# I love this.... thanks D*



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

I just realized that as I read these forums there is a heated discussion everywhere about 'whats the next HD on E*', how is E* going to catch up, etc. etc. etc. This is great and we have D* to thank for this.... after lagging far behind E* for over a year with HD they have rebounded strong and have applied the one thing to E* that can result in good things for us and that is pressure. E* needed a swift kick in their complacency and they got it. It can only mean more HD channels for us all. I predict that in the not too distant future all our concerns will be about the amount of HD content, not the number of HD channels.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2007)

That's exactly what it means - now that DirecTV has taken the lead, Dish will have to work feverishly to catch up and, before long, they will have all of these new HD channels. We all come out ahead. That's why it puzzles me to see all of these comments from Dish subscribers claiming:

1. They don't want any of those new channels - it's all stuff they wouldn't watch anyway.

2. Those new HD channels don't have HD programs running 24x7x365.

3. They aren't sports fans, so they don't care about any of the HD sports channels.

4. Who cares about watching news in HD, anyway? Or business and financial news either, for that matter?

I think some of these folks are suffering from "DirecTV HD envy" and they are just trying to convince themselves that they really aren't missing out on anything. They should be thanking DirecTV, not dissing them.


----------



## rictorg (Feb 2, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's exactly what it means - now that DirecTV has taken the lead, Dish will have to work feverishly to catch up and, before long, they will have all of these new HD channels... I think some of these folks are suffering from "DirecTV HD envy" and they are just trying to convince themselves that they really aren't missing out on anything. They should be thanking DirecTV, not dissing them.


I couldn't agree more with both of you... more channels is the start to having more content and a better viewing experience. Even if an HD channel is turned on with 0 HD programing, it is still better then nothing.

One place where these arguments are valid is when considering the limited bandwidth currently available to E*. Until the new bird is in the sky, they have some decisions to make when it comes to which channels to pick up and which ones to wait on. In that context, the arguments above are important, but for now, I just want more HD!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's exactly what it means - now that DirecTV has taken the lead, Dish will have to work feverishly to catch up and, before long, they will have all of these new HD channels. We all come out ahead. That's why it puzzles me to see all of these comments from Dish subscribers claiming:
> 
> 1. They don't want any of those new channels - it's all stuff they wouldn't watch anyway.
> 
> ...


Actually I don't think this is the case at all. Well at least not in my instance and from what I am reading from other posts it is not about D* HD Envy at all. Having new HD content available and having someone add it puts pressure on others to add it and it is a good thing. I think most agree on that.

But one has to go back to the old saying "Content is King". If I don't watch it on SD I most likely will not watch it on HD. Sure I will watch it when it first comes out, but when push comes to shove I will be watching the HD content of programming I want to watch not because it is now in HD but because it is what I want to watch. You might this saying I don't wan't the channels because I would not watch them is envy, but actually depending on ones viewing habits I find it a very true statement. Personally I watch mostly local stations, Some sports, and a small percentage of other national shows like Ghost Hunters.

Prior to the flood of HD into D*, there was already a lot of HD to view provided in locals and other national and speciality channels and when a new one arrived I would check it out and watch for a bit and then find myself back to watching what I watched before (HD or not). Sure I would find some new programs that I might add to my DVR record list but those shows always end up on the bottom of the list when I decided what to view at any given time.

Ofcourse the new channels provide more HD content to choose from and HD quality or improved SD quality for what one might be watching. I think that is point a lot of people bring up and I agree, but it still is not going to make me start jumping up and down and scream or jump ship because of it. In my case, it is not about Envy it is about looking at the list I currently watch and coming to the conclusion that though more HD is better, there is not a channel added that I put on my must have list today. Ofcourse I know others do have such channels, but some of use just don't. When it comes if they come to E* great, Hopefully I will find something on there I like and I personally would not mind getting ghost hunters with better quality.

Now there are a minimum of 4 threads discussing this issue on the E* side of the fence. They have at times gotten rather heavy and personally and there is a lot of mud slinging from both sides. I have read some of the arguments above, have read some of the D* threads also and my take is that the points are legit opinions, but also see why others could not see them as such.

I think really what is going on is we all draw lines differently where value is and what has value to some has no or minimal value to others. Don't get me wrong here, I do consider the new D* channels having value in general as I do in the E* HD offerings also, but I also see where some would not consider them of value in their particular use case. I do think some are envious, but I also think others feel their HD needs are meet at the moment and understand that in the end we will see these channels in E* land.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> But one has to go back to the old saying "Content is King". If I don't watch it on SD I most likely will not watch it on HD. Sure I will watch it when it first comes out, but when push comes to shove I will be watching the HD content of programming I want to watch not because it is now in HD but because it is what I want to watch. You might this saying I don't wan't the channels because I would not watch them is envy, but actually depending on ones viewing habits I find it a very true statement. Personally I watch mostly local stations, Some sports, and a small percentage of other national shows like Ghost Hunters.


I agree but we have to remember that nearly every SD channel out there has some folks who watch it and who would like it in HD vs SD given the choice. Obviously some SD channels have a broader audience than others, but all probably have some viewership and those customers are hoping for more HD. If the pressure is there, the companies that provide signals will react, if that results in more HD channels, then the pressure is there for content providers to react. It is all good regardless of one's personal viewing habits.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I thought Richard is King? Anyways ...

Even before D*'s push we have had threads when new channels were released asking when E* would get them. Often the question comes down to quality. When E* "finally" added A&E after much harassment it seemed that the argument turned from "when are we going to get it" to "why did E* add this stupid upconvert channel". We are picky people.

The only thing that has changed now D* is flooding their satellite with new HD is that there are more channels to discuss. Plus we can add the question "if it is good enough for D* why isn't it good enough for E*"? Different standards?


----------



## Wind_River (Feb 6, 2006)

rictorg said:


> One place where these arguments are valid is when considering the limited bandwidth currently available to E*. Until the new bird is in the sky, they have some decisions to make when it comes to which channels to pick up and which ones to wait on.


Other people here (who appear to be in the know) have said many times that *new satellites are not required before new channels are added* and there is plenty of bandwidth available (open to interpretation) until the new satellites fly.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

I do not care if Dish adds HD channels or not. I do care about picture quailty and right now that seems to have gone down on both Dish and Direct Tv. 

Cable on the other hand seems to have improve their picture quailty. I do know that their is a new chip out just to decode MPEG 4. I saw this chip in action and the HD picture just knocked my pants off(bad sight).

I sure hope that Dish will offer a new receiver with a better chip for mpeg 4 decoding. I want the effort by dish be put toward getting us a better picture. Once that happens then I will fight for content.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tomcrown1 said:


> I sure hope that Dish will offer a new receiver with a better chip for mpeg 4 decoding. I want the effort by dish be put toward getting us a better picture. Once that happens then I will fight for content.


E*'s receiver is fine (although the 722 will do VC-1 for internet downloads).

It is the uplinks that need new encoders. One TP at a time over to the best MPEG4 that is available.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

James Long said:


> We are picky people.
> 
> The only thing that has changed now D* is flooding their satellite with new HD is that there are more channels to discuss. Plus we can add the question "if it is good enough for D* why isn't it good enough for E*"? Different standards?


Amen... and I hope we stay picky. As for the 'only thing that has changed', to me it's the biggest thing to have changed in over a year. It's one thing to have great forum discussions about what we want and to try and get attention paid (and it works... look at the reaction to TBS-HD).... but it is a different type of situation when your competitor is the one applying the pressure, putting on national ad campaigns, and gripping you by the $$$$ you can lose. I still believe this is a chicken and egg scenario... we need the HD channels even if they are content poor in order to force content providers to supply more and better content. What motivation does a content provider have to produce HD material if there is no HD channel to use to distribute their product?


----------



## dlott (Oct 23, 2003)

As a D* subscriber, I am thrilled with the new HD offerings. My dad has been a happy E* subscriber for the last 3 years. He ask me whether he thought he ought to switch since D* added the new HD content. I told him stay put until both carriers have their additional satellites up and functioning. I honestly feel that both will pretty much mirror each other's content with the normal cultural differences that we see today. If you are happy with E* today you will probably be happy with what is available when the everything shakes out, with the same being said for the D* subscriber. I am just happy that they have to react to the each to each others content additions. And a subscriber to either is way better off here than with our local cable franchise.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> I thought Richard is King? Anyways ...
> 
> Even before D*'s push we have had threads when new channels were released asking when E* would get them. Often the question comes down to quality. When E* "finally" added A&E after much harassment it seemed that the argument turned from "when are we going to get it" to "why did E* add this stupid upconvert channel". We are picky people.
> 
> The only thing that has changed now D* is flooding their satellite with new HD is that there are more channels to discuss. Plus we can add the question "if it is good enough for D* why isn't it good enough for E*"? Different standards?


Well stated, and, yes, I am.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

bhenge said:


> What motivation does a content provider have to produce HD material if there is no HD channel to use to distribute their product?


