# Standard Definition Channles DrecTV could add - POLL



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

since directv has less channel channel choice than 95% of even small cable companies & VERIZON FIOS, the below list is chanels that they all carry and DIRECTV NEEDS TO ADD

Abc News Now - Current News

Africa Channel - African American Programing

American Life Tv Network - Classic Boomer Tv Shows & Originals

Anime Network - Anime Shows

B Mania - Classic Hollywood B Movies

Bbc World - British News

Black Family Channel - African American Programing

Bet Gospel - Gospel Programing

Blackbelt Tv - Fight Shows

Cinemax - Premium Moies
- @ Max
- 5 Star Max
- Action Max
- Outer Max
- Thriller Max
- W Max

Classic Arts Showcase - Arts Programing

Cmt Pure Country - Music Videos

Cnn International - International News

Colours - Arts Programing

Crime & Investigation - Court & Crime Shows

Cspan 3 - Govt Programing

Documentary Channel - Documentaries

Drive Tv - Car Related

Fashion Tv - Fashions

Family Net - Family Shows

Fox Biz - Launching 2007 Biz Shows

Free Speech Tv - Free Speech

Funimation - Animation

Good Samaritan Network - Many Types Show

Hallmark Movie Channel - Family Movies

Harmony Channe l - Music

Hbo - Premium Movies
- Comedy
- Zone

Healthy Living Channel - Health Related

Holistic Tv Network - Health Related

Ktv - ? - Kids & Religous

Link Media - Intl

Mavtv - Sports Programs

Mens Outdoor Recreation - Outdoor Programs

Military History Channel - Militarys History

Mountain West Tv - Sports

Mtv - Music
- Hits
- Jams

Nick G&s - Kids Games

Pentagon Channel - Miltary

Research Channel - Research Progams

Resort & Residence - Etc

Showtime - Premium Movies
- Beyond
- Family Zone
- Next
 - Women

Soundtrack Channel - Music

Starz - Premium Movies
- Cinema
- Comedy
- Kids & Family

Super Station - Similar To Wgn
- Wsbk
- Kwgn
- Ktla
- Wpix
- Wwor

Tennis Channel - Tennis Programming

The Fight Network - Fight Related

The Horror Channel - Horror Movies

The Horsetv Channel - Horse Programs

Tmc Xtra - Premium Movies

Varsity Tv - Highschool Programs

Vh1 - Music
- Rock
- Soul

Water Channel - Water Shows, Athletics Etc


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

I was inclined to say "NONE" because they should delete half the SD stuff they already have to make room for more HD.... but since MTV2 has now gone the way of MTV 1 and completely stopped showing videos, choosing to instead air CRAP, I had to vote for MTV Hits, Jams, VH1 Rock, and Soul... I also think there is a VH1 Country


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> I was inclined to say "NONE" because they should delete half the SD stuff they already have to make room for more HD.... but since MTV2 has now gone the way of MTV 1 and completely stopped showing videos, choosing to instead air CRAP, I had to vote for MTV Hits, Jams, VH1 Rock, and Soul... I also think there is a VH1 Country


VH1 COUNTRY WAS CHANGES TO CMT PURE COUNTRY, please look that up and you will see that is true

and NO they do not need to delete half of sd channels, they need to add everyone, otherwise directv will have no choices, and are falling way behind in programming choices.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

jasonblair said:


> I was inclined to say "NONE" because they should delete half the SD stuff they already have to make room for more HD.... but since MTV2 has now gone the way of MTV 1 and completely stopped showing videos, choosing to instead air CRAP, I had to vote for MTV Hits, Jams, VH1 Rock, and Soul... I also think there is a VH1 Country


I agree with you they need more room for HD, less SD. OTOH they already have a signed deal for Fox Biz (When it launches it will be on D*) and they already carry Mens Outdoor and Recreation on Ch. 604.


----------



## mtnagel (Sep 18, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> I was inclined to say "NONE" because they should delete half the SD stuff they already have to make room for more HD.... but since MTV2 has now gone the way of MTV 1 and completely stopped showing videos, choosing to instead air CRAP, I had to vote for MTV Hits, Jams, VH1 Rock, and Soul... I also think there is a VH1 Country


That's exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## ansky (Oct 11, 2005)

I have no interest in any of those channels listed.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> I agree with you they need more room for HD, less SD. OTOH they already have a signed deal for Fox Biz (When it launches it will be on D*) and they already carry Mens Outdoor and Recreation on Ch. 604.


There is already too much SD out there. All we really need is one good music channel, and any SD channel that shows sci-fi.

Dedicate the rest of the bandwidth to HD. 

:bink:


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> I was inclined to say "NONE" because they should delete half the SD stuff they already have to make room for more HD.... but since MTV2 has now gone the way of MTV 1 and completely stopped showing videos, choosing to instead air CRAP, I had to vote for MTV Hits, Jams, VH1 Rock, and Soul... I also think there is a VH1 Country





ansky said:


> I have no interest in any of those channels listed.


+1


----------



## Elistan98 (Sep 18, 2006)

Please Directv Add Anime Network and Funimation


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

jaywdetroit said:


> There is already too much SD out there. All we really need is one good music channel, and any SD channel that shows sci-fi.
> 
> Dedicate the rest of the bandwidth to HD.
> 
> :bink:


then make all channels in hd and downcovert them to sd for the r15's

IF ALL THOSE CHANNELS HAD NOTHING ON IT LIKE YOU PEOPLE CLAIM, THEN THEY WOULD NOT EXIST AND 95% OF PROGRAM PROVIDERS WOULD NOT CARRY THEM

DIRECTV NEEDS TO ADD ANOTHER SATELLITE TO ADD SD CHANNELS, SO EVERYONE GETS A CHOICE


----------



## grizzly_cs (Dec 22, 2006)

No, we need more shopping networks..... Just kidding.....


----------



## wmschultz (Jul 18, 2006)

A option needs to be added for NONE. 

Another poll needs to be done for what SD channels need to be GONE!


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I don't think these are the responses the OP was looking for. lol.....


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I don't think these are the responses the OP was looking for. lol.....


people if they would do research into the channels, and just not answer off the cuff, they may actually give more intelligent answers


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

None of those, they need to focus on more HD - once you get HD, there's no going back...


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

I agree with others stating that we already have enough SD channels. Bring on more HiDef stuff!

Sorry if that's not what you're looking for, gncsbg.


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

say-what said:


> None of those, they need to focus on more HD - once you get HD, there's no going back...


true on hd BUT we do not have a full selection of sd ,

so stop getting the cart before the horse,

you max out sd then add hd


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I think you're in the minority on this gncsbg. Almost everyone here has equipment for HD and want nothing to do with SD content no matter what channel it is.


