# Why I Left DirecTV after 15 years…



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

Two months ago, after15 years with DirecTV, I switched to Dish. I was unhappy with DirecTV's direction so I voted with my wallet! There were many reasons:

1. The lack of basic national HD channel additions (AMC, BBCA, TCM, HLN, DIY, HISTI and others). And the poor quality of the SD versions of the channels provided by DirecTV.
2. The slow response of the HR20 to basic commands.
3. The D12 disappointment, which turned out largely to be for Premium, Pay Per View and "Push". The "tango", "more HD is coming", "looking out for customer value" and other elaborate fan dances presented by some DBS Talk posters were wearing very thin for me. On the other hand, Sixto's observations were clear as to direction that DirecTV was going. Just facts, Not Spin.
4. My location limits me to Satellite service for TV and Internet, No bandwidth for streaming, VOD, etc. but don't do any PPV anyway. 
5. Sports are no longer a big deal to me, so why pay?

After 2 months, what is my experience with Dish?

1.I have all the basic HD channels I'd been missing with DirecTV. Very Happy, a huge difference over the blur-o-vision SD of DirecTV. TCM is a favorite of mine, even though they currently do up converts, the picture is spectacular compared D*'s SD version.

2. The 722k DVR is lightning fast to all commands. Picture in picture for the buffers is great! I was actually shocked when I did my first menu scroll on the 722k. HUGE difference over the HR-20!

3. I know the DirecTV's HD resolution is technically higher. but it is hard to see a difference with Dish HD on both a 46" Sony or 106" projector. The fear of a poor HD picture had been one of those "sticking points" why I stayed with D* the last few years. The E* picture seems to have a little higher contrast, but I see no difference in resolution. A non-issue and from my perspective, a myth. Sort of along the line of stereo frequency response only my dogs can hear.

4. Big Movie Fan. EPIX and the Indi/Retro Channels are nice additions

5.Saving about $45/mo at least for the first year. The install went smoothly using existing sat dish pole position and 150 ft of buried cable. Got a free gun! [Yeah I know it is a bit silly!]

6. There seems to be less "pushing" and endless promotion from Dish is terms of PPV and all related extra cost items in terms of Email/Tvmail , Searching, Commercials, etc.

Things I miss from DirecTV-the 101 Programming, Quicktune, the long overdue Cinemax additions now there and 15 years of familiarity that is rapidly fading but that is about it. I should have done the change a year ago when it was becoming apparent that adding Basic HD was not D*s priority and the HR20 had become a dog.

Of course your mileage may vary, but if you are as unhappy with DirecTV's actions and direction as I was, it might be time to change. Now I can chuckle over D* defenders/fanboys who rail on about the "whiners" and push the successful business model that D* is. Fine. To me it's about what one prominent poster calls "customer value". With a fast DVR, the HD I wanted at a better cost, is better value to me..


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

It's good to see you find happiness with your decision. It's also refreshing to see you take a stance and speak with your wallet and I wish more people would do so. 

#3 was the only part that struck me as odd. I know you had issues with me that you've PM'd about, but you should never let a poster affect your decision like this or get to you and wear you thin. It's not that serious.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I didn't know they were still doing the gun promotion. I believe they wanted to do the same with DirecTV, but DirecTV didn't like the idea.

I am glad you found the right service for you. Personally, I couldn't do it, would lose too many things I like, but that's what competition is for.


----------



## cyfman (Nov 4, 2009)

By-By


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Thank you for an honest evaluation of the change to DISH.

Since old, loyal DirecTV customers get little to nothing (except maybe 3 months of "game lounge" for free), I'm leaning to do what you did when I decide to upgrade to HD.

The only thing that bothers me about DISH is how they gouge you if you want more than one receiver/DVR.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

cyfman said:


> By-By


If you are going to waste space being insulting or condescending at least use a spell checker...

To the OP: What is your "after promo" price going to be for all the basic HD, and that "extra pack" I think you probably have since you mentioned a couple channels from it?

After an unresolvable technical problem with Xfinity, which I really found acceptable, I am still keeping option open for gaining those SD channels I watch a lot of (DIY, HLN) that are missing from DirecTv, but cannot see spending a great amount of money above my current payments to get a few channels.

Kind of give a rundown of the costs involved, contracts, etc.

I am guessing to replace one HDDVR and one standard HD receiver I have now, I would need a 922 (has a second independent hd output?) or two separates like I have now...

From what I could piece together on their website, the cost for me to get the channels I watch now would be more expensive (AT250 + HD extra pack + equipment). I think I read where for $99 up front, you could get free HD for life, so that would save me $10 after the DirecTv promo expires. I currently have free lifetime DVR service with DirecTv, so what is the monthly DVR fee with Dish?


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

grizbear said:


> Two months ago, after15 years with DirecTV, I switched to Dish. I was unhappy with DirecTV's direction so I voted with my wallet! &#8230;


The following programming, in basics, only available in SD from DirecTV are being carried in HD from Dish Network: AMC HD, BBCAM HD, CENTRC HD, COOK HD, DIY HD, E! HD, GALA HD, GSN HD, HInt'l HD, HLN HD, ID HD, LMN HD, LOGO HD, NGWILD HD, OWN HD, RFD HD, SPRTSM HD, Style HD, TCM HD, truTV HD.

Had DirecTV carried any or all of those, in HD, would you have remained one of its customers?


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

APB101 said:


> The following programming, in basics, only available in SD from DirecTV are being carried in HD from Dish Network: AMC HD, BBCAM HD, CENTRC HD, COOK HD, DIY HD, E! HD, GALA HD, GSN HD, HInt'l HD, HLN HD, ID HD, LMN HD, LOGO HD, NGWILD HD, OWN HD, RFD HD, SPRTSM HD, Style HD, TCM HD, truTV HD.
> 
> Had DirecTV carried any or all of those, in HD, would you have remained one of its customers?


My Must list to remain
TCM HD
AMC HD, 
BBCAM HD 
DIY HD, 
HInt'l HD, 
HLN HD
NGWILD HD

The others listed are a nice to have as a bonus.
[eg. Train Programs on RFD HD]
Also stuck with 2 HR-20's. Only way to get any speed would be to buy new models! So programming plus dvrs.

Griz


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"grizbear" said:


> Two months ago, after15 years with DirecTV, I switched to Dish. I was unhappy with DirecTV's direction so I voted with my wallet! There were many reasons:
> 
> 1. The lack of basic national HD channel additions (AMC, BBCA, TCM, HLN, DIY, HISTI and others). And the poor quality of the SD versions of the channels provided by DirecTV.
> 2. The slow response of the HR20 to basic commands.
> ...


Nice evaluation! Glad you are happy. You are not the first to exit over Directv's new direction/lack of new basic HD channel additions and you certainly will NOT be the last!!!! All the best to you!

Wake up Mike White and Derek Chang :-(


----------



## markfp (Mar 9, 2010)

That's what competition is all about. If you're not happy with one product or service, you can always switch to the other guy.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"thelucky1" said:


> Nice evaluation! Glad you are happy. You are not the first to exit over Directv's new direction/lack of new basic HD channel additions and you certainly will NOT be the last!!!! All the best to you!
> 
> Wake up Mike White and Derek Chang :-(


I don't think the numbers of people switching due to HD channels is big enough to be a blip in their numbers. For the vast majority of subscribers, it likely isnt an issue.


----------



## fjames (Nov 25, 2010)

Thanks for posting. Your concerns and situation mirror mine, and I move closer to leaving as time goes by. Once The Wire is done I'll have to give it a serious think. Luckily for me, they seem to have degraded the 101 (time will tell but not holding out much hope) so one less thing to worry about.


