# DIRECTV trails DISH, FIOS for "National and Local HD channels" on updated HD list



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

http://www.cnet.com/1990-7874_1-5108854-5.html

National and Local HD channels: This line is intended to give a true comparison between the various services' HD offerings. It includes all of the national (including premium channels like HBO) and local high-definition channels offered on each service, and specifically excludes pay-per-view channels, RSN networks and exclusives.

DIRECTV - 65
DISH - 68
FIOS - 83
CABLEVISION- 40
COMCAST - 22
TIMEWARNER - 50


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Cablevision has more than 40, they have 55 now, they added 15 channels in August! List is messed up.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

> *HD Regional Sports Networks*: Networks with generally exclusive rights to broadcast the live games of individual sports teams in a particular region. Satellite services offer numerous RSNs, but again only a few are usually available to any particular viewer in any one region--and in general a cable provider will offer a more-complete selection of RSNs to its regional subscribers. The chart differentiates between RSNs available in the NYC area and in other areas.


Here's the biggest area of difference .. I'm interested to know how cable provides a "more complete" selection  .. besides anyone can subscribe to the Sports pack and pick these up .. Blackout rules would apply to Cable just as much as they apply to DIRECTV.

Someone's just fudging the numbers to make their point .. not like we haven't seen that before :sure:


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The list over there while interesting reading is largely bogus...

The list is based on availability in NEW YORK CITY and has no bearing on the rest of the country... They show FOX NEWS HD as available nationally and it isn't on any system including FIOS.

This count, like most, is a matter of interpretation...


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

cforrest said:


> Cablevision has more than 40, they have 55 now, they added 15 channels in August! List is messed up.


Perhaps. But it's at least good to see 3rd parties comparing the providers in a way that is helpful to the consumer. The providers have all pretty much lost all credibility in being able to do their own channel counts.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Perhaps. But it's at least good to see 3rd parties comparing the providers in a way that is helpful to the consumer. The providers have all pretty much lost all credibility in being able to do their own channel counts.


I just checked my own area using a 3rd-Party comparision: http://www.whereishd.com/

Over-the-Air: 33 (not in my actual location as I've tried )
Comcast: 42
DIRECTV: 106
DISH: 88


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Yes, that one is great, because it is based on your location. It has the same potential for being out of date just like the cnet one, but at least it's an option for comparison's sake.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Who cares who has the most all I want is PQ as far as I am concerned D* has plenty of HD and more to come.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

It's not so much "who has the most" as it is "who has what I'm interested in". These charts make that easy to compare without getting mislead by bogus channel counts.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

DarinC said:


> It's not so much "who has the most" as it is "who has what I'm interested in". These charts make that easy to compare without getting mislead by bogus channel counts.


I will give you that I am just tired of commercials and threads claimimg one has more than the other in the end if you are happy wit h your provider who reaklly cares about the # of HD channels


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Looks like I was wrong with Cablevision, it has the channels added in August on the list, my bad! Nice list for those in NYC area though, but as pointed out PQ is a big factor. FIOS & D* will beat Cablevision in the HD PQ department IMO! The more HD the better though.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I just checked my own area using a 3rd-Party comparision: http://www.whereishd.com/
> 
> Over-the-Air: 33 (not in my actual location as I've tried )
> Comcast: 42
> ...


Did you take these out of that count? whereishd.com is notoriously inaccurate.

80 WCBSDT CBS 49% 
81 KCBSDT CBS 51% 
82 WNBCDT NBC 59% 
83 KNBCDT NBC 44% 
86 WABCDT ABC 56% 
87 KABCDT ABC 64% 
88 WNYWDT FOX 9% 
89 KTTVDT FOX 10%

Besides, the point of this count is to show channels most people are interested in ... not out of market RSN that are going to be 24hr infomercials anyway, or PPV ... if you go to the link all of that is listed as well. 

National and Local HD channels: This line is intended to give a true comparison between the various services' HD offerings. It *includes all of the national (including premium channels like HBO) and local high-definition channels *offered on each service, and specifically *excludes pay-per-view channels, RSN networks and exclusives*


----------



## tftc22 (Mar 30, 2007)

Subtract 1 from D*'s list. They don't actually carry Once Mexico HD, do they? (It is listed on their website, though.)


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

justlgi said:


> http://www.cnet.com/1990-7874_1-5108854-5.html
> 
> National and Local HD channels: This line is intended to give a true comparison between the various services' HD offerings. It includes all of the national (including premium channels like HBO) and local high-definition channels offered on each service, and specifically excludes pay-per-view channels, RSN networks and exclusives.
> 
> ...


Its not even correct for NY...it states that DIRECTV offers 4 HD locals when they offer 6.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

justlgi said:


> Besides, the point of this count is to show channels most people are interested in ... not out of market RSN that are going to be 24hr infomercials anyway, or PPV ... if you go to the link all of that is listed as well.


What if I don't care about HBO or Showtime? Can I take them off of the list, too? Heck, maybe I should chuck the TV and just call it zero HD across the board ..


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> The list over there while interesting reading is largely bogus...
> 
> The list is based on availability in NEW YORK CITY and has no bearing on the rest of the country... They show FOX NEWS HD as available nationally and it isn't on any system including FIOS.
> 
> This count, like most, is a matter of interpretation...


Fanboy! :lol:


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

Oh, and if they are going to drop a line item in for PPV/OnDemand shouldn't they at least get it right...they say 15 and there are 35PPV not including DoD.

I mean how hard can it be to get it right for one market...Locals-wrong...PPV-wrong...just how credible is the rest of it anyway.


----------



## dngrant (Aug 25, 2006)

Until Verizon is truly a national (not spotty regional) provider, they cannot hold a candle to D*. Sure, NYC is great, but most of the nation does not live in or around NYC.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dngrant said:


> Until Verizon is truly a national (not spotty regional) provider, they cannot hold a candle to D*. Sure, NYC is great, but most of the nation does not live in or around NYC.


True! _Anyone_ (with a chainsaw) can get DirecTV. :lol:


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> What if I don't care about HBO or Showtime? Can I take them off of the list, too? Heck, maybe I should chuck the TV and just call it zero HD across the board ..