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> I agree with others stating that we already have enough SD channels. Bring on more HiDef stuff!
> 
> Sorry if that's not what you're looking for, gncsbg.


if we had all sd channels we need, then we would have those 69 added to what we have now,

you know like 95% of all other providers have unlike directv


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I admit there are a couple of those channels I would probably check out. Nothing to get excited over if in SD and I wouldn't go out of my way to search them out.


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I think you're in the minority on this gncsbg. Almost everyone here has equipment for HD and want nothing to do with SD content no matter what channel it is.


1st off, have you actually seen all the programming those 69 channels have before you decided we not need them ?

and if all those 60 sd channels was in hd and all the other sd channels we have wee in hd

then i would say who cares of sd

BUT, we need all the programming in sd that itprovides, and then in hd when they are available

DIRECTV STOP LIMITING OUR CHOICES, WE DEMAND ALL CHANNELS AVAILABLE


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I admit there are a couple of those channels I would probably check out. Nothing to get excited over if in SD and I wouldn't go out of my way to search them out.


I bet you never researched those channels, why not research them before you answer


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

gncsbg said:


> if we had all sd channels we need, then we would have those 69 added to what we have now,
> 
> you know like 95% of all other providers have unlike directv


This isn't meant to be confrontational - I'm just kind of curious.

What drew you to D*? I mean - if you want SD content, and 95% of the other providers provide it, why did you choose D*?

There must be something about D* you prefer????


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I love HD but would also like to see some of these added, which have no HD version.

Some of them I have never heard of and can't even guess what they are, but many of them would be good choices.

I don't think D* has fewer channels that 95% of small cables, though.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Like I said, there are a few of those channels that wouldn't be bad to have. But not to sacrifice bandwidth to get them in SD. Let me put it to you this way. I'll find myself watching crap I normally wouldn't watch just for the simple fact it is in HD.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Because you specifically stated SD as opposed to HD, I ended up voting for two of the channels in your list. Both are channels that I would like to get, and would be perfectly happy if they were in SD.

There are a number of other channels that I would be interested in getting in HD, but do not care about SD.

Also, I almost declined taking the poll altogether, because I am NOT "demanding" DirecTV to add anything. I take exception to your use of that terminology. I am requesting that they consider adding the two channels I voted for.

Carl


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Because you specifically stated SD as opposed to HD, I ended up voting for two of the channels in your list. Both are channels that I would like to get, and would be perfectly happy if they were in SD.
> 
> There are a number of other channels that I would be interested in getting in HD, but do not care about SD.
> 
> ...


I won't vote - for that reason. Coming out here and DEMANDING D* do anything is a bit much. I've found that they are very receptive to our ideas without anyone DEMANDING anything.

Much less, Screaming about it.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

I too bristle at the word demand. My votes are for things I'd like to have, but certainly don't demand. 

What right do we have to demand anything in the line of programming?

Dave


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

jaywdetroit said:


> This isn't meant to be confrontational - I'm just kind of curious.
> 
> What drew you to D*? I mean - if you want SD content, and 95% of the other providers provide it, why did you choose D*?
> 
> There must be something about D* you prefer????


no cable where i live , no fios, dish network, has line of site isues


----------



## gncsbg (Feb 20, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> I love HD but would also like to see some of these added, which have no HD version.
> 
> Some of them I have never heard of and can't even guess what they are, but many of them would be good choices.
> 
> I don't think D* has fewer channels that 95% of small cables, though.


yes they do have less sd content than 95% of cable companies....

i actually did research for over a year and found it out to be true


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

gncsbg said:


> no cable where i live , no fios, dish network, has line of site isues


Wow! that's unfortunate for you. You rarely hear of someone who's only option in D*. I guess I would be frustrated too if I didn't care for my only choice.

I still think Demanding anything from them won't get you very far though. We have made progress just voicing our opinions on this board - in the kind of way a person working 70 hours or more a week as a programmer wouldn't be too irked to read.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I agree that demanding stuff ain't gonna cut it. I voted on a couple channels that I would love DirecTV to carry, but I demand nothing. And I do take exception to the statement that just about all folks on here have HD. We don't - not yet. I'm waiting until it actually becomes worth it. Even if every channel on DirecTV were in HD there just isn't enough content, yet, to say that everything you're going to get on those channels will be HD.

Finally, I have trouble believing that DirecTV has less content than 95% of the cable providers out there. Especially for the price. I came from Comcast, where I got a whopping 65 - 70 channels (analog only) and spent more than with my total choice plus package with DirecTV). To approach what I get with DirecTV I would have had to go with Comcast digital, and my price would have gone up precipitously.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

No need to take exception jpl, I said "Almost everyone". Not everyone.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

gncsbg said:


> I bet you never researched those channels, why not research them before you answer


No I haven't researched all of them. But that still doesn't change my views. I hope they offer you channels in the future that you want.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> No need to take exception jpl, I said "Almost everyone". Not everyone.


Fair enough... and I didn't mean to overreact. I guess I just get tired of reading the "scrap ALL the SD channels! We want everything in HD, even if it isn't offered yet!" posts. Most folks out there aren't in HD yet (although you're probably correct that most on this forum probably are). Guess I'm just getting antsy about going HD. I just about convinced the wife... and I'm just waiting to see what DirecTV delivers this year in terms of content. At that point I probably won't be able to resist  Still, I have a hard time believing that EVERY channel would benefit from going HD. I watch alot of news programming, and let me tell you the idea of seeing some of those guys in HD... well, that's more than I can probably stomach


----------



## max1 (Aug 12, 2005)

I would like to see American Life Tv added to the regular sd lineup and also VH1 rock-but dont look for any new channels soon-Max.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

D* has had the same premiums for years they need to add more premium channels to the lineup. 3 MAX channels is sad, that almost like analog cable with a box. :nono2:


----------



## turls (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't know what OP is calling a small cable system, but DirecTV kicks the butt of the local Charter attempt here as is. I'd like to know where he pulled this "95%" from.



> so stop getting the cart before the horse,
> 
> you max out sd then add hd


2002 called and wants their poll back


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Sorry to jump on the band wagon, my friend, but I have to agree: I don't want them adding _any_ more channels unless they're in HD. Half the stuff in SD that's currently there I don't watch.

However, I did answer the poll in fairness and said the new Fox Business Channel in the fall.

I also concur on the "demand" comment.


----------



## nth78 (Jan 16, 2007)

they already have the Men's Outdoor Recreation network. it's channel 604


----------



## Peter305 (May 24, 2006)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I think you're in the minority on this gncsbg. Almost everyone here has equipment for HD and want nothing to do with SD content no matter what channel it is.


There are many of us who cannot afford HD and who want a good selection of SD channels.