----------



## bobvick1983 (Mar 21, 2007)

"Davenlr" said:


> I am guessing to replace one HDDVR and one standard HD receiver I have now, I would need a 922 (has a second independent hd output?) or two separates like I have now...
> 
> I currently have free lifetime DVR service with DirecTv, so what is the monthly DVR fee with Dish?


The 922 does not have two independent HD outputs. TV2 is in SD only, and it uses one of the available tuners. The DVR fee is $6 for all receivers except for the 922 it is $10 per month. An additional Duo DVR is $17 per month lease fee. If you have more than one 922, the lease fee is $20.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ok thanks. That is way to high for me. Xfinity would be cheaper. Appreciate the feedback.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Ok thanks. That is way to high for me. Xfinity would be cheaper. Appreciate the feedback.


Wow! ... +1 here well :eek2:

I've got six DVRs and a STB receiver activated right now with WHDVR. Three of them HD-DVRs and one HD receiver.

To find something like this setup comparable on Dish at those prices on our budget is totally out of the question.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"dpeters11" said:


> I don't think the numbers of people switching due to HD channels is big enough to be a blip in their numbers. For the vast majority of subscribers, it likely isnt an issue.


I disagree (with all due respect)


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"fjames" said:


> Thanks for posting. Your concerns and situation mirror mine, and I move closer to leaving as time goes by. Once The Wire is done I'll have to give it a serious think. Luckily for me, they seem to have degraded the 101 (time will tell but not holding out much hope) so one less thing to worry about.


I'm beginning to hear "another one bites the dust"! Lol!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

thelucky1 said:


> I disagree (with all due respect)


You really think droves of customers are leaving over a couple HD channels? Price is probably the biggest factor. AMC in SD isn't a significant reason to enough people. Besides, they're adding more than are leaving so that's proof that they're ok with the current lineup and price matters the most (new customer deals).


----------



## rich67 (Mar 11, 2009)

I have been subscriber since 2000. when my free HD runs out I am moving to Dish.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

thelucky1 said:


> Nice evaluation! Glad you are happy. You are not the first to exit over Directv's new direction/lack of new basic HD channel additions and you certainly will NOT be the last!!!! All the best to you!
> 
> Wake up Mike White and Derek Chang :-(


You continue to amaze me with your general lack of understanding. What would you have Mike White and Derek Chang do? THERE IS NO CAPACITY (or very little). They have used their capacity for NFL and other sports.

Let's repeate, THERE IS NO CAPACITY to do what you keep whining about incessantly. It doesn't exist right now. So what exactly would you have White and Chang do?


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

sigma1914 said:


> You really think droves of customers are leaving over a couple HD channels? Price is probably the biggest factor. AMC in SD isn't a significant reason to enough people. Besides, they're adding more than are leaving so that's proof that they're ok with the current lineup and price matters the most (new customer deals).


Droves aren't leaving. Look for DTV to announce another positive quarter next week on their earnings call. I'd be shocked if they don't. While others, ESPECIALLY DISH, announces customer losses in the last few years, TWC did just last week, I'd bet the house that DTV has another positive subscriber quarter again.

These people that are leaving because of a few HD channels not being there is a complete myth by a bunch of whiners here trying to justify their whining. That's all it is.


----------



## rich67 (Mar 11, 2009)

the only whiners live in chicago . thats where dead people get to vote


----------



## ericcooper1956 (Jul 19, 2011)

Been with both, re-signed with DirecTV a week ago. Charlie Chat just plain annoyed me. Also the Dish willingness to drop channels so easily during fee negotiations. I also consider their equipment quality to be cheap and performance not as good. But if some people don't agree with me and like Dish better, I won't lose any sleep over it. To each his/her own!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"thelucky1" said:


> I disagree (with all due respect)


You have to remember, we generally don't represent the average customers. As Sigma says, it's likely more cost than anything else that causes subscribers to drop, but they are also adding. More are leaving for reasons like Greg Alsobrook did than for HD, but even that isn't outpacing new subscribers.

Now, I don't have any inside knowledge and don't know how many subscribers have HD. But I do know that 66% of subscribers (as of publication of the 2010 annual report) had an advanced receiver. That includes ones like the R16 though, SD and households without HD. it wouldn't be totally out of the question that half of DirecTVs subscribers don't even have HD.

There are channels I want as much as the next guy, but not enough to leave over it and lose some other things.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

grizbear, nice post. :righton:

Life is too short to get frustrated over a TV provider.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Ok thanks. That is way to high for me. Xfinity would be cheaper. Appreciate the feedback.


You can get nearly the same functionality using a Vip722k with the free (after rebate) Sling box. And the duo-dvr isn't really needed unless you want 2 independent TV ability and PIP, you can use a different HDDVR for less money.

So in a 722k first unit - no lease fee, but it does bring in the $6/month DVR fee per account.

Vip612 - where you want HDDVRs - $10/month lease fee.

Using 722k and 612 units in the system means that if you want an external HD, you can add one for no fee, and you can move it between any of the 622/722/722k/612 units you might have, including one that replaces an existing one if it dies. Pretty flexible.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> You can get nearly the same functionality using a Vip722k with the free (after rebate) Sling box. And the duo-dvr isn't really needed unless you want 2 independent TV ability and PIP, you can use a different HDDVR for less money.


My current setup is a HR24 DVR on my main LR TV for Satellite, a Tivo Premier on the same TV for OTA, and a SageTv media extender to watch this:

H24, FTA satellite receiver, 2 OTA tuners on a HTPC, which can stream via ethernet to any room in the house in HD.

So, I would need a DVR with two tuners in the LR, and another HD tuner with component output to connect to the HTPC. So if I read your message correctly, using the equipment available, it would cost me $6 + $10 = $16. Xfinity is $17 for this setup, DirecTv is $6.

Now, I have to admit, since I never have any use to watch my TV from away from home, I have no idea what Slingbox does, but since I really need 3 tuners, I dont think that would be a viable option to hook into the HTPC if it uses one of the 722k's tuners.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> My current setup is a HR24 DVR on my main LR TV for Satellite, a Tivo Premier on the same TV for OTA, and a SageTv media extender to watch this:
> 
> H24, FTA satellite receiver, 2 OTA tuners on a HTPC, which can stream via ethernet to any room in the house in HD.
> 
> So, I would need a DVR with two tuners in the LR, and another HD tuner with component output to connect to the HTPC. So if I read your message correctly, using the equipment available, it would cost me $6 + $10 = $16. Xfinity is $17 for this setup, DirecTv is $6.


Directv would be $7 for the DVR fee per account vice the $6 Dish charges. This is just for having any DVR in the setup. And that charge is there even if you only have one DVR on the account and that is true for both SAT services.

Now to that 2nd unit for you. If I'm reading you right, you could use just one SAT tuner in the second unit. Assuming that is true, you could get a Vip211 which is a single SAT tuner + single OTA tuner and that one has a $7/month lease fee.

So the breakdown would be :
1st unit - no lease, but DVR fee of $6 because unit is HDDVR
2nd unit - $7/month for 211k or $10 for 612

If you went with Direct it would be
1st unit - no lease, but DVR fee of $7 because unit is HDDVR
2nd unit - $6/month for any unit

At 2 units, the Dish will generally come out cheaper in total bill because the programming is usually cheaper. More units and it tends to make Direct cheaper. And in general, unless you have a huge amount of units, the differences in cost won't be enormous unless you choose to have all HDDVRs at all locations.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Now, I have to admit, since I never have any use to watch my TV from away from home, I have no idea what Slingbox does, but since I really need 3 tuners, I dont think that would be a viable option to hook into the HTPC if it uses one of the 722k's tuners.


You're probably right, but frankly the only real reason to consider the 922 which you started with is because of the Sling technology imo.