At least if I tuned to HBO or Showtime I would have SOMETHING to watch. Try that with an RSN 95% of the time.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

justlgi said:


> At least if I tuned to HBO or Showtime I would have SOMETHING to watch. Try that with an RSN 95% of the time.


Ah, I get it now .. if you don't like the content we shouldn't count it .. :grin: .. It's all bogus numbers anyway .. we can count it a thousand different ways to come up with the preference that suits each of us the best


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I just checked my own area using a 3rd-Party comparision: http://www.whereishd.com/
> 
> Over-the-Air: 33 (not in my actual location as I've tried )
> Comcast: 42
> ...


Wow nice site!

Cband 7
Local OTA 16
Charter 32
Comcast 60
Dish 88
Directv 106

Niiiiice.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

_*DIRECTV trails DISH*_

..not in my house.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I just checked my own area using a 3rd-Party comparision: http://www.whereishd.com/
> 
> Over-the-Air: 33 (not in my actual location as I've tried )
> Comcast: 42
> ...


I just put in my zip code for that site... Its so wrong Its not even worth posting its issues.... It lists OTA channels as broadcasting HD when they never have, and it doesn't list a lot of channels in HD on Directv... And its not because they haven't updated yet, they just aren't accurate...

Just like CNET...
:nono2:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dngrant said:


> Sure, NYC is great, but most of the nation does not live in or around NYC.


Perhaps not, but 6.553% of the U.S. population does.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rahlquist said:


> Wow nice site!


Until DIRECTV changed their counting method, they linked directly to this site as support for their claims. It wasn't very accurate then either as it didn't list any PPV which now comprises almost 27% of their national HD offering.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tcusta00 said:


> True! _Anyone_ (with a chainsaw) can get DirecTV. :lol:


It will take more than a chain saw get you a view of the satellites if you live on the wrong side of the building. In the grand scheme, unless there is a proper MDU system installed, at least two faces of every building face the wrong direction.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> The list over there while interesting reading is largely bogus...
> 
> The list is based on availability in NEW YORK CITY and has no bearing on the rest of the country... They show FOX NEWS HD as available nationally and it isn't on any system including FIOS.
> 
> This count, like most, is a matter of interpretation...


*BINGO*

The 'local' FIOS near to me, that covers .01% of the STATE, says it has close to 90 (can't remember the number) but doesn't have ANY of the Regional Sports Channels other than the local one (FSN-NW). The local Cabelco (Comcast) is about half that at best.

I won't even address DISH, since much of their HD offerings are off Ku satellites that are BELOW THE HORIZON in much of the western US (including my location), and are changing their system from a nationally-based footprint to a regional one (i.e., eastern/midwest folks get the signals from 3 eastern sats, and the western folks will get the signals from 3 western sats, when all is said and done 2-3 years from now). Until then, many of their signals are NOT 'nationwide' like DirecTV).

*WHEN* ANY of these folks get a national footprint even close to the 99+% that DirecTV has (even close to 90%), THEN these folks parsing the numbers can say something.

Until then (say 2090?), any figures they cite are, as other have pointed out....

*COMPLETELY BOGUS!*


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

1948GG said:


> *BINGO*
> 
> The 'local' FIOS near to me, that covers .01% of the STATE, says it has close to 90 (can't remember the number) but doesn't have ANY of the Regional Sports Channels other than the local one (FSN-NW). The local Cabelco (Comcast) is about half that at best.
> 
> ...


And they said TIVO was never coming back too ... keep on adding PPV and claiming to be the HD leader. We'll see how long this last  FIOS penetration is just a matter of time and cable isn't just going to sit around either. Satellites are expensive and do not offer the bandwidth potential. But yeah this is just in NYC ... for now.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

justlgi said:


> Satellites are expensive and do not offer the bandwidth potential. But yeah this is just in NYC ... for now.


Which planet did you just arrive from? The Verizon FIOS plant that was just installed here (took about 3 years worth of work) in parts of Snohomish County, Washington State, cost ....

Cost to Date on this project, homes passed < 30,000. Total Cost: >$150Million.

In short, about the same cost as one of the Boeing 702 Ka-Band satellites that provides some 75 HD (and some 1500 Local HD channels), NATIONWIDE.

Any stockholder in Verizon can whip out last years numbers, and they have so far spent MORE than the ENTIRE FLEET of DirecTV satellites launched since... 1993! And, of course, the percentage of 'homes past' is literally a drop in the bucket.

As I pointed out in other threads, it's taken the 'cable' industry over 50 years to get what, a penetration figure of around 70%. And didn't show any profit for well over 30 years (in short, about 20 years ago, barely).

Verizon will be out of money by the time the penetration gets to even 5% of it's franchise area, which is <40% of the entire country. So, that's around 2% in actuality. I've been moving my stock OUT of Verizon for several years now, as quickly as they will allow it (there are legal restrictions).

You need to do some financial figuring on just which transmission is cheaper.

Cost of POTENTIAL subscriber (potential subscriber passed) on FIOS and others:

$3500 (latest Verizon figures)

For comparison, 1GHZ coaxial cable plant:

$1000 (latest NCTA figures)

Satellite :

Total cost of DirecTV for satellite capacity since 1993, <$5B

So the entire cost of providing DirecTV to every household in the entire US since 1993 to today, has been at most....

$50/ per potential subscriber passed.

Why is it nobody thinks to 'bounce the numbers' on this?

Sure, FIOS is nice, maybe. It all still comes back to PROGRAMMING though, and they don't cut it yet.

Like I said, maybe by 2090. Or thereabouts. Of course, plowing fiber can get cheaper, splicing certainly has, but is still VERY expensive next to twisted pair or even coaxial. Maybe at some point in the next 10 years, the cost might get down to coaxial.

It will still be 20 times more expensive the satellite at that point. Not with my money.


----------



## slacker_x (Oct 9, 2007)

justlgi said:


> Satellites are expensive and do not offer the bandwidth potential. But yeah this is just in NYC ... for now.


