# DirecTV 2nd Qtr Earnings call 2PM EDT (8-9-2007)



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

If you're interested, here's the link to the D* site so you can listen, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-IRHome


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks RAD:

The DIRECTV Group Announces Second Quarter 2007 Results



> DIRECTV Group Revenues Increase 17% to over $4.1 Billion
> 
> DIRECTV U.S. Revenues Increase 12% to $3.7 Billion Fueled by Average Monthly Revenue Per Subscriber (ARPU) Growth of 6.8% to $76.43
> DIRECTV Latin America Revenues More Than Double to $409 Million
> ...


To see the rest of the announcement: *DirecTV Investor Relations*


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Thanks RAD:
> 
> The DIRECTV Group Announces Second Quarter 2007 Results[/URL][/B]


Wall Street Journal article

and comments from Chase in Swanni's blurb


> "In light of the rapidly growing demand for advanced services in the United States, it is particularly exciting to look ahead a couple of months when we leapfrog the competition by offering up to 100 national HD channels," Carey said. "We believe our HD line-up will provide DIRECTV U.S. with a significant competitive advantage in the rapidly growing market for HD television. Consumers are passionate about HD and DIRECTV will be the clear choice for anyone looking for the best HD television experience."


and Liberty Media's Forbes report

might as well get Clearwire as well


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I'll be listenting so long as I don't get some user with a problem. 

Also noted that they had huge growth in HD DVR receivers and subs. So much for HR10 users "holding back" and waiting. I'll bet HR20 receivers activated dwarf the number of HR10's by now.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> I'll be listenting so long as I don't get some user with a problem.
> 
> Also noted that they had huge growth in HD DVR receivers and subs. So much for HR10 users "holding back" and waiting. I'll bet HR20 receivers activated dwarf the number of HR10's by now.


I agree with on the HR 10 users I used to be one of them that would never switch but I did and have no regrets


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Steve Robertson said:


> I agree with on the HR 10 users I used to be one of them that would never switch but I did and have no regrets


Yep. My comment was actually a dig on some of the recent threads on TCF where a few think that if enough HR10 owners "hold out" that DirecTV will reconsider and go back to Tivo. It's a funny read.

And heeeeeere we go!


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

I use to go to the TCF all the time haven't been there for months maybe I ill go back and get a good laugh.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Huge note on Advanced Products and how strong it is.

4 times as many current customers upgrading to the HD DVR in Q2 07 from Q2 06.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Very strong growth with advanced products and HD DVR (HR20).

Bigger expenses due to lot of MPEG2 swaps.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

What that 5 Million HD & HD DVR subscribers? or 5 Million HD and DVR subscribers (aka... advanced product subscribers)


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

it was 5 million hd and dvr subs


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

50% more HD and HD DVR additions then a year ago. (i.e. lots of new H20 or HR20).

5 million HD subscribers.

Again mentioning strong HD DVR upgrades.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Agreements with 90 HD channels.

Launch with 70 HD channels by end of 3rd quarter.

Should get to 100 by end of the year.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

gpg said:


> it was 5 million hd and dvr subs


I thought it was just HD subs which suprised me. We'll see in the transcript.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

VOD for fall. Lots of titles. Said hard drive based and sat.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Once again they confirmed no cost increase due to the new HD.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

"No programming cost increase due to HD"

Important... A lot of people will like to hear this... It won't cost DirecTV so why would they increase our access fee?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

And they've been saying it since CES but people for some reason don't believe them so I think they have to keep saying it. 

Personally I think there might be a slight increase in March. Maybe to $12-15 or something, but it won't be anything major. If as they said it's not costing them any more on the programming cost side then they don't need to raise rates to recover an increase in programming cost, might as well keep it low and cheaper then anyone else. It'll look good if they have double the HD channels at half the cost.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Any PQ questions come up yet?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> 4 times as many current customers upgrading to the HR20 in Q2 07 from Q2 06.


Not at all surprising given that the HR20 wasn't available until Q3 06.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Not expecting much of a change in strategy with Liberty.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

harsh said:


> Not at all surprising given that the HR20 wasn't available until Q3 06.


I should have posted it HDDVR, not HR20. I will correct.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> Not at all surprising given that the HR20 wasn't available until Q3 06.