But right now may not be the ideal time to switch from either provider. The new whole home DVRs that are coming look very enticing and may help with all this equipment confusion and management.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

lparson... I believe Dave, myself, and others have no DVR fee because of buying a lifetime Tivo subscription from DirecTV years ago. They even honored it after quitting DirecTV for about 15 months.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> lparson... I believe Dave, myself, and others have no DVR fee because of buying a lifetime Tivo subscription from DirecTV years ago. They even honored it after quitting DirecTV for about 15 months.


Aha!! I didn't know about that program. Thanks for the info.

So I'm $7/month off for those that have the deal.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> But right now may not be the ideal time to switch from either provider. The new whole home DVRs that are coming look very enticing and may help with all this equipment confusion and management.


Yes, that is my thinking as well. It all depends how much they charge for the unit, and how much to enable the tuners, and if they charge per client or not. Will be interesting.



> lparson... I believe Dave, myself, and others have no DVR fee because of buying a lifetime Tivo subscription from DirecTV years ago. They even honored it after quitting DirecTV for about 15 months.


Exactly, although I never quit, I have suspended a couple times.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

grizbear said:


> Two months ago, after15 years with DirecTV, I switched to Dish. I was unhappy with DirecTV's direction so I voted with my wallet!.........


Congrats!

Good luck.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

You can see from my sig that I have a 722k and a 612. I have the Top200, HD free for life and the lease fees that I pay for right now. Total bill is $75.99. I am currently getting all the premiums as freebies for varying times, as well as the Dish Platinum. So the bill will change.

With what I have I can record 2 SAT + 2 OTA while watching a 5th previously recorded event on the 722k, on the 612 my son can record 2 SAT + 1 OTA while watching a previously recorded event. Quite versatile and I use all 4 tuners at the same time fairly often.

What I don't have is MRV as Dish doesn't offer that yet. And I don't have as much sports in HD as I might get with Direct. (that doesn't count the extra cost sports packages either).

If I switched today to Direct, after all the promos and initial costs are over and done with, my total bill wouldn't be much different at all. If I switched, it would be for other reasons.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> lparson... I believe Dave, myself, and others have *no DVR fee *because of buying a lifetime Tivo subscription from DirecTV years ago. They even honored it after quitting DirecTV for about 15 months.


Or for those like me who have had the same (Premiere in my case) programming package long before DVR fees were being charged and were "grandfathered" in have the fee waived ... 

Of course its not nearly as flexible as the LTS since if you ever change packages the DVR fee is now assessed even if you return to the original one.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> You continue to amaze me with your general lack of understanding. What would you have Mike White and Derek Chang do? THERE IS NO CAPACITY (or very little). They have used their capacity for NFL and other sports.
> 
> Let's repeate, THERE IS NO CAPACITY to do what you keep whining about incessantly. It doesn't exist right now. So what exactly would you have White and Chang do?


I saw a recent commercial touting 170 HD Channels. With a capacity of "Up to 200", how is there not any capacity?
Furthermore, Derek Chang himself cited lack of desire as the reason for not adding them, not any lack of capcity.
Even furthermore, there appears to be adequate capacity for adding Premium HD channels.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> You continue to amaze me with your general lack of understanding. What would you have Mike White and Derek Chang do? THERE IS NO CAPACITY (or very little). They have used their capacity for NFL and other sports.
> 
> Let's repeate, THERE IS NO CAPACITY to do what you keep whining about incessantly. It doesn't exist right now. So what exactly would you have White and Chang do?


Glad I amaze you THANKS!!!! Not whining just frustrated over their choice of what HD channels they have added. Why don't YOU get that!!!! You don't amaze me with any of your post.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"dpeters11" said:


> You have to remember, we generally don't represent the average customers. As Sigma says, it's likely more cost than anything else that causes subscribers to drop, but they are also adding. More are leaving for reasons like Greg Alsobrook did than for HD, but even that isn't outpacing new subscribers.
> 
> Now, I don't have any inside knowledge and don't know how many subscribers have HD. But I do know that 66% of subscribers (as of publication of the 2010 annual report) had an advanced receiver. That includes ones like the R16 though, SD and households without HD. it wouldn't be totally out of the question that half of DirecTVs subscribers don't even have HD.
> 
> There are channels I want as much as the next guy, but not enough to leave over it and lose some other things.


I understand all of that being a business owner myself. BUT that doesn't mean as a customer I have to agree with every move Directv makes!


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> You're probably right, but frankly the only real reason to consider the 922 which you started with is because of the Sling technology imo.
> 
> But right now may not be the ideal time to switch from either provider. The new whole home DVRs that are coming look very enticing and may help with all this equipment confusion and management.


I thought Dish developed a USB connected Sling adapter for at least one other model DVR besides the 922?

Also you didn't list the 922 for EHD capability earlier. Can't an EHD be moved to it as well?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> I thought Dish developed a USB connected Sling adapter for at least one other model DVR besides the 922?
> 
> Also you didn't list the 922 for EHD capability earlier. Can't an EHD be moved to it as well?


Yes, they have a sling usb adapter for the 722k which makes the 722k nearly equivalent to the 922. I don't know if it works on other models, but I think it does. I didn't research it very much since I had no need for it.

And yes, the EHD can be used with the 922 as well as the 622/722/722k/612 models.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> I saw a recent commercial touting 170 HD Channels. With a capacity of "Up to 200", how is there not any capacity?


Dont they need to keep 25 or 30 free for part time sports feeds, Golf Tourneys, and Hotpass?
I know they used to just steal if from PPV and TNT and some other channels, but do not know if they still do that or not.


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

I made the switch from Dish to Direct 1.5 years ago. It was a no brainer for me getting my full time RSN and local channel my45 in HD with Directv. My45 carries all the road Suns games and Fox Az all the Dback games in HD. 
As far as HD quality I have to agree with OP I could not see the difference. 
Speed of DVR's I find my two HR24's as fast or actually faster than the 722. 
When it comes to basic HD the only three I would like not offered by D are Geo Wild, History International & the Outdoor channel in HD. 
But RSN and my45 in HD far outweighs any missing basic HD. 
Directv is now the leader in premium HD, so I'm very happy where I am until Dish offers full time RSN's and that's not going to happen because they don't have the bandwidth.


----------



## admdata (Apr 22, 2011)

I am Glad that you made the switch, for you it was in your best interest, as I have said in my posts (in the past), everyone has to go with the provider that is best for them, whether it is D* Dish or local cable, for me (right now) cable is the best because of $$$, in a few months I plan on returning to Directv, but I will do it with owned equipment, done with the leasing crap!!!!

And Yes I plan on doing a self install, after buying the parts I need from soild signal or ebay!


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

BattleScott said:


> I saw a recent commercial touting 170 HD Channels. With a capacity of "Up to 200", how is there not any capacity?
> Furthermore, Derek Chang himself cited lack of desire as the reason for not adding them, not any lack of capcity.
> Even furthermore, there appears to be adequate capacity for adding Premium HD channels.


Chang isn't stupid, he isn't going to come out and say they are short on capacity. Besides, it gives him leverage to cut better deals for the few channels they can still add at this time.

Those premium channels were added after a long standing issue with HBO-Cinemax that goes back years. Haven't you seen people here trot out the old press release screaming about HBO channels not launching when the Press release said so? Then, DTV and HBO finally get over that impasse and they launch the channels which leads to some of you doing what? *****ing some more for actually LAUNCHING the channels you *****ed about that weren't LAUNCHED earlier. :lol: Some of you are impossible.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/exclusive-hbo-subscribers-dwindling-27724

On the channel counts, you should really look into how the capacity is used. Let me give you a few examples. DTV has 8 DNS HD channels, but they only count four of them in their 170 claims. The other 4 are still being used, but because a customer can only get 4 of those 8, they don't count them all. DTV by far as the leading Premium and PPV business in the industry and they use HD capacity to drive PPV through a number of initiatives. Most of that is NOT counted as HD channels, so that's more capacity that got used up. They also need HD capacity for things like the US Open, the Masters, NASCAR and other areas, much of this is not counted either.