----------



## LI-SVT (May 18, 2006)

There is no choice for none.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I have a question - and this is not meant to pick a fight, but is designed as food for thought. I keep hearing that adding many SD channels is a waste because much of what's on these channels is crap anyway - everytime a new channel is added, I read a half dozen posts on the fact that the channel is garbage. My question is this - for those advocating adding nothing by HD, why would you think that THOSE channels would NOT also be crap? 

It's also why I'm not one of those folks who thinks that DirecTV needs to add EVERY channel. There are lots of channels that are just rehashes of old stuff - which makes sense since there's only so much content out there. Some channels start to find their way, but others don't. For example, I was thrilled when the added Sleuth. Yeah, it started out as reairings of Miami Vice, but I KNEW it would eventually start showing original programming... right? Wrong. I was wrong on that front, and now I find the channel, largely, to be a waste. Not because I dislike that type of programming (I like it), but because there's nothing new there.

Like I said, though, there are some channels that do find their way. I thought, e.g., that Game Show Network was originally a waste of space. Why would I care about watching reruns of Family Feud? I didn't like it all that much the first time around... Then they started adding their own new game shows. Now I believe the channel has value.

But there's only so much content to go around. So, if they add a HD version of many of these channels, you have to believe that there's going to be HD content to go along with them. That ain't there yet. What, exactly, is the value of having an HD version of many of these channels yet? Personally, even if I DID have HD, I would rather have more content than HD versions of crap. The channels I picked tend to have more original programming than many of the others that I didn't.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

There definitely needs to be an option for 'NONE' for 2 reasons.

1) That would raise the prices.

2) The SD PQ of the programming that is already there is bad enough without adding more load to the system.

What I wish most, no wait, what 'I DEMAND', that's right, I SAID DEMAND! IS THAT THEY HURRY UP AND LAUNCH THE NEW SATS SO THEY CAN QUIT SQUASHING THE SD SIGNALS TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE HD STUFF!...

:ramblinon :ramblinon :ramblinon :ramblinon :ramblinon :ramblinon


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

jpl said:


> I have a question - and this is not meant to pick a fight, but is designed as food for thought. I keep hearing that adding many SD channels is a waste because much of what's on these channels is crap anyway - everytime a new channel is added, I read a half dozen posts on the fact that the channel is garbage. My question is this - for those advocating adding nothing by HD, why would you think that THOSE channels would NOT also be crap?
> 
> It's also why I'm not one of those folks who thinks that DirecTV needs to add EVERY channel. There are lots of channels that are just rehashes of old stuff - which makes sense since there's only so much content out there. Some channels start to find their way, but others don't. For example, I was thrilled when the added Sleuth. Yeah, it started out as reairings of Miami Vice, but I KNEW it would eventually start showing original programming... right? Wrong. I was wrong on that front, and now I find the channel, largely, to be a waste. Not because I dislike that type of programming (I like it), but because there's nothing new there.


The problem is, it is impossible to define "crap" for everyone. Some people would say that 90% of the new stuff is crap. Me, personally, record about a 50/50 mix of older movies and newer ones. No TV series except original Star Trek. If I lived alone, I wouldn't personally mind if everything--EVERYTHING--except movie channels were eliminated, networks included. Give me my HBOs and IFCs and Turner Classics.

Would you agree with that? Probably not.


----------



## tucker301 (Feb 11, 2007)

ansky said:


> I have no interest in any of those channels listed.


+1

And I'd also like to sell back about 150 channels I do currently get.
If I could get the HD's and about 10 a la cartes of my chosing, you could do whatever you want with the rest of them.

I don't like paying to support stuff I never watch.

In what other capitalist marketplace do consumers pay to support the existence of products that would otherwise wither and die from lack of sales?


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Peter305 said:


> There are many of us who cannot afford HD and who want a good selection of SD channels.


I can understand and appreciate that. I respect your view. But I would guess that still makes you a minority on this board.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> The problem is, it is impossible to define "crap" for everyone. Some people would say that 90% of the new stuff is crap. Me, personally, record about a 50/50 mix of older movies and newer ones. No TV series except original Star Trek. If I lived alone, I wouldn't personally mind if everything--EVERYTHING--except movie channels were eliminated, networks included. Give me my HBOs and IFCs and Turner Classics.
> 
> Would you agree with that? Probably not.


I agree that it's all perception. Let me try this again. If people (not you, but folks I've read on here) are saying "don't add this SD channel - we want all HD, besides this SD channel is crap" then it appears that one of the justifications for NOT adding the SD channel is that it's crap anyway so why include it and waste bandwidth? My point is - why would an HD version be any less crap than the SD version? Wouldn't you just have crap that takes more bandwidth? I'm not here trying to go after a particular channel or slate of channels - each have their own tastes, and I'm certainly not advocating that DirecTV drop a channel just because I believe it's crap. But if the argument is: "don't add this - it's crap and it sucks up bandwidth", that's when I have an issue. To me the argument doesn't hold. That was my main point. If someone is saying "don't add that - it's crap and it just sucks up bandwidth..." then the implication that a new HD channel WON'T be crap is just not valid. Given the limited amount of new content out there, chances are pretty good that a new HD channel will be just as crappy as any SD channel that can be added, and take up more space to boot.

It just seems to me that people want HD because it's HD, regardless of the content. That the content can be crap... as long as it's HD. I have an issue with that. I would personally see them carry a good balance of content and HD. If they don't have the bandwidth to carry HD now, but they DO have the bandwidth to carry some additional SD channels, then what is the harm in carrying the additional SD? I know, I keep hearing about compression. But I gotta believe that compression won't get eased if they just decide to not carry that one additional SD channel.

It's all a balancing act - get rid of too many SD channels, and you stand to lose ALOT of subscribers. I know HD is coming... but it ain't there yet. The content has not kept up. Sacrificing a good number of SD subscribers to satisfy a relative handful of HD subscribers just doesn't make sense. Over time it will, but not right now. Based on that I could make the argument - since you don't have the bandwidth to carry all that HD just yet, why not scrap a couple of the HD channels you DO carry? You could add a slew of SD channels and probably bring in some new subscribers. They won't do that because they need to start attracting HD customers... but they have to be careful not to alienate a vast majority of their market right now.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

I don't care about any of those channels. I'm with the rest who wish they'd scrap MUCH of their SD content in favor of more HD content.

Start with all the HSNs, BYU, EWTN, BET and BET Jazz. I have yet to see any jazz on BET Jazz.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

keith_benedict said:


> I don't care about any of those channels. I'm with the rest who wish they'd scrap MUCH of their SD content in favor of more HD content.
> 
> Start with all the HSNs, BYU, EWTN, BET and BET Jazz. I have yet to see any jazz on BET Jazz.