Just because a providers adds a channel called HD doesn't mean a programmer is gonna move any faster to provide HD programming. Since many of the programmers are uplinking a standard definition picture that is stretched, many non-technical subs think they are seeing HD when they aren't. Where is the commitment by programmers to not stretch the SD? It seems like that is the trend among many of the different networks. I don't buy the motivation argument. E* and D* could just as well have negotiated carriage and said to the programmers, I will add your HD channel but, I want to see a certain level of HD before I do. I have to give both D* and E* credit, but more credit to D* for adding more recent channels called HD. They used it to their advantage and marketed the "HD" channels to add new subscribers in the name of HD even though there is little or no HD on many of those channels they added. TBS is the biggest exception, other than the playoffs, there is no HD yet but, it's still called TBSHD. It is, IMO, the biggest marketing scam of the year, and the consumers bit.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

richiephx said:


> Just because a providers adds a channel called HD doesn't mean a programmer is gonna move any faster to provide HD programming. Since many of the programmers are uplinking a standard definition picture that is stretched, many non-technical subs think they are seeing HD when they aren't. Where is the commitment by programmers to not stretch the SD? It seems like that is the trend among many of the different networks. I don't buy the motivation argument. E* and D* could just as well have negotiated carriage and said to the programmers, I will add your HD channel but, I want to see a certain level of HD before I do. I have to give both D* and E* credit, but more credit to D* for adding more recent channels called HD. They used it to their advantage and marketed the "HD" channels to add new subscribers in the name of HD even though there is little or no HD on many of those channels they added. TBS is the biggest exception, other than the playoffs, there is no HD yet but, it's still called TBSHD. It is, IMO, the biggest marketing scam of the year, and the consumers bit.


You have to be a HD newbie. Obviously you don't remember back to ESPN-HD's launch. Their digital studio wasn't opened for OVER A YEAR. This type of roll-out has been the norm for simulcast channels actually.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Yeah, well, I'm sure that many of the people who make ridiculous comments in this thread, myself included don't remember.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's exactly what it means - now that DirecTV has taken the lead, Dish will have to work feverishly to catch up and, before long, they will have all of these new HD channels. We all come out ahead. That's why it puzzles me to see all of these comments from Dish subscribers claiming:
> 
> 1. They don't want any of those new channels - it's all stuff they wouldn't watch anyway.
> 
> ...


Im an E* and I care about ALL of those things..but apparently charlie thinks all E* customers only like hockey


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

ScoBuck said:


> You have to be a HD newbie. Obviously you don't remember back to ESPN-HD's launch. Their digital studio wasn't opened for OVER A YEAR. This type of roll-out has been the norm for simulcast channels actually.


Yep I totally remember it.... Isn't TNT-HD stil there.  ... and though having SD being delivered in HD is a step up from SD being delivered as SD, in my opinion there is a line where an HD channels has worth over its SD channel depending on the amount of HD content it delivers. Hopefully most of the channels that are showing up recently will reach that line quicker that its predecessors.

Oh.. and the line.. Well funny thing about that line.... it is different for each one of us and I think that is the main reason behind a lot of the discussions and all the counting.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> Yep I totally remember it.... Isn't TNT-HD stil there.  ... and though having SD being delivered in HD is a step up from SD being delivered as SD, in my opinion there is a line where an HD channels has worth over its SD channel depending on the amount of HD content it delivers. Hopefully most of the channels that are showing up recently will reach that line quicker that its predecessors.
> 
> Oh.. and the line.. Well funny thing about that line.... it is different for each one of us and I think that is the main reason behind a lot of the discussions and all the counting.


The sad part is that E8 wont even let us have the "HD-LITE" versions of the stations D* just launched...I'd rather have those than the SD version...at least i would use all of my tv without E* stretch option


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

What do you mean... Let us have? Dish has never said they are not going to carry them.... I don't think the gating factor here is release them at a lower resolution or not at all and nothing I have read indicates such. 

Also, if I am understanding you right, just because the channel is in HD does not mean content won't be 4x3. In fact.. Having the channel in HD with mixed 4x3 and 16x9 content creates an interesting issue people that want those bars filled run into on the 722. One format option for HD resolution so you will get the bars on your 4x3 content on the new HD channel. 

Don't get me wrong.. I am looking forward to these channels being added though I also understand it will take time and given my experience with HD i know at the start it is a mixed bag and things will get better so I am not as much in a rush of "I must get them" as some others.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> Let us have? Dish has never said they are not going to carry them...


yeah...and they havn't said a damn thing about carrying them either.

I dont care about bars if the show isnt in HD...but i want to see the shows that are...in HD...not SD....even with bars the "HD-LITE" looks better than SD>


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Agreed.. higher resolution and higher bit rates over SD should always produce a better picture. 

As for saying a thing well D* and E* handle this differently and there are pluses and minuses to both approaches.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Yeah...Ijust hope CHarlie gets off his butt and does something to get these channels...or at least let us know whats in the works with certain channels...it would put a lot of E* customers at ease.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> Yeah...Ijust hope CHarlie gets off his butt and does something to get these channels...or at least let us know whats in the works with certain channels...it would put a lot of E* customers at ease.


I honestly don't think you will be getting any new channels anytime soon - or why is it so quiet?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Look up two posts above for the reason. E* practice is not to pre-announce channels... D* does... Just like Microsoft and IBM. Two different approaches both with pluses and minuses.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Look up two posts above for the reason. E* practice is not to pre-announce channels... D* does... Just like Microsoft and IBM. Two different approaches both with pluses and minuses.


I guess time will tell.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> I guess time will tell.


and to much time will drive us away


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:wave: Bye!

As noted elsewhere, someone else will take your place.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

During a recent 'Charlie Chat", Charlie had said that we [Dish] have every HD channel available. Now that the tides have turned and there are new HD channels available, Charlie needs to step up and add "every channel available" and be quick about it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm still amused by the DirecTV people who feel the need to try and stir the pot in a Dish forum... instead of enjoying the new channels they have. Maybe those new channels aren't compelling? Otherwise why the time and need to come into Dish forums and stir the pot?

I have far too much to occupy my time and don't go into the DirecTV forums to stir up trouble.

In the many years I have been with Dish now... they have never made a big splash pre-announcement about anything that they have ever done. DirecTV has gone the other direction and mass-marketed way in advance of things. If you look at the numbers, both companies have grown at about the same rates... DirecTV having more subscribers because they started before Dish did.

In the entire time Dish had a big HD lead over DirecTV... I saw nothing to indicate that DirecTV wouldn't eventually have all the same HD as Dish. Now that DirecTV is adding more new channels, I similarly see no reason why Dish will not eventually have them as well.

Any short-term advantage is really not worth either company getting really excited about.. and certainly isn't worth the effort some folks feel the need to go stir the pot about.

How about instead of bragging you all go watch your TVs! And we will watch ours. I still have more HD than I can watch in a day even without the new stuff.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> I'm still amused by the DirecTV people who feel the need to try and stir the pot in a Dish forum


Ditto. I am also amused by those Dish people who come here and "threaten" to leave if Dish doesn't add every channel that they want. If they really feel this way they should simply leave, please (quietly). Frankly (don't call me Frank), I'm getting real tired of the crap.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Richard King said:


> Ditto. I am also amused by those Dish people who come here and "threaten" to leave if Dish doesn't add every channel that they want. If they really feel this way they should simply leave, please (quietly). Frankly (don't call me Frank), I'm getting real tired of the crap.


Then maybe you should mod a forum for "tickled pink" dish customers...sorry that those of us are annoyed found a place to talk to other annoyed customers...and since most of us are locked into a contract...we can't just leave....like I said before...i would be content to here E* at least mention what they are working on...and not the silent treatment...so that way i know if i can look forward to see some of my fav shows in HD...next month.....or have to wait 4 months...next year....something...anything. But i have a feeling they don't want to come out and say..we have no clue if we are going to get it or not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf,

I can understand frustration... but think about it like this. Do you pre-announce all your plans? Do you go to your boss at work every day and tell him your plans for next month? Do you advertise to your neighborhood your plans?

A company has even more to worry about than you or I do.. and as such the smart companies tend to play things closer to the vest. I have worked for companies that had loose-lips and then wondered why their competition was able to compete with them so well... and I've worked for companies that did not pre-announce anything, and tried to keep the competition in the dark as long as possible.

There are always spies and rumors... but announcements of an official or semi-official nature from a company representative are a different animal.

On a personal note, I happen to be ok with Dish not announcing. If they don't announce, then there is nothing to be let down about.. and always a pleasant surprise when you get something.

It's always nice to get a heads-up, but really... no one ever owes any of us any kind of advance warning or announcement.

Sure, there is a risk of people panicking and leaving while Dish is quiet... but Dish could take a risk and pre-announce something, miss a date, and then have people mad at that. With silence, any frustration built-up is purely imaginary by customers... whereas announcements can backfire.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> texaswolf,
> 
> I can understand frustration... but think about it like this. Do you pre-announce all your plans? Do you go to your boss at work every day and tell him your plans for next month? Do you advertise to your neighborhood your plans?
> 
> ...