You aren't digging deep enough. 200HD Channel Capacity and 170 HD channels is not inconsistent at all if you dig deep enough. Fortunately for some of you, it is my understanding more HD capacity is coming.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

thelucky1 said:


> *You don't amaze me with any of your post*.


You do not amaze me with your grammar. :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> I've got six DVRs and a STB receiver activated right now with WHDVR. Three of them HD-DVRs and one HD receiver.


Are you saying you have six HD DVR tuners and one HD receiver tuner?

Your successive sentences seem contradictory.

Counting one fee to the exclusion of all others isn't really a fair comparison. Especially with the combined DVR/WHDS fee being $10/month.

Ignoring one-time fees is plausible if you don't hop much but they can be substantial if you're loading up on receivers and features.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> Dont they need to keep 25 or 30 free for part time sports feeds, Golf Tourneys, and Hotpass?


The number varies with simultaneous events and the addition of important full-time RSNs to CONUS but the number is somewhere around 25 according to the scholarly records of Sixto.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Chang isn't stupid, he isn't going to come out and say they are short on capacity.


Derek Chang is clearly not stupid, but DIRECTV is shooting themselves in the foot by allowing him to make public statements without thoughtful oversight.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

harsh said:


> Derek Chang is clearly not stupid, but DIRECTV is shooting themselves in the foot by allowing him to make public statements without thoughtful oversight.


Maybe, but 99.9999998% of their subscribers will never know what was said, the context in which it was said. Let's see if DTV has another positive quarter this week. They have never not had one. The industry is extremely competitive, the economy sucks, there are other services like Netflix, Hulu, off air, etc. I'm betting DTV has another positive quarter despite the complaints here.

We already know TWC went down. I'm going to bet at least 2 if not 3 other major players lose subscribers on a net basis as well.


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Maybe, but 99.9999998% of their subscribers will never know what was said, the context in which it was said. Let's see if DTV has another positive quarter this week. They have never not had one. The industry is extremely competitive, the economy sucks, there are other services like Netflix, Hulu, off air, etc. I'm betting DTV has another positive quarter despite the complaints here.
> 
> We already know TWC went down. I'm going to bet at least 2 if not 3 other major players lose subscribers on a net basis as well.


Why rail on about Directv's business and capacity?. Because they are so successful did not translate into making me a happy customer. For me I was paying premium for an inferior product.

As to capacity, it really is obvious to most here, that D* is very limited. How D12 was used for fill that capacity may have made good financial sense to them, but not necessarily good for consumers. It was not for me. That is why I originated this thread.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> Are you saying you have six HD DVR tuners and one HD receiver tuner?
> 
> Your successive sentences seem contradictory.
> 
> ...


OK, please excuse any perceived unfairness in my earlier post. Totally unintentional.

So for clarity and comparative purposes my current detailed setup here is;

1 HR24-500
1HR22-100
1 HR21-200 with AM21 attached
1 H21-200
All these are networked by WHDVR service.

2 R16-300s
1 DIRECTV R10

Non-SWim SlimLine-5 ---> SWiM-16----> a green label 8-way splitter on each output leg.

R10 fed off two SWiM-16 legacy ports.

Premiere package = $114.99
HD extra pack = $0.50 (partial payment, will soon zero it again with unsubscribe-subscribe trick  )
HD access fee waived under 24 month deal = $0.00 
DVR fee waived due to grandfathered programming package = $0.00
Receiver lease fees 6 x $6.00 = $36.00
Primary receiver lease fee waived = $0.00
WHDVR service fee = $3.00/mo.
6 months free Starz = $5.00/mo. credit (Loyalty gift)
6 months free Showtime = $5.00/mo. credit (Loyalty Gift)
Tax = $2.65

Total for current billing cycle = $147.14

Subscriber since Sep. '95

Now, what can you suggest Dish can presently offer for a better deal in my equipment situation and programming packages?


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"ChicagoBlue" said:


> You do not amaze me with your grammar. :lol:


I had to bring it down to your level so you might understand lol!!!!


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

grizbear said:


> Two months ago, after15 years with DirecTV, I switched to Dish. I was unhappy with DirecTV's direction so I voted with my wallet! There were many reasons:
> 
> 1. The lack of basic national HD channel additions (AMC, BBCA, TCM, HLN, DIY, HISTI and others). And the poor quality of the SD versions of the channels provided by DirecTV.
> 2. The slow response of the HR20 to basic commands.
> ...


A f*%#*[email protected] gun! Too funny! Then again I remember getting a loyalty gift for game lounge...made me wish I had a gun!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> OK, please excuse any perceived unfairness in my earlier post. Totally unintentional.
> 
> So for clarity and comparative purposes my current detailed setup here is;
> 
> ...


All that equipment would make switching really expensive. I can't think of any way Dish could give you an offer that was good enough to want to pay the big upfront equipment fees.

But in all fairness, if you were with Dish now, Direct would be at least as expensive in upfront equipment costs.

Switching providers from anyone to any other one would be an expensive task.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Chang isn't stupid, he isn't going to come out and say they are short on capacity. Besides, it gives him leverage to cut better deals for the few channels they can still add at this time.
> 
> Those premium channels were added after a long standing issue with HBO-Cinemax that goes back years. Haven't you seen people here trot out the old press release screaming about HBO channels not launching when the Press release said so? Then, DTV and HBO finally get over that impasse and they launch the channels which leads to some of you doing what? *****ing some more for actually LAUNCHING the channels you *****ed about that weren't LAUNCHED earlier. :lol: Some of you are impossible.
> 
> ...


So by their own count they now have 170 HD channels and the system is maxed out until a new sat can be launched. Guess now we know the "200 HD Channels" was a little more than just a mildly mis-leading sound-bite, it was an out-right lie!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> Derek Chang is clearly not stupid, but DIRECTV is shooting themselves in the foot by allowing him to make public statements without thoughtful oversight.


I am aware of nothing to suggest that his statements were without thoughtful oversight. How exactly did they shoot themselves in the foot?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> So by their own count they now have 170 HD channels and the system is maxed out until a new sat can be launched. Guess now we know the "200 HD Channels" was a little more than just a mildly mis-leading sound-bite, it was an out-right lie!


D* never said 200 HD Channels, they said 200 HD Channels of capacity.

Just saying. Not sure why some people keep saying D* said 200 HD channels, I'm not aware of that claim ever being stated quite frankly. The 200HD channel capacity is accurate.

I know the press release says capacity, not channels. Are there even 200 HD channels in existence?  The commercials say capacity. Where is it that you are seeing where someone says 200 channels of HD? I'm just curious.

A few commercials...D* has claimed over the years 130, 150, 170 ACTUAL HD channels. The 200 number is for HD Channel Capacity.
















I think some of the irony is that DISH Network actually claims to have 200 HD channels....not capacity...but actual channels. For example, right on their website...not capacity...200 HD channels http://i55.tinypic.com/2d9zrx4.jpg

Their dealers continue to advertise it as well http://i55.tinypic.com/mv6hi1.jpg

Now, sometimes dealers will put some advertising out there that the corporate office has to come back and tell them to pull back. That happens from time to time where something isn't cleared. But on the DISH site...that's a little different.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe somewhere D* actually said 200 HD channels are coming, but I'm pretty certain all the advertising says capacity.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> D* never said 200 HD Channels, they said 200 HD Channels of capacity.
> 
> Just saying. Not sure why some people keep saying D* said 200 HD channels, I'm not aware of that claim ever being stated quite frankly. The 200HD channel capacity is accurate.
> 
> I know the press release says capacity, not channels. Are there even 200 HD channels in existence?  The commercials say capacity. Where is it that you are seeing where someone says 200 channels of HD? I'm just curious.


