CES with the package breakdown.
> 
> The owner of AMC and WE have a lot of HD content ... does that mean that we will see it on AMC HD or WE HD? No. We'll see that content on the Voom HD channels. Should we give AMC some sort of bonus credit for being committed to HD because their owner produces or purchases content for some other 24/7 HD content channels they own? That's what it seems that you are doing for MTV.
> 
> MTV Networks is a good HD company because they purchase HD music videos ... but MHD is the good channel where you can see those videos.


I have heard about the slide, but I didnt think it was released publicly yet. If it hasnt been it cant really be considered fact. Who knows, it might stay that way, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

AMC and WE have HD channels on some cable systems also, so yes you would see them on there i would assume (I have not seen these channels, just my guess). Not on D* or E* though, since as far as I know they arent available there yet


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> I have heard about the slide, but I didnt think it was released publicly yet. If it hasnt been it cant really be considered fact.


It was shown and photographed from the large screen at a VERY public event (called CES). Believe it or not ... the new lineup is a fact. (The logo is third from the right between TBS and the Big Ten Nework for AT100 + DishHD Essentials subscribers, as well as the other packages.)



I've updated my HD page with the new breakdown.
http://jameslong.name/hdcount.html


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> It was shown and photographed from the large screen at a VERY public event (called CES). Believe it or not ... the new lineup is a fact. (The logo is third from the right between TBS and the Big Ten Nework for AT100 + DishHD Essentials subscribers, as well as the other packages.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I saw the slide, and know what CES is (as I would imagine most people HERE do, I doubt the general public does though) , i just didnt see an official release from them.

I will agree that it will PROBABLY be this way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)




----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


>


Think I was being sarcastic? I said it will PROBABLY be the way you said, it just IS NOT official. Is it?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> Think I was being sarcastic? I said it will PROBABLY be the way you said, it just IS NOT official. Is it?


Probably depends upon how you define "official".

Has it been announced on the Web site or have subscribers been contacted with the new package info? Not that I'm aware.

Was this info announced at CES by official representatives of Dish Network complete with charts and all? Yes.

Could they change their mind between what was said at CES and when these prices are supposed to take effect? Sure, but that would require a retraction or alteration of their CES announcement since that was an official public forum for announcements.

If you don't think CES announcements by companies are official, then that kind of defeats the whole purpose of CES doesn't it?


----------

