# Charlie downplays DirecTV's 100 HD channels



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6467840.html

_Ergen said he didn't think it's so important to have 70 or even 100 HD channels, although he noted that Dish Network has 50, so much as having something that people want to watch.

"There's not 100 channels of HD that I would watch," he said, while at one point also conceding that 100 HD offerings "is a good round number to get people excited." _


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

RAD said:


> From http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6467840.html
> 
> _Ergen said he didn't think it's so important to have 70 or even 100 HD channels, although he noted that Dish Network has 50, so much as having something that people want to watch.
> 
> "There's not 100 channels of HD that I would watch," he said, while at one point also conceding that 100 HD offerings "is a good round number to get people excited." _


Charlie doesn't have 50 HD channels that anyone would watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Charlie doesn't have 50 HD channels that anyone would watch.


You can find someone who thinks each of them is worth having. That's how it works with packaged TV ... different channels appeal to different people. The nice thing about starting with a higher number is that you're more likely to find something that is appealing to you, not that you'll like every channel.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I take that as him conceding the HD battle with DirecTV will be lost at least in the short term, by the end of this year.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> "There's not 100 channels of HD that I would watch,"


He gets to design his own package.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

There's not 100 HD channels that you COULD watch.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> There's not 100 HD channels that you COULD watch.


Not today, but by the end of there yere there could very well be.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The channel count looks promising but most of those promises are for 2008. Content providers have to have the content in HD before satellite providers can carry it.

No weird math. No counting part time channels available to portions of the country (and blacked out or unavailable elsewhere). No weekend channel drops to make room for special programming. Real channels that are always there.

By the end of the year? I think not.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Charlie is basically saying that until there is something that isn't vaporware that I'm not biting on that line. When I have something to bid on for carriage then I will see if we can make a deal. Also it sounds like he is tired of the hype D* is putting out in ads. When the increased number of channels come around the nets are going to want to be on both. It only makes sense to hold your card close to you and not reveal your hand early.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Very well put whatchel1, and my thoughts exactly. Frankly I'm tired of all the D* hype myself, and the ads are so misleading. I can't count the number of times I've been talking to people over the past 9 months or so and when they hear I have Dish Network they ask why not DirectTV they have way more HD channels. I then have to explain that they don't right now, that they have promised the capacity of more HD channels and say they are going to add more in the fall. But Charlie has said they are working on more for the fall and early next year (last charlie chat). Basically I'm taking the I'll believe it when I see it approach. It very well may start to become a back and forth game come fall.


----------



## kilroyc (Jun 2, 2006)

Well that being said, D* is adding 'real' channels that it doesn't look like us E* subscribers will be getting anytime soon.

Things like TBS, CNN to name 2 pretty big ones.

frankly i'd rather a few of the channels we have on E* get shelved in favor of these channels, and when they have the infrastructure to expand the channel lineup, they can bring back the 'filler channels'


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

E* isn't D* ... they don't turn off some HD channels to make room for other HD channels. 

I'm not worried about E* when it comes to 'announced' channels that are not yet available anywhere in HD. E* doesn't have CNN-HD --- who does? Who will isn't a D* exclusive.

And one final word on the 'infrastructure' ... E* has space for more than they are doing today. The changes planned for August 15th (converting 10 Voom channels to MPEG4 opens up space) and announced channel additions are only their next step. There is more space available for new HD channels. The primary delay is in getting channel providers to uplink HD ... from HD sources not upconverted SD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, Dish is just not as vocal bragging about things as DirecTV. DirecTV brags even before they actually have something... while Dish doesn't even brag after-the-fact. Personally, advertising irritates me and I tend to ignore companies the more I see their advertising as it makes me think they are working entirely too hard to convince me their product is better.

I prefer Dish's approach to just add channels and make improvements without a lot of fanfare. Meanwhile, DirecTV keeps running commercials about what they might have one day in the future.

