# Many HDTV Owners Won’t Foot HD Subscription Bill



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*56% of HDTV owners don't subscribe to HD programming*

From TVWeek


> Last year, almost 30 million North American consumers ponied up the $1,000 or more for a new high-definition television set. But that extra $10 a month for the HD subscription service? Not so fast.
> 
> While about two in five U.S. television owners have a high-definition television, only 44% of the HDTV owners subscribe to a high-definition service package from their cable or satellite operator, U.K.-based ABI Research said in a report last week.
> 
> ...


www.tvweek.com


----------



## EXTACAMO (Apr 7, 2007)

Yep,

And as the cost of everything continues to rise the people who do subscribe to a HD package may also look at HD as a prime target for the budget axe. Or take a closer look at HD via OTA.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And probably why DirecTV's latest advertising campaign... plays on that exact fact.

I am curious on the survey questions...

The comments posted above, don't clearly state what was asked.

Was it:
-) Do you have an HDTV
-) Do you have HD service

Or
-) Do you have an HDTV
-) Do you have HD Service
-) Why don't you have HD Service
-) Is it the cost, or availability, ect......


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

If it gets to the point where the 10 or 15 dollars a month for HD puts a crimp in our budget, it's past time to suspend the account and live with whatever is available OTA.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

What HD subscription bill? 30 of my HD channels are fincluded at no additional charge with my digital subscription.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> What HD subscription bill? 30 of my HD channels are fincluded at no additional charge with my digital subscription.


i'd rather have 95 channels @ $9.99 than 30 channels included in an already overpriced package...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

95 channels? It's more like about 60 when you do real math, not D* math. But none the less, it's only a matter of time before I have the same HD channels on cable as the almighty DirecTV has. With 35 HD channels total currently, the Starz HD channels, the Disney HD channels and Weather Channel HD look like they're coming soon, that will push the count upwards of 45. Then Time Warner just needs to sign two more contracts, one with Viacom and another with Universal and boom, pretty much that just leaves a few oddball channels. Watch out DirecTV!


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I've been watching D* standard definition on my 37 inch AQOUS for over two years. I have the image zoomed to fill the screen width. The PQ ranges anywhere from OK to abysmal.

Am I too poor to buy HD service? Not exactly
Am I an uneducated consumer? Not really
Do I like the TV? Yes

The truth is, HD just doesn't matter to me. Maybe on an impulse I call someone for HD service. Or, maybe I won't.

--- CHAS


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I am sure at some point when the terms "SD" and "HD" cease to have any real meaning because all broadcasting will either be true 720p/1080i/1080p or upsampled to one of those resolutions, that the line-item charge for HD Access will go away. 

It will be the same as when the phone company stopped charging extra for touch-tone service.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

I have had my HDTV for over 2 years and no HD heck, just now putting up a better antenna to get all OTA's reliably. I expect this figure to go up the closer we get to next feb. Many are using the digital switchover as an excuse to go ahead and upgrade and, many of these people are not tech junkies who have not paid for HD before, many will not want to now. The digital switch over is going to work wonders for driving prices down.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> 95 channels? It's more like about 60 when you do real math, not D* math. But none the less, it's only a matter of time before I have the same HD channels on cable as the almighty DirecTV has. With 35 HD channels total currently, the Starz HD channels, the Disney HD channels and Weather Channel HD look like they're coming soon, that will push the count upwards of 45. Then Time Warner just needs to sign two more contracts, one with Viacom and another with Universal and boom, pretty much that just leaves a few oddball channels. Watch out DirecTV!


Let's not turn this into a "who has what" counting type thread... it isn't the point of the article. We can discuss that in anothe thread if you wish.

It doesn't even have to be a special "HD" pack.
I know people that have HDTV's... but don't want to spend the $75-$100 for an OTA Antenna, or want to upgrade anything about their receiver technology... (Digital Cable, HD Packages, or HD equipment).