If I had a bunch of customers asking about the next move....yes I announce something...I never said I wanted exact dates...if Charlie came on and said "we know a lot of customers are concerned about new HD line up, we are currently in negotiations with Sci fi, FX...ect." I would be fine...because I know they are attempting. That would not give the competition anything seeing as they already have those channels and are working on whats next...while we work on catch up...now maybe not announce channels they dont carry...but the ones they already launched...give your customers something. If you don't set an exact time frame...there will be no let down...just a heads up that they are in the process to catch up...I'm sure they will get them...we all say that....but none of us know for sure...so we wait...and even when D* missed their date...big time....there wasn't a big chunk of people that left...just angry....but they knew still knew it was coming at least...now they are happy....while we wait for ..even a word.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> If I had a bunch of customers asking about the next move....yes I announce something...I never said I wanted exact dates...if Charlie came on and said "we know a lot of customers are concerned about new HD line up, we are currently in negotiations with Sci fi, FX...ect." I would be fine...because I know they are attempting.


But how is that kind of announcement any better or different than not saying anything?

Think about it.

Saying "we are talking to people... and will have channels soon" or "eventually" is no more valid than saying nothing, because unless and until Dish closes the doors on its company, you have to assume they are considering adding channels and talking to those channel providers.

For that matter, any kind of "we are talking to NBC/Universal about adding SciFi, USA, etc." statement by Dish can actually harm negotiations.

Say you are going to bid on an item at eBay... do you tell lots of people you want that item and are going to bid? Or do you keep quiet and hope no one else (or at least not many) people know you want it and try to bid against you?

In many ways, negotiating contracts is a lot like bidding at an auction. You want the best deal, and so does the seller... and if you tip your hand too soon then you end up paying more or not getting it at all.

Also, you have to keep in mind... Dish hasn't suddenly changed their way of doing business. If Dish had a history of making grand announcements about future plans and then suddenly became quiet, you might worry.. but because of Dish's longstanding history of silence in these things... I personally might worry more if Dish did suddenly issue a big announcement as it could be taken as a panic announcement.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> Say you are going to bid on an item at eBay... do you tell lots of people you want that item and are going to bid? Or do you keep quiet and hope no one else (or at least not many) people know you want it and try to bid against you?


Bidding war with who? D* has already sealed the deal...it's time for E* to get a deal itself....the cable companies are not going to outbid them...so there is no need this time for a double secret probation hush hush release for these already carried channels on D*...keep hush hush about ones that D* doesn't have sure...but these? At least let your customers know you are trying so we don't assume that you are....i know one day i will turn my tv on and there they will be, and this whole thing will be pointless...but damn it im impatient...lol...and have wanted those channels long before half the other ones we have in HD....and now I have to listen to my buddies with D* brag.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> If I had a bunch of customers asking about the next move....yes I announce something...I never said I wanted exact dates...if Charlie came on and said "we know a lot of customers are concerned about new HD line up, we are currently in negotiations with Sci fi, FX...ect." I would be fine...because I know they are attempting. That would not give the competition anything seeing as they already have those channels and are working on whats next...while we work on catch up...now maybe not announce channels they dont carry...but the ones they already launched...give your customers something. If you don't set an exact time frame...there will be no let down...just a heads up that they are in the process to catch up...I'm sure they will get them...we all say that....but none of us know for sure...so we wait...and even when D* missed their date...big time....there wasn't a big chunk of people that left...just angry....but they knew still knew it was coming at least...now they are happy....while we wait for ..even a word.


I guess Charlie Ergen must be doing something wrong because he's only a billionaire.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> I guess Charlie Ergen must be doing something wrong because he's only a billionaire.


Too bad the "billionaire" didn't want to part with his money and get his customers MLB again, or NFL ticket, or how about even the CW....thats how the rich get rich...spend as little as possible. If he opened the wallet a little more he could probably bury D* in the HD game, bring on a lot more customers....and continue getting richer.....of course its easy for me to say.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes it is. You're just some guy on the internet. 

Charlie's a guy who has managed not to run his business into the ground for nearly 12 years.
Once again, I believe that this isn't even a blip on the radar.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Yes it is. You're just some guy on the internet.
> 
> Charlie's a guy who has managed not to run his business into the ground for nearly 12 years.
> Once again, I believe that this isn't even a blip on the radar.


true...hey i meant to ask you....do you know the reason why the CW isn't in HD for us? is it a money thing....which would be hard to believe...being a smaller network


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yes it is. You're just some guy on the internet.


Who, based upon most of your comments, must be really unhappy and miserable in your personal life. Tissue? :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hey, I'm just some guy on the internet too!

Having the Superstations in HD would be nice - or organizing a nice HD feed of CW direct from the source - but the network would rather have you view your local CW station. Affiliation agreements get in the way of providing signals more than anything.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Hey, I'm just some guy on the internet too!
> 
> Having the Superstations in HD would be nice - or organizing a nice HD feed of CW direct from the source - but the network would rather have you view your local CW station. Affiliation agreements get in the way of providing signals more than anything.


ahhh gotcha...was trying not to have to get an antenna....but hey


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Who, based upon most of your comments, must be really unhappy and miserable in your personal life. Tissue? :lol:


nah personal life is fine...just annoyed with my money going towards a service I would like more from....but thanks for ...trying to take it to a personal level...thats usually what people do when they have nothing intelligent to bring to a civil conversation...it's also they reason boards have mods...to keep things on track


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok guys.... Enough is in enough.. Lets avoid the personal comments and stick to the topic if I am having trouble remembering what it is... .... Oh yeah... Thanking Dish for the HD because competition keeps things moving.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

yeah that is something i thank them both for...as frustrated as i get...could be worse...i could still be with Charter...lol


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Guys just think about this. The company that makes the up link encoders must be slammed. Yes there is one company producing them for both D* & E*. Met them this summer right after they had signed the deal w/ D*. They already had a contract w/ E*. Right now I think a lot of the problem is just getting the systems in to do the encoding & up linking. I admit I have thought about D* in the past few days and looked into their system. The DVR's they have only have 2 tuners. I would be really hard pressed to want to go back to 2 tuners. D* would have to come out w/ a unit that could do 2 sat & 2 OTA before I could get very excited about going over to them. Now back to main thought, I digressed. My expectations is that E* is working on getting out fitted to fire up the up link to handle the load of new HD. So I feel that I'm going to have to wait a bit and see. 1 last thought I'm near the end of my commitment so I will be free & clear before too long. But I have a really hard time w/ the idea of spending 2 or 3 hundred and having to be tied into D* for 2 yrs. So there are several reasons to not jump just yet for me. also by the time the new sat goes up for E* then they will have boo coo room to run the new HD in full or near full resolution. Until then I hope to see them add a few more HD's w/ what encoders they can spare.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> texaswolf,
> 
> I can understand frustration... but think about it like this. Do you pre-announce all your plans? Do you go to your boss at work every day and tell him your plans for next month? Do you advertise to your neighborhood your plans?
> 
> ...


If I was Dish I would be monitoring this and other public avenues of discussion to see what people think. If we were all quiet about it would that give Dish an out to either go slow or not at all with the additions?

Often public DEMAND drives these companies and seeing that people are leaving Dish (they have these internal numbers so they do not need those numbers) and those threatening to leave can drive their asses to move.

IMHO Dish sat on their hands enjoying that D* could do very little to add HD and instead of having new HD ready they were caught off guard.

So Dish squandered their lead and now they are paying the price.

What would you do if D* offerered you near free equipment and more programming for the same dollar? Some would still stay with Dish but many others would make the leap esp since Dish does very little (as does D*) to retain loyal customers.

I do not want gifts from Dish to stay a customer but I do expect the same level of service. Dish most certainly has HORRIBLE CSR's (maybe D* does too) and before they had more HD and a kick ass box... the 622. Now all that is left is the 622/722.

It's kind of funny that most people are more loyal to a reciever box (622/722) than they are to Dish itself 

-JB


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> It's kind of funny that most people are more loyal to a reciever box (622/722) than they are to Dish itself


ain't that the truth....i know some people on here are "tired" of hearing E* complaints...but thats what a forum is for...opinions, and should maybe take a look around at other forums...it's the same. It will be interesting to see what E* does, due to unhappy customers. Once E* gets caught back up...people will be happy again...but it's up to E* as to when that happens.


----------



## Miggity (Aug 10, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Where is the commitment by programmers to not stretch the SD? It seems like that is the trend among many of the different networks.


This is rrrrrrrreally starting to bother me. It is *inexcusable *that A&E-HD, TNT-HD, TBS-HD, History-HD, ScienceChannel-HD are all airing a ton of 4:3 stretched out to to widescreen.

:down:

Do they not realize that all the idiots that want to watch it like that can do that with their TV/Reciever but I can't _unstretch _it? :bang

seriously. what can we do about this??? I have been sending emails to these networks daily for a while now, with NO RESPONSE (outside of an automated "thanks").

I can't watch these channels this way. Why can't they just show 4:3 content at a 4:3 aspect ratio?

who are the geniuses making these decisions. I'm gonna call them...


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Miggity said:


> This is rrrrrrrreally starting to bother me. It is *inexcusable *that A&E-HD, TNT-HD, TBS-HD, History-HD, ScienceChannel-HD are all airing a ton of 4:3 stretched out to to widescreen.
> 
> :down:
> 
> ...