Good point maybe he was refering to the Tivo box as far as upgrades go.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Again, 70 channels by fall and 100 by year end.

D11 to launch end of year/January 08 which will give full capacity up to 150.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Steve Robertson said:


> Good point maybe he was refering to the Tivo box as far as upgrades go.


Right. So 4 times as many people are upgrading to the HR20 then were upgrading to the HR10 last year. Of course HD adoption is much higher today. But still, it's in implication of how many HR20s are out there vs. Tivo which the TCF folks seem to keep thinking that there aren't many HR20s out there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> Personally I think there might be a slight increase in March. Maybe to $12-15 or something, but it won't be anything major.


The ARPU numbers are high and rising fast.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

VOD via broadband and sat will be totally integrated into the guide and the user exerience and easy to use.

Plan on promoting it and educating customers on how to use it.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

And that's it, call is over.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

Most of the stuff today we already know... Would have liked to hear a more definitive activation date for D10.

Good to hear that they are being so agressive in HD going onward.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Right. So 4 times as many people are upgrading to the HR20 then were upgrading to the HR10 last year. Of course HD adoption is much higher today. But still, it's in implication of how many HR20s are out there vs. Tivo which the TCF folks seem to keep thinking that there aren't many HR20s out there.


I feel bad for those with Tivo just trying to hang on. I loved my Tivo box but like this one better for the most part. I guess it is their choice not to move and receive the new channels. To each his own I guess.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

VeniceDre said:


> Most of the stuff today we already know... Would have liked to hear a more definitive activation date for D10.
> 
> Good to hear that they are being so agressive in HD going onward.


They won't have a more definitive activation date, until D10 gets into it's final slot...

So probably in the next 2-3 weeks, we should hear about some "light up" dates


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> They won't have a more definitive activation date, until D10 gets into it's final slot...
> 
> So probably in the next 2-3 weeks, we should hear about some "light up" dates


Yeah, i know, but it would have been nice to hear some rough target date other than by the end of 3rd Qtr.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

VeniceDre said:


> Yeah, i know, but it would have been nice to hear some rough target date other than by the end of 3rd Qtr.


End of Q3 is Septemember.... so it still appears everything is still on track for September.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> End of Q3 is Septemember.... so it still appears everything is still on track for September.


Yeah, I know...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

VeniceDre said:


> Would have liked to hear a more definitive activation date for D10.


There's a reason that they test these things. Giving out dates before testing has begun would be wholly irresponsible (even for a marketroid).


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

D* needs to explain better why there is an upfront charge for their box while cable co boxes are free.

I know people who would not subscribe to D* because of that.

The question was asked during the conference call and IMO Chase Carey did not give a convincing explanation.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Alexandrepsf said:


> DTV needs to do explain better why there is an upfront charge for their box while cable co does not.
> 
> I know people who would not subscribe to D* because of that.
> 
> The question was asked during the conference call and IMO Chase Carey did not give a convincing explanation.


Simple:

DirecTV's cost is up front with less monthly.
Cable is no cost up front with a lot more monthly.

Either way they both get you but with cable you keep on paying forever. At least with DirecTV the pain is over right away and the longer you have it the more value you get out of it.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> There's a reason that they test these things. Giving out dates before testing has begun would be wholly irresponsible (even for a marketroid).


Yeah, I know...


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Simple:
> 
> DirecTV's cost is up front with less monthly.
> Cable is no cost up front with a lot more monthly.
> ...


We usually do not see the pain in time, what hurts in present is what matters the most. That is why I am saying that they need to explain it much better.


----------



## jdjacks10 (Jul 28, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Simple:
> 
> DirecTV's cost is up front with less monthly.
> Cable is no cost up front with a lot more monthly.
> ...


Explain how D* is cheaper please because the way I see it cable is cheaper for one box.

Cable: I get to lease the box for free, 11.95 for HD-DVR.
D*: I pay XXX price for the HD-DVR box, I have to pay 10 bucks for HD and 5 bucks for dvr.

So, by the way i view it, I am paying more overall for D* just for that one box. Now D* is cheaper if I have more then one box which D* is cheaper by far.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I agree that the $299 charge scares people off. Someone at BB or CC looking at a new HDTV will see that price, call cable and just hear no upfront charge, not looking at long term costs. Maybe D* should look at charging $12.46 per month for 24 months (same as the commitment term) for folks that don't want to pay upfront?