I live in Qwest territory and they're going to do FTTN, fiber to the neighborhood and have no interest in doing TV, in my opinion because they're smart, and are going to rely on DirecTV to do their video part of their triple play. While FIOS is nice its not going to be available here in Colorado and well most of the US. AT&T is the largest LEC left and they're not doing FTTH so they won't be able to compete with FIOS either.

Putting fiber in the ground to each house is far more costly than launching a satellite.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

1948GG said:


> I won't even address DISH, since much of their HD offerings are off Ku satellites that are BELOW THE HORIZON in much of the western US (including my location), and are changing their system from a nationally-based footprint to a regional one (i.e., eastern/midwest folks get the signals from 3 eastern sats, and the western folks will get the signals from 3 western sats, when all is said and done 2-3 years from now). Until then, many of their signals are NOT 'nationwide' like DirecTV).


You should have stopped at "I won't even address DISH".

Ku is the band that lets everyone have a reasonably sized dish. It is more resistant to rain fade and the spotbeams tend to be a little more even in their coverage.

The satellites needed for national HD through DISH are at 110W, 119W and 129W. Most of the HD content is at 129W which is about 34.9 degrees above your horizon versus 99W which is 30.8 degrees above your horizon.

The only signals that aren't CONUS are a handful of SD PI stations at 61.5 and some of the eastern and central RSNs.

The dual arc system has the potential to serve a lot of customers who are, for one reason or another, blocked out of receiving from the 101W area. With DISH, they have two shots at getting a signal. The only people truly left out are those who live on the north side of the building but that's always been a problem.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slacker_x said:


> I live in Qwest territory and they're going to do FTTN, fiber to the neighborhood and have no interest in doing TV, in my opinion because they're smart, and are going to rely on DirecTV to do their video part of their triple play.


Qworst only claims that the service is fiber. In most cases, it is actually the same old copper that they've used all along but now they are getting very serious about large-scale multiplexing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

1948GG said:


> Which planet did you just arrive from? The Verizon FIOS plant that was just installed here (took about 3 years worth of work) in parts of Snohomish County, Washington State, cost ....
> 
> Cost to Date on this project, homes passed < 30,000. Total Cost: >$150Million.


Any guesses on the estimated useful life on this fiber plant? We know the useful life of a typical Boeing 702 now that they've solved the tin whiskers problem and it isn't half the projected life of the fiber.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Any guesses on the estimated useful life on this fiber plant? We know the useful life of a typical Boeing 702 now that they've solved the tin whiskers problem and it isn't half the projected life of the fiber.


Let me know how much its going to cost to run fiber to every building in the US, and then lets compare that to sats... I will put my money on sats... Tell me, when was the last time a hurricane or earthquake, or whatever took out a sat and caused you to have to rerun or rebuild distribution centers and infrastructure... Yeah, I know, a sat could die... but that's why everyone has multiple spare transponders. Ok, at least I know Directv does.. Can't say for sure about Dish right now...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

justlgi said:


> Satellites are expensive and do not offer the bandwidth potential.


Ah, Directv is always looking at adding more bandwidth... like bss at some point. Space is kind of big... And they can retask things as they go, like SD to HD mpeg-4 etc... by changing compression schemes and replacing boxes... For cable co's and especially telecos they have to change boxes and infrastructure hardware and schemes... Whats going to happen in 10 years when Direct only has to transmit in HD and can turn off all the SD channels and gets back huge amounts of bandwidth by flipping a switch? Yeah, boxes may need to be replaced, butt that will be less expensive than running fiber to every home in the country...


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

harsh said:


> Any guesses on the estimated useful life on this fiber plant? We know the useful life of a typical Boeing 702 now that they've solved the tin whiskers problem and it isn't half the projected life of the fiber.


None (NONE) of your arguments hold any water whatsoever. For what Verizon has plowed (LITERALLY) into FIOS would supply any satellite provider with enough capacity and replacements well into the next millennium.

As far as your 'assertion' that Ku (and I see you didn't properly designate it as Ku/DBS!), is somehow 'better' than the Ka in use by DirecTV, you obviously know NOTHING about link budgets, or that, in fact, the DirecTV Ka system has HIGHER and more RESISTANT environmental ('rain fade' among other effects) properties than the older Ku/DBS RF and coding systems, period.

Anyone with a PROPERLY aligned dish will find that the Ku/DBS links will drop below threshold well before the Ka signal does. The engineered LINK BUDGET makes of the Ka signal (higher satellite RF power, better receive LNA electronics, and the receivers themselves, not to mention the improved coding of the signal) far more efficient than the older systems.

Interesting you brought up fiber lifespan, something I've actually done quite a lot of research and work in for various clients over the years, including (interestingly), Verizon and Qwest.

Long-Distance fiber, like that between cities, has a lifespan of about 15-20 years. That which is being deployed in the FTTH (fiber to the home) or FTTN (fiber to the node), has a lifespan about half that. Just as an aside, the last projects I worked on before retirement were trans-oceanic, and the lifespan of those systems are probably around 40 years. But those are literally Billion Dollar systems.

So, the FTTH system like Verizon's will last, if they maintain it properly, maybe 10 years. 15 is they're REAL lucky.

I'll bet sometime in those 15 years, that advances in electronics and transmission will OBSOLETE the fiber they have laid; after all, it's happened with every other optical fiber system in existence over the last 25 years!

First Trans-Continental Fiber (SPRINT) 1980 - OBSOLETE and ABANDONED by 1987

Williams (Pipeline) Fiber Systems, 1982, O & A by 1990

AT&T TAT-8 (First major Translatlanic Fiber System) 1988, O & A by 2002

Want me to go on? I helped design and build those systems, particularly the SPRINT systems. I could go on and on and..... you should get the point now.

QWest in particular, before it decided to spend it's ready cash on USWest, was plowing like crazy. Most of that fiber, put in the ground 10 years ago, is now a complete write-off. Virtually unusable. Transmission systems (mostly DWDM, or Dense Wavelength Division Multiplex) have rendered it such.

Innovation in transmission technology, whether RF OR optical, doesn't stand still. Those who do (kind of an engineers 'funny') get run over.