Satrcr,
I think the way the advertising was rolled out maybe was a bit misleading if you did not read it clearly. But you are correct it did say capacity in the press release. The problem lies in which a lot of people have a different understanding of the word capacity VS availabity.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

djzack67 said:


> Satrcr,
> I think the way the advertising was rolled out maybe was a bit misleading if you did not read it clearly. But you are correct it did say capacity in the press release. The problem lies in which a lot of people have a different understanding of the word capacity VS availabity.


Perhaps...I went back and edited my post to actually put examples of commercials in there. I guess I don't see where the 200 HD claim was ever made, but certainly it's possible. Not my area of expertise so I don't notice it.

The commercials I found say 130 or 150 or 170 HD channels. If there is one that says 200 channels (not capacity), then my apologies up front...I couldn't find them.

The funny thing is that DISH actually claims to have 200 HD channels...not capacity...but actual channels. I don't view their board her at DBS Talk very often but I wonder if they are being called out-right liars. :eek2: For that matter, I wonder if the tv predictions guy is putting a pinocchio nose on articles he writes about them. He sure seems to be rather one sided with his attacks. Just my opinion, of course. I went to that site tonight and found about 4 or 5 articles from this year alone with the 200 HD claim against D* brought up again and again and not once did I find one article written about DISH when they actually DO CLAIM to have 200 HD channels. Odd. Strange. Weird. D* doesn't claim to have 200 HD channels (because they don't, they claim 170 now) and is assailed for it nonetheless. DISH does claim to have 200 HD channels (which they absolutely do not) and crickets chirp. Definitely odd, strange, and weird.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

Bottom line: DIRECTV is missing far too many national HD channels and seems to not give two hoots. Dead slow outdated receivers doesn't help either (except perhaps the HR24 which they also managed to sabotage).

I can fully understand why the OP switched.


----------



## scsa1000 (Feb 11, 2011)

Sr the only thing you need to say about commercials and lying is look at the latest dish commercial I think everyone on this site should sue dish for fraud leader in hd lol no you aren't dish direct is. Oh and tc bye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

These "Why I left" or "Why I'm leaving" threads are so boring and such a waste of time. Who cares why you're leaving. If you've made a decision to go to another provider, then go. 

I've had Comcast, DISH and now DirecTV over the years. I could bore you all with my perception of the pros and cons for each provider, but really, who cares?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> D* never said 200 HD Channels, they said 200 HD Channels of capacity.
> 
> Just saying. Not sure why some people keep saying D* said 200 HD channels, I'm not aware of that claim ever being stated quite frankly. The 200HD channel capacity is accurate.
> 
> ...


Never said it was actual Channels, but it is irrelevant because they have neither the capacity nor the channels. They are at 170 HD Channels, their numbers not mine, and there is no more available capacity. That makes it a lie no matter which way you slice it.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

TDK1044 said:


> These "Why I left" or "Why I'm leaving" threads are so boring and such a waste of time. Who cares why you're leaving. If you've made a decision to go to another provider, then go.
> 
> I've had Comcast, DISH and now DirecTV over the years. I could bore you all with my perception of the pros and cons for each provider, but really, who cares?


I do, i'm looking at making a switch and I find great value in them.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

BattleScott said:


> I do, i'm looking at making a switch and I find great value in them.


To each his own.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

TDK1044 said:


> These "Why I left" or "Why I'm leaving" threads are so boring and such a waste of time. Who cares why you're leaving. If you've made a decision to go to another provider, then go.
> 
> I've had Comcast, DISH and now DirecTV over the years. I could bore you all with my perception of the pros and cons for each provider, but really, who cares?


Actually, I do. It's good to hear pros and cons and what else is out there to make a more informed decision. What is nice about a forum is that if a thread doesn't interest you, skip it.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

You're right. I guess because I've been with Comcast, U-verse, Dish, and now DirecTV, I take it for granted that others have a similar experience.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I think the slow receivers is a bigger issue than the missing hd channels. I hear that complaint more often than "AMC/your channel" isn't in HD.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Never said it was actual Channels, but it is irrelevant because they have neither the capacity nor the channels. They are at 170 HD Channels, their numbers not mine, *and there is no more available capacity.* That makes it a lie no matter which way you slice it.


What is this part of your statement based on? To the best of my knowledge, there is indeed sufficient capacity to achieve 200 HD channels.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

carl6 said:


> What is this part of your statement based on? To the best of my knowledge, there is indeed sufficient capacity to achieve 200 HD channels.


A poster named ChicagoBlue, an apparent DTV employee or at least someone with good inside information, posted this previously in this thread:



ChicagoBlue said:


> You continue to amaze me with your general lack of understanding. What would you have Mike White and Derek Chang do? THERE IS NO CAPACITY (or very little). They have used their capacity for NFL and other sports.
> 
> Let's repeate, THERE IS NO CAPACITY to do what you keep whining about incessantly. It doesn't exist right now. So what exactly would you have White and Chang do?


He posted the same statement in the other HD Channel dicussion thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2827280#post2827280

He has not been challenged on it by anyone, so I have to assume it is accurate. The current advertising touts 170 HD Channels, not sure exactly what constitutes that number, but if I take them at their word, I would assume that they still have room (30 channels) to add the additional basic HD channels they are lacking vs. the competition. From what I have learned in this thread, however, that is NOT the case. At this time they have NO CAPCITY LEFT to add any additional basic HD. Not only are those channels missing today, they CANNOT BE ADDED until more capacity is created. I have not seen any discussion of when that will be, so I assume it will not be anytime in the very near future. That is a very important peice of information for those doing a comparison of current offerings.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I think many experts in capacity would disagree with your statement. D* is darn close to using 200 HD channels of capacity TODAY. Not quite there, but darn close.


OK, so they are indeed at full capacity today. Meaing, no further additions of HD, basic or premium, until addtional capacity can be deployed. 170 or 200, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is no more room for additions.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> OK, so they are indeed at full capacity today. Meaing, no further additions of HD, basic or premium, until addtional capacity can be deployed. 170 or 200, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is no more room for additions.


 You said, "there is no more capacity." SR said, "I think many experts in capacity would *disagree* with your statement." How does that equate to what you posted? There's room for addition if SR says you're wrong.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> OK, so they are indeed at full capacity today. Meaing, no further additions of HD, basic or premium, until addtional capacity can be deployed. 170 or 200, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is no more room for additions.


...he never said that.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> Never said it was actual Channels, but it is irrelevant because they have neither the capacity nor the channels. They are at 170 HD Channels, their numbers not mine, and there is no more available capacity. That makes it a lie no matter which way you slice it.


They don't claim to have exactly 170 channels. They claim to have more than 170 channels. No lies.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I think many experts in capacity would disagree with your statement. * D* is darn close to using 200 HD channels of capacity TODAY.* Not quite there, but darn close.





sigma1914 said:


> You said, "there is no more capacity." SR said, "I think many experts in capacity would *disagree* with your statement." How does that equate to what you posted? There's room for addition if SR says you're wrong.


He was simply disputing the statement that 170 channels is really the full capacity. By his own statement (bolded portion) you can see that they are at, or very close to, the HD Channel limit today. I have not heard anyone, not even SR, suggest that they have additional capability beyond 200 channels at this time.

If that is incorrect, then I wish he would directly dispute the other DirecTV employee? here who is stating it as a fact. It is very confusing at this point and I would like to know if the capacity for adding more basic HD channels exists RIGHT NOW or not. I'm not asking for when or which ones, just would like to know the truth about if it is even possible.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...he never said that.


