# Regional Sports in HD



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

Anyone heard of plans to add any of the "regional sports networks" HD channels? I would think there's a large contingent of people in the Boston area that would like to see NESN in HD. Almost all the cable companies in the New England area carry NESN in HD.

from their website (http://www.boston.com/sports/nesn/aboutus/hd/)

"In 2006, NESN will televise every Red Sox and Bruins game in HD and become the first regional sports network in the country to originate all in-house studio programs in HD. "

Dennis


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

dei8fan said:


> Anyone heard of plans to add any of the "regional sports networks" HD channels? I would think there's a large contingent of people in the Boston area that would like to see NESN in HD.
> 
> Dennis


Dennis,

There are lots of us from all over the country that would like to see their RSNs in HD. I'm quite certain that Dish is well aware of the demand for it. At this time, they have not announced any plans to make it happen. I suspect they are more focused on getting the local networks up. Once they've got the first 50 markets up, then I think they'll work on the RSNs. Could be awhile so don't hold your breath.


----------



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

My thought was that with the regional sports, which are primarily cable based(and available in HD on cable), and not OTA, they might get a larger share of the market to add HD, since there's no way to get them with the antenna setup. At least NESN in this area is cable only.

Dennis


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

dei8fan said:


> At least NESN in this area is cable only.


I assume you mean NESN in HD is cable only.


----------



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

leegart said:


> I assume you mean NESN in HD is cable only.


Where it's offered, NESN is available via cable or dish only, not available OTA (AFAIK), whether viewing the HD or SD version.

Dennis


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

dei8fan said:


> Where it's offered, NESN is available via cable or dish only, not available OTA (AFAIK), whether viewing the HD or SD version.
> 
> Dennis


Obviously. As with all of the RSN's, it needs subscribers to pay the freight.

I thought you were talking about NESN HD which is offered on the local cable systems but not on DISH (nor DIRECT?????).

It does look like the RSN's in HD are a lower priority given that the locals in HD in many markets still need to be provided by DISH.

With NESN, this is especially a pity now that there are no games on WSBK TV-38 with the demise of the deal regarding Friday nights.

The only time we'll see the Red Sox in HD this season is on the FOX OTA broadcasts or when they are on ESPN/ESPN2 HD.


----------



## AdamGott (Nov 30, 2005)

dei8fan said:


> My thought was that with the regional sports, which are primarily cable based(and available in HD on cable), and not OTA, they might get a larger share of the market to add HD, since there's no way to get them with the antenna setup. At least NESN in this area is cable only.
> 
> Dennis


That was my thought as well but they seem intent on WASTING most of their bandwidth on downconverted crappy versions of HDTV locals.

This bandwidth would be much better used by giving us stuff that we cannot absolutely get no matter how big of an antenna we use. I know many disagree and say that they can't get local HDTV but most of them do not have an antenna and do not even want to consider it although they would get BETTER quality and it would be FREE (minus the antenna cost).


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

A good OTA antenna is an important component to any home theater system, IMHO.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

Yes, but an OTA antenna does not deliver regional sports channels (i.e. Fox Sports fill-in-the-blank).


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

joebird said:


> Yes, but an OTA antenna does not deliver regional sports channels (i.e. Fox Sports fill-in-the-blank).


Nor does it pick up signals that must travel though a mountain to get to the antenna.


----------



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

IowaStateFan said:


> Nor does it pick up signals that must travel though a mountain to get to the antenna.


This was the gist of my original post. Some people can get at least one OTA channels in HD, some can get all local HD channels OTA, and some get none. (I personally can get 3 Boston HD channels via antenna, if it's not too windy or raining hard). NOBODY can get the reqional sports packages in HD (where available in HD) OTA. If you want to drive adoption of HD receivers and programming, why not add in the HD channels that no one can get with an antenna? They most likely have a "wider geographic area" of subscribers than locals, and there's a limited number of these channels across the country, right?

I'm betting there's a lot of Red Sox fans who would pony up the cash for NESN in HD for the just started (today) set of Red Sox games that may be able to get the local HD channels OTA, especially since no games are slated for OTA availalbility this year.