----------



## jdjacks10 (Jul 28, 2007)

RAD said:


> I agree that the $299 charge scares people off. Someone at BB or CC looking at a new HDTV will see that price, call cable and just hear no upfront charge, not looking at long term costs. Maybe D* should look at charging $12.46 per month for 24 months (same as the commitment term) for folks that don't want to pay upfront?


why charge to lease the box when cable does not???? Maybe I am still confused, i dunno.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

jdjacks10 said:


> why charge to lease the box when cable does not???? Maybe I am still confused, i dunno.


My girlfriend was paying something like 15.00 a month per HD DVR with cable... $30.00 a month just to have 2. Plus there were additional charges for different HD programming. Plus she had to put down 2 $75.00 deposits on both boxes.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jdjacks10 said:


> Explain how D* is cheaper please because the way I see it cable is cheaper for one box.
> 
> Cable: I get to lease the box for free, 11.95 for HD-DVR.
> D*: I pay XXX price for the HD-DVR box, I have to pay 10 bucks for HD and 5 bucks for dvr.
> ...


Well... this is a quick look at COMCAST for me here in southburbs of Chicago:

Digital Preferred: $67.48
DVR Monthly Fee: $11.99
HD Monthly Fee: $7.00
Total: $86.47

DirecTV PLUS HD DVR Package: $69.99 monthly

Install One Time Fees:
Comcast; DVR $17.99 and HD $17.99 = $35.98
Comcast Install - $7.00 for Self Install, $28.99 for install with existing wiring, $44.99 without existing wiring

DirecTV: Generally no extra fee for installs (some cases may be exception)
Up front fees: (for HD DVR) $99 - $299 (or even $19.99 or free) depending on situation.

So with a $17 different per month.

And anywhere between:
$42 more for Comcast;
~$50 (if $99 for HD-DVR, and Self-Install for Comcast) 4 months to make up differents
~ $250 (if $299 for HD-DVR, and self-install for comcast) 1 yearish to make up difference.

And as you said... those differences are magnified depending on which options you pick.

So that is ONE market look at it... and this is just based of basic info from the websites; doesn't account for any promotions, credits, discounts, and different cable-co's... that very from city to city.


----------



## jdjacks10 (Jul 28, 2007)

VeniceDre said:


> My girlfriend was paying something like 15.00 a month per HD DVR with cable... $30.00 a month just to have 2. Plus there were additional charges for different HD programming. Plus she had to put down 2 $75.00 deposits on both boxes.


Maybe I am just lucky for the prices I pay for HD-DVR with cable because i didnt have to put down any deposit.

Now, it would be way cheaper for me to switch to D* if I wanted more then one box. Cable charges after the first box is way too much especially if you want and extra HD-DVR. I think it would cost me an extra 20 bucks a month to get an extra HD-DVR. D* just charges the 4.99 fee which is a huge plus for D*.

I guess when I find my own place (HR-21 should be out) Ill make the switch over to D*. Until then, I guess I will just stick with my basics with NFLST.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jdjacks10 said:


> why charge to lease the box when cable does not????


If they didn't charge a drive-off fee, everyone would want the top box. The cable model that I'm familiar with (Comcast) charges you a pretty hefty sum for each increment of functionality:

1. $0 No box
2. $9.99/month Digital receiver
3. $19.94/month Digital DVR

My local Comcast also charges an up-front fee of $15.99 each for HD and DVR services.

DIRECTV charges $5/month regardless of the functionality of the box and $5.99/month for DVR service for the entire household.

Finally, Comcast charges $28.99 for a prewired install or $45.99 for a ground-up install.

Obviously, promotions change everything, but if you compare the $19.94 a month with the $10.99 that you would pay for the HR20, it doesn't take long to buy down the up-front costs. The more receivers you add with Comcast, the worse it gets.


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Alexandrepsf said:


> D* needs to explain better why there is an upfront charge for their box while cable co boxes are free.
> 
> I know people who would not subscribe to D* because of that.
> 
> The question was asked during the conference call and IMO Chase Carey did not give a convincing explanation.


It is like any big business if it makes the company look bad they dance around the question and never answer it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Really... what is there to explain?

The price is what it is.... 
Why is an iPhone $500? 

It is what it is... and no company really has to explain WHY they charge what they do.. (Why is the monthly rate what it is?)