He said they are very close to 200 HD today. To my knowledge, that is their current capacity. I don't see what the confusion is.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> He was simply disputing the statement that 170 channels is really the full capacity. By his own statement (bolded portion) you can see that they are at, or very close to, the HD Channel limit today. I have not heard anyone, not even SR, suggest that they have additional capability beyond 200 channels at this time.
> 
> If that is incorrect, then I wish he would directly dispute the other DirecTV employee? here who is stating it as a fact. It is very confusing at this point and I would like to know if the capacity for adding more basic HD channels exists RIGHT NOW or not. I'm not asking for when or which ones, just would like to know the truth about if it is even possible.


Yes, capacity exists for the possibly of new channels being added because PPV can and has been used. Is it a lot? Obviously (by Sixto's #s), no.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> They don't claim to have exactly 170 channels. They claim to have more than 170 channels. No lies.


What difference does it make. Why don't you discuss the real point which is whether or not additional capacity exists.


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> They don't claim to have exactly 170 channels. They claim to have more than 170 channels. No lies.


Back to the topic of this thread, I left not because of the number of HD channels, but because of how DirecTV choose to fill them. This channel count aka "slamming on the table" is absurd if you are not getting what you want.

Griz


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

grizbear said:


> Back to the topic of this thread, I left not because of the number of HD channels, but because of how DirecTV choose to fill them. This channel count aka "slamming on the table" is absurd if you are not getting what you want.
> 
> Griz


You're absolutely correct. The numbers game is ridiculous.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Yes, capacity exists for the possibly of new channels being added because PPV can and has been used. Is it a lot? Obviously (by Sixto's #s), no.


So we are to the point of having to sacrifice one for the other? that sounds pretty close to full capacity. I thought PPVs were only taken down temporarily, are you suggesting they might remove some permanently to make way for additional full time HD channels?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> He said they are very close to 200 HD today. To my knowledge, that is their current capacity. I don't see what the confusion is.


The quote includes the words more and than. The capacity for more than 200 HD channels. It was never an exact number. What is considered close to capacity is going to differ depending on ones opinion. Some may consider five empty slots close, while others may consider 20 open slots to be close to capacity. Not to mention the possibility that technical changes could be made, without sacrificing quality or quantity, to retain all current HD channels *and *make room for more. We have no idea what technical advances have been made or what plays they may have to better utilize their fleet. To the knowledge of everyone not working for DirecTV in a capacity that allows them access to this detailed information, we have no idea what their true capacity actually is. All we have are educated guesses. They have expressed a capacity for more than 200 HD channels. They are currently not at capacity.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> So we are to the point of having to sacrifice one for the other? that sounds pretty close to full capacity. I thought PPVs were only taken down temporarily, are you suggesting they might remove some permanently to make way for additional full time HD channels?


They have removed some to add new channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> What difference does it make. Why don't you discuss the real point which is whether or not additional capacity exists.


Additional capacity does exist. How many times have you been told this now? Satelliteracer has never said that they are AT capacity.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

grizbear said:


> Back to the topic of this thread, I left not because of the number of HD channels, but because of how DirecTV choose to fill them. This channel count aka "slamming on the table" is absurd if you are not getting what you want.
> 
> Griz


Good for you. You spoke with your wallet. There is no other way to do it. Only you can decide what you value in a provider.


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Additional capacity does exist. How many times have you been told this now? Satelliteracer has never said that they are AT capacity.


Still Slamming...


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

grizbear said:


> Back to the topic of this thread, I left not because of the number of HD channels, but because of how DirecTV choose to fill them. This channel count aka "slamming on the table" is absurd if you are not getting what you want.
> 
> Griz


So if you were trying to decide whether to stay with direcTV, and there were 2 possibilities reagrding an important peice of the puzzle:

1 - a real possibilty that the channels you DID want would be added, even if only "soon..."
2 - current capacity restraints made it almost a certainty they would not be, not even "soon..."

would they play into your decision or not?

I don't really care one way or the other about the "COUNT". Just whether or not there is even the ability for the count to go up right now.

I guess, I pretty much have the answer to that.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> The quote includes the words more and than. The capacity for more than 200 HD channels. It was never an exact number. What is considered close to capacity is going to differ depending on ones opinion. Some may consider five empty slots close, while others may consider 20 open slots to be close to capacity. Not to mention the possibility that technical changes could be made, without sacrificing quality or quantity, to retain all current HD channels *and *make room for more. We have no idea what technical advances have been made or what plays they may have to better utilize their fleet. *To the knowledge of everyone not working for DirecTV* in a capacity that allows them access to this detailed information, we have no idea what their true capacity actually is. All we have are educated guesses. They have expressed a capacity for more than 200 HD channels. They are currently not at capacity.


There is no reason to rely on that mis-information when those that do work for them are posting what the true capacity is.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> So if you were trying to decide whether to stay with direcTV, and there were 2 possibilities reagrding an important peice of the puzzle:
> 
> 1 - a real possibilty that the channels you DID want would be added, even if only "soon..."
> 2 - current capacity restraints made it almost a certainty they would not be, not even "soon..."
> ...


You didn't ask me, but I'd switch. I wouldn't bank on what could be with DirecTV HD. You could suspend service and try another provider for 6 months if it's a no contract provider.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> There is no reason to rely on that mis-information *when those that do work for them are posting what the true capacity is.*


When and where? No one who works for them has done that.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

grizbear said:


> Still Slamming...


...slamming what?


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> So if you were trying to decide whether to stay with direcTV, and there were 2 possibilities reagrding an important peice of the puzzle:
> 
> 1 - a real possibilty that the channels you DID want would be added, even if only "soon..."
> 2 - current capacity restraints made it almost a certainty they would not be, not even "soon..."
> ...


_1 - a real possibility that the channels you DID want would be added, even if only "soon..."
_
I hung on for over a year due to "soon" and "more HD is coming" Foolish!

_2 - current capacity restraints made it almost a certainty they would not be, not even "soon..."_

No spin from Sixto. With current allocation, it seems very little capacity. Of course they could dump "Push" PPV, etc. but I didn't have a good feeling about that.

Also a 15-year customer with slow DVRs and no upgrade without buying them.


----------



## grizbear (Aug 9, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...slamming what?


Try Post 80...


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

grizbear said:


> Back to the topic of this thread, I left not because of the number of HD channels, but because of how DirecTV choose to fill them. This channel count aka "slamming on the table" is absurd if you are not getting what you want.
> 
> Griz


Your choice is obviously the right choice for you, and I fully agree it does not matter how many HD channels DirecTV has or is capable of carrying if they are not the channels you want to have. Enjoy whatever service you chose.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"BattleScott" said:


> A poster named ChicagoBlue, an apparent DTV employee or at least someone with good inside information, posted this previously in this thread:
> 
> He posted the same statement in the other HD Channel dicussion thread:
> 
> ...


I do trust the info that SatRacer provides. At this point we have no evidence of who Chicagoblue is and/or that his information is correct.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

grizbear said:


> Try Post 80...


You may want to point your dissatisfaction towards the poster making the inaccurate claim.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

thelucky1 said:


> I do trust the info that SatRacer provides. At this point we have no evidence of who Chicagoblue is and/or that his information is correct.


I guess therein lies the rub. I don't see anywhere where SR has acutally disputed any of the posts made by ChicagoBlue. Much the opposite in fact, it would seem as though SR has acutally confirmed that they are indeed near capacity at the present time.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"BattleScott" said:


> I guess therein lies the rub. I don't see anywhere where SR has acutally disputed any of the posts made by ChicagoBlue. Much the opposite in fact, it would seem as though SR has acutally confirmed that they are indeed near capacity at the present time.