Ultimately, both companies will end up with the same HD channels in the long run... so all the hype is really just that, hype. Some people have to be the first on the block to have something. Some folks like to spend $5000 for their PS/3 and have it for Christmas, while other people wait a few days and get the same thing for $500.

I am always happy with my decision to go with Dish, and they keep rewarding me by quietly adding more channels.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

D10 sat is up and goes live next month, its not talk anymore


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

PCampbell said:


> D10 sat is up and goes live next month, its not talk anymore


Sure it is! If it were a competition to get the bandwidth _for_ channels into space E* would have won years ago (even though they never used that bandwidth launched for HD for HD channels). The issue is getting channels to market - and while the fall seems promising for D* they still have to deliver on those promises.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

It will be just like when I was a kid all TV went to color in the end.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Except for the ability to view color programming in black and white while saving up for that first color set or using a portable or 2nd set. Watching HD downrezzed on a SD set requires additional equipment. (The 622 SD outputs qualify as this additional equipment.)


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> The issue is getting channels to market - and while the fall seems promising for D* they still have to deliver on those promises.


James, if E* has bandwidth now, and has had it for awhile to add HD, why didn't they add Cinemax-HD months ago when it became available? Why haven't they added 24x7 RSN's like Comcast SportsNet Chicago which Chicago customers have been begging for? If the space has been there all along why the delays, channels have been there, so it's not completly an issue of getting channels to market. Sorry, don't completly buy it.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

To coin a term Charlie used to use, "critical mass", what is the critical mass for these these channels to go live? Does anyone here actually know how many people really want a specific RSN? I have my RSN now and I could care less about it. Should it be a 24/7 channel? No. Looks to me that competition will drive the addition of new HD channels rather than what a few subscribers want. Timing is everything.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> The channel count looks promising but most of those promises are for 2008. Content providers have to have the content in HD before satellite providers can carry it.
> 
> No weird math. No counting part time channels available to portions of the country (and blacked out or unavailable elsewhere). No weekend channel drops to make room for special programming. Real channels that are always there.
> 
> By the end of the year? I think not.


More like 2009 to 2014 for full HD.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

According to D* 
- 90 HD channel contracts have been signed
- 70 channels will be there end of Q3
- 100 channels end of Q4

But no mention of what channels they are - so a lot of them could be east/west versions / part time / RSN or worse PPV.

According to the chart I've posted elsewhere - there are a total of 81 channels known to have been announced or are currently available. Out of them 15 are Voom channels - which we know D* won't carry. That leaves a total of 66 channels - leave CN8 and that becomes 65. Out of those several will come on live only in '08. 

So my guess is either D* will not have those 70/100 channels or they will claim some channels are national but would be of the east-west versions / part time / RSN or PPV variety. I don't think they will have more than 60 "real" national channels by the end of this year.

PS : According to the chart E* currently has 32 HD channels with 14 more announced.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NFL will be playing again soon ... might as well count those HD channels if one is going to pad their portfolio. 

I am happy with the number of channels announcing they will be available in HD ... the pace seems to be picking up. I expect 2008 will be the big year when everyone who can pushes toward more resolution.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

nataraj said:


> But no mention of what channels they are - so a lot of them could be east/west versions / part time / RSN or worse PPV.


Looks like a number of them will be west coast feeds, from : http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1015081&highlight=

_In addition to the HBO (East) HD channel it currently offers, DIRECTV will launch the following HBO/Cinemax channels in full-time HD: HBO West, HBO2 West, HBO2 East, HBO Family East, HBO Family West, HBO Latino, HBO Signature, Cinemax East, Cinemax West and MoreMax._

Didn't bother to see if they'll also do west coast feeds of others like the Starz channels. But I think it's fair to include those channels in a channel count. If you're a west coast customer you're probably very happy that you'll now get the HD version of the channels for your time zone, and not having to use a DVR to timeshift east coast to your viewing times.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> James, if E* has bandwidth now, and has had it for awhile to add HD, why didn't they add Cinemax-HD months ago when it became available? Why haven't they added 24x7 RSN's like Comcast SportsNet Chicago which Chicago customers have been begging for? If the space has been there all along why the delays, channels have been there, so it's not completly an issue of getting channels to market. Sorry, don't completly buy it.