What are you expecting them to say?
"Well thanks for asking... it costs about $350 to build the unit... add on marketing and developmenet costs.... so we want $299 from you up front to cover most of those costs, and we will get the rest from you from your monthly fees...."

Come on...


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Ok explain this, if it is what it is then why, depending on what CR you talk to, do u get quoted a different price?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wilmot3 said:


> Ok explain this, if it is what it is then why, depending on what CR you talk to, do u get quoted a different price?


The glorious game of CSR Roulette...

As for a practical answer for you... no idea.


----------



## jdjacks10 (Jul 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Really... what is there to explain?
> 
> The price is what it is....
> Why is an iPhone $500?
> ...


You cant compare an Iphone and a HR20. You actually* buy* the Ipohone where you *lease *the HR20.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jdjacks10 said:


> You cant compare an Iphone and a HR20. You actually* buy* the Ipohone where you *lease *the HR20.


I am not comparing the "ownership" status...

But the notion, you just can't "ask" Apple, why they charge what they charge.


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

In my opinion it is bu** there should be a set price across the board. It shouldn't depend on what kind of day they r having or if it is raining outside.


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

just using this for an example. You could get one off e-bay cheaper than you can "lease" one, and own it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wilmot3 said:


> just using this for an example. You could get one off e-bay cheaper than you can "lease" one, and own it.


Not an HR20 you can't...
Unless you are paying over $800 and can PROVE that it was paid to an authorized dealer... it will be activated as a LEASE, and at least with the HR20... you will have a very difficult time getting it changed to owned status.

Extreme caution should be used on any eBAY auction that tells you otherwise.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well... this is a quick look at COMCAST for me here in southburbs of Chicago:
> 
> Digital Preferred: $67.48
> DVR Monthly Fee: $11.99
> ...


Seriously Earl, what the heck are you talking about?

Comcast in our area is $59 or $62 depending on if you want Encore movie channels and a couple of others added to your digital package. There are no additional charges for HD channels, they come with both of the packages. They also offer more HD content than D*. In terms of equipment, you can rent their HD dvr for $12, or you can buy your own dvr, like a Sony DHG, which you can't do with D*, and pay nothing every month. I think you also failed to mention that D* requires a 2 year contract, which none of the other providers require. Also, with cablecards, Comcast only charges $1.50 a piece after the first one which is free. Much cheaper than additional D* receivers.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Others here have done the math but Charter charges $14 a month for DVR, $7 extra for HD and some mystery extra $3 for HD. So $24 a month *per HD DVR*.
I think I'll stick with my $10.99 a month from DirecTV. 

And one thing, if it's your only receiver you'd only pay the DVR fee from DirecTV as the $5 mirror fee doesn't apply to only one receiver.

So Cable = $24 a month
DirecTV = $5.99 a month plus $0-$299 up front.
Doesn't take long for that extra $18 a month with cable to add up to the up front price you gave DirecTV and that $18 a month keeps on going well past the time you would have paid for your up front cost.

Oh yea, Charter also charges $40 per HDDVR up front "installation" fee.

Hey, if you have a cable provider that is cheap with their HD DVR costs more power to ya. Glad you have the choice. Most of us do not.

Anyway, let's get back on topic, shall we?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Seriously Earl, what the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Comcast in our area is $59 or $62 depending on if you want Encore movie channels and a couple of others added to your digital package. There are no additional charges for HD channels, they come with both of the packages. They also offer more HD content than D*. In terms of equipment, you can rent their HD dvr for $12, or you can buy your own dvr, like a Sony DHG, which you can't do with D*, and pay nothing every month. I think you also failed to mention that D* requires a 2 year contract, which none of the other providers require. Also, with cablecards, Comcast only charges $1.50 a piece after the first one which is free. Much cheaper than additional D* receivers.


Attached is the screen after selecting the options on Comcast.com

I had to select Digital Prefered to be given the HD option (it may have worked for the next one down, that was $3 less)

Is says right on the screen (if I wanted HD) $7...maybe that is a rental fee for the HD box, but wouldn't that be a fee to have HD?
Or then if it is $11.99 isn't that a built in fee then to gain "access" to the HD programming? in essance, a fee for HD?