We see something like FIOS as a wonder today. There are copper-based twisted-pair systems in the laboratory today that will blow it away. Given 10 years (the life-span of the FIOS fiber in the ground today), it will.

Same with (even more so) RF technology. The systems DirecTV is fielding today to plain-old customers nationwide, is about double the efficiency of the systems they originally had in 1994.


----------



## bootsy (Sep 26, 2007)

Steve Robertson said:


> Who cares who has the most all I want is PQ as far as I am concerned D* has plenty of HD and more to come.


Exactly, who effin cares. If people are so unhappy then just get rid of Direct TV...


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

The only HD count I care about is the current channel I am watching at any particular time. HD count 1.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> Perhaps not, but 6.553% of the U.S. population does.


And how many of that 6.553% has access to all of the providers listed? Does everyone have a view of the southern sky? Are all the non-sat providers available to each address there? NO.

There is no way to compare the two without looking at your specific address and the channels you desire to watch. Some people spend more time inventing new counting methods instead of watching the TV.

And for the last time, population percentage does not equal subscriber percentage. New York could be considerably less important to DirecTV due to the popularity of non-sat providers in urban areas. This is why DMA listings are often not the order of priority for DirecTV.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I just checked my own area using a 3rd-Party comparision: http://www.whereishd.com/
> 
> Over-the-Air: 33 (not in my actual location as I've tried )
> Comcast: 42
> ...


That is cool. I checked Sparta, IL.

Local OTA: 18
NewWave (Cable): 14
Directv: 104
Dish: 84

Directv has the most for my area.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

dngrant said:


> Sure, NYC is great, but most of the nation does not live in or around NYC.





harsh said:


> Perhaps not, but 6.553% of the U.S. population does.


6.495% as of 9/27/08.

http://www.nielsen.com/pdf/2008_09_DMA_Ranks.pdf


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

Since when does Dish have all the HBO's in HD I knew they added some but not all as the list implies.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> It will take more than a chain saw get you a view of the satellites if you live on the wrong side of the building. In the grand scheme, unless there is a proper MDU system installed, at least two faces of every building face the wrong direction.


Ah, leave it to harsh to find the negative in anything. It was a joke, man. But since you're on a tear to poke holes in everything anyone ever says: Out of the ~200,000,000 households in the US, how many are apartments or have other LOS issues? ~50,000,000, or 25? So 75% of Americans can actually get satellite service. That's significant when we're comparing it to FIOS or other Fiber-based TV which only a small fraction of Americans can get. That was my point.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

D* needs to step up... i know FiOS will have 100 HD channels in my market soon.. and if it wasn't for sports programing i would jump ship... 

D* need ESPN U HD and others... whats going on where are the other NATIONAL HD channels.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Long-Distance fiber, like that between cities, has a lifespan of about 15-20 years. That which is being deployed in the FTTH (fiber to the home) or FTTN (fiber to the node), has a lifespan about half that. Just as an aside, the last projects I worked on before retirement were trans-oceanic, and the lifespan of those systems are probably around 40 years. But those are literally Billion Dollar systems.


FWIW, Verizon has the following average useful lifespan in their footnotes of the company's 10K:

Copper cable 13-18 years

Fiber cable (including undersea cable) 11-25 years

No breakdown on the fiber cable, but for accounting purposes at least fiber would seem to have a longer life span.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Let me know how much its going to cost to run fiber to every building in the US, and then lets compare that to sats... I will put my money on sats... Tell me, when was the last time a hurricane or earthquake, or whatever took out a sat and caused you to have to rerun or rebuild distribution centers and infrastructure... Yeah, I know, a sat could die... but that's why everyone has multiple spare transponders. Ok, at least I know Directv does.. Can't say for sure about Dish right now...


It's not just that one sat could die but that ALL sats could be made useless. Remember the Chinese blowing up a sat to test their sat killer tech? That put enough debris into orbit to make us seriously consider the possibility that low earth orbit will become useless to us. Many experts say it's not a matter of "if" but "when". It's called the Kessler Syndrome.

FIOS, no matter the cost, will look very good when we don't any sats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html

http://space.newscientist.com/artic...te-test-generates-dangerous-space-debris.html

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8608-critical-space-junk-threshold-approaching.html

http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2008/014.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> FIOS, no matter the cost, will look very good when we don't any sats.


Too bad about the C-band sats that downlink the programming to the FIOS headends! They'll be gone, too.

So FIOS customers will be watching all locally-originated programming from their local station (because there will be no network feeds,) if they get anything at all.

EDIT: By the way, "Low Earth Orbit" refers to orbits out to about 1200 miles. Geostationary satellites are far beyond that...about 21,000 miles further out.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

No matter how this story gets twisted around...the basic truth is that the difference in HD channels between all the providers is getting closer and closer. It won't be long before it's not a consideration as they'll all pretty much have them all.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No matter how this story gets twisted around...the basic truth is that the difference in HD channels between all the providers is getting closer and closer. It won't be long before it's not a consideration as they'll all pretty much have them all.


To make that much more clear, it will not be long before the top-tier providers will have similar offerings. For the large portions of the country where the only top-tier providers available are satellite providers, this is already the case. For many parts of the country, FIOS and AT&T are not on the horizon for the next decade. for us, this isn't news.

Outside of major markets, things look much more like my area for cable options. In these rural areas (a disproportionately high number of satellite customers), the HD offerings are more limited. Here that means six locals, thirteen basic cable nationals and three premiums in HD. Twenty-two is very far from Dish or DirecTV, their only competitors.

In many parts of the country where Dish and DirecTV have loads of subscribers, it would take a drastic change for cable to ever compete with them.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> It's not just that one sat could die but that ALL sats could be made useless. Remember the Chinese blowing up a sat to test their sat killer tech? That put enough debris into orbit to make us seriously consider the possibility that low earth orbit will become useless to us. Many experts say it's not a matter of "if" but "when". It's called the Kessler Syndrome.
> 
> FIOS, no matter the cost, will look very good when we don't any sats.
> 
> ...


OK, but since virtually all of the channels are uplinked via Satellite to the providers, it won't just be DIRECTV that has a problem in this situation ..