So they are idiots...because they don't agree with you? I don't care for it much either...but it is much better to me like i said before than the stretch or zoom options on the 622...it makes an anorexic girl look like rosie o'donnell


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> ... That's why it puzzles me to see all of these comments from Dish subscribers claiming:
> 
> 1. They don't want any of those new channels - it's all stuff they wouldn't watch anyway.
> 
> ...


rcoleman, you can add me to the list of people who puzzle you. I'm busy and I don't have much time to watch TV. When I watch TV, I'm more interested in the quality of what I watch, not the number of HD channels. And no, I don't suffer from DirecTV envy. I even cancelled DishHD because its not worth $20 a month to me.

I get plenty of HD from my OTA rooftop antenna. These are my favorite channels anyway.

What worries me most is if Dish Network, in response to DirecTV, adds even more channels I don't care about and raises the cost for everyone.

Brett


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

texaswolf said:


> Then maybe you should mod a forum for "tickled pink" dish customers...sorry that those of us are annoyed found a place to talk to other annoyed customers...and since most of us are locked into a contract...we can't just leave....like I said before...i would be content to here E* at least mention what they are working on...and not the silent treatment...so that way i know if i can look forward to see some of my fav shows in HD...next month.....or have to wait 4 months...next year....something...anything. But i have a feeling they don't want to come out and say..we have no clue if we are going to get it or not.


Well based on past experience. I don't think it is a matter of that they don't have a clue. It is a matter of whether a company wants to set expectations that may or may not happen. The risk of pre-announcing something is if priorities change or stuff happens that changes the situation there is a vocal group that yells foul. If something changes and does not happen it goes from bad to worse.

IBM used to pre-announce things a lot until things go sticky, law suits happend, and know they are very conservative about announcing anything. E* tends to operate the same way in regards to programming.

On the other side of the coin, they are bit more open about what is going on in the receiver space and what is coming up. Some of the things they discuss do not happen or get delayed and a lot of heat comes there way for that.

I mean.. pop over to the D* forum. Lots of negative posts on what is being delivered to them. Lot of people happy yes.. But there are a lot of threads that find what they were handed is below expectations. This could be a result of the hype. I would say and example of a minus through pre-release communication..

Like I said. Two ways to approach it and both have pluses and minuses. One thing to mention. HD is a big thing to us, for the average Joe it is not and for a lot of people they feel it is too expensive to get into the door. The HD crowd, though growing , is a small percentage of the customer base. Of that percentage, we are on the nerd end of the spectrum and we are more aware and care about this stuff than the average HD person.

The cool thing about people here, you make them happy you most likely will make a large portion of the customer base happy and it is good to be vocal. But one thing I see... People tend to project their preceived reality onto a situation and believe it to be the real reality and it may or may not be the case. It is human nature to project our perception of the world outward though I have always said... Perception is only preceived reality. Look, listen, see, and hear and perhaps the truth well open up. Well something like that.

I understand the need for information and communication. The topic comes up a lot and came up with the switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4. Would be nice, but like I also understand the reason not to state it being here and seeing the backlash of commitments not meet in time or pulled off the table.

As to the comment about liking 622/722 more than E* itself. Well i have been around a while and I have to say based on the posts I have read people are happy with the E* product line and services. I personally am rather suprised at the immediate backlash when D* finally got there HD channels out and the threads that have been posted. Heck, I could understand if it was 6 months or so since D* lanched but it is not even close.


----------



## BigSey (Oct 18, 2006)

I know this is a little off-topic and for that, I apologize in advance...

I don't understand why people take comments about their provider so personally. Look, I love TV just as much as the next guy. Sports happen to be my preference but I'm good with pretty much anything in HD. Going through threads on recent "D* getting HD" or "E*'s lack of HD" topics, there just seems to be a ton of animosity and defensiveness. 

Obviously, there are fanboys out there from both sides but isn't it possible to have a conversation/debate that doesn't degenate into having to defend your provider to the death? 

Again, maybe I'm out of line and posting in the wrong area. I just needed to get it off my chest. Oh yeah...before anyone says something like "You don't have to read it if you don't like it...", I actually do enjoy reading the comments and that's why I continue to do so. I guess this is more of a social commentary than anything else.


----------



## Miggity (Aug 10, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> So they are idiots...because they don't agree with you? I don't care for it much either...but it is much better to me like i said before than the stretch or zoom options on the 622...it makes an anorexic girl look like rosie o'donnell


No no no. Let us decide if we want to stretch out the image or not. (not)


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

BigSey.... Nothing wrong with people commenting and discussing their opinion and experiences. This is what DBSTalk is here for. As long as people respect each others opinions, avoid personally attacking other members, and stay away from trolling. 

I have been on the D* side of the fence and have participated in a few threads I felt i could add some perspective and value. However, the strange thing about the Fanboy comments I read.. they always seem to be a label thrown out because someone has a more pro opinion to provider than the person doing the throwing of the label. 

I personally try to respect people who are frustrated or have a more negative opinion towards a companies decision than mine and I expect the same in return. Usually I get it but every once in a while that label gets tossed my direction because of the position I took was contrary to a member opinion. 

I think your Fanboy statement proves my point. From your perspective it is a person defending a provider to the death (unless I am reading it wrong). I personally see it as two opposing opinions and respect both and when it does degenerate both parties usually have equal blame and are equally the cause of the conversation going down the rat hole. Of course this is not always the case but I would say more so than not. Like my son is always told in school.. most of the time it takes two.


----------



## BigSey (Oct 18, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> I think your Fanboy statement proves my point. From your perspective it is a person defending a provider to the death (unless I am reading it wrong). I personally see it as two opposing opinions and respect both and when it does degenerate both parties usually have equal blame and are equally the cause of the conversation going down the rat hole. Of course this is not always the case but I would say more so than not. Like my son is always told in school.. most of the time it takes two.


You're right but I think it happens on both sides, i.e. D* supporters and E* supporters. It seems like a point is made supporting one provider but fans of the other provider need to counter it and state why their provider is actually better. I agree that it does take two but it seems like the 2nd person is not necessarily provoked in many cases...it's more their defensiveness that causes them to respond to something that was never meant to be taken personally or offensively. Again, just my 2 cents and for full disclosure, I have D* and like it but enjoy checking out all of the boards on DBSTalk.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> BigSey.... Nothing wrong with people commenting and discussing their opinion and experiences. This is what DBSTalk is here for. As long as people respect each others opinions, avoid personally attacking other members, and stay away from trolling.
> 
> I have been on the D* side of the fence and have participated in a few threads I felt i could add some perspective and value. However, the strange thing about the Fanboy comments I read.. they always seem to be a label thrown out because someone has a more pro opinion to provider than the person doing the throwing of the label.
> 
> ...


i think he is talking about people who won't even give an inch to admit something negative about their provider...which leads to more heated conversations...personally my loyalty is with the provider that is most loyal to their customers. I completely understand what you mean by not wanting to say they are getting something and then not pull through...but you have to admit...E* lacks in information to customers...a simple statement that they are in process of looking into getting the channels that people are fussing about...would put many at ease...that they are trying. Most of my frustration, and others I see here with them, is no communication what so ever.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I can definitely see that BigSey and agree that can happen.

Oh.. and the other factor that tends to be forgotten is... "it is very hard to read tone" from a typed medium. That is why if I feel really annoyed by an email, lots of times I will walk away and re-read it later slowly with the frame of mind it might not mean what I think it means. I might be improperly reading the writers tone. 

Since I am a mod here... Lots of times I don't get the opportunity but sometimes I have misread the tone of the post and acted on it only to find out later the tone was not what the originator meant it to be. 

Good example.. Sarcasm usually never goes over well in forms unless indicated as such.. Lots of times when someones intention is to be sarcastic it is ready much differently by a lot of users and usually does not result in good things happening.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

texaswolf said:


> i think he is talking about people who won't even give an inch to admit something negative about their provider...which leads to more heated conversations...personally my loyalty is with the provider that is most loyal to their customers. I completely understand what you mean by not wanting to say they are getting something and then not pull through...but you have to admit...E* lacks in information to customers...a simple statement that they are in process of looking into getting the channels that people are fussing about...would put many at ease...that they are trying. Most of my frustration, and others I see here with them, is no communication what so ever.


Actually, maybe I am slated since I have been on the board and read a ton of posts but usually when statements like that have been made, and they have over the years, they are turned around into being too vague or the classic "They might has well of said nothing".  I am sure making general statement will put some at ease but they usually also bring on the "When" and "Its been too long" type of threads. Like I said... It is definitely a damn if you do.. damn if you don't situation.

As informed customers.. we want all the information we can get and we want it detailed and we want it accurate. Well I am a software engineer and I know from the other side of the fence what software development for content delivery is like and I know that first sentence if hard to do. For the people that need to know something I hope something will show up to provide confidence we will see all or some of the channel offerings we don't have. However, personally I just can't see E* not answering this need given the future of the HD and what it means to the subs.. Eventually it will be much like SD deliver is.. It is just there .