And as someone who watches EWTN regularly I would have a real issue with that. That's my point - ok, you don't like those channels... but many folks do. Get rid of them and you lose subscribers. Most customers don't follow the same notion that if it's new it's gotta be HD. I'll grant that most (and I'm probably making lots of enemies here ) on this forum probably do. But there are many millions of current customers who don't care a whit about HD, and want to watch what they want to watch. Take away that SD, and those customers go away. Those customers go away, and DirecTV takes a bath. And if DirecTV takes a bath... well so do some of the plans that they have for expansion. It is precisely because they have such a large market share that they're able to expand like they are. Do you really think that they could have made the arrangements that they did with all those national cable companies to start broadcasting in HD if they didn't deliver to some 16 million households? Of course not. It is precisely the success of their SD delivery that makes the future carrying of HD possible.

I'm not trying to jump on you, but if you stand to lose all those customers just so you can free up some bandwith, resulting in the loss of potential expansion of HD, why would you want to see those channels go away? I don't subscribe to Sunday Ticket, but I would absolutely HATE the idea of DirecTV ever doing away with it. Why? Because it generates a boat-load of money for the company. It brings in many customers who would go elsewhere otherwise. It allows the company to expand... allowing me to get more of what I want. It's easy to look at the small picture here, but realize that much of DirecTV's future relies on keeping many of those SD only customers, at least for now, happy.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

JPL,
I don't mean to trivialize your post. Even if it's crap content, I'd probably still watch it to some degree if it was in HD. Maybe I'm shallow.  

Seriously,
Your post makes sense and is a good point.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> I agree that it's all perception. Let me try this again. If people (not you, but folks I've read on here) are saying "don't add this SD channel - we want all HD, besides this SD channel is crap" then it appears that one of the justifications for NOT adding the SD channel is that it's crap anyway so why include it and waste bandwidth? My point is - why would an HD version be any less crap than the SD version? Wouldn't you just have crap that takes more bandwidth? I'm not here trying to go after a particular channel or slate of channels - each have their own tastes, and I'm certainly not advocating that DirecTV drop a channel just because I believe it's crap. But if the argument is: "don't add this - it's crap and it sucks up bandwidth", that's when I have an issue. To me the argument doesn't hold. That was my main point. If someone is saying "don't add that - it's crap and it just sucks up bandwidth..." then the implication that a new HD channel WON'T be crap is just not valid. Given the limited amount of new content out there, chances are pretty good that a new HD channel will be just as crappy as any SD channel that can be added, and take up more space to boot.
> 
> It just seems to me that people want HD because it's HD, regardless of the content. That the content can be crap... as long as it's HD. I have an issue with that. I would personally see them carry a good balance of content and HD. If they don't have the bandwidth to carry HD now, but they DO have the bandwidth to carry some additional SD channels, then what is the harm in carrying the additional SD? I know, I keep hearing about compression. But I gotta believe that compression won't get eased if they just decide to not carry that one additional SD channel.
> 
> It's all a balancing act - get rid of too many SD channels, and you stand to lose ALOT of subscribers. I know HD is coming... but it ain't there yet. The content has not kept up. Sacrificing a good number of SD subscribers to satisfy a relative handful of HD subscribers just doesn't make sense. Over time it will, but not right now. Based on that I could make the argument - since you don't have the bandwidth to carry all that HD just yet, why not scrap a couple of the HD channels you DO carry? You could add a slew of SD channels and probably bring in some new subscribers. They won't do that because they need to start attracting HD customers... but they have to be careful not to alienate a vast majority of their market right now.


When I say add HD channels before you add SD channels - I am thinking in terms of adding HD VERSIONS of the "good" SD Channels. Not new Channels no one has heard of. I already know that Sci-Fi is a great channel. I have never turned on Sleuth. Instead of adding the Romance-Novel Channel, add the National Geographic Channel in HD. Instead of the Three's Company reruns channel, add a HD version of Sci-Fi - or one of the other popular cable networks.

Its not an HD junk over SD junk argument. Its upgrade the good SD stuff to HD before you start adding SD junk.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Everyone here goes on and on about HD. Sorry people, but don't all of you realize not everyone can even get HD. Neither of our two TVs are able to handle HD. And I'm not going to run out and buy two new TVs just so I can have HD :nono2:


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I understand what you and JPL are saying and I'm really not trying to argumentative. 
It's just that this is an HD DVR forum. ANd most of the talk is about that box, HD reception, etc. So for me anyway, it's assumed most everyone here has HD.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Dolly said:


> Everyone here goes on and on about HD. Sorry people, but don't all of you realize not everyone can even get HD. Neither of our two TVs are able to handle HD. And I'm not going to run out and buy two new TVs just so I can have HD :nono2:


Yes - I know what you are saying - I didn't have HD until just recently. And even now, it's only on a 32 inch screen.

1. Did you know I can watch an HD signal over an RCA connection. (It's not in HD, but I can see the picture just fine.) I don't know if other can do this, but my TV displays the signal just fine so I assume this wouldn't be an issue for people who don't have HD sets.

2. The industry is moving toward HD - let's get it over with already.

3. Once you DO have HD, you will understand OUR position. There are many people who have spent a serious chunk of change on their TVs. SD looks like crap on many of those TVs, while HD looks amazing. Those people, don't want to hear that D* is going to add 10 more SD channels. They want the HD stuff so the picture on their expensive TVs looks like it should.

HDTVs are coming down in price enough so that I think its fair for at Least 1 content provider to move towards total HD - especially if the signal is still viewable on non-hd sets. (Just won't look as good as it does on an HD set.) D* seems to be the most logical provider to do this.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> JPL,
> I don't mean to trivialize your post. Even if it's crap content, I'd probably still watch it to some degree if it was in HD. Maybe I'm shallow.
> 
> Seriously,
> Your post makes sense and is a good point.


At least you're honest


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I understand what you and JPL are saying and I'm really not trying to argumentative.
> It's just that this is an HD DVR forum. ANd most of the talk is about that box, HD reception, etc. So for me anyway, it's assumed most everyone here has HD.


Actually, this isn't an HD forum. It's the general DirecTV forum. If this were the HD forum you would have a point.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> When I say add HD channels before you add SD channels - I am thinking in terms of adding HD VERSIONS of the "good" SD Channels. Not new Channels no one has heard of. I already know that Sci-Fi is a great channel. I have never turned on Sleuth. Instead of adding the Romance-Novel Channel, add the National Geographic Channel in HD. Instead of the Three's Company reruns channel, add a HD version of Sci-Fi - or one of the other popular cable networks.
> 
> Its not an HD junk over SD junk argument. Its upgrade the good SD stuff to HD before you start adding SD junk.