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

1948GG said:


> As far as your 'assertion' that Ku (and I see you didn't properly designate it as Ku/DBS!), is somehow 'better' than the Ka in use by DirecTV, you obviously know NOTHING about link budgets, or that, in fact, the DirecTV Ka system has HIGHER and more RESISTANT environmental ('rain fade' among other effects) properties than the older Ku/DBS RF and coding systems, period.


uhh...I don't know about you but most people on this forum have had a lot of rain fade on the new HD channels...There are HUNDREDS of posts from people complaining that as soon as it starts raining their signals drop on 103 and if there's a storm they lose reception on the KA sats all together. And if all these people dont have properly aligned dishes than its more proof that the quality of installers that DirecTV has is not capable of fine-tuning the much more difficult KA signals...


----------



## HDRoberts (Dec 11, 2007)

1948GG said:


> As far as your 'assertion' that Ku (and I see you didn't properly designate it as Ku/DBS!), is somehow 'better' than the Ka in use by DirecTV, you obviously know NOTHING about link budgets, or that, in fact, the DirecTV Ka system has HIGHER and more RESISTANT environmental ('rain fade' among other effects) properties than the older Ku/DBS RF and coding systems, period.
> 
> Anyone with a PROPERLY aligned dish will find that the Ku/DBS links will drop below threshold well before the Ka signal does. The engineered LINK BUDGET makes of the Ka signal (higher satellite RF power, better receive LNA electronics, and the receivers themselves, not to mention the improved coding of the signal) far more efficient than the older systems.


Can't these (or similar) electronic/coding imporvements be applied to Ku DBS transmissions? You cannot change the scientific fact that Ka purely as a frequency range is more succeptable to rain fade than Ku. Whether or not a particular event will cause signal loss is another issue. But thinking just becuase Directv is using Ka makes them more advanced than the all Ku Dish system is foolish.


----------



## thestaton (Aug 14, 2008)

Shouldn't you take the average of time warner and all the cable companies HD channels offered? I just switched to D* from TWC and in my area central, ky they are only offering 13 hd channels not counting hbo etc.

To get those 13 channels costs you 20 dollars a month on top of your current bill. That's for just one receiver. If you add another receiver the price just keeps going up.

So, I don't think this comparison is fair.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

justlgi said:


> Besides, the point of this count is to show channels most people are interested in ... not out of market RSN that are going to be 24hr infomercials anyway, or PPV ... if you go to the link all of that is listed as well.
> 
> National and Local HD channels: This line is intended to give a true comparison between the various services' HD offerings. It *includes all of the national (including premium channels like HBO) and local high-definition channels *offered on each service, and specifically *excludes pay-per-view channels, RSN networks and exclusives*


Speak for yourself. I am very interested in the RSNs from around the country.

And, why include premium movie channels if you aren't going to include RSNs?

The first piece of information in the chart is BS.

And why eliminate exclusives? Cable should get credit for Mojo and DirecTV should get credit for The 101. They are legitimate channels (and are much alike in many ways).

Oh, nevermind. I know why those choices were made...to make Dish look better.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

HDRoberts said:


> Can't these (or similar) electronic/coding imporvements be applied to Ku DBS transmissions? You cannot change the scientific fact that Ka purely as a frequency range is more succeptable to rain fade than Ku. Whether or not a particular event will cause signal loss is another issue. But thinking just becuase Directv is using Ka makes them more advanced than the all Ku Dish system is foolish.


When you folks understand LINK BUDGET then you'll see why the Ka signals are BETTER than the Ku/DBS ones, for every point I made (reread it).

And as far as all the folks complaining here, they complain about virtually everything, and from the number of poor installations (!!), it's obvious why!

I remember, back in the early days of DirecTV (and Ku/DBS), 1994-?, of the number of folks who had TONS of problems with the Ku/DBS reception, again due to poor installations. We can all laugh at that today, saying that jeez, you gotta be kidding me! The number of professionals who scoffed at Ku/DBS at the time as 'unworkable' were legion; curious that when DirecTV fielded the Ka system, all those folks were silent. Maybe remembered how wrong they were years earlier? But that's the facts.

We're going through the same thing yet again with Ka; A half dozen years from now, we'll look back and will not believe the installation problems people had. A lot of it is simply a failure to 'pay attention to details'!

As far as applying the improvements developed for Ka on the Ku, well, on the purely electronics side (better LNB's and such), not exactly. RF electronics is NOT like your PC, where speed keeps increasing or even doubling every couple of years. What is an LNB, anyway? Look it up on Wikipedia! Big breakthroughs happen only about every 7-10 years or so, and there's really nothing on the horizon at this point for those frequencies. The only thing on that front is simply to go to larger reflectors (dishes).

The coding schema could be improved, BUT...

(love that word!).... one would have to change all the current consumer receivers to do that, PLUS swap out all the satellites as well (not just the uplink transmitters/encoders). All of the Ku/DBS sats have built-in systems to error-correct the uplink transmission before retransmitting, not simply a 'dumb repeater'.

Now, DISH network has committed to some improvement in their Ku/DBS system (after failing to get financing for Ka sats), but only as those systems are 'swapped out' (both uplink, sats, consumer receivers) will the improvement be complete. Their 'roadmap' to that is going to take at least 3+ years, probably closer to 6, and require the launch of several more satellites and the swap-out of millions of subscribers STB's, which is underway right now. Wait 6 years and see if they make it, and how much will be spent on it.

Anyone who reads the FCC filings (or perhaps go to the DISH side of this forum) can find out what their 'roadmap' is. But the improvement in transmission in Ku/DBS is only a half measure (although since DISH is going to a regional rather than national footprint on their systems, basically it's two birds with one stone).

DirecTV may have some plan in the 'out years' (say 2012+) to eventually change out the last Ku/DBS sat (101) at that point. But maybe not; Their roadmap should be pretty clear at this point, even the new SD locals have been put on Ka rather than more Ku/DBS sats, for more than a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, it's where they have the capacity; plus it means than having 110/119 reception (or even the folks out at 72.5) is not an issue (re: 99/101/103 only systems). Also, the footprint of the Ka spot-beams is far tighter than the Ku/DBS spots, making frequency reuse much easier and yielding much greater benefits. As the Ku/DBS spot beam sats (4s, 7s, 9sand the like) reach their end of life, you'll start seeing them replaced by the Ka constellation.