So if you went with TiVo 3 (or the HD), you would have to add $1.50, or $3 per DVR...plus the TiVo Service fee (Which should be factored into the overall cost)....
And then of course, you have the upfront cost of purchasing that hardware.....

Yah Yah Yah... the 2 year contract thing...
That wasn't the discussion though.... if you have to "break" your contract, yes there is a cost to that... but in that 2 years.. .you would end up paying more, with the company you were not under contract to get.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

heisman said:


> Seriously Earl, what the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Comcast in our area is $59 or $62 depending


Every single town has different rates. In my area take 3 different communities that have Comcast. All 3 have different rates. One is pretty advanced with HD and broadband. The other just got broadband and only had a couple HD channels. The 3rd *just* upgraded to digital and doesn't know how to spell HD let along has any.

Same can be said for the Charter and TWC systems. Every town/city is different in their offers and prices.

Some areas have competitive cable service. But the vast majority do not.

As I stated, if you are lucky to have a good cable company then rock on.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Huge note on Advanced Products and how strong it is.
> 
> 4 times as many current customers upgrading to the HD DVR in Q2 07 from Q2 06.


Q2 06 all they had was the HR10 and they had their "fire sale" going on. The HR20 wasn't even out. They better have 4 times the customers upgrading Q2 07.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Once again they confirmed no cost increase due to the new HD.


In January 06 they also said there would be no price increase when cable & Dish were announcing their increases. Then in March 06 we all got a rate hike. Making a statement like that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

So they actually said 100 national HD channels by EOY? What channels are we talking about? There aren't 100 are there? Are we talking about QVC-HD and the Paint Drying Channel in HD?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Attached is the screen after selecting the options on Comcast.com
> 
> I had to select Digital Prefered to be given the HD option (it may have worked for the next one down, that was $3 less)
> 
> ...


Must be the power of the franchise agreement or something. In Crestwood, we get all the HD channels with either of the digital plans for no extra charge. Both of your options are $6 more than mine just for the digital packages. $7 is their charge for a non-dvr HD box, so that's what I think it is. The Tivo, as you mentioned, has an extra fee, but the Sony DHG, which I own, is free and only requires one cable card which is also free. My point was that you have the option with other providers to pay nothing up front and then something on the back end, or something up front and nothing on the back end. D* charges both up front and on the back end.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> And they've been saying it since CES but people for some reason don't believe them so I think they have to keep saying it.
> 
> Personally I think there might be a slight increase in March. Maybe to $12-15 or something, but it won't be anything major. If as they said it's not costing them any more on the programming cost side then they don't need to raise rates to recover an increase in programming cost, might as well keep it low and cheaper then anyone else. It'll look good if they have double the HD channels at half the cost.


A 20% - 50% cost increase isn't major?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am not comparing the "ownership" status...
> 
> But the notion, you just can't "ask" Apple, why they charge what they charge.


Actually, they ask that all the time of Apple.

If the question is just being asked to "justify" the price...then...the company really just needs to say "We priced it at where we thought it would fit within the market..."

The more important question for this type of meeting is

"Do you think that charging an upfront fee is affecting customer acquisition and conversion rates?"
-------------
The reality is that most of these companies really don't want potential or existing customers to be able to easily compare actual prices and rather focus them on come-on or "starter" pricing.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Ken S said:


> A 20% - 50% cost increase isn't major?


Oh come on. 2 bucks isn't major. Besides the fact I pulled it out of my arss.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bto4wd said:


> In January 06 they also said there would be no price increase when cable & Dish were announcing their increases. Then in March 06 we all got a rate hike. Making a statement like that doesn't mean anything.


Ummm, the question was would there be an increase when they add new HD channels. The answer, as it always has been is no.

Anybody with half a brain should expect an increase in March.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Must be the power of the franchise agreement or something. In Crestwood, we get all the HD channels with either of the digital plans for no extra charge. Both of your options are $6 more than mine just for the digital packages. $7 is their charge for a non-dvr HD box, so that's what I think it is. The Tivo, as you mentioned, has an extra fee, but the Sony DHG, which I own, is free and only requires one cable card which is also free. My point was that you have the option with other providers to pay nothing up front and then something on the back end, or something up front and nothing on the back end. D* charges both up front and on the back end.


Scary isn't it.... I am not even 15 miles from you... and there is that different of a price.