Fair enough... but then it comes to the question of "what is crap?" Or... "one man's crap... " ok, I won't finish that one. I agree with your taste in Sci-Fi, but to be honest, if the only way to add it is to sacrifice some existing SD channels (as some are advocating) then that's where I have a problem. But again, when they just start adding HD for the sake of adding HD, you're going to not just get Sci-Fi HD. You're gonna get "Three's Company" in HD too. All of this becomes moot in a couple months anyway. I would have no issue, btw, as others have suggested of just having, say, Sci-Fi HD, and having my receiver down-convert it. That would be fine with me... if my receiver could do that. Somehow, though, I don't think my R15s can handle that


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Yes - I know what you are saying - I didn't have HD until just recently. And even now, it's only on a 32 inch screen.
> 
> 1. Did you know I can watch an HD signal over an RCA connection. (It's not in HD, but I can see the picture just fine.) I don't know if other can do this, but my TV displays the signal just fine so I assume this wouldn't be an issue for people who don't have HD sets.
> 
> ...


What the heck... I have a few minutes, so I'll respond to all of these posts.

1) If this could be accomplished with my R15s, without sacrificing my picture quality, I would be fine with it.

2) Yeah, but there are growing pains with this. First is the cost of the TV. Second is the cost of moving programming to HD. The first is becoming easier to deal with, but to be honest when a decent TV STARTS at $1000... it's tough to justify that kind of expense for most folks.

3) I've heard that. And I would most likely be one of those folks when I go HD. But still, you've got lots of people who really have no interest in cutting edge anything. You need to provide for them, or you lose them. Maybe item #1.

BTW, I hope I don't come across as argumentative here, with any of my posts. I really don't mean to. I believe much of this discussion has been productive, and I really do appreciate everyone's perspective (even those who now cringe at seeing my initials on a new post ).


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

jpl said:


> Actually, this isn't an HD forum. It's the general DirecTV forum. If this were the HD forum you would have a point.


O.K. O.K.

You knew what I meant.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> BTW, I hope I don't come across as argumentative here, with any of my posts. I really don't mean to. I believe much of this discussion has been productive, and I really do appreciate everyone's perspective (even those who now cringe at seeing my initials on a new post ).


Not at all - this is a discussion worth having. Both view points are valid as far as I can see.


----------



## quizzer (Aug 29, 2006)

Is somebody going to talk to DirecTV with this list?

If yes i will be glad if atleast BBCWORLD and CNNInternational are added ASAP.


----------



## skinnyJM (Nov 19, 2005)

As of 91 voters, only one channel has 40+% and that is HBO Comedy, a premium channel. D* already knows it is one of the most requested channels, yet has declined to contract w/HBO for retrans permissions.
The highest non-premium channel (at 31.87%) is BBC World. Yet another channel D* gets asked about all the time, but has declined to contract for. I would think D* would ignore any survey, since the percentage leaders here are the same as mentioned many times in the past. (I have even requested both of these channels in the past and was given the standard "maybe someday" response.) 
While I agree HD is the future, I'm still unable to afford a HD set at this time.
(Hopefully the prices will continue to fall! )
So it would be nice to have some additional SD content that wasn't a shopping channel.


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

NONE!!!!!!!!!! Don't waist one bit of bandwidth on SD.... Now if they where in HD 


Honestly, I don't watch half the programing on there now. I got stuck on the HD channels and haven't looked back. D* is having bandwidth issues now as it is, trying to push the HD let alone SD content. With that being said, yes there are quite a few networks, I would like to see added, and others removed.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I understand what you and JPL are saying and I'm really not trying to argumentative.
> It's just that this is an HD DVR forum. ANd most of the talk is about that box, HD reception, etc. So for me anyway, it's assumed most everyone here has HD.


I wasn't going to correct you about what kind of forum this is  I can not get upset with a fellow Yankee fan :lol: But seriously not everybody has HD TVs at this point. I know my next set of TVs will be HD. But I have one TV that is only 6 years old this June. I won't be replacing that one anytime soon :nono2:


----------



## skinnyJM (Nov 19, 2005)

Dolly said:


> I wasn't going to correct you about what kind of forum this is  I can not get upset with a fellow Yankee fan :lol: But seriously not everybody has HD TVs at this point. I know my next set of TVs will be HD. But I have one TV that is only 6 years old this June. I won't be replacing that one anytime soon :nono2:


Yankees suck!  
Lets Go Mets!


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

More HD , less SD here too


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

once they clear the HD stuff off the 119 bird they might add some SD on it with the extra bandwidth....... I don't know how many HD channels there really are out there to add........ and 2009 doesn't mead everything is HD, just evertything is Digital.... Big difference. Some people don't want to buy a 2007 equivalent of a Beta Max.........


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> once they clear the HD stuff off the 119 bird they might add some SD on it with the extra bandwidth....... I don't know how many HD channels there really are out there to add........ and 2009 doesn't mead everything is HD, just evertything is Digital.... Big difference. Some people don't want to buy a 2007 equivalent of a Beta Max.........


As someone who is already stuck with two VCRs I will agree with you there  Technology is just changing so fast right now you don't know when to buy or exactly what to buy  Maybe D's idea of leasing isn't so bad after all


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Dolly, 

You and JPL are killing me.  

Sorry for being in the wrong forum. For me it's all about the HD. Didn't mean to push my "agenda" (for a lack of a better word).

Hopefully our 220 million dollar team will get out of the first round this year.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Dolly,
> 
> You and JPL are killing me.
> 
> ...


GOOOOOOOOOOOO Yankees  It's O.K. I think we all know that everyone is speaking from the point of view of the equipment they have. Not all Yankee Fans are rich


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

I agree that one HD channel is worth a thousand SD ones, but there is one glaring missing channel from your poll. NHL Network! That is really the one and only SD channel I would want to add. (Most of the ones here I had never heard of.)


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Lets see here. You got D10 and D11 going up here PDQ so all the HD fans out there should have plenty of room for your HD channels(150). When they move the HD channels that are on ku over to ka maybe they could throw us customers who don't have HD a bone and add some SD channels. Not all of us can afford HD.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> Lets see here. You got D10 and D11 going up here PDQ so all the HD fans out there should have plenty of room for your HD channels(150). When they move the HD channels that are on ku over to ka maybe they could throw us customers who don't have HD a bone and add some SD channels. Not all of us can afford HD.


That's what I hope will happen  I can't replace two TVs especially when one of them is only six years old plus pay D for HD


----------



## JimV (Feb 3, 2007)

They make a lot of money on the Shopping networks so they arent going to get rid of those. They subsidize some of the other channels.

They'd go a la carte if it made more money but it doesnt. For every 'good' channel, they need all those others to cover. No Golf without GEM apparently. (Not that Id put Golf in the 'good' category, but thats just me).