I'm not James (although, technically speaking that is my middle name, but I digress)... but there is more at work than just having a channel go live. In the case of Cinemax, there appeared to be some negotiations at work with Dish and HBO. All mention of MAX was removed from the Dish Web site for several months, and a free preview was cancelled... then once those negotiations settled, MAX was back in the Web site and quickly MAXHD followed on Dish. So bandwidth wasn't the issue, it was negotiating carriage with HBO.

As for RSNs.. I have FSN South now in HD... but because no pro teams that are on it claim my ZIP code, everything has been blacked out so I might as well not have this channel yet! When college b-ball and f-ball start, I should get some nice ACC and SEC games so that will be cool in HD... but there is no need for this to be on 24-hrs because all of the FSN highlight shows and talk shows are still in SD as far as I know so it would be a waste. Part-time just makes sense for many of these RSNs right now.

I've mentioned in another thread how Dish has bandwidth to launch some more HD LiLs too, but I suspect they are negotiating for those... but the bandwidth is there for a lot of new HD if they find good programming and are able to reach agreements to carry.

Bandwidth is not unlimited, and DirecTV will have more bandwidth with their 2 new satellites until Dish gets more up there early next year... but that is a temporary leap-frog and it is entirely possible that the "promised" HD channels DirecTV has alluded to may not launch before bandwidth becomes an issue with Dish.

DirecTV, on the other hand, has had very real bandwidth issues for a while now.. as evidenced last season when they took down TNTHD or UniHD on Sunday afternoons so they could show NFL Sunday Ticket games. This, to me, demonstrates clearly why DirecTV has not been able to add as much HD lately as Dish has. They definately had bandwidth issues that Dish did not.

Soon, however, both companies will have lots of bandwidth and the playing field will level again and I strongly suspect both companies will be at about the same point this time next year in terms of HD content. I will be surprised if either company has a substantial lead in HD a year from now as that would seem like a big misstep for either company.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

OK, so Cinemax was another Charlie playing hardball. OK, lets use another channel The Movie Channel HD, what's the reason for that not being carried if E*'s just waiting for channels?

Don't buy your RSN argument for the case of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago though. Yes, all the programming is not 24x7 but they carry a lot of Chicago Cubs, Sox, Bull and some Hawks games. CSN supposedly says that companies need to carry the channel full time, so if E* has a bunch of bandwidth available why not carry it? Make your customers in the 3rd largest DMA happy and keep folks from leaving for D* and Comcast.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> OK, so Cinemax was another Charlie playing hardball. OK, lets use another channel The Movie Channel HD, what's the reason for that not being carried if E*'s just waiting for channels?
> 
> Don't buy your RSN argument for the case of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago though. Yes, all the programming is not 24x7 but they carry a lot of Chicago Cubs, Sox, Bull and some Hawks games. CSN supposedly says that companies need to carry the channel full time, so if E* has a bunch of bandwidth available why not carry it? Make your customers in the 3rd largest DMA happy and keep folks from leaving for D* and Comcast.


I can't speak to the Movie Channel in HD... but I'm sure that is a negotiation point as well. Who does carry it? I know DirecTV doesn't, and I also know Time Warner cable in my area doesn't... so that also plays. Dish has been the first to carry lots of channels in HD lately, so I'm not sure they have to be first to carry every single one in HD.

I'm sure folks in Chicago would like that RSN... but it is not a national channel if only folks in that DMA are going to be able to watch it. I suspect blackout rules would mean people outside that DMA would not get the pro games... so Dish probably negotiates that differently. An HD channel that the national Dish customer-base can watch would have priority over a 24/7 channel that only a particular DMA can watch.