I guess at the end of the day... you can really only compare it as a "whole".
What you pay to get your equipment, and then what you pay a given month for semi-equivelent services... and then spread that over a time period.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Scary isn't it...


Actually, yeah!


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Can somebody do the math for me? EOY with D10 100 channels add D11 we only get 50 more channels. If D10 can do 100 why isn't there another 100 with D11? That means to me D* got plans for the other 50 channels?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Christopher Gould said:


> Can somebody do the math for me? EOY with D10 100 channels add D11 we only get 50 more channels. If D10 can do 100 why isn't there another 100 with D11? That means to me D* got plans for the other 50 channels?


There are 1,500 LOCALS that are not included in your calculations


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

But aren't the payloads the same on both D10 and D11. spot beams and transponders. Aren't these set and not transferable.


----------



## ejkuhl (Jun 11, 2007)

I see 2 major reasons D* charges what they do.

1. The price causes a slower rollout. If they were free, everyone would want one right now(OK not everyone but a huge amount). Imagine the backlog to get them if they were free and how many would be pissed off at having to wait 6 months or more.

2. If you have a large enough demand and you can charge a bit extra for it, its called being a good business decision.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Christopher Gould said:


> But aren't the payloads the same on both D10 and D11. spot beams and transponders. Aren't these set and not transferable.


It has to do with where DIRECTV puts the LILs. The majority of the 1500 HD-LILs are expected to be on D11, so DIRECTV will put X number of national HD channels on D11, and the balance on D10, which is lit up first.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

IMO the increased initial price also helps reduce the churn rate. D* doesn't have the monopoly price power of the local cable franchise, so the higher initial cost would make a person more commited. 

on that note one nice thing would be if you could actually test D* at the big box retailers. Buying sight unseen with that large initial expense is a little scary.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

The transcript is published:

http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/44085

The filing to move up the start date for D10 is here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-134304

Let me finish up some notes on the key points...

- Craig


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Christopher Gould said:


> Can somebody do the math for me? EOY with D10 100 channels add D11 we only get 50 more channels. If D10 can do 100 why isn't there another 100 with D11? That means to me D* got plans for the other 50 channels?


This has everything to do with how DIRECTV counts channels. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of LIL and CONUS as several have suggested.

DIRECTV counts channels in a way that allows for much less than an average of 24 hours per day of programming. Some "channels" will only be active for three hours a week or less. Taking advantage of this part-time situation, several channels can (and must) share the same bandwidth. DIRECTV 11 really will double the national HD channel capacity for simultaneous hours of programming.


----------



## hombresoto (Sep 10, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Really... what is there to explain?
> 
> The price is what it is....
> Why is an iPhone $500?
> ...


HR20's are available wholesale from Perfect 10 to dealers for $225, so I doubt it costs $350 to build. (there could be something going on behind closed doors here, maybe they do cost $350+ to build)
That's how I got my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hr20 months ago from perfect 10 for $225/ea. They were so nice to 'give' me the first one, after paying $800 some time ago for the hr10, which I could never stand, but I don't like Tivo, never have- obviously off-topic. That was almost as good as the upgrades for the 3 samsung mpeg 2 hd IRD's I paid $300 a pop for years ago. My choice. No one forced me to buy them, but it was sweet to be one of the few watching the sox win the 2004 world series in hd. My livingroom was packed! Anyway, i'm rambling, so I will shut up now


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

bto4wd said:


> So they actually said 100 national HD channels by EOY? What channels are we talking about? There aren't 100 are there? Are we talking about QVC-HD and the Paint Drying Channel in HD?


Who cares what they are... with that many channels, most SD channels will have HD counterparts.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

mhammett said:


> Who cares what they are... with that many channels, most SD channels will have HD counterparts.


You can't just take a SD channel and broadcast it in HD. Well, I guess you can, but if your channel doesn't have any HD production capabilities why bother? I really don't need to see GSN or TVLand in HD.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bto4wd said:


> You can't just take a SD channel and broadcast it in HD. Well, I guess you can, but if your channel doesn't have any HD production capabilities why bother? I really don't need to see GSN or TVLand in HD.


Folks run out and by up converting DVD players so they can get a 'better' PQ then a standard 480p image, I look at this as basically doing the same thing, it's not HD but it's better then SD.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

RAD said:


> Folks run out and by up converting DVD players so they can get a 'better' PQ then a standard 480p image, I look at this as basically doing the same thing, it's not HD but it's better then SD.