As for what they need to add, maybe a program sharing plan with Sky for all their Sky Sports channels. They are huge in the UK and would be huge here too and maybe we can get some decent world sport coverage instead of the 4 sport options we have in the US (football, baseball, basketball, hockey).
I know they talked about it.

The other thing Sky does is allow you to program your DVR from a webpage on the internet. That'd be great, a better gui to program vs the remote control version and the EPG.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

my vote is for a channel called "The Tube" which is carried on some digital sub carriers. its a 24 hour music video channel that has a retro feel to it, with some modern stuff.


----------



## Dalek1963 (Nov 19, 2006)

Hi,
I actually would say that dtv needs to concentrate more on getting sd local channels to 100% of the country. I really have no interest in hd, and have no plans to get an hd tv


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

One, they missed the channel that I want D* to add, which is the Sportsman's network. and I understand that, D* could add this channel for little or no amount of cost. 

Two, take note of how many of the pollster's want the "superstations" like Dish offers. I have constantly heard that we, meaning D* doesn't carry them, is because no one wants them.. using this poll, I beg to differ. 

Three, eventually, all these channels will become HD, so I don't see why we cannot add these channels, and switch them to HD in 2009 or sooner. Yes some of you have "jumped the gun" by buying HD TV's before the system is ready for them. But You KNEW what you were getting into WHEN YOU MADE YOUR PURCHASE.. that HD was VERY LIMITED. but you wanted it anyway..or you believed who ever sold you on the fact.. So now you have to wait. But in reality, you are still in the minority.. Meaning that D* has to cater to those who pay the bills.. the majority of customers and those people are not HD ready.. 

that's the simple truth.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

frontiersarehere said:


> I concur, with all this HD , they are gerring the cart ahead of the horse.
> 
> DIRECTV still does not have ALL SD LOCALS & does not have ALL SD AMERICAN BASED cable channels.
> 
> do that before you go hog wild on HD


Hah, they'll never have every single American cable channel or all the local channels in the entire country either. I would guess that a majority of D* subscribers would care more about new HD offerings rather than some of the lackluster SD channels I saw mentioned at the start of this thread.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

bjlc said:


> Three, eventually, all these channels will become HD, so I don't see why we cannot add these channels, and switch them to HD in 2009 or sooner. Yes some of you have "jumped the gun" by buying HD TV's before the system is ready for them. But You KNEW what you were getting into WHEN YOU MADE YOUR PURCHASE.. that HD was VERY LIMITED. but you wanted it anyway..or you believed who ever sold you on the fact.. So now you have to wait. But in reality, you are still in the minority.. Meaning that D* has to cater to those who pay the bills.. the majority of customers and those people are not HD ready..
> 
> that's the simple truth.


It's either they add a bunch more SD channels now (if they had the bandwidth for it btw) or they utilize their resources to deploy their additional HD infrastructure for the near future. You can't have it both ways. If a majority of the D* subscribers felt just the way you do they probably would have voted with their wallets and gone to another provider that has the channels they most desire. I haven't seen any evidence of such a mass exodus of subscribers.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Tony1097 said:


> my vote is for a channel called "The Tube" which is carried on some digital sub carriers. its a 24 hour music video channel that has a retro feel to it, with some modern stuff.


I agree with you there, but if it is available on your cable companies package it is most likely carried by a local in your area undr one of it's digital "sub" channels and could be picked up with a digital OTA NTSC tuner and antenna. Infact if you are in the cleveland area it is under channel 43 wuab I believe 43.2 or something like that.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> none of the channels are lackluter, IF you used your senses (if have any) and did proper research, you would know all those channels are excellant and have great content


Could you name some of that excellent content? Between Dish Network and now with cable, I have/had access to about 80% of the channels listed in the poll, and no, none of them are really that excellent. The superstations were great for out of market sports, but that advantage is nearly dead, the extra premium movie channels from Showtime and Cinemax really don't offer much, unless you're like me and channel surf a lot. HBO Comedy is the only channel I spend a decent amount of time on that on the list, the stand-ups are top notch. Military History Channel seems interesting. Other then that I don't care about SD channels, 90% of my TV view is done in HD. I'd trade every Cinemax I get for Cinemax HD.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

ack! BBC world over CNN world...definitely!


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

In order to make a new SD channel worthwhile, it needs more "people pulling power" than the allure of HD....

and HD attracts RICH customers, who spend tons of money. One big spender customer at $150/month is worth at least 4 regular "only total choice" customers at $50/month, and more likely to keep their payments up.

Plus, someone invested in HD is less likely to change to another provider.

I predict even with low HD penetration nowadays, if D* can get 50 HD national channels of decent calibre (not voom), they'll be raking in the dough for years to come with the number of new affluent subscribers.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> In order to make a new SD channel worthwhile, it needs more "people pulling power" than the allure of HD....
> 
> and HD attracts RICH customers, who spend tons of money. One big spender customer at $150/month is worth at least 4 regular "only total choice" customers at $50/month, and more likely to keep their payments up.
> 
> ...


No, that's not correct. You really need to calculate per household viewing before determining how lucrative a channel is for DirecTV. An SD channel that can reach 16 million is much more profitable than an HD channel that can reach 1 million. That is, add an SD channel and it has the potential to reach all 16 million customers right off the bat. A channel gets charged on per-household viewing, not on how many rich customers pay for it. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, look at the car market. While you have these uber-expensive luxury and sports cars (Rolls Royce, Ferrari, et. al.) the real money is in the standard car market. That's why you have dozens of standard car lines for every single super-luxury car line. If your logic held, then you would see many more Lamborghini dealerships than say Toyota dealerships. One of those two is on the verge of becoming the biggest car company in the world (in terms of sales) and it ain't Lamborghini...


----------



## ELT (Feb 20, 2007)

They should not bother with anything SD. HD is the future. Anything they add should be HD, that way both SD and HD users will be happy. HD channels can be viewed by SD sets, you just will see a crappy SD picture. (It will look "normal" on a SD set).

All channels in a few years will be 100% HD. It's just un-avoidable with the technology trend. Why waste time adding an old technology? Any stations that are denied access to be broadcast by the carriers because they are not HD will then be forced to turn HD or just die off. Soon HDTVs will be affordable to everyone and price won't be an issue at all.


While we're on the topic off channels, they should actually drop a lot of the PPV channels and make 2 or 3 (at most) HD PPV channels and run the movies alternating. You can DVR the one that you order (say if it comes on at 3am) and watch it at a better time for you. They also need to get rid of the 12 Spanish channels and have one or maybe 2 tops. (Just my opinion) I also agree with earlier poster about the shopping channels (dump 'em). Wipe out the crap that nobody watches and make room for HD.


(This entire post should be considered to happen only "in a perfect world")......


