# are there shopping channels that broadcast in HD?



## Guest (Jun 8, 2011)

are there shopping channels that broadcast in HD? 

thankS!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

quietmouse said:


> are there shopping channels that broadcast in HD?
> 
> thankS!


Not yet anyway. QVC is in HD on some cable companies.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Now I think I may have finally heard it all.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Stay tuned.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH was apparently testing QVC HD for a while. I believe HSN also has a HD feed. I'm surprised we don't have a HD shopping channel or infomercial channel on DISH yet.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2011)

James Long said:


> DISH was apparently testing QVC HD for a while. I believe HSN also has a HD feed. I'm surprised we don't have a HD shopping channel or infomercial channel on DISH yet.


normally I wouldn't watch QVC or HSN, but I recently noticed that they have
live models wearing nothign but lingerie and/or bikini... I just thought it
would look real cool in HD.  The wife noticed me watching it and I just
said "sweetie, I only wanted to get some idea on what to get you for Christmas!"


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH was apparently testing QVC HD for a while. I believe HSN also has a HD feed. I'm surprised we don't have a HD shopping channel or infomercial channel on DISH yet.


Me too... since they pay for carriage, and should want to show off their stuff in HD... it seems like a no-brainer.

The question might be IF Dish is asking them to pay more for an HD feed than for an SD feed... which would fly in the face of Dish's other negotiations where they don't think they should pay more for HD feeds.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The question might be IF Dish is asking them to pay more for an HD feed than for an SD feed... which would fly in the face of Dish's other negotiations where they don't think they should pay more for HD feeds.


DISH charge carriage of a channel is like an ISP charging different rates for different connection speeds. Dial up $9, 1.5M DSL $19, 3M DSL $29 ... it is all about the bandwidth. Selling enough bandwidth for a SD channel vs selling enough bandwidth for a HD channel.

With DISH's current transponder arrangement they are close to "full" on HD channels ... the SD shopping channels already consume space and there is room for more. Carriage in HD would cost DISH both the space for the existing SD feed and the new HD feed.

Channels charging DISH more for the HD feed is a double whammy. Not only would DISH have to pay the provider more but they also have to pay to maintain more satellite space to carry the channels. There are distribution and development costs for the channel to be in HD ... and often they have to pay more for HD rights. Some of the "we charge more for HD" is simply the channel passing on the reality of their costs.

The competitive marketplace has made HD "free" to subscribers. Someone is eating the costs. Providers have raised rates on everyone to help cover the cost of doing business. At the end of the day the customer will pay.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> At the end of the day the customer will pay.


Unless we cancel and go back to OTA which many have done and many more are about to do. It served us well from the 50s to the 90s.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH charge carriage of a channel is like an ISP charging different rates for different connection speeds. Dial up $9, 1.5M DSL $19, 3M DSL $29 ... it is all about the bandwidth. Selling enough bandwidth for a SD channel vs selling enough bandwidth for a HD channel.
> 
> With DISH's current transponder arrangement they are close to "full" on HD channels ... the SD shopping channels already consume space and there is room for more. Carriage in HD would cost DISH both the space for the existing SD feed and the new HD feed.
> 
> Channels charging DISH more for the HD feed is a double whammy.


Yeah... I get that...

I was just pointing out that when Dish says "the HD feed should be supplied to us for free along with the SD feed we pay for" as a negotiating tactic... it becomes more difficult for them to charge someone more for an HD feed.

I get that they have to weigh the bandwidth costs for each channel launch... but it just eats at their HD=free mantra if they charge more themselves for a shopping channel. I'm 100% sure Disney/ABC/ESPN will bring that kind of thing up at the next negotiations too...


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... I get that...
> 
> I was just pointing out that when Dish says "the HD feed should be supplied to us for free along with the SD feed we pay for" as a negotiating tactic... it becomes more difficult for them to charge someone more for an HD feed.
> 
> I get that they have to weigh the bandwidth costs for each channel launch... but it just eats at their HD=free mantra if they charge more themselves for a shopping channel. I'm 100% sure Disney/ABC/ESPN will bring that kind of thing up at the next negotiations too...


I get your point but, I doubt that the QVC's contract terms would ever be made public to anybody, much less Disney/ABC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jclewter79 said:


> I get your point but, I doubt that the QVC's contract terms would ever be made public to anybody, much less Disney/ABC.


You would think so... but we already know that Disney wanted more for their HD feeds than Dish thought was the case... hence why we lost those HD feeds late last year of some Disney channels...

So no doubt word would get around if QVC had to pay more to get their HD feed carried on Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I was just pointing out that when Dish says "the HD feed should be supplied to us for free along with the SD feed we pay for" as a negotiating tactic... it becomes more difficult for them to charge someone more for an HD feed.