They are just as the article said... intrested in the form factor of the newer TV's.... Wall Mounting, less room on need in the area to install, not as heavy... ect.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

The fact is, all the providers see HD subs as having deep pockets. You want HD, that's $10-$20 more. Oh, you want ALL the HD channels - that's $20 more. You have HD, you should have a DVR - that's $6-$10 more. There's lots of HD movies on the premium channels - that's $20-$30 more. ...


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

It boils down to a matter of personal preference.

My elderly neighbor buys a new Cadillac every year so she can
drive to the grocery store _once_ a week. What's the difference?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

They need to see how many of those not subscribing to cable/sat HD, are using OTA for local HD instead.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Let's face it ... analog SD looks crappy on most flat panel HD receivers. Digital SD or ED is somewhat better. Assuming an HD package costs an additional $10 a month, you could cut out two visits to Starbuck's for coffee or McDonald's for a few meals each month -- or forgo a few six packs of Blue Moon. :goofygrin !rolling


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And probably why DirecTV's latest advertising campaign... plays on that exact fact.
> 
> I am curious on the survey questions...
> 
> ...


According to ABI Research, the questions were:

Q2. How many, if any, of your TVs are high-definition (i.e., HDTV)?

Q19. Do you subscribe to a high-definition (HD) package from your pay TV operator? 

It is also interesting that the numbers in this survey (41% of US homes have an HD television and 23% subscribe to HD service from their cable/sat company) are very different from what Neilsen reported in November 2007 (link) where thay said 13.7% of US homes had an HD television and 11.3% received an HD signal.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Upstream said:


> According to ABI Research, the questions were:
> 
> Q2. How many, if any, of your TVs are high-definition (i.e., HDTV)?
> 
> ...


The survey doesn't account for OTA HD reception, then. Interesting


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I am sure at some point when the terms "SD" and "HD" cease to have any real meaning because all broadcasting will either be true 720p/1080i/1080p or upsampled to one of those resolutions, that the line-item charge for HD Access will go away.
> 
> It will be the same as when the phone company stopped charging extra for touch-tone service.


Your "phone company" scenario isn't quite accurate.

The phone company stopped charging for touch-tone service because it BENEFITTED them, believe it or not. While you are entering a number on your phone, a piece of equipment shared by others is tied up accepting your digits. Obviously, using touch-tone is a LOT faster than using a rotary dial, releasing the equipment quicker so it can process someone else's call, so they needed FEWER RESOURCES to wean everyone to touch-tone.

HDTV is just the opposite. MORE resources are required to offer it. MORE bandwidth on the satellites, MORE sophisticated receiving equipment, MORE complex/expensive dish antenna/multiswitch, etc.

It will be a LONG time before all those millions and millions of SD DirecTV boxes get upgraded and the MPEG2 programming ends.

Right now, every link in the supply chain is wringing their hands celebrating HDTV for it's ability to generate revenue. The TV store. The cable/satellite provider. The TV manufacturers. The TV accessory providers. All love that extra nickel in their tin cup and freely hold out the cup. Even the broadcasters are happy. MULTIPLE channels broadcast over one transmitter offering MULTIPLE commercials at the same time!!


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 1, 2005)

Most people buy that HD-TV because of the form factor not the potential PQ upgrade. They just want a 3 inch thick TV to replace the monsterous CRT in the living room. The other part is HD is confusing to the average person. The average person just does not understand about sending the TV a HD source vs a SD source. That and the average person well just does not care about PQ/SQ at all. I think all HD providers have a long up hill battle ahead to get people to switch over.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

ThomasM said:


> HDTV is just the opposite. MORE resources are required to offer it. MORE bandwidth on the satellites, MORE sophisticated receiving equipment, MORE complex/expensive dish antenna/multiswitch, etc.


You don't think it will be EASIER and BENEFIT the providers several years from now when there is no SD? Won't it use LESS bandwidth and be LESS complex to only offer HD?

Sounds like it will be BENEFICIAL to the providers to stop charging for HD and only charge for one (HD) type of channel. Just like it was beneficial to the phone companies to only charge for one (touch tone) type of service (even though SD TV's will still work and rotary phones still work).


----------