I understand, if I was in that market, feeling differently... but it probably "feels" more like a "local" channel to Dish in terms of priority. And until they have "unlimited" capacity, Dish still has to make choices.

Note that I, and James, said Dish has lots of bandwidth to launch new channels. That is not the same as saying they can add every channel in existence if 50 channels launched tomorrow. And with that in mind, Dish has to pick and choose a bit this year because once they launch a channel they can't unlaunch it if a better channel comes online a month from now.

Next year I suspect both companies will be able to launch more without worrying about bandwidth issues... but it is still true that right now, today, Dish can launch as many of the new channels as can DirecTV. That may change as we reach the end of this year... but it depends on how many new HD channels actually launch this year.

And back to the Movie Channel example... If DirecTV is launching some new channels, are they launching the Movie Channel HD this month? They just launched a satellite, so why aren't they putting up HD as fast as Dish is this month?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I can't speak to the Movie Channel in HD... but I'm sure that is a negotiation point as well. Who does carry it? I know DirecTV doesn't, and I also know Time Warner cable in my area doesn't... so that also plays. Dish has been the first to carry lots of channels in HD lately, so I'm not sure they have to be first to carry every single one in HD.
> 
> I'm sure folks in Chicago would like that RSN... but it is not a national channel if only folks in that DMA are going to be able to watch it. I suspect blackout rules would mean people outside that DMA would not get the pro games... so Dish probably negotiates that differently. An HD channel that the national Dish customer-base can watch would have priority over a 24/7 channel that only a particular DMA can watch.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but this is where I get confused a bit. People say that E* has plenty of bandwidth to add HD channels. People also say that E*'s waiting for channels to launch in HD so they can carry them, they can't carry what's not there.

But when you ask why a currently available channel isn't being carried you get responses about contract issues or they need to pick and choose channels because they don't have unlimited capacity. So should E* customers really feel confident that E* will match D*'s plans for carrying HD channels?

IMHO, E*'s in a bind because they're using CONUS beams for providing LIL HD channels, that's taking a lot of bandwidth away from what could be used for national channels. Until they can get some satellites up there with more spot beams they'll continue to be in a crunch. D* isn't in the same bind because all their HD LIL's are on spots now and will be adding more with D10/D11 when they become operational.

Now as for TMC-HD, yes it's on the list of channels that D*'s supposed to carry once they start their expansion once D10 is turned over to them by Boeing.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> ...By the end of the year? I think not.


Sometime last year I predicted that D* woud _not_ have 100 (full-time) channels by the end of 2007,
and probably not even by the end of 2008.


richiephx said:


> To coin a term Charlie also used to use, "critical mass"....


Charlie also used to say that before Dish would add an HD channel, it had to offer "compelling
content", but I haven't heard him use that phrase since E* added the _compelling_ VOOM package
a couple of years ago.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> You can find someone who thinks each of them is worth having. That's how it works with packaged TV ... different channels appeal to different people. The nice thing about starting with a higher number is that you're more likely to find something that is appealing to you, not that you'll like every channel.


Oh, so you believe Charlie has 50 channels on E* that he and others enjoy all 50 - but he doesn't believe there are 100 he would enjoy.

If you go by your higher number statement, then that blows Charlie's statement out of the water.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RAD said:


> OK, so Cinemax was another Charlie playing hardball. OK, lets use another channel The Movie Channel HD, what's the reason for that not being carried if E*'s just waiting for channels?
> 
> Don't buy your RSN argument for the case of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago though. Yes, all the programming is not 24x7 but they carry a lot of Chicago Cubs, Sox, Bull and some Hawks games. CSN supposedly says that companies need to carry the channel full time, so if E* has a bunch of bandwidth available why not carry it? Make your customers in the 3rd largest DMA happy and keep folks from leaving for D* and Comcast.


Is "lack of bandwidth" the only excuse you are going to accept for E* not adding HD channels?