Dennis


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

dei8fan said:


> I'm betting there's a lot of Red Sox fans who would pony up the cash for NESN in HD for the just started (today) set of Red Sox games that may be able to get the local HD channels OTA, especially since no games are slated for OTA availalbility this year.
> 
> Dennis


Correct but with the higher priority of using limited satellite capacity to bring HD locals to the top 50 markets, I don't think the RSN's in HD are coming in the near future. I would guess that after local HD markets are taken care of, DISH will start to address RSN's. Don't turn blue holding your breath though. :nono2:


----------



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

leegart said:


> Correct but with the higher priority of using limited satellite capacity to bring HD locals to the top 50 markets, I don't think the RSN's in HD are coming in the near future. I would guess that after local HD markets are taken care of, DISH will start to address RSN's. Don't turn blue holding your breath though. :nono2:


If the argument above was true, then why roll out ESPN and ESPN2 in HD before the top 50 markets? I think the same argument can be applied the RSNs as well.

But bringing on RSN's before (or in conjunction with) HD locals can actually help drive adoption, without using as much capacity as locals. Take New England Sports Network (NESN). It's available in HD. People all over New England (and the rest of US to some degree) might pony up the $$ for HD, without locals, or if they can get locals OTA. One "channel" that's "wanted" by mutliple DMAs in a geographic area. That's a part of one transponder (I think) for a wider than a DMA geographic area, as opposed to a complete transponder for locals in ONE DMA.

I for one, would have subscribed to HD for NESN (and I did for ESPN, among other things), before the locals were available in HD just to see the Red Sox in HD. I'm suspecting there are a lot more, especially those getting HD locals OTA...

Dennis


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

dei8fan said:


> If the argument above was true, then why roll out ESPN and ESPN2 in HD before the top 50 markets? I think the same argument can be applied the RSNs as well.


Because the two ESPN channels are NATIONAL channels and it takes up much less satellite space to make these available than to have to add several regional RSN's in HD. 2 HD channels vs. many. Which is easier?


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

Don't expect to see an America's Family HD package anytime soon either.


----------



## SatelliteJim (Mar 3, 2006)

RSN's in HD are coming. In fact, in some ways they're here. I live in Detroit and as of yet, we can't get Fox Sports Detroit in HD but, we've heard it could be coming soon. Also, a number of other Fox Sports channels are already broadcasting in HD. Among them, Fox Sports West and West 2, Fox Bay Area, Altitude Sports, Fox Arizona, Fox Dallas, MSG, and a few others. You won't see the games in HD on Center Ice or MLB Extra Innings but, on DTV's channels 94-99, they'll show NHL, NBA and, MLB games in HD. For instance, tonight, on Ch 95, they're showing the Houston Rockets and Seattle Sonics in HD. So, it's coming but, slow.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

It looks like DirecTV is starting:

http://www.sny.tv/article.jsp?content=pr20060403


----------



## Questioner (Mar 31, 2006)

The Mets before NESN? How unfair.


----------



## dei8fan (Feb 13, 2006)

leegart said:


> Because the two ESPN channels are NATIONAL channels and it takes up much less satellite space to make these available than to have to add several regional RSN's in HD. 2 HD channels vs. many. Which is easier?


I agree ESPN& ESPN2 use less "space" than the RSNs. That said, 1 RSN to many DMAs or 4 locals to 1 DMA. Which uses less Satellite "space"? 

And which is easier - adding 1 RSN for a "larger than a DMA" geographic area x number of RSNs (maybe 12?), or 4 local channels x number of DMAs in the greographic area? Which would appeal to a larger audience?

Which do you NEED satellite (or cable) to receive (no OTA)?

My point was adding the RSNs in HD would help drive adoption rates, more so than current slow rollout of locals, AND consume less space on the satellite than the locals.

In the case of NESN, here's a sampling of the DMAs which I think have NESN available. (Others could have it as well, across the country).