Finally, all this stuff DOES make sense, if one simply has the basic tools to put it all together. A lot of it here is simply like trying to explain how radio works to someone who lives in a tent, something I've actually done. A lot of it is what you grew up with; folks in the 50s and 60s knew much more about the workings of internal combustion engines than people do now, simply because they were at a stage of development (the cars) that people could relate to and work on themselves. Same thing with ham radio at the time.

Now, our cars are almost complete ciphers, requiring expensive test equipment to do much more than simple tweaking. Same thing with the ham radios. And the other 'consumer electronics'? The old saw about the vcr with the blinking '12:00' is legion, but maybe the next generation will get a better grip on things on that front (although the upcoming digital TV transition will give us all YEARS of funny stories, I think). Basic logic in troubleshooting and understanding systems analysis is sometimes pretty poor.

But there are basic, root, systems, that once understood, can help. The great thing today is, the tools to do so are right at your fingertips, no advanced degree really necessary. Point that browser....!


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

66stang351 said:


> Its not even correct for NY...it states that DIRECTV offers 4 HD locals when they offer 6.


I get 5 HD locals in NY:

CBS-2
NBC-4
FOX-5
ABC-7
CW-11


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

karlhenri said:


> I get 5 HD locals in NY:
> 
> CBS-2
> NBC-4
> ...


i thought i saw hd on channel my9 as well during a weeknite....think it was an episode of the newer twilight zone.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

dngrant said:


> Until Verizon is truly a national (not spotty regional) provider, they cannot hold a candle to D*. Sure, NYC is great, but most of the nation does not live in or around NYC.


True, but NY Regional is a large market. How many of the DTV subs are just around here?

I have been on DirecTV for a while myself and that HD movie lineup on FIos has had me salivating for a couple weeks now. 
I am on Premium package, and the idea that I am missing out on all those Cinemax and HBO HD channels leaves me sleepless.

I already have FiOs for internet and that motherf****r is fast (20/5). It would take nothing.

I am trying to be loyal and am giving DirecTV 6 months to get more HD premiums. I don't care about Regional HDs, don't want QVC HD.

I will not pay for ST partly because it's all about Sunday and I jsut can't spend the whole Sunday in front of the TV between real football and american football.

i would miss all the tennis mix and extra coverage channels for US OPen and Wimbledon and Olympics. 
The only fear I have is that Verizon's forte is not TV and that customer service and all that stuff must suck and that in the long run, they would not invest as much in the programming.


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

All those HBO and Cinamax channels just repeat the same old stuff that is on the main channel. They just have it at different times and days.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Long-Distance fiber, like that between cities, has a lifespan of about 15-20 years. That which is being deployed in the FTTH (fiber to the home) or FTTN (fiber to the node), has a lifespan about half that. Just as an aside, the last projects I worked on before retirement were trans-oceanic, and the lifespan of those systems are probably around 40 years. But those are literally Billion Dollar systems.
> 
> So, the FTTH system like Verizon's will last, if they maintain it properly, maybe 10 years. 15 is they're REAL lucky.
> 
> I'll bet sometime in those 15 years, that advances in electronics and transmission will OBSOLETE the fiber they have laid; after all, it's happened with every other optical fiber system in existence over the last 25 years!


The problem with your argument is that TV viewers like us do not make TV decisions as 10-year plans. I have been with Directv for 6 years and that seems like a damn long time.

What I am looking at is who has the best to offer today and looks better positioned for the next year or so. My time horizon TV-wise goes to the 2010 World Cup max.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

thomas_d92 said:


> All those HBO and Cinamax channels just repeat the same old stuff that is on the main channel. They just have it at different times and days.


Not quite true. East and West ok.

HBO Signature for example has little overlap with the main HBO.

I mean, after a while, you watch movies for long enough, you will not find anything new to rent from the local Blockbuster


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

cforrest said:


> FWIW, Verizon has the following average useful lifespan in their footnotes of the company's 10K:
> 
> Copper cable 13-18 years
> 
> ...


In other thing to realize is that FIOs does not need to span the whole country to cause problems to Directv.

All they need to do is spread their network in high-density metro areas where they have a phone presence. and where it is cost advantageous to do so. no need to run miles of fiber in rural Pennsylvania to reach a couple hundred subs while you can get the same in one square mile of Manhattan.

Plus non-competing telcos like Verizon and Qwest can partner on deals with TV networks to defray costs.

To a TV subscriber, it does not matter that FIos is not available to 80% of the United States. if it's available to them and it seems compelling, they will tempted.

hell, I am tempted. And i consider myself loyal as I resisted all the triple play offers of the world to stay with DirecTV


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Speak for yourself. I am very interested in the RSNs from around the country.
> 
> And, why include premium movie channels if you aren't going to include RSNs?
> 
> ...


Premiums are different from RSNs. Premiums have something you can watch at anytime. RSNs will have blackouts unless you subscribe to 4 specialized sports packages. When there are no blackouts, it's either lots of the same shows, or low level programming.

I understand that premiums repeat movies, but no two premiums will have the same movie at the same time.

The out-of-market RSNs are like premiums that only let you watch the trailers between the movies and the interview shows.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

karlhenri said:


> I get 5 HD locals in NY:
> 
> CBS-2
> NBC-4
> ...





dcowboy7 said:


> i thought i saw hd on channel my9 as well during a weeknite....think it was an episode of the newer twilight zone.


Yes, NYC My9 is HD.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

One other thing of note is they left a few channels out. For instance HBO and HBO West, while basically having the same programming, are still different channels.


----------



## ticked_off (Sep 20, 2008)

1948GG said:


> When you folks understand LINK BUDGET then you'll see why the Ka signals are BETTER than the Ku/DBS ones, for every point I made (reread it).
> 
> And as far as all the folks complaining here, they complain about virtually everything, and from the number of poor installations (!!), it's obvious why!
> 
> ...