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> However, personally I just can't see E* not answering this need given the future of the HD and what it means to the subs.. Eventually it will be much like SD deliver is.. It is just there .


Same here, so I checked to see when charlie chat would be on...and there isn't one this month....which ticked me off.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Charlie has been off often over the past year ... it seems monthly is a moving target. But at least the chats have not been completely pulled.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> Charlie has been off often over the past year ... it seems monthly is a moving target. But at least the chats have not been completely pulled.


James what has happen is that the Chat is every two Months. One Month is Tech Chat the second month is Charlie time.

What makes it seems like a moving target--is that one month may have no form of chat, thus it may seem that Charlie Chat is every three months.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They do seem to be skipping the same months (April, July and October) as last year.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Charlie has been off often over the past year ... it seems monthly is a moving target. But at least the chats have not been completely pulled.


so he should be on next month...i would hope so...given the D* news.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Something to keep in mind when wondering about the frequency of the Charlie chats... when does the Time Warner chat come on? Or the Comcastic chat? Or the DirecTV chat?

I am not aware of anyone but Charlie on Dish having that sort of deal where the CEO comes and talks to the customers.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Something to keep in mind when wondering about the frequency of the Charlie chats... when does the Time Warner chat come on? Or the Comcastic chat? Or the DirecTV chat?
> 
> I am not aware of anyone but Charlie on Dish having that sort of deal where the CEO comes and talks to the customers.


true, but D* comes out and announces things public....sometimes to early....lol...but...customers here it.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

any D* BSG fans out there see the Razor flashbacks yet? Just wondering how good it looks in HD.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2007)

brettbolt said:


> rcoleman, you can add me to the list of people who puzzle you. I'm busy and I don't have much time to watch TV. When I watch TV, I'm more interested in the quality of what I watch, not the number of HD channels. And no, I don't suffer from DirecTV envy. I even cancelled DishHD because its not worth $20 a month to me.
> 
> I get plenty of HD from my OTA rooftop antenna. These are my favorite channels anyway.
> 
> ...


Glad to hear you're not suffering from DirecTV envy, but I think there are a lot of Dish subscribers who would like some of those new HD channels.

I agree it's not the number of channels, but whether they have the content you want to see in HD. The addition of the Starz and Cinemax HD channels means a lot to me, because I just can't bring myself to watch movies in SD anymore. And the new MGM HD channel is a good addition, too. The addition of the regional sports networks is also nice - I've been watching the Oklahoma-Iowa State game in HD today. And I'm definitely looking forward to the new season of Battlestar Galactica in HD on SciFi. On the whole, there's a lot of stuff I watch on those new channels.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> Originally Posted by brettbolt View Post
> rcoleman, you can add me to the list of people who puzzle you. I'm busy and I don't have much time to watch TV. When I watch TV, I'm more interested in the quality of what I watch, not the number of HD channels. And no, I don't suffer from DirecTV envy. I even cancelled DishHD because its not worth $20 a month to me.
> 
> I get plenty of HD from my OTA rooftop antenna. These are my favorite channels anyway.
> ...


I think a majority of people the spend the money on a HDTV want the most HD channels they can get...not just locals...Considering the success of shows on Sci FI, FX, HBO, and SHowtime...I would say a majority of people would want those in HD as well, therefor causing some D* envy...since they offer them... I also would have to think that more people watch BSG, or Nip/Tuck or Rescue Me....than there would be watching "treasure seekers" (treasure HD) where people browse antique flea markets...in HD...so I again would have to think there is more E* customers that are envious. That and the massive amount of E* customers complaining about those channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Also worth keeping in mind that we on these forums are not even 1% of Dish customers... so even if we all agree on something, that may or may not bear any reflection on the rest of Dish subscribers.

As for premiums like HBO or SHO in HD... Most customers do not subscribe to HBO or SHO or any of the premiums... and a minority of customers are getting HD... so even if all HD customers wanted the premiums, again that would still be a small motivating force vs the rest of Dish subscribers.

Sometimes individuals think we are more important than we really are and it is a harsh reality when someone points out otherwise.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> As for premiums like HBO or SHO in HD... Most customers do not subscribe to HBO or SHO or any of the premiums... and a minority of customers are getting HD


Funny...Premiums and HD seem to be the focal point of both companies marketing....trying to remember the last time one of them said...."WE ARE THE LEADR IN SD PROGRAMMING".

Your right most subscribers aren't HD customers...But i'd say the sat and cable companies know what they are doing by featuring HD in all advertisements...it's where the DEMAND is...........that would be us....the HD customers.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I hate to burst people's bubbles... but we simply don't matter that much as individuals. And even if you group all the paying HD customers together, I still doubt Dish or DirecTV would close their doors if all of us cancelled tomorrow.

In the long run HD is going to matter... and may even become the norm on most mainstream channels. But we aren't there yet.

Anyone remember the Apple Newton? It died a quick and painful death... and yet the modern "tablet PC" is a big hit. The Newton was just too early and couldn't survive the wait for interest to catch up.

HD will survive the growing pains until the public interest catches up... but we aren't there yet. Still most of the HD sales are going to folks who are watching SD DVDs in widescreen and they are plenty impressed with just that feature such that they aren't demanding HD like some of us are.

It just bears mentioning and recognizing that it is still going to take some time for HD to become THE driving force in entertainment.

Oh, and about advertising... Keep in mind that if people really really want and demand it, you don't have to advertise it. You don't see bread commercials much, but you can bet most of us are consuming bread. Take a look at the grocery store when there is a bad weather alert (snow, hurricane, whatever) and notice what items fly off the shelves. That's the stuff people can't do without. And conversely... if you go to a grocery store that doesn't keep bread, milk, and the "staples" on the shelves even if what you went for was a pack of Snickers and some Pepsi... you probably don't go to that store often if you can't depend on them for the basics.

Same for TV... HD is the cool "candy"... but if you can't get your fill on the rest of the meal, you won't stay. That's why Voom failed in part as a standalone, and why even when they tried to pick up SD channels they were too late.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2007)

HDMe said:


> HD will survive the growing pains until the public interest catches up... but we aren't there yet. Still most of the HD sales are going to folks who are watching SD DVDs in widescreen and they are plenty impressed with just that feature such that they aren't demanding HD like some of us are.
> 
> It just bears mentioning and recognizing that it is still going to take some time for HD to become THE driving force in entertainment.


In case you haven't noticed, HDTV is exploding in popularity these days. Almost a third of all homes now have at one HD television. The number is growing rapidly, and the availability of more HD programming can only cause sales to accelerate. DirecTV is adding all of these new HD channel because they realize HDTV is _already_ the driving force in home entertainment.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2007)

HDMe said:


> As for premiums like HBO or SHO in HD... Most customers do not subscribe to HBO or SHO or any of the premiums...


Sorry, but that just isn't so.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

I am an E* subscriber and I have more HD programming than I can possibly watch at this time. I am not envious of D* because I don't put that much importance on who has what now because, as history shows, both providers will be virtually the same sometime in the future. I can wait for E* to add new HD channels because most of the new stuff added are not channels that I watch today anyway and, most of the new channels have little or no HD content right now. It's a personal decision and no one's decision is wrong. It is unproductive to criticize others or speak negatively of one provider over another. If people have the need to switch now after 3 weeks, it's their choice. I can wait.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I hate to burst people's bubbles... but we simply don't matter that much as individuals. And even if you group all the paying HD customers together, I still doubt Dish or DirecTV would close their doors if all of us cancelled tomorrow.
> 
> In the long run HD is going to matter... and may even become the norm on most mainstream channels. But we aren't there yet.
> 
> ...


Ok well you can't compare entertainment to food.....just doesn't work.

The advertising they are doing isn't to draw people to HD...if it was you would see commercials saying "once you go HD, you wont go back to regular television" as a matter a fact...i do remember seeing stuff like that a year ago....the ad's you see are "we are the leader in HD". It is catering to HD customers...and soon to be HD customers. Most of the people I know that don't have HD...want to get it...as soon as they can get an HDTV. HDTV sales have sored. DO you really think all these people are buy HDTV's and not getting HD programming, or only an OTA for locals? I understand what you are saying...but they are gearing towards an HD focal point.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> Ok well you can't compare entertainment to food.....just doesn't work.
> 
> The advertising they are doing isn't to draw people to HD...if it was you would see commercials saying "once you go HD, you wont go back to regular television" as a matter a fact...i do remember seeing stuff like that a year ago....the ad's you see are "we are the leader in HD". It is catering to HD customers...and soon to be HD customers. Most of the people I know that don't have HD...want to get it...as soon as they can get an HDTV. HDTV sales have sored. DO you really think all these people are buy HDTV's and not getting HD programming, or only an OTA for locals? I understand what you are saying...but they are gearing towards an HD focal point.


I am confused as to what you are saying...you say in the first sentence that "The advertising they are doing isn't to draw people to HD". Then you go on in the rest of your comment to say the opposite. Please clarify your comment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> In case you haven't noticed, HDTV is exploding in popularity these days. Almost a third of all homes now have at one HD television. The number is growing rapidly, and the availability of more HD programming can only cause sales to accelerate. DirecTV is adding all of these new HD channel because they realize HDTV is _already_ the driving force in home entertainment.