Boston: Locals are up in HD
Hartford: No locals in HD
Springfield: No locals in HD
Providence: No locals in HD
Porland (ME): No locals in HD
Burlington VT: No locals in HD

There's no "local HD" reason for any DMA other than Boston to upgrade to HD. The RSNs carry "local sports content" to a larger area.

In summary, here's a HD offering which appeals to a larger geographic area, and uses less satellite bandwidth/transponder/etc than local stations. I suspect other RSNs are similar.

Dennis


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

dei8fan said:


> IAnd which is easier - adding 1 RSN for a "larger than a DMA" geographic area x number of RSNs (maybe 12?), or 4 local channels x number of DMAs in the greographic area? Which would appeal to a larger audience?
> 
> Which do you NEED satellite (or cable) to receive (no OTA)?
> 
> My point was adding the RSNs in HD would help drive adoption rates, more so than current slow rollout of locals, AND consume less space on the satellite than the locals.


You're suggestion does use less bandwidth and may be "easier". However, I don't think it will drive adoption rates. True, most people can get their locals OTA and it is impossible to get a RSN without DBS, or Cable. On the face of it, LiLs seem like a terrible wast of bandwidth. Those that can recieve them OTA can put up an antenna and get them free, most of the rest of us in the "white areas" would be satisfied with a regional feed (ie. NY, Chicago, Denver or LA) of the network programming. Having said that, it appears that most people want a simple solution - all of their tv programming via satellite. They are willing to pay for (and demanding) LiLs. If E* doesn't offer HD versions they'll go to D* or cable to get them. I suspect E* has done market studies and found that more people would prefer their LiLs in HD to their RSNs in HD. While you and I would like to see the RSNs in HD, we probably aren't the majority of E*'s subscribers.


----------



## dishbacker (Jun 15, 2004)

With most of the RSNs not doing HD full time (Yes, I said MOST)... I'd prefer the DirecTv model. Put up 4 MPEG4 Special Events channels on one CONUS TP, and put HD games on there from the local RSNs on a Nightly basis. Heck, they can run PPV during the day on them for all I care. This should cover most of the HD games available each night...

If they want to make it more profitable, then run Spice HD overnight and rake in even more dough...

Do this and I'd be buying a 622 tomorrow. As it is, I won't be even looking at it until the DFW locals show up.... And then its still a maybe.


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

It is frustrating watching the Red Sox on NESN with the HD logo on the screen but only seeing it in SD meanwhile flipping over to ESPN2 and watching the Phillies-Braves game in HD and longing for the day that the RSN's are in HD. It would be nice if it happened before the end of this season but the priorities for DISH seem to continue to be HD in the local markets first. It would be nice if they weren't mutually exclusive. Oh well!

Sigh!!! :nono2:


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> You're suggestion does use less bandwidth and may be "easier". However, I don't think it will drive adoption rates. True, most people can get their locals OTA and it is impossible to get a RSN without DBS, or Cable. On the face of it, LiLs seem like a terrible wast of bandwidth. Those that can recieve them OTA can put up an antenna and get them free, most of the rest of us in the "white areas" would be satisfied with a regional feed (ie. NY, Chicago, Denver or LA) of the network programming. Having said that, it appears that most people want a simple solution - all of their tv programming via satellite. They are willing to pay for (and demanding) LiLs. If E* doesn't offer HD versions they'll go to D* or cable to get them. I suspect E* has done market studies and found that more people would prefer their LiLs in HD to their RSNs in HD. While you and I would like to see the RSNs in HD, we probably aren't the majority of E*'s subscribers.


i would wonder. I could care less about LIL's in HD if not for the multi tuner DVR. If Dish offered a 3 OTA tuner package, I could care less about the LIL then. might have been a good option to consider, but maybe the OTA parts in the boxes just cost too much?