Yeah I understand what you're saying.

SR has said recently more HD is coming. As far as lack of capacity Sixto and/or SR are still our best sources at this point in time.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> When and where? No one who works for them has done that.


ChicagoBlue (current employment status unknown, but seemingly very much in the know) has stated that the reason no additonal basic HD channels are rolling out is that they are at or near full capacity. As I understand it, that is around the 200 channel mark. SR, who we know IS a DirecTV employee has confirmed that they are indeed pushing the 200 HD Channel count currently and has not posted anything to counter ChicagoBlue's statements.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> I guess therein lies the rub. I don't see anywhere where SR has acutally disputed any of the posts made by ChicagoBlue. Much the opposite in fact, it would seem as though SR has acutally confirmed that they are indeed near capacity at the present time.


He doesn't have to confirm or deny information posted by anyone but himself. You should just read his posts. He has said that they are not at capacity. How much of that capacity remains, only those within DirecTV with access to that information really know.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> ChicagoBlue (current employment status unknown, but seemingly very much in the know) has stated that the reason no additonal basic HD channels are rolling out is that they are at or near full capacity. As I understand it, that is around the 200 channel mark. SR, who we know IS a DirecTV employee has confirmed that they are indeed pushing the 200 HD Channel count currently and has not posted anything to counter ChicagoBlue's statements.


I have no idea who ChicagoBlue is. We do know who Satelliteracer is (well we know he is THE source for actual info). Sat says we are not yet at capacity and that more channels are coming. I see no reason to doubt him.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Too funny. This thread is like watching Congress trying to raise the debt ceiling. The Country's debt is certainly at capacity!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> He doesn't have to confirm or deny information posted by anyone but himself. You should just read his posts. He has said that they are not at capacity. How much of that capacity remains, only those within DirecTV with access to that information really know.


You're absolutely right that he doesn't, and he also doesn't need you to be his agent.

I have read his posts, very closely. The only thing he has stated for a fact is that they ARE very close to the 200 HD channels at this time. He has NOT said one way or the other how that relates to the current capacity and specifically their abililty to add the additional HD channels many people are asking for NOW.

With that being the case, I am far more inclined to believe what ChicagoBlue has posted, since it is backed up not just by good explanation, but also by the map data as well as the trends in activity over the last year.

I am far less likely to believe your argument of "nuh-uh". If you can provide some meaningful counters to the reasoning he has laid out, then please do so. Otherwise, you're really not contributing much to the conversation.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I have no idea who ChicagoBlue is. We do know who Satelliteracer is (well we know he is THE source for actual info). Sat says we are not yet at capacity and that more channels are coming. I see no reason to doubt him.


I truly cannot find this post. Please link it and I will gladly denounce CB's posts as unreliable.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I have no idea who ChicagoBlue is. We do know who Satelliteracer is (well we know he is THE source for actual info). Sat says we are not yet at capacity and that more channels are coming. I see no reason to doubt him.





BattleScott said:


> I truly cannot find this post. Please link it and I will gladly denounce CB's posts as unreliable.


Really? 


Satelliteracer said:


> I think many experts in capacity would disagree with your statement. * D* is darn close to using 200 HD channels of capacity TODAY.* Not quite there, but darn close.


Darn close means room is left.


Satelliteracer said:


> ... So I'll repeat, more HD is coming but dates will be TBD. Sorry guys, just the way it is, but more HD is coming.





Satelliteracer said:


> It's an extreme view. I work with the man often and assure you this idea that some here have presented as if Directv has stopped adding HD is inaccurate. More HD is coming and will continue to come. It may not be in the timeline some of you want because these things are much more complex than most consumers understand, but HD will continue to be added.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Really?
> 
> Darn close means room is left.


OK, I am obviously mistaken.

ChicagoBlue, you are a liar and a fraud. Officially, DirecTV is only "Darn Close" to using all their available capacity! There is no reason to think that capacity would be an issue at this time because we know for a fact that there are at least 10-15 channels in a "darn-close", probably. And if that's not enough for you, SR has definitively stated "More is coming!". Of course, we are not exactly sure of the go live dates, but it should be obvious to you that "TBD" stands for something imminent, perhaps *T*esting *B*eing *D*one or some other such official pre-launch status. If you were really as inside as you make yourself out to be, you would have known these things.

Please stop spreading you malicious mis-information, I almost bought into it!!!! 

p.s.: Every word in this post is laced with saracasm with the exception of the 10-15 channels in a "darn-close". That one is in the marketing encyclopedia...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> OK, I am obviously mistaken.
> 
> ChicagoBlue, you are a liar and a fraud. Officially, DirecTV is only "Darn Close" to using all their available capacity! There is no reason to think that capacity would be an issue at this time because we know for a fact that there are at least 10-15 channels in a "darn-close", probably. And if that's not enough for you, SR has definitively stated "More is coming!". Of course, we are not exactly sure of the go live dates, but it should be obvious to you that "TBD" stands for something imminent, perhaps *T*esting *B*eing *D*one or some other such official pre-launch status. If you were really as inside as you make yourself out to be, you would have known these things.
> 
> ...


And there goes a reasonable discussion. I'll end with this...No one said capacity isn't an issue, but you have taken the idea that a few slots left and not at capacity to mean it's full. Carry on...


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> And there goes a reasonable discussion. I'll end with this...No one said capacity isn't an issue, but you have taken the idea that a few slots left and not at capacity to mean it's full. Carry on...


When someone starts nit-picking posts and trying to claim there is any discernable difference between full and "darn close" to full in the context of adding large numbers of HD channels that are currently missing, the discussion was never reasonable to begin with.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> When someone starts nit-picking posts and trying to claim there is any discernable difference between full and "darn close" to full in the context of adding large numbers of HD channels that are currently missing, the discussion was never reasonable to begin with.


...you don't believe that there is a difference between full and not full?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you don't believe that there is a difference between full and not full?


If I ask two people if I should expect to see additions of basic HD channels on the order of 10-15 channels in the next few months and 1 says "can't do it, we're full" and the other doesn't really say anything about if or when, but does say they are "darn-close to full", no I don't see any real difference there. Either way means the gap won't soon be closed.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> If I ask two people if I should expect to see additions of basic HD channels on the order of 10-15 channels in the next few months and 1 says "can't do it, we're full" and the other doesn't really say anything about if or when, but does say they are "darn-close to full", no I don't see any real difference there. Either way means the gap won't soon be closed.


The only person you should be asking is Satelliteracer. Folks who have to take educated guesses on what DirecTV's true capacity is will gladly and thankfully provide their best estimates. Someone, like Satelliteracer, isn't going to do so because that information is not for public consumption.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> The only person you should be asking is Satelliteracer. Folks who have to take educated guesses on what DirecTV's true capacity is will gladly and thankfully provide their best estimates. Someone, like Satelliteracer, isn't going to do so because that information is not for public consumption.


Well, that's who I *HAVE* been asking, but you and another poster seem to want to reply on his behalf all the time.

Incidentally, he was one of the 2 mentioned above.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"BattleScott" said:


> Well, that's who I HAVE been asking, but you and another poster seem to want to reply on his behalf all the time.
> 
> Incidentally, he was one of the 2 mentioned above.


You were trying to tie his comments to Chicago's. You were trying to claim that they are both near and at capacity simultaneously. You also mentioned that they claim to have 170 HD channels and they don't. I'm just trying to make sense of yours posts today because they have been all over the map and they usually are not.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

So, more HD is coming. Channels to be decided.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

If DirecTV hasn't added all the basic HD channels I want by the time my contract is up (just under a year now), then I'll probably switch to Dish Network too. I mean come on DirecTV, when I left Time Warner Cable OVER a year ago they had WAY more HD channels than DirecTV today and WAY more premiums, I just couldn't stand the slow cable boxes anymore.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> You were trying to tie his comments to Chicago's. You were trying to claim that they are both near and at capacity simultaneously. You also mentioned that they claim to have 170 HD channels and they don't. I'm just trying to make sense of yours posts today because they have been all over the map and they usually are not.