It isn't that hard to consider what is actually being paid for. DISH's believe that HD should not cost more than SD is referring to the rights to rebroadcast a channel. Their (potential) charge for bandwidth is not a carriage rights issue at all.

The bandwidth issue is like a downtown parking lot charging $13 per car for parking. Pull up in an eighteen wheeler and they will likely tell you to move along or charge you for all of the spaces you consume ... not just $13 per vehicle. The lot may offer a discount for motorcycle parking if the bike takes up less space.

I don't see where charging an appropriate fee for bandwidth has anything to do with the rights argument.



> I get that they have to weigh the bandwidth costs for each channel launch... but it just eats at their HD=free mantra if they charge more themselves for a shopping channel. I'm 100% sure Disney/ABC/ESPN will bring that kind of thing up at the next negotiations too...


Rights is not the same argument as bandwidth.

What the mouse can rely on in their arguments is other services that charge more for the rights to view HD content vs SD. DISH is doing that with their VOD and PPV. It is unclear if DISH is passing on a higher charge they have to pay for the rights to deliver HD VOD/PPV or if they are simply charging for more bandwidth.

BTW: HD channels are roughly 1/8th of a transponder with many channels now being limited to 1/9th. SD channels are roughly 1/12th or 1/13th of an MPEG2 transponder. The per channel price isn't that different, if one simply divides a per transponder cost by the channels carried. IE: $150k per month for a transponder lease would work out to $12.5k for an SD channel or $16.6k for a HD channel. Although there are not as many transponders set aside for HD, so a premium cost (just like a premium charge for downtown semi parking) would be expected when one is selling space.

Also, as it has angrily been pointed out previously on our forums, the shopping channels "do not pay" for carriage. But there is what I'd call a kickback ... a commission if you will ... for sales made. So in essence they are paying for carriage. Perhaps with negotiations HSN or QVC could get their HD signals carried in the hope that sales would increase and the commission would cover the additional bandwidth cost?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> *are there shopping channels that broadcast in HD?*


Locally, my Comcast carries both HSN HD and QVC HD. I am blessed. :nono2:


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

It might be better for sales if the channels are not in HD. Junk in SD may not look so junky. It's the same as some people looking better in SD but there is not enough makeup to make them look good in HD.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> in the hope that sales would* increase *and the commission would cover the additional bandwidth cost?


Increase? Wait, people actually buy that [strike]junk[/strike] [strike]crap[/strike] stuff?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

As more of the content providers mirror their SD and HD channels, it makes sense that they would only provide an MPEG4 HD feed. I notice that even the SD movie channels are going towards letterboxing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> It isn't that hard to consider what is actually being paid for. DISH's believe that HD should not cost more than SD is referring to the rights to rebroadcast a channel. Their (potential) charge for bandwidth is not a carriage rights issue at all.
> 
> The bandwidth issue is like a downtown parking lot charging $13 per car for parking. Pull up in an eighteen wheeler and they will likely tell you to move along or charge you for all of the spaces you consume ... not just $13 per vehicle. The lot may offer a discount for motorcycle parking if the bike takes up less space.
> 
> I don't see where charging an appropriate fee for bandwidth has anything to do with the rights argument.


Let me try this another way...

IF Dish is deciding to pick up HBO Bozo (an SD channel)... or HBO Happy HD... they not only have to weigh what they will pay per subscriber but also consider that they could pick up 11 other SD channels if they go for Bozo... but Happy will take up the same space as 10-12 SD channels but they only sell it as one channel.

So... to Dish... there is cost and there is "cost"... The obvious cost is what they pay for carriage... the less-obvious cost is lost revenue to Dish for channels they can't carry because choosing to use more bandwidth on a single channel.

So... as we know... Dish has a lot of demand for international channels that are in SD... so there are going to be times when picking up a bunch of international SD channels will make more money for Dish than picking up a single new HD channel... especially an HD channel that gets added to a package with no price increase vs a new international suite they can sell.

That's what I'm referring to.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Increase? Wait, people actually buy that [strike]junk[/strike] [strike]crap[/strike] stuff?


Yep. That's how they pay for all the warehouses, studios and people to run the operation. They are not just playing house.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... to Dish... there is cost and there is "cost"... The obvious cost is what they pay for carriage... the less-obvious cost is lost revenue to Dish for channels they can't carry because choosing to use more bandwidth on a single channel.


That has nothing to do with the "HD should be the same cost as SD" argument that DISH makes when buying the right to rebroadcast channels. The argument that if DISH pays for Disney SD they should be able to rebroadcast Disney HD at no extra cost (paid to Disney).


----------