So is this what you're saying we have to look forward to? 100 national HD channels doing nothing more than broadcasting SD shows?

IMO, if a channel has no HD content to provide, don't bother starting a HD channel.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> IMO, if a channel has no HD content to provide, don't bother starting a HD channel.


Chicken and the Egg....

What do you have to have first... 
an certain amount of HD content or
a medium/network to get it out there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bto4wd said:


> So is this what you're saying we have to look forward to?


Until there is more HD programming available, there will be some channels that are almost entirely (if not entirely) upconverted SD programming. You have to get creative if you aren't going to carry the VOOM channels.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bto4wd said:


> So is this what you're saying we have to look forward to? 100 national HD channels doing nothing more than broadcasting SD shows?
> 
> IMO, if a channel has no HD content to provide, don't bother starting a HD channel.


Come on, even HDNet doesn't have enough content to fill 24x7x365 with 1080i 16:9 content (aka Hogan's Heros). Remember when the OTA networks started HD, you got maybe 2 or 3 hours a week in HD and look where things are at now. So while not all 24 hours per day will be native HD at least the SD stuff that they'll fill the rest of the day with will look a hell of a lot better then the SD channel with the same material. But if that doesn't float your boat, just stay with the SD channels until the HD channels make you happy.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

harsh said:


> Until there is more HD programming available, there will be some channels that are almost entirely (if not entirely) upconverted SD programming. You have to get creative if you aren't going to carry the VOOM channels.


Harsh, why are you insinuating that this is DirecTV's doing? These are *channels* and what they carry in % of HD is their business and they are the *exact same channels* that Dish will carry as well.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Harsh, why are you insinuating that this is DirecTV's doing? These are *channels* and what they carry in % of HD is their business and they are the *exact same channels* that Dish will carry as well.


I'd guess his point is that just because you broadcast in HD, doesn't mean you're broadcasting HD.

I believe what we all want is more channels that broadcast HD programming.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bto4wd said:


> I'd guess his point is that just because you broadcast in HD, doesn't mean you're broadcasting HD.
> 
> I believe what we all want is more channels that broadcast HD programming.


True. But then even ESPNHD, TNT HD and so forth aren't 100% HD. HBO and Showtime either. Nor are the networks. According to Harsh we should just can all these channels until they are 100% HD.

Personally I'll take Scifi HD even if all they show in HD are Atlantis and BSG. It's a start and it's programs that many people watch.

Man, this discussion is soooooo 2004 when ESPN was getting panned for just showing 2-3 games a week in HD. Uggggg. The argument is old and tired.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> True. But then even ESPNHD, TNT HD and so forth aren't 100% HD. HBO and Showtime either. Nor are the networks. According to Harsh we should just can all these channels until they are 100% HD.
> 
> Personally I'll take Scifi HD even if all they show in HD are Atlantis and BSG. It's a start and it's programs that many people watch.
> 
> Man, this discussion is soooooo 2004 when ESPN was getting panned for just showing 2-3 games a week in HD. Uggggg. The argument is old and tired.


But those networks are producing more and more HD content. That's good. Food Network, TLC and NG have a ton of HD programming. That's good. But simply broadcasting SD content on a HD signal, without doing any new programming does not make for a HD network. We'll see what we get, when we get it. Then we can applaud the good and pan the bad.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> But simply broadcasting SD content on a HD signal, without doing any new programming does not make for a HD network.


This is true, but SD sent on an HD channel looks so much better than the SD channel, that it is still worthwhile.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

paulman182 said:


> This is true, but SD sent on an HD channel looks so much better than the SD channel, that it is still worthwhile.


+1!

I look at it as the same thing as looking at an standard DVD played on my PS3, it gets upconveted and looks better then if it wasn't, and if I do pop a BD in then it gets even better. Anythings better then the over compressed/downrezed SD channels we have now. Heck some folks comment on how good Fox News Sunday looks in HD and it's only 16:9 upconveted 480.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Seems this thread has strayed from the topic a bit.  

I've updated the title to reflect that the call was two weeks ago to calm the confusion. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> Until there is more HD programming available, there will be some channels that are almost entirely (if not entirely) upconverted SD programming. You have to get creative if you aren't going to carry the VOOM channels.