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

ELT said:


> They should not bother with anything SD. HD is the future. Anything they add should be HD, that way both SD and HD users will be happy. HD channels can be viewed by SD sets, you just will see a crappy SD picture. (It will look "normal" on a SD set).
> 
> All channels in a few years will be 100% HD. It's just un-avoidable with the technology trend. Why waste time adding an old technology? Any stations that are denied access to be broadcast by the carriers because they are not HD will then be forced to turn HD or just die off. Soon HDTVs will be affordable to everyone and price won't be an issue at all.
> 
> ...


It really depends on who the company is looking to support. You're making assumptions about technology that may not reflect reality. For example, while most folks on here have a DVR, most folks out there don't. Right now a vast majority of the company's viewership are SD only - there are even folks who own an HDTV who don't yet get HD through DirecTV.

As for your contention about all broadcasts having to go HD - that's not correct. All OTA broadcasts are to go digital - they don't have to be HD. And that only affects OTA broadcasts... not services like cable providers and DBS providers. DirecTV TODAY broadcasts everything digitally, so you could contend that they already meet the requirements for an all digital broadcast.

As for the down-rezzing of HD broadcasts to SD for those without an HDTV, I would be ok with that provided:

1) The hardware I currently have will support that (I would be majorly ticked off if I was forced to upgrade only to be forced into another 2-year commitment).

2) The picture quality I currently get (which is stunning on my TV) isn't sacrificed.

Sacrificing SD for the sake of adding a couple HD channels makes no sense at this point. You would potentially lose millions of customers. And it is the customer base that DirecTV currently has that allows them to keep costs where they are. Imagine them trying to offer all that they do if they had a base of say 1 million subscribers. Either the monthly rate would be so attrocious that NO ONE would tolerate it, or the company goes severely in the red. Neither are a good idea.

Also, realize that, while the future is HD, the present is still very much SD - just look at all the SD channels that DirecTV IS adding this year. Style, Chiller, Ovation, Fox Business Channel... and those are just the ones off the top of my head. And two of these are NEW channels. Why would a new channel go with SD at all if HD were the way things are? They wouldn't. They understand the reality that there are millions of customers out there today that are SD only.

Look, I'm looking forward to going HD - I'm no HD luddite. But keep in mind that DirecTV will very soon have the capacity to carry ALOT of HD. Why the antagonism toward folks who just aren't ready to make the switch? Why the notion that they have to cut ANYTHING? You'll get all the HD you want in a couple months... without having to cut anything, and I'm looking forward to that too. I'm waiting for the content to catch up before I make the transition to HD. But if DirecTV were to follow the strategy of "screw the SD-only folks!" I would leave them in a heart-beat - as would millions of others. Why wouldn't we? They wouldn't be meeting our wants/needs at that point, and I would turn to other providers. That hurts the company overall, and makes it LESS likely that you'll get all that HD that you want.


----------



## ELT (Feb 20, 2007)

Thanks for clarifying the broadcast /digital stuff. I may be off there.....

I pretty much agree with all you've said there. All I'm saying is if they can handle adding everything from here forward in HD and make sure that it is still viewable by the SD people, then why not? I'm not at all saying just add a bunch of HD stuff to make me and all the HD people happy and F* the SD folks. That's what I agree with u on. ALL parties must be happy (as much as reasonably possible) for the company to grow and be able to expand which is what we all want.

The bottom line is, why not add HD stuff now, viewable by all (even if you only have an SDTV), preparing for a future when everything will be HDTV? You know it will come one day. May not be today or 5 years from now, but the day will come when SDTVs are no longer sold (or at least a very small percentage of the market is SDTV, like VHS to DVD, cassette to CD, etc.) Things always phase out; out with the old, in with the new, etc.

I just think it's called being wise to future proof AND make your HDTV folks VERY happy by only adding HD channels AND keeping your SD people still happy because they can still view all the new incoming content by their own means and equipment (albiet in SD).



jpl said:


> It really depends on who the company is looking to support. You're making assumptions about technology that may not reflect reality. For example, while most folks on here have a DVR, most folks out there don't. Right now a vast majority of the company's viewership are SD only - there are even folks who own an HDTV who don't yet get HD through DirecTV.
> 
> ...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

ELT said:


> Thanks for clarifying the broadcast /digital stuff. I may be off there.....
> 
> I pretty much agree with all you've said there. All I'm saying is if they can handle adding everything from here forward in HD and make sure that it is still viewable by the SD people, then why not? I'm not at all saying just add a bunch of HD stuff to make me and all the HD people happy and F* the SD folks. That's what I agree with u on. ALL parties must be happy (as much as reasonably possible) for the company to grow and be able to expand which is what we all want.
> 
> ...


Sorry - didn't mean to jump on you there. I would have no issue if could view hd programming on my sd, but I don't believe the receivers that they currently have will handle it. Besides, the HD will be carried on their new satellites, which will require, from what I understand, at least a 3 LNB, and preferably a 5 LNB, dish, which many don't have - including me. Plus the new broadcasts will be mpeg-4, which the sd receivers, from what I understand, can't handle.

I guess my main point is: with the new satellites they'll be able to carry a boatload of hd without having to cut anything. Everyone should be happy.


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

:stickman: I'll stumble on the bandwagon here too. No new SD content, please. HD content first, second and third. (I'd rather watch a sunrise on Discovery HD than anything on any SD channel with the possible exception of a sporting event I can't see in HD.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Reading some of the replies... there was a choice missing from the original list:

The Quesiton Asked:
"WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CHANNELS IN "STANDARD DEFINITION" DO YOU DEMAND DIRECTV ADDS"

All those channels....
-) All of the Above
I have added
-) None of the Above as that is a valid answer to this poll.


And that is my answer as well... as a consumer of the product.
I would not "DEMAND" any of these channels to be added... 
While if the question was: Which ones would I "like" DirecTV to offer... There are a couple I could consider.

None of them are on my list of "demands" for DirecTV service.

If anything, I would only like to see some of them added, when they are in the HD variety.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

I want more shopping channels... where is that option in the poll?!?


----------



## chef8181 (Jan 25, 2007)

None. More HD channels are what I want to see.


----------



## brewer4 (Aug 19, 2006)

chef8181 said:


> None. More HD channels are what I want to see.


Ditto. The Tube would be ok but I already get it OTA.


----------



## ELT (Feb 20, 2007)

toad57 said:


> I want more shopping channels... where is that option in the poll?!?


Don't forget the Spanish stations....


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

Someone has some serious issues here.