Many years ago I installed a 70 CM dish with a triple LNA (wineguard) to end rain fade. There is no way I am going back to an undersized dish. With the DirecTV going to the new KA sats I am very ticked off for many reasons:

1. I have been searching in vain for a general purpose KA LNA that can be mounted on a custom antenna. No luck what so ever.

2. On the chance I would settle on my current 101/110/119 high gain system, you would think I could get DirecTV to tell be what the channel alignment is going to be when they switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4, right...

3. Wonder what the sports bars are going to do? I know they will not put up with it.

4. I could give a rats @$#$ about locals over sat, to many other ways to get them.

Just moved and have not reinstalled my system. About a month away from switching to dish. Lots of options there for high gain systems.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

phat78boy said:


> One other thing of note is they left a few channels out. For instance HBO and HBO West, while basically having the same programming, are still different channels.


They should have included the methodology on the page ... but here it is:

From: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10045394-1.html



> The key here is our definition of "national and local." The big three all tout HD channel counts near or above the nice round number of 100 in their advertising campaigns, and by our count of "total channels," they all come more or less close enough, but we took a closer look at the channels themselves, and broke down national and local channels we consider important. That includes local broadcast channels like PBS (which neither satellite service offers), ABC and Fox, premium movie channels like HBO and Max (formerly Cinemax), and the myriad niche channels from ESPN to Mav TV to Palladia to World Fishing Network. *We specifically exclude Regional Sports Networks, exclusive channels like Voom (which is only available on NY-area provider Cablevision), and duplicate feeds of premium movie channels, such as HBO (east) and HBO (west) carried by DirecTV and Fios.*


----------



## colebert (Aug 20, 2007)

Bob Coxner said:


> FIOS, no matter the cost, will look very good when we don't any sats.


!rolling !rolling !rolling


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Here are the 28 HD channels D* doesn't get, according to that chart.

@Max HD
5StarMax HD
ActionMax HD
AMC HD
Encore HD
Fox News HD
Hallmark Movie Channel HD
HBO Comedy HD
HBO Family HD
HBO Latino HD
HBO Signature HD
HBO Zone HD
IFC HD
Lifetime HD
Lifetime Movie Network HD
Mav TV HD
MOJO
MoreMax HD
OuterMax HD
Outdoor HD
PBS HD
QVC HD
The Movie Channel Xtra HD
Travel Channel HD
Wealth TV HD
WGN America
Wmax HD
World Fishing Network HD


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Yes, NYC My9 is HD.


I stand corrected. I did not notice that my9 was now in HD.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

theratpatrol said:


> Here are the 28 HD channels D* doesn't get, according to that chart.
> 
> @Max HD
> 5StarMax HD
> ...


Note that there are 11 HBOand Cinemax in there and the list is not even counting East vs. West.

When I consider that 90% of those, we don't even get in SD, this leaves me with little hope that Directv is in a position contract wise to address that gap in the next year.

Does anyone know why the HBO/Cinemax package on Directv is much slimmer than its competitors? Did HBO make it too expensve for them? Is there an alliance angle I am missing?


----------



## teebeebee1 (Dec 11, 2006)

karlhenri said:


> True, but NY Regional is a large market. How many of the DTV subs are just around here?
> 
> I have been on DirecTV for a while myself and that HD movie lineup on FIos has had me salivating for a couple weeks now.
> I am on Premium package, and the idea that I am missing out on all those Cinemax and HBO HD channels leaves me sleepless.
> ...


Whine whine whine, noone cares about what you want


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

The whining is even more hilarious if you step back and ask - not what FIOS may bring - but, when? How many DMA's actually have FIOS as a choice? How many will there realistically be in a year?

It's all pie in the sky. In my neck of the prairie, 5-10 years or maybe never.

Now, this is a CNET article. There are some great people writing full-time and part-time for CNET. That's what got them sold to CBS among other reasons. Doesn't mean every article is accurate or even close.

I believe they're also party to the gift packages that DISH hands out to Tech writers here and there in California. When Ziff Davis, for example, tests HDTV - the sat source they use is DISH not DirecTV. Why? Because they would have had to buy/lease a system from DirecTV. DISH gave them one.

Find yourself another example of incompetent research at CNET: check on the prototype rollout of digital TV in Wilmington. Just about every article from local newspapers, TV stations, even national press said the rollout went smoothly with damned few glitches.

CNET published an article saying it was an utter failure - without offering up a single fact to support the conclusion. Even the quotes from locals were distorted.

I happened to follow it closely because I considered blogging about the rollout - but, it was such a non-event I didn't consider it worth the time.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

Ed Campbell said:


> The whining is even more hilarious if you step back and ask - not what FIOS may bring - but, when? How many DMA's actually have FIOS as a choice? How many will there realistically be in a year?
> 
> It's all pie in the sky. In my neck of the prairie, 5-10 years or maybe never.


You guys don't get it:

FiOS is not pie in the sky if it's an option for you. A sub does not usually think of where else a (non-mobile) service is available when they are making decisions. A good few years ago, we were all on local cable companies.

Where I am for instance in the NY DMA, FiOS is very tangible and it's a powerful option. The internet is the best there is. They can claim a boatload of HD and are ahead of everyone else in many DMAs. They can offer bundles with home phone, cell phone and internet.

I am sure Directv sees them as a more serious treat than we are on this board.

And population concentrations play to their advantage. All they need to do is get into the most concentrated DMAs. Less fiber to roll. Lots of subs waiting to drop. Look at where they are right now: NY, Baltimore, Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, Southern California, Portland and Seattle. That's a lot of people!

If Fios manages to make a good size dent in those areas, that could be a huge nuisance for DTV.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

karlhenri said:


> You guys don't get it:
> 
> FiOS is not pie in the sky if it's an option for you. A sub does not usually think of where else a (non-mobile) service is available when they are making decisions. A good few years ago, we were all on local cable companies.
> 
> ...


Even Verizon says they wont have 100% coverage in New York City before 2014 and current availability is around 20%. They have no plans for any access in 22 states. 12 states in which they have "future" availability plans.