That is a somewhat corporate/government forced choice. The government has been forcing digital tuners now on manufacturers and retailers have been pushing analog off their shelves... so most folks buying a new TV today will get an HDTV by default... but that doesn't necessarily mean they were seeking HDTV and seeking HD programming. It mostly means they wanted a TV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Sorry, but that just isn't so.


What are you saying isn't true?

I said most customers do not pay for premium channels like HBO. Are you trying to say most customers do pay for HBO?

IF that were true, then HBO would be in one of the basic packages and NOT a premium service. The mere fact that it is a premium service is indicative of its minority subscriber status.

Now, there may be millions of subscribers... but there are close to 30 million Dish/DirecTV subscribers plus a bunch more cable subscribers... and most of them do not pay for HBO or other premium channels.

If you can find proof that most customers do buy HBO, please provide it because I would be extremely surprised.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> Most of the people I know that don't have HD...want to get it...as soon as they can get an HDTV. HDTV sales have sored. DO you really think all these people are buy HDTV's and not getting HD programming, or only an OTA for locals? I understand what you are saying...but they are gearing towards an HD focal point.


I responded to this in another post above... the fact that manufacturers are being forced to include digital tuners in all TVs and retailers are slowly edging out their stock of analog-only TVs... means that anyone going to buy a new TV is going to get either an EDTV or HDTV by default whether or not that was their main reason for purchase.

Kind of like when the switch was made to unleaded gasoline in cars... People didn't have a choice to keep buying cars that used regular gasoline as it was a forced situation on manufacturing of cars... so eventually your only choice was unleaded (ok and diesel too but that's a different discussion).


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> I am confused as to what you are saying...you say in the first sentence that "The advertising they are doing isn't to draw people to HD". Then you go on in the rest of your comment to say the opposite. Please clarify your comment.


He was saying that HD subs aren't the majority of customers...and that the sat companies wouldn't care if we (HD subs) all canceled tomorrow...what i meant is that ad's you see today...are geared towards who will give you more HD...not give HD a try....not...soon...but NOW...basically if you dont have HD your missing out...they are the biggest promotional push by both companies...hence the HD DVRs...so obviously...the companies WOULD care if HD customers canceled.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Actually, unless I missed the post, HDMe did not say that D* and E* would not care... He said they would not close their doors and it is a big difference. I agree with HdMe. We are a growing segment but a small piece of a very large pie.... I believe you used the word massive amount of E* customer complaining about not having these channels... I also have to disagree on that.. We are far from massive even if all E* HD customers felt adding this HD channels are #1 priority. 

I know it is important to a number of users here.. but personally I would not consider that equating to massive.. 

It is apparent that both companies want to appear to be the leader in HD because HD is where we are going as a society. However, I still think HD to the average person is not a high priority. I live in a nice area and I do know that 7 out of the 9 homes have HD in some form. However, I also know as far as my friends and relatives the number if far less. More like around 10% and most of my friends are middle income type people and when brought up most don't feel envious or even the strong need to make the jump. Lots of people I talk to are happy with what they have and don't feel the need to make the jump yet.

I think D* and E* also know this and they are fighting for the future not a sudden surge of HD customers today. Yes it is growing, but like any technology tied to a major purchase that has equipment that lasts 10+ years it will take time..


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> Actually, unless I missed the post, HDMe did not say that D* and E* would not care... He said they would not close their doors and it is a big difference. I agree with HdMe. We are a growing segment but a small piece of a very large pie.... I believe you used the word massive amount of E* customer complaining about not having these channels... I also have to disagree on that.. We are far from massive even if all E* HD customers felt adding this HD channels are #1 priority.
> 
> I know it is important to a number of users here.. but personally I would not consider that equating to massive..
> 
> ...


Sure, I know people who don't have HD either...but most of the satellite customers i know...do...and that may just be me.

My point is...you don't see either company putting ad's out for SD channels....the ad's are for HD...it is a race right now...look at any site that reports on satellite/cable/tech and you will see the big story is when one of there companies release or announce the release of new HD channels. a race to get the most now...or by the end of the year...does not seem like a plan for 2 years from now. E* wouldn't bragging about being the HD leader, and D* wouldn't have scrambled and announce way early that they too will be getting more....if HD was not a significant part of the companies. Why would they waste so much advertising on HD...if it wasn't a significant part of the company. Yes in the future everything will be HD...but these companies ARE fighting RIGHT NOW to get the most HD customers...


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Sure you do, read the inserts in your daily newspaper. Some ads don't even mention HD.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Guess we see it differently.. What I see is that the companies view HD as a emerging market. The SD market is mature and saturated. The HD market is where the growth potential and the potential to steal customers away.. That is why I feel we are seeing these type of statements being made and D* advertising blitz. It is also why one does not see SD add campaigns... Mature vs. emerging opportunity one wants to capture.

I personally don't think at this point in time it is a significant part of the either companies business. However, I do think it is a significant part of both companies business plan and is a key focus for growth and conversion opportunities and that is why we see the large focus. 

I do agree they are fighting for HD customer now because it is these customer that will make the companies future bright and today is a key opportunity to capture new customer and even more so to get conversions and I think that is where D* mind and focus is and the primary driving force to add the quantity of channels they did.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Ron, your comments are refreshing, consistent and positive. Thanks.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Ron, your comments are refreshing, consistent and positive. Thanks.


i agree


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2007)

HDMe said:


> That is a somewhat corporate/government forced choice. The government has been forcing digital tuners now on manufacturers and retailers have been pushing analog off their shelves... so most folks buying a new TV today will get an HDTV by default... but that doesn't necessarily mean they were seeking HDTV and seeking HD programming. It mostly means they wanted a TV.


Sorry, but that's incorrect. The switch from analog to digital has nothing to do with the conversion from SD to HD. People with analog TVs will still be able to watch digital TV - they'll just need a set-top box or converter, which are already being provided by cable and satellite providers. Anyone who really wants to buy a new SD digital TV set can still do so. The notion that people are buying hi-def TV sets "by default" is really kind of silly.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2007)

HDMe said:


> What are you saying isn't true?
> 
> I said most customers do not pay for premium channels like HBO. Are you trying to say most customers do pay for HBO?
> 
> ...


HBO alone has about 26 million subscribers. Your comment that "most customers do not pay for premium channels like HBO" is simply incorrect.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> HBO alone has about 26 million subscribers. Your comment that "most customers do not pay for premium channels like HBO" is simply incorrect.


According to data at the www.ncta.com Web site, they are estimating approximately 65.5 million cable customers. Add that to the 30 million Dish/DirecTV and you are at 95.5 million customers. I'm not sure if this counts everyone or not... but your HBO number is less than a third of that.

I never said HBO didn't have a lot of subscribers... just that most folks don't have it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Sorry, but that's incorrect. The switch from analog to digital has nothing to do with the conversion from SD to HD. People with analog TVs will still be able to watch digital TV - they'll just need a set-top box or converter, which are already being provided by cable and satellite providers. Anyone who really wants to buy a new SD digital TV set can still do so. The notion that people are buying hi-def TV sets "by default" is really kind of silly.


You just changed your argument. I never said the switch from analog to digital has anything to do with SD vs HD. I also noted that some people are getting EDTVs and not HDTVs.

But the point was it is getting increasingly difficult to buy a new analog TV. Whether it will work with a set-top box or not is irrelevant if you can't buy one and if TV manufacturers stop making them.

My point was you can't automatically attribute sales of new HDTVs to people wanting HD because many purchasers just want to buy a new TV and have no other choice but to buy an ED or HD digital TV now that analog ones are not on the shelves.

Go to your local TV stores and see how many analog-only TVs you can find on the shelves... and price-compare them with the cheapest digital sets... and I suspect you will find that a customer needing a new TV right now is going to get a digital set whether he wants HD or not because it really is the only choice for him to buy one.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

On the advertising front... Companies tend to advertise things they feel differentiate them from the competition. Would you expect to see a Pepsi commercial that touted how similar Coke and Pepsi taste and how they are usually priced similarly and available in the same containers and sizes?

Dish doesn't spend a lot of advertising anyway... but the point here is, SD offerings from Dish and DirecTV are very comparable once you take away the sports. So DirecTV advertises Sunday Ticket and MLB Extra Innings as exclusives... and there really isn't a big differentiator for Dish in the SD market so why would they spend their advertising dollars just to say they are sort of the same?

When Dish had a big HD lead, it only made sense to emphasize that. You will note that during this time period DirecTV commercials said "we have the best HD" or "all your favorite HD" because they knew competing for number of channels was a losing advertisement... But now with mor channels launched, all the DirecTV commercials switched gears to advertise "we have the most HD".

Also worth keeping in mind... Dish internally and on press releases did say "HD leader" but I don't ever remember national ad campaigns like DirecTV does. Dish just hasn't spent that kind of money on advertising... and if you compare subscriber numbers between the two companies you have to call that a win for Dish because they are within a few million of DirecTV with nowhere near the advertising expense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There really isn't a lot going on in the SD world ... only a handful of channel additions over the past year. Those have been advertised (a press release and cross channel promos for Veria on Dish Network, enough BTN press releases to wallpaper a room). Perhaps some people are only seeing the advertising that interests them?