No I am not trying to tie his comments to anyones, I am simply trying to get either a confirmation or denial of the statements made by ChicagoBlue. You are trying to derail the conversation by starting senseless word games about how "near" and "at" are not the same thing. In the context of does directv have the available capacity at this time to add an appreciable amount of the 10-15 basic HD channels that are being carried by others, they are essentially the same thing. ChicagoBlue says NO they do not, SR has indicated that they are "darn close" to using 200 channels worth of capacity and has in no way directly contradicted ChicagoBlue's assertions in either thread that they are BOTH participating in. Unless he does so, I am inclined to believe that what ChicagoBlue has posted is true and I will take that into consideration as I evaluate my options.

As for you assertion that I am making up the 170 HD channels, please refer to this link and the current TV spots using that number.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/technology/hd


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"BattleScott" said:


> No I am not trying to tie his comments to anyones, I am simply trying to get either a confirmation or denial of the statements made by ChicagoBlue. You are trying to derail the conversation by starting senseless word games about how "near" and "at" are not the same thing. In the context of does directv have the available capacity at this time to add an appreciable amount of the 10-15 basic HD channels that are being carried by others, they are essentially the same thing. ChicagoBlue says NO they do not, SR has indicated that they are "darn close" to using 200 channels worth of capacity and has in no way directly contradicted ChicagoBlue's assertions in either thread that they are BOTH participating in. Unless he does so, I am inclined to believe that what ChicagoBlue has posted is true and I will take that into consideration as I evaluate my options.
> 
> As for you assertion that I am making up the 170 HD channels, please refer to this link and the current TV spots using that number.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/technology/hd


Check the link. It says more than 170. This has been pointed out many times.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Check the link. It says more than 170. This has been pointed out many times.


So if there is a capacity requirement beyond the full time HD channels for NFL-ST, NASCAR, etc. etc., how exactly does that change things for the better from a current usage point of view?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

SR says that they are close to using all of their capacity currently. However, he did not say how they were using it all, and if that use was permanent. If DirecTV wants to add more channels they can most likely free up some of that capacity to do so. They can take down PPV channels to make room (like they just did last week), or they could possibly free up the transponders that are currently being used to push On-Demand content and use those for linear channels. Nobody knows if those push transponders are going to be permanently assigned to doing that, they might just be using them to test the functionality right now until they need them for other things.

Now just because I have posted this don't expect this to be 100% true either. Don't expect SatelliteRacer to agree, disagree, prove me wrong, etc. just because I have posted this. He does not have time to respond to every post on here that claims to know what is going on.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> There is no reason to rely on that mis-information when those that do work for them are posting what the true capacity is.


Who would that be?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Who would that be?


You, and apparently ChicagoBlue. If not a current DirecTV employee, he certainly seems to have a very involved understanding of their HD capacity usage.

As the only one I know for sure IS a DirecTV employee: Do you reject his assertions that given the current allocations for Full-time HD, PPV, NFL-ST, NASCAR, etc., DirecTV does not have sufficient available capacity at this time to add the 10-15 basic HD channels that they are lacking?


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

BattleScott said:


> You, and apparently ChicagoBlue. If not a current DirecTV employee, he certainly seems to have a very involved understanding of their HD capacity usage.
> 
> As the only one I know for sure IS a DirecTV employee: Do you reject his assertions that given the current allocations for Full-time HD, PPV, NFL-ST, NASCAR, etc., DirecTV does not have sufficient available capacity at this time to add the 10-15 basic HD channels that they are lacking?


Two things. I am not a DTV employee, never claimed to be one. Like many other comments you have made here, you seem to not always understand the nuance of comprehension. I apologize to the moderators if those are tough words, but this particular poster and a few others repeatedly go down this path. Then they claim DTV or others are lying and the irony is pretty thick.

Secondly, I said DTV doesn't have the capacity to add 10 to 15 basic channels, but I never said they couldn't add a few. I believe SR, Tom Roberton and others have correctly pointed out that any of these distributors have to be smart with their bandwidth. It is why Comcast just moved some hbo and showtime channels off their linear service. It is probably one of the reasons why U-verse did away with ESPn3d (though dollars and cents were the key driver I assure you).

I'm in the industry. I know the capacity constraints of a number of providers because that's what I do. DTV is a very smart company. 66th straight quarter of subscriber growth announced today. No one compares to that kind of growth in the television space....NO ONE. Dish has had 4 or 5 negative sub quarters just in the last 10 to 12 quarters. Cable is getting the piss knocked out of them. DTV will uses their capacity to fit their customer base and drive their profitable products. They are a for profit company. If you do not like the way they are using their bandwidth....leave. It could not be any more simple for some of you.

I suspect they will add a few HD channels more this year and more next year, especially if they can find a way to add some capacity. They are likely working on that very situation.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

BattleScott said:


> I saw a recent commercial touting 170 HD Channels. With a capacity of "Up to 200", how is there not any capacity?
> Furthermore, Derek Chang himself cited lack of desire as the reason for not adding them, not any lack of capcity.
> Even furthermore, there appears to be adequate capacity for adding Premium HD channels.


There is so much you don't understand and you continue to extrapolate incorrect thoughts. Throughout this thread. Deeper into the cul de sac you go.

A number of people here have corrected you, I won't do the same thing. It should be clear, however, that you should take a bit more time to read what people are actually saying. What press releases ACTUALLY say. What commercials ACTUALLY say. Words have meaning.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

peano said:


> Dead slow outdated receivers doesn't help either (except perhaps the HR24 which they also managed to sabotage).
> 
> I can fully understand why the OP switched.


I don't have a problem with any of my recievers. If you're too impatient to wait 2 or 3 seconds for a channel or menu selection, then you're the one with the problem!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Two things. I am not a DTV employee, never claimed to be one. Like many other comments you have made here, you seem to not always understand the nuance of comprehension. I apologize to the moderators if those are tough words, but this particular poster and a few others repeatedly go down this path. Then they claim DTV or others are lying and the irony is pretty thick.
> 
> Secondly, I said DTV doesn't have the capacity to add 10 to 15 basic channels, but I never said they couldn't add a few. I believe SR, Tom Roberton and others have correctly pointed out that any of these distributors have to be smart with their bandwidth. It is why Comcast just moved some hbo and showtime channels off their linear service. It is probably one of the reasons why U-verse did away with ESPn3d (though dollars and cents were the key driver I assure you).
> 
> ...


I would say the same thing to you. I am the only poster in this thread who hasn't dismissed your posts as mis-information from an unreliable source.

I am currently evaluating a move to AT&T from DirecTV and ONE of the reasons is that they are falling behind in the basic HD channels. They have MOST of what I want, but there are several they are not currently carrying that I would like to have and CAN get with AT&T. To this point I assumed that they had the capcitiy to add the channels but simply weren't focused on them at this particular time.

However, your comments opened my eyes to a situation that I hadn't considered which is that they simply cannot add all of the ones I DO want. That gives me even more reason to consider the switch.

From that point, I have done nothing but to try and get some sort of confirmation of your statements. But, if you feel like attacking me instead of everyone who said you were wrong and I shouldn't pay attention to your mis-information, that's fine. I don't know you and could not care less about your opinion of me. I have gotten the information that I needed.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

This thread has long run its course, jumped the bank, and is heading into territory that is better served in the HD anticipation thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194351

So this thread is closed.


----------