Verizon FIOS could be a threat... but their penetration even in the major areas they are in is low. I would love to see it happen as their internet speeds are very, very appealing, but they have no plans whatsoever for the state of Georgia.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

I wouldn't care if a provider only has 10 channels, as long as there the ones I watch.

I can get my locals HD ota. I'll consider service from any provider that has the 4 "cable" channels I watch in HD. 

My TV viewing is as follows:
Local Stations/OTA Networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox,etc)
SciFi/Spike/Comedy Central/Discovery 
Movie channes (HBO/Cmax,Starz,etc)

Let's not forget when choosing a provider, to look past the channel count number, to the channels you know you will actually watch. Who cares if you have 100 channels in HD if the ones you watch are not?


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

karlhenri said:


> You guys don't get it:
> 
> FiOS is not pie in the sky if it's an option for you.


True... I've been with DirecTV for the past four years but FiOS is an option and it's starting to look better and better for me.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

HDRoberts said:


> Can't these (or similar) electronic/coding imporvements be applied to Ku DBS transmissions? You cannot change the scientific fact that Ka purely as a frequency range is more succeptable to rain fade than Ku. Whether or not a particular event will cause signal loss is another issue. But thinking just becuase Directv is using Ka makes them more advanced than the all Ku Dish system is foolish.


I definitely don't agree with that.

My Slimline(AU9-S) has been in use since Feb '07 and I can tell you that I have *much* less rain fade

My 3LNB that I had for the previous 5 years would with a good steady rain even though it had great signal strengths in clear weather.

My AU9 need to have a torrential down pour to start to fade.

I think your analysis is missing something because your theory doesn't hold up to practice.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No matter how this story gets twisted around...the basic truth is that the difference in HD channels between all the providers is getting closer and closer. It won't be long before it's not a consideration as they'll all pretty much have them all.


Thankyou Ken!

Someone is thinking beyond the current number of channels.

I have no doubt that in a couple of years all the service providers will offer nearly all that is avaliable in HD. Excluding exclusive channel of course.

IMHO, it is actually inevitable.

The question will be who has the features/service I need vice who has the most HD channels.

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

karlhenri said:


> NY, Baltimore, Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, Southern California, Portland and Seattle. That's a lot of people!


Last I looked at the "Portland" coverage area (indeed all of Oregon), it was about ten square miles (maybe) of Beaverton. When it comes to leaving the Portland Metropolitan area, most of Oregon has something other than Verizon for phone service by franchise agreement.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Thankyou Ken!
> 
> Someone is thinking beyond the current number of channels.


If you look at the patterns of the remarks, you will see that we factor in what those HD channels are when we are talking about channel count. My personal amazement was around the Premium HD - which is stuff I would watch. For others it's about College Sports or NFL. etc. No one is clamoring for QVC or obscure HD channels


> I have no doubt that in a couple of years all the service providers will offer nearly all that is avaliable in HD. Excluding exclusive channel of course.
> 
> IMHO, it is actually inevitable.
> 
> ...


Good point, but the key you amde here is that *there will always be a frontier*. Programming wise or feature wise. A couple years back, it was about All digital or Tivo-ing ability. For now, the customer appetite for HD channels is insatiable. He may move on to something else soon, like say, On-Demand for everything or everywhere access to their tv programming.

The sooner a provider can get past a frontier, the faster they can shift their focus to something else. If they ahppen to be ahead of the game, they have the opportuity to lead the way into a new area and force the competitors to always play catch up.

So if by the time D12 rolls around to complete the HD rollout, someone else who is done with their HD deployment is already on to another killer feature, what now?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

karlhenri said:


> If you look at the patterns of the remarks, you will see that we factor in what those HD channels are when we are talking about channel count. My personal amazement was around the Premium HD - which is stuff I would watch. For others it's about College Sports or NFL. etc. No one is clamoring for QVC or obscure HD channels
> 
> Good point, but the key you amde here is that *there will always be a frontier*. Programming wise or feature wise. A couple years back, it was about All digital or Tivo-ing ability. For now, the customer appetite for HD channels is insatiable. He may move on to something else soon, like say, On-Demand for everything or everywhere access to their tv programming.
> 
> ...


What makes you thing we will have to wait for D12 to get additional HD channels?

Mike


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

It'll be interesting to see how long channels will be available in both SD and HD. There will be a large base of customers that have no interest in replacing their old TVs and will not like letterboxing. We may get a good idea of the problems when TV stations go digital in February.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> What makes you thing we will have to wait for D12 to get additional HD channels?
> 
> Mike


I am not saying that. I am saying that D12 is needed before Directv can say that they have way more room than available channels to fill them. In other words to have spare capacity.

According to this trusted post, there is room now for 20-25 channels max.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1782558&postcount=315

On the other hand, having the capacity will not be what holds FIos back if they need to add, say 50 more channels. This can allow them to focus on the next big thing earlier than someone else.

Granted, a portion of their resources will need to be devoted to expand their coverage area, while satellite is instantly available to entire US.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

mreposter said:


> It'll be interesting to see how long channels will be available in both SD and HD. There will be a large base of customers that have no interest in replacing their old TVs and will not like letterboxing. We may get a good idea of the problems when TV stations go digital in February.


Drop some of local sd feeds and pick up the subs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

karlhenri said:


> You guys don't get it:
> 
> FiOS is not pie in the sky if it's an option for you. A sub does not usually think of where else a (non-mobile) service is available when they are making decisions. A good few years ago, we were all on local cable companies.
> 
> ...


Its not as available as you think... I don't think but maybe 1 % of southern california can get it... Trust me, its not that available... In the future, yeah, but today.. No way... They won't be a true serious threat for at least 4 or 5 years...

And they can try all they want, but AT&T owns a lot of southern california, so there is no way they will be a real solition for everyone in LA... maybe 30 to 50% at some point, but I doubt much more than that...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mreposter said:


> It'll be interesting to see how long channels will be available in both SD and HD. There will be a large base of customers that have no interest in replacing their old TVs and will not like letterboxing. We may get a good idea of the problems when TV stations go digital in February.


You will see some markets move to HD only signals starting, well, now... but it will be 7 to 10 years before they get everyone to only have mpeg-4 hardware.. So until then.....


----------