How about the ads for MLB EI or NFL ST or Nascar? While there is an HD counterpart to these packages these are premium SD channel packages that have most definitely been advertised.

And that does not begin to mention the mailers and other co-op advertising for the SD packages and the companies in general that fills our landfills and commercial breaks on TV. E* and D* have directed a lot of resources at promoting what is new ... HD ... but they have not forsaken SD in their ads.


----------



## Wildman63 (Dec 23, 2006)

From what I've read, about one-third of US households are HD capable. Prices are plummeting on HD sets... really, HD capable sets. My Samsung 1080P set has gone down $600 on the sticker price (I paid $300 under that) in the last year. Christmas will result in huge sales of HD sets. There will be an enormous market in HD content coming up. That brand new 50 inch flat panel displaying SD content won't cut it... and the Super Bowl will be just around the corner. 

It's easy to see why the advertising push is on HD programming.

The competition among providers is terrific as far as I'm concerned. None of them will rest on their laurels. We're all winners.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> Dish internally and on press releases did say "HD leader" but I don't ever remember national ad campaigns like DirecTV does.


Actually i have seen national ads, but your right, nowhere near what D* launches


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Wildman63 said:


> Christmas will result in huge sales of HD sets. There will be an enormous market in HD content coming up. That brand new 50 inch flat panel displaying SD content won't cut it... and the Super Bowl will be just around the corner.


It's funny how thats brought up every year about this time.. been that way for the better part of a decade.

Matter of fact, I believe the upcoming Super Bowl will be the 10th one in HD now.. well save for those couple years along the way when Fox was dicking around with 480p, but yeah.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In some ways getting an HD set is a lot like getting a camera-phone now. I neither have nor want a cellphone with a built-in camera... but if my current phone dies, I think the cheapest replacement for it now would still come with a camera.

My current phone supports internet for emails and stuff, but I've never used it for that and disabled the feature...but when I got this phone I didn't have an option to get a cheaper phone that didn't have the feature.. so I took what it came with.

This is why I took the position about "most consumers" and HD. I'm not sure how many people are running out to buy a new TV right now because of HD and how many just need a new TV and get HD for future-proofing or because it was the best deal on the shelf.

The first year I bought I my HDTV (back around 2003) I actually only used it for widescreen DVDs for about a year before subscribing to Dish's HD package and beginning to watch OTA HD as well... and while I knew full well the difference in HD and SD, it was not initially the driving force in my purchase. Initially I wanted a big screen TV for the living room, but splurged for the HD capability so I would have it when the time came.

I suspect there are many consumers in that mode right now... but I could see sometime in the next 5 years a big upswing in demand for more HD programming.

Unfortunately I also know people... and so many people seem to think the stretched TBS/TNTHD programming is HD since it fills their screen and has an HD logo in the guide... much of the public demand for HD will be curbed by what programmers are providing and calling HD.

In some ways, we would be better off with less HD channels... as that would keep demand higher for new HD channels. But since it has been proven that a lot of customers can be pacified with pseudo HD stretched upconverts... we will perhaps have to wait for the next groundswell to push forward.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> According to data at the www.ncta.com Web site, they are estimating approximately 65.5 million cable customers. Add that to the 30 million Dish/DirecTV and you are at 95.5 million customers. I'm not sure if this counts everyone or not... but your HBO number is less than a third of that.
> 
> I never said HBO didn't have a lot of subscribers... just that most folks don't have it.


The 26 million figure only takes into account the number of HBO subscribers. Add to that the number of subscribers to the other premiums and it's clear that a sizable percentage of cable and satellite subscribers do in fact get premium channels. The percentage is likely to be even higher among HD subscribers.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> In some ways getting an HD set is a lot like getting a camera-phone now. I neither have nor want a cellphone with a built-in camera... but if my current phone dies, I think the cheapest replacement for it now would still come with a camera.


Getting an HD TV set is a lot like getting a camera-phone? Not even close. A cell phone is a minor purchase - I got mine for free, just as most people do. A good HDTV can run thousands of dollars. I was being charitable when I described as "silly" your comment that people who are spending that kind of money for high-def TV sets don't care about HD, but your comments are getting are getting more laughable with each post.



HDMe said:


> In some ways, we would be better off with less HD channels... as that would keep demand higher for new HD channels. But since it has been proven that a lot of customers can be pacified with pseudo HD stretched upconverts... we will perhaps have to wait for the next groundswell to push forward.


There is plenty of real HD content on those new channels, comments from envious Dish subscribers notwithstanding.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Do you have any numbers that are not pulled out of thin air?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> This is why I took the position about "most consumers" and HD. I'm not sure how many people are running out to buy a new TV right now because of HD and how many just need a new TV and get HD for future-proofing or because it was the best deal on the shelf.


I don't know man, I know that most people I know that don't have, or just got an HDTV wanted one, but were waiting for the prices to drop to get one...not because they were left with no other choice.


> I suspect there are many consumers in that mode right now... but I could see sometime in the next 5 years a big upswing in demand for more HD programming.


I would think the way they are going with this race....there wont be many channels not in HD at the end of 2 years from now....5 years from now will probably be "SUPER HD" or something..lol



> Unfortunately I also know people... and so many people seem to think the stretched TBS/TNTHD programming is HD since it fills their screen and has an HD logo in the guide...


I agree this is far from HD, but i think a lot of people would rather have this choice than regular SD. I would rather have it than no HD of certain channels at all...i guess....plus tnt and tbs...dont really have anything that would look good in HD or stretched.


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

TNT HD sometimes airs movies in the 2:35:1 Aspect Ratio instead
of airing the movie in 1:78:1.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

space86 said:


> TNT HD sometimes airs movies in the 2:35:1 Aspect Ratio instead
> of airing the movie in 1:78:1.


oh yeah...forgot they do movies...i usually don't watch cause of commercials during movies


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I hate to burst people's bubbles... but we simply don't matter that much as individuals.


If these companies didn't care about individuals, they wouldn't give away freebies to anyone who calls in to complain or threatens to cancel their service. That's what the "Retention Dept." is all about - keeping individual subscribers from taking their business elsewhere.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> If these companies didn't care about individuals, they wouldn't give away freebies to anyone who calls in to complain or threatens to cancel their service. That's what the "Retention Dept." is all about - keeping individual subscribers from taking their business elsewhere.


Not at E* man! I gotta give them credit...they don't give into s%$#! Trust me I tried...now charter...hell you can get free months there...lol


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot (Jul 16, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Guess we see it differently.. What I see is that the companies view HD as a emerging market. The SD market is mature and saturated. The HD market is where the growth potential and the potential to steal customers away.. That is why I feel we are seeing these type of statements being made and D* advertising blitz. It is also why one does not see SD add campaigns... Mature vs. emerging opportunity one wants to capture.


Ron, speaking to you as a retired broadcast engineer, what I've personally seen in the "quality" of the HD picture being delivered on the national beam (HD Net, DiscoveryHD, etc) in no way compares to the disgraceful PQ I've seen on the MPEG4-compressed locals in the Houston DMA (#10). If this MPEG4 thing really is the wave of the future, the satellite broadcasters sure need to do some cleaning-up of their act if they expect me to pay for it. I'll admit I'm presently (but only temporarily) absent from the DBS scene while our retirement home is being built and so have missed the latest offerings put on the Ka birds over the past 6 months, but what I did see of the MPEG4 locals at the time we left, my only comment at the time was, "Pfffffffttt!!!!"

We'll be rejoining one of the SAT providers hopefully by Christmas and so will have to reserve further comment until then.

Bill


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Cap'n Preshoot;1231945 said:


> Ron, speaking to you as a retired broadcast engineer, what I've personally seen in the "quality" of the HD picture being delivered on the national beam (HD Net, DiscoveryHD, etc) in no way compares to the disgraceful PQ I've seen on the MPEG4-compressed locals in the Houston DMA (#10). If this MPEG4 thing really is the wave of the future, the satellite broadcasters sure need to do some cleaning-up of their act if they expect me to pay for it. I'll admit I'm presently (but only temporarily) absent from the DBS scene while our retirement home is being built and so have missed the latest offerings put on the Ka birds over the past 6 months, but what I did see of the MPEG4 locals at the time we left, my only comment at the time was, "Pfffffffttt!!!!"
> 
> We'll be rejoining one of the SAT providers hopefully by Christmas and so will have to reserve further comment until then.
> 
> Bill


Well Bill.. I have to say there is worlds of difference in the MPEG4 I saw 6 months back and what I got now. I have OTA and I still can see the difference, but I would not say night and day. 6 Months ago I think things were still being tweaked (I still think they are today to some extent thought minor now) so the quality was not where it should be and either was the reliability.