I've noticed something Harsh. You're and E* customer, right? Why do you spend so much time on the D* forums putting down D*? I did a little impromptu survey of your posts. From the first two pages, you posted four times in general satellite forums, 12 times in E* related forums, and in the D* forums, 44 times.

_ONE hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the things to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."_


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> This is true, but SD sent on an HD channel looks so much better than the SD channel, that it is still worthwhile.


From that statement I'm guessing you would rather watch an X-Files episode on TNT-HD than the SD channel. I watch the SD channel as I hate how TNT stretches the picture. The quality is no different. IMO SD doesn't look any better on a HD channel than it does on a HD channel.

Of course that could also depend on which channel we're talking about and how much compression D* is adding to that SD channel.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> According to Harsh we should just can all these channels until they are 100% HD.


I said that some of the channels will have very little, if any, HD content. TWC won't even offer an HD feed until 2008.

I think that in this day and age, if a channel doesn't carry at least four hours a day of HD content, they ought to be offering the HD content to someone who does HD in earnest or they should be seeking content from those who have it. National Geographic HD has contracted with VOOM for HD content in an effort to beef up their HD.

Apologists often recall the early days of HD as why channels must necessarily start slow. I think that comparisons to a time when HDTV's sold for thousands of dollars and there were fewer than 100 HD cameras in existence pretty much went away when consumer gear to record or watch HDTV dropped below $1,500.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

man_rob said:


> Why do you spend so much time on the D* forums putting down D*?


The other areas just don't have enough hogwash.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> I said that some of the channels will have very little, if any, HD content. TWC won't even offer an HD feed until 2008.
> 
> I think that in this day and age, if a channel doesn't carry at least four hours a day of HD content, they ought to be offering the HD content to someone who does HD in earnest or they should be seeking content from those who have it. National Geographic HD has contracted with VOOM for HD content in an effort to beef up their HD.
> 
> Apologists often recall the early days of HD as why channels must necessarily start slow. I think that comparisons to a time when HDTV's sold for thousands of dollars and there were fewer than 100 HD cameras in existence pretty much went away when consumer gear to record or watch HDTV dropped below $1,500.


I like the 4 hour HD concept at this point in time. That seems reasonable.

I will say that it is still probably expensive to start up an HD production. Cameras are getting close to economical, but I suspect that all the other equipment necessary are not: switchers, character generators, video editors, etc. On the other hand, I reserve the right to be wrong. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

man_rob said:


> I've noticed something Harsh. You're and E* customer, right? Why do you spend so much time on the D* forums putting down D*? I did a little impromptu survey of your posts. From the first two pages, you posted four times in general satellite forums, 12 times in E* related forums, and in the D* forums, 44 times.
> 
> Maybe he's lonely! Not much happening over on the E* board to get excited about. :lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Badger said:


> Maybe he's lonely! Not much happening over on the E* board to get excited about. :lol:


Maybe he should be discussing about how there's been a number of outages the past couple of weeks on E*'s system that effected MANY customers loosing signal due to storms over their uplink center.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> This has everything to do with how DIRECTV counts channels. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of LIL and CONUS as several have suggested.
> 
> DIRECTV counts channels in a way that allows for much less than an average of 24 hours per day of programming. Some "channels" will only be active for three hours a week or less. Taking advantage of this part-time situation, several channels can (and must) share the same bandwidth. DIRECTV 11 really will double the national HD channel capacity for simultaneous hours of programming.


I guess my question is... Why do you care? You're supposedly a happy E* subscriber so why are you so interested in bashing D* every chance you get? Attention? Jealous of D*? What gives?

I'm a happy D* customer and I could care less what goes on at E*.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> The other areas just don't have enough hogwash.


Sour grapes, harsh?


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> The other areas just don't have enough hogwash.


Well you certainly bring more than your share of hogwash here! :hurah:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

man_rob said:


> Sour grapes, harsh?


Few places (maybe the HD disc thread) seem to offer as much WAG and ill-conceived speculation as the D* forums.

There is a lot of valuable information in these forums as well, but in the absence of authoritative facts, the forums seem to generate a lot of their own "facts". Those who post information that seems less desirable are treated rather poorly. Look at the beatings that ScoBuck has taken for relaying information from his source at DIRECTV.


----------