That seems narrow minded. There are so many other possible reasons. Do you remember the reason we were given in 2005? Back then E* held back on adding new HD channels because they wanted to keep down the number of customers that would need to be converted to ViP receivers that were not scheduled to be available until the following February. (Yes, the reason HD wasn't added was because E* didn't want too many HD customers at that point in time!)

Perhaps Charlie Ergen is just a moron who doesn't know how to run the third largest cable/satellite company in the US. (That would apply as another reason why he doesn't give customers the channels you name.) Or perhaps he is just looking for a better deal to keep the prices down for his customers. Crazy like a fox!

In any case, there is more to the decision on what HD channels to carry and when to launch them than available bandwidth. As far as the Comcast Sports Net issue, it is more than just the CSNHD serving the Chicago area that is on the table. It is all CSNs and a demand for 24/7 satellite space for more than just one channel.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Oh, so you believe Charlie has 50 channels on E* that he and others enjoy all 50 - but he doesn't believe there are 100 he would enjoy.


I didn't say everyone would enjoy all 50. What I said was that not everyone likes every E* HD channel ... but someone likes each HD channel and with 32 national channels to choose from it's more likely that one or more will become your favorite than if you only have 11 national channels to choose from.

Or in the exact words I used before "_You can find someone who thinks each of them is worth having. That's how it works with packaged TV ... different channels appeal to different people. The nice thing about starting with a higher number is that you're more likely to find something that is appealing to you, not that you'll like every channel._"

As far as Charlie's opinion that "there's not 100 channels of HD that I would watch" I tend to agree. There are probably only five HD channels that I would watch. If there were more channels on E* I might pick up another favorite or two. But D* could have a million HD channels ... as long as E* has the ones I'm interested in I'm good. And since the channels that I'd be interested in that are not currently carried by E* either don't exist or will be added next week I'm still good.


> If you go by your higher number statement, then that blows Charlie's statement out of the water.


No ... Charlie says 100 is an impressive number. It is. It won't be a true number (without a lot of fuzzy math) but along with being the market leader in (what some would consider) fuzzy pictures D* does well at fuzzy math.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> Sorry, but this is where I get confused a bit. People say that E* has plenty of bandwidth to add HD channels. People also say that E*'s waiting for channels to launch in HD so they can carry them, they can't carry what's not there.


Both statements are true. Also true is the fact that I could go buy a dog tomorrow because I have enough money to afford one, and I have food in the house... so why don't I have a dog? Lots more reasons than just space and money come into play, just like when adding channels to Dish.



RAD said:


> But when you ask why a currently available channel isn't being carried you get responses about contract issues or they need to pick and choose channels because they don't have unlimited capacity. So should E* customers really feel confident that E* will match D*'s plans for carrying HD channels?


Life is funny that way. It is rare when only one thing is required to make a decision. Usually there are lots of factors to take into account.

As for why Dish customers should feel confident? Well.. how about because for the last couple of years Dish has been consistently adding HD channels on a semi-regular basis as HD channels have been launched. No, Dish hasn't added every HD channel but they don't carry every SD channel that exists either! In fact, there are a lot of SD channels that people have asked for that Dish still doesn't carry... so it isn't all about HD either. But Dish has added a lot more HD than DirecTV has in recent years... and even next week adding more... while DirecTV has just talked about adding channels "some day" in the future.

I am confident in Dish, because so far they have not promised more than they have added... and they continue to add more than they have promised.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

RAD said:


> But I think it's fair to include those channels in a channel count. If you're a west coast customer you're probably very happy that you'll now get the HD version of the channels for your time zone, and not having to use a DVR to timeshift east coast to your viewing times.


I don't agree with that. I hardly watch anything live - that is not sports or news. As I've said elsewhere the idea of "channels" is obsolete - just give us VOD - ofcourse not technically feasible now for sats. So we will have to do with bundled channels and get by DVRs.


----------