----------



## BobV (Dec 15, 2006)

None! HD is the future.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jpl said:


> I agree that demanding stuff ain't gonna cut it. I voted on a couple channels that I would love DirecTV to carry, but I demand nothing. And I do take exception to the statement that just about all folks on here have HD. We don't - not yet. I'm waiting until it actually becomes worth it. Even if every channel on DirecTV were in HD there just isn't enough content, yet, to say that everything you're going to get on those channels will be HD.
> 
> Finally, I have trouble believing that DirecTV has less content than 95% of the cable providers out there. Especially for the price. I came from Comcast, where I got a whopping 65 - 70 channels (analog only) and spent more than with my total choice plus package with DirecTV). To approach what I get with DirecTV I would have had to go with Comcast digital, and my price would have gone up precipitously.


I completly agree with you. I don't have HD and won't until 95% is HD.


----------



## bret4 (Nov 22, 2006)

None. Need more HD channels. They can cut back some of the SD channels they have now. I have SD locals in the upper 300's and Local SD channels 2,4,5,7.... in SD and HD as will as in the 80's in HD. Could clear up some space not repeating the same channels about 4x between the SD, MPEG2, MPEG4 locals. I'm sure there is a reason for this. Some boxes may not get the channels in different modes. It's time to push to clean up all the repeat programming.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

mtnagel said:


> That's exactly what I was going to say.


once again, ditto I need more HD channels. I cringe to watch any more SD.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

ELT said:


> All channels in a few years will be 100% HD. It's just un-avoidable with the technology trend.





bjlc said:


> Three, eventually, all these channels will become HD, so I don't see why we cannot add these channels, and switch them to HD in 2009 or sooner.
> 
> that's the simple truth.


IF, and that's a tremendously huge IF all channels will be HD, it will take many many many years for that to happen. I wouldn't plan on all channels being in HD anytime soon.

Not only that is all channels did go HD, where would D* put all of them? If D* carried nothing but HD channels they would need to launch a few more sats and/or put them in mpeg2 format and/or downrezz even more than they are now.

For the record I chose one of the Cinemax channels, don't remember which one. None of the others appealed to me. I didn't need to do research on them to care. Shoot, I don't even care about the 92% of SD channels I have now. I could research them until I die and still wouldn't care.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

bret4 said:


> None. Need more HD channels. They can cut back some of the SD channels they have now. I have SD locals in the upper 300's and Local SD channels 2,4,5,7.... in SD and HD as will as in the 80's in HD. Could clear up some space not repeating the same channels about 4x between the SD, MPEG2, MPEG4 locals. I'm sure there is a reason for this. Some boxes may not get the channels in different modes. It's time to push to clean up all the repeat programming.


 You should know that your locals are not being duplicated in the low numbers and in the 300's. They are being sent via the 300's and your receiver is doing a translation to the low numbers.

I do agree that DirecTV needs to concentrate on HD. They could eliminate the duplicate PPV channels. Why have the same program on 3 PPV channels just to be able to offset their start times be half an hour?


----------



## BobCA (Sep 3, 2002)

Looks like HBO Comedy received the most votes. Many of the premium channels did well. It just proves what we've all known for the past 3 or 4 years. Directv's premium channel selection comes in LAST PLACE when compared to Digital cable or Dish Network.


----------



## midnight75 (Jun 25, 2004)

jdspencer said:


> Why have the same program on 3 PPV channels just to be able to offset their start times be half an hour?


I've often wondered that myself. Seems to me like they could free up a lot of bandwith by eliminating some of these.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

BobCA said:


> Looks like HBO Comedy received the most votes. Many of the premium channels did well. It just proves what we've all known for the past 3 or 4 years. Directv's premium channel selection comes in LAST PLACE when compared to Digital cable or Dish Network.


That may be true.But I'll take HBO for $13. with Directv compared to $14.99 with
DISH.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

midnight75 said:


> I've often wondered that myself. Seems to me like they could free up a lot of bandwith by eliminating some of these.


They will free up bandwith for SD when they transfer all the HD to the HD satellites.


----------



## Aransay (Jun 19, 2006)

si defiantly suport the diea m that sevral peopl wnt mroe sd chanel hd amny peopala cna i offered it sooncan but ntoforthemotn


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> That may be true.But I'll take HBO for $13. with Directv compared to $14.99 with
> DISH.


And I'd rather take HBO on cable for $7.95 with 7 unique channels, HBO West, HBO On Demand and HBO HD


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> And I'd rather take HBO on cable for $7.95 with 7 unique channels, HBO West, HBO On Demand and HBO HD


I'm sure you would until your "special" price expires.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Aransay said:


> si defiantly suport the diea m that sevral peopl wnt mroe sd chanel hd amny peopala cna i offered it sooncan but ntoforthemotn


Exactly!.I totally agree.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> I'm sure you would until your "special" price expires.


Not a special price. It helps when the cable company owns the channels.


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

I voted for none mainly due to the fact that even with a bunch more SD channels, there will still be nothing to watch or they will show "repeats". 

I switched from cable televison to Direct only to find that out of all the channels DTV offers, there's still nothing on to watch.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

And not everyone here has HD. Personally I have no timeframe for going HD and this is from someone who developed HD set-top-box software. So I've seen plenty of it. Now if D* was to drop two HD TV's & DVR's on my doorstep and switch to all HD programming I wouldn't have any complaints. But I'm not holding my breath.

With the extra sat's going up D* should have the bandwidth to not only provide more HD, but extra bandwidth for more SD. Will they, I don't know. They have to pay the program providers and its amortized in our bills. Adding a lot more channels could kick us up a few bucks more. They've got their own balancing act to play when it comes to adding channels; bandwidth and their own internal policies/plans.

What do I want from my D* subscription, the service I'm paying for. I understand they are going to swap out a channel every now and then for various reasons


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

ddrumman2004 said:


> I voted for none mainly due to the fact that even with a bunch more SD channels, there will still be nothing to watch or they will show "repeats".
> 
> I switched from cable televison to Direct only to find that out of all the channels DTV offers, there's still nothing on to watch.


Don't know which package you have but I have found that with more channels comes more options for programs to watch.Might want to check the programming on channels you don't have and see if it would be worth the cost.I know with me it is.

But on the other hand some people like to buy DVDs of series(programs) that they like to watch.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Mark20 said:


> And not everyone here has HD. Personally I have no timeframe for going HD and this is from someone who developed HD set-top-box software. So I've seen plenty of it. Now if D* was to drop two HD TV's & DVR's on my doorstep and switch to all HD programming I wouldn't have any complaints. But I'm not holding my breath.


I couldn't imagine my life without HD since I started it in November.

I dunno :lol:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Dolly said:


> Everyone here goes on and on about HD. Sorry people, but don't all of you realize not everyone can even get HD. Neither of our two TVs are able to handle HD. And I'm not going to run out and buy two new TVs just so I can have HD :nono2:


I just might get a 36" LCD HD set come December.


----------



## toph (Dec 19, 2006)

I also voted none, I see no reason to add more SD content.


----------