but i'd disagree on HD RSN's speeding up adoption. Just like big screens sell to sports nuts before anyone else, just like HD has been driven more by sports (an movie to some extent) buffs, HD RSN's would simply pull in more sports fans, which in turns means more big set purchases, which means more get made, which lowers costs, which gets non sports fans to consider moderate sized HD sets, which gets more programming watched in HD, which gets even more non sports types to buy in 

it's not much different than the impact gamers have had on computers. computers haven't need to continually get faster in order to run Office. They've need to get faster because game buffs were willing to shill out hundreds of dolllars every 6 months to a year for more power and speed. I used to upgrade the CPU and video card each at least once a year, sometimes twice. But now the power has reached a point you can keep the same rig for 3 years and if you started top of the line, it's still very good in 3 years. 8 years ago, top of the line wouldn't have been worthwhile within 1 and a half to 2 years at best.

I expect my laptop will still be an acceptable quality gaming rig for another 2 years, which would be the first time I ran 1 machine 4 years. never would have even thought that possible 5 or 6 years ago  So I think TV's and HD work much the same. You sell it to sports and movie buffs, they'll pay premium dollars (have you seen blu ray price estimates? yikes!), and create enough demand to allow the makers time to get costs down, and function up, and the early buyers won't really care, they'll just buy the newer better thing in 2 years, because they are driven to have the best. must be some kind of competitive virus built into male genetics that drives us to do silly things like that  hahaha


----------



## Dish Cubfan (Dec 5, 2004)

I would like to see Comcast Sportsnet Chicago in HD and WGN. I would think the Superstations would go HD first... but add them all.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> i would wonder. I could care less about LIL's in HD if not for the multi tuner DVR. If Dish offered a 3 OTA tuner package, I could care less about the LIL then. might have been a good option to consider, but maybe the OTA parts in the boxes just cost too much?


Maybe, but I'll bet its something a little more sinister. They don't want you getting something for free that they can charge you for. If you only have 1 OTA tuner you need to subscribe to LiLs to watch one thing and record another.



Rogueone said:


> but i'd disagree on HD RSN's speeding up adoption. Just like big screens sell to sports nuts before anyone else, just like HD has been driven more by sports (an movie to some extent) buffs, HD RSN's would simply pull in more sports fans, which in turns means more big set purchases, which means more get made, which lowers costs, which gets non sports fans to consider moderate sized HD sets, which gets more programming watched in HD, which gets even more non sports types to buy in


Good point. From an outsiders perspective, I would think that RSNs would have the impact you describe. As I said, I think LiLs are a terrible waste of bandwidth and money. I don't get it. Sure there are many people that want to record and watch multiple programs at the same time, but they could use your multi-ota tuner idea to get around that. But the people at E* aren't dummies and must have done market research that tells them that HD LiLs will have a bigger impact than HD RSNs. 


Rogueone said:


> the early buyers won't really care, they'll just buy the newer better thing in 2 years, because they are driven to have the best. must be some kind of competitive virus built into male genetics that drives us to do silly things like that  hahaha


Whew, now I've got an excuse to give my wife. It's beyond my control. I'm genetically wired to buy the latest and greatest technology. Thanks for the help Rogue.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

IowaStateFan said:


> But the people at E* aren't dummies and must have done market research that tells them that HD LiLs will have a bigger impact than HD RSNs.


Well theres no question thats true. RSN's might just as well be PBS for the amount that a large percentage of people actually bother to ever tune to them. Either a household cares about that specific type of programming or they dont. And you'll notice they arent compelled to feel the need to put PBS up in HD LiL's yet either.

And of course about HD LiL's in general, one would be as hard pressed to say to the general public those arent needed as they would've been to say the SD ones werent either. Oh sure, those of us that already use them with an OTA antenna can make the argument that it's the way to go, but trying to sell the masses on it would be a different story. The generations that are buying HDTV's by in large havent necessarily had to ever use OTA antennas in their adult lifetime.. not about to start now if they dont have to. The early adopters had no choice. No HD from the cable co's and no local HD from the DBS co's early on.

But if they're just getting into HD today and in the future, it'll just be business as usual to them. Getting the locals, albeit HD now, either from the sat co's or from cable.. like they've been used to getting the SD ones. I would imagine they would expect nothing less.


----------