I think today for most DMAs things are improved greatly... Would definitly be interested in your prespective once you rejoin.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Getting an HD TV set is a lot like getting a camera-phone? Not even close. A cell phone is a minor purchase - I got mine for free, just as most people do. A good HDTV can run thousands of dollars. I was being charitable when I described as "silly" your comment that people who are spending that kind of money for high-def TV sets don't care about HD, but your comments are getting are getting more laughable with each post.


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I said that it is becoming increasingly less likely to find a cellphone that doesn't include a camera option... and that similarity is the comparison with HDTV. Best Buy just recently yanked all their analog TVs... and the FCC has been pressuring retailers not to sell existing analog-only stock without putting up big warning signs that say "you may not be able to use this without a converter box after 2009"... so it has become increasingly hard to find an analog-only TV.

Someone who wants a TV tomorrow is more likely to buy an HDTV tomorrow than an analog TV because it will be very hard to find an analog TV... and most digital TVs are HDTV, with a handful of EDTV still on the market.

As I said, go out and try to buy an analog TV and see how easy it is to find one... and compare with the low-end HD or EDTVs and see where your money is better spent. IF people on lower incomes still had the option of buying analog TVs then the sales numbers would still skew towards that demographic.

You're missing the boat and trying to inflate your (and our) own self-importance when faced with the reality that in the scheme of things we are still a small part of a growing market.. so our voices don't carry that much weight yet. Give it a few years and its a different argument... but right now we could all take our balls and go home and the entertainment industry would cruise right along with no immediate pressure to go HD. In fact, the OTA pressure just to digital (even without HD factored in) has not made much movement when you consider the original 2006 cutoff moved to 2009 and already there are loopholes built-in to allow some stations to extend to 2012.



rcoleman111 said:


> There is plenty of real HD content on those new channels, comments from envious Dish subscribers notwithstanding.


Sure there is... but you dodged my comment with one of your own that is irrelevant to my point. I specifically pointed out lack of HD on two channels that Dish has (TBS and TNT) to avoid it being taken as DirecTV bashing... the point is so many people think TBSHD and TNTHD stretching and showing non-HD content is good that it waters down the whole argument of whether or not the public wants HD.

These people you seem to think (without providing any evidence) want to buy HDTVs for the HD goodness who will demand to get HD... are the same folks who are happy with widescreen DVDs in SD and widescreen upconverts on HD channels. Only a small discerning minority knows and cares about the difference in real HD... and we simply don't make enough of a difference yet.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> If these companies didn't care about individuals, they wouldn't give away freebies to anyone who calls in to complain or threatens to cancel their service. That's what the "Retention Dept." is all about - keeping individual subscribers from taking their business elsewhere.


You are being suckered here. If you have to call a retention department and threaten to leave in order to get a "freebie"... you are proving how little they care about you as an individual!

If they truly cared about you individually, then you would not have to threaten or talk to a retention department. Truly, the retention department's goal is to assess your real "threat" as to whether it will just be you or if it could be something more... If they think they will lose more to your kind of opinion, then they start to care and make offers to keep you... but if they realize your threat is empty or they assess you as a limited small minority of a threat, then they will tell you to go on your merry way. This forum is littered with people who have been told to pound sand by both Dish and DirecTV when they tried to threaten for a freebie.

Individual subscribers mean nothing... but if lots of individuals form a group and leave, then companies start to take notice. This simply has not happened nor has there been indicators that it will.

Consider that this site has 50,000+ members and very few of us are even participating in this thread and we are not all in agreement... then compare that to the 13.5 million or so Dish customers and realize just how little these conversations we are having really matter in the scheme of things. Most Dish customers are blissfully unaware of the "sky is falling end of the world" discussion threads on this forum.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> You are being suckered here. If you have to call a retention department and threaten to leave in order to get a "freebie"... you are proving how little they care about you as an individual!


That makes about as much sense as the rest of your comments. According to you, people are spending thousands of dollars on high-definition TV sets because they _don't_ care about HD. Nobody subscribes to premium channels, you say, except for the 35-40 million people who subscribe to them, but who's counting them? We need less HD so we can get more HD. And when DirecTV gives away freebies to keep customers from leaving, it's because they really don't care if those customers leave. There must be some logic in there somewhere.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> You are being suckered here. If you have to call a retention department and threaten to leave in order to get a "freebie"... you are proving how little they care about you as an individual!
> 
> If they truly cared about you individually, then you would not have to threaten or talk to a retention department. Truly, the retention department's goal is to assess your real "threat" as to whether it will just be you or if it could be something more... If they think they will lose more to your kind of opinion, then they start to care and make offers to keep you... but if they realize your threat is empty or they assess you as a limited small minority of a threat, then they will tell you to go on your merry way. This forum is littered with people who have been told to pound sand by both Dish and DirecTV when they tried to threaten for a freebie.
> 
> ...


Im in the "give me my Sci-fi and FX in HD...and nobody gets hurt" group


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Sure there is... but you dodged my comment with one of your own that is irrelevant to my point. I specifically pointed out lack of HD on two channels that Dish has (TBS and TNT) to avoid it being taken as DirecTV bashing... the point is so many people think TBSHD and TNTHD stretching and showing non-HD content is good that it waters down the whole argument of whether or not the public wants HD.


Let's see, I watched first-run episodes of "The Closer" and "Heartland" in HD on TNT recently (there's other HD content there as well, if you bother to look for it). And baseball fans have been raving about the HD baseball playoff games on TBS. But I guess those don't count as HD programs in your view? I suppose if there is any non-HD content on a channel, stretched or otherwise, we should overlook any of the HD programs and not watch them, either? Have you ever considered just _not watching_ the non-HD programs and watching only the HD stuff?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> That makes about as much sense as the rest of your comments. According to you, people are spending thousands of dollars on high-definition TV sets because they _don't_ care about HD.


Have you tried to buy a SD set lately? Most of them are on clearance or gone. Not all people are paying thousands on HDTVs, some are paying hundreds with some paying thousands. The market for big screen SDTVs was pretty strong before HD was introduced. Many are just in the market at that level - they want big screen (now that prices are down) more than they want HD.



> Nobody subscribes to premium channels, you say, except for the 35-40 million people who subscribe to them, but who's counting them? We need less HD so we can get more HD. And when DirecTV gives away freebies to keep customers from leaving, it's because they really don't care if those customers leave. There must be some logic in there somewhere.


It isn't a case of nobody ... it is a case of most. HDMe said *MOST* people do not subscribe to premium channels. Not that nobody does.

Check out E*'s and D*'s annual reports. There is no way that E* collects only $66 per customer and D* only $76 per customer if there is not a vast majority of customers at the lower programming levels without premium channels (and without HD).

You need to pull some better numbers to counter HDMe's claim that *MOST* people do not subscribe to a premium.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Do you have any numbers that are not pulled out of thin air?


I don't pull numbers out of thin air, James. Here's a CNNMoney article from 2005 that shows HBO with 28 million subscribers and Showtime with 13 million.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/fortune500/hbo_showtime/index.htm

Here's a more recent article from the New York Times that shows similar numbers - 28 million for HBO and 14 million for Showtime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/arts/23hbo.html


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Have you tried to buy a SD set lately? Most of them are on clearance or gone.


That's because the demand for SD sets just isn't there anymore. And that's because the demand is for HD.



James Long said:


> Not all people are paying thousands on HDTVs, some are paying hundreds with some paying thousands.


I said "a good HDTV" can run thousands of dollars.



James Long said:


> The market for big screen SDTVs was pretty strong before HD was introduced. Many are just in the market at that level - they want big screen (now that prices are down) more than they want HD.


And now that there is a good selection of HD programming, the demand is for HDTV sets, not SDTV.

Why do you suppose DirecTV has spent hundreds of millions of dollars launching all of these new satellites and HD channels, not to mention millions of dollars more advertising them? Is it because DirecTV execs are just stupid? Is it because they enjoy wasting shareholders' money on something nobody really wants or cares about? Or is it because they know they know there are millions of people with HDTVs who are clamoring for more HD programming? I think all of us know the answers to these questions, whether you admit it or not.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

I do not subscribe to premium channels because (big opinion here LOL) they are a waste of money. By the time they show anything new I had already rented the darn movie on Netflix. Their so called "in house" shows like the Sopranos and Deadwood seem to consider a season from 5-10 episodes instead of the 15-20+ on the networks so IMHO I'd much rather rent the entire season when it comes out. Then they space out those limited number of shows to try and stretch them for an entire year. Ack!

I took the Showtime free three months (well it will cost me $5 to cancel it) and let me tell you... it sucks! Very little is worth watching to me. The few original shows I'll just rent for my $17 a month at Netflix.

I see we are being blitzed with free premium channel teasers. I bet they are hurting for subscribers. Each Blockbuster or Netflix subscriber kills off most premium channels. The only way they can stop the bleeding is to refrain from putting their original shows on DVD a year after they show. As I said before... I can wait one year and get the entire season via BB or Netflix.

So for a single $17 a month I get "all" the premium channel content. In the case of movies I get them before the premium channels. In the case of original shows I have to wait a year. Heck... most of the time I can get the darn movies before those $5 PPV options! Who in the world pays $5 for a PPV movie that they can get much cheaper at the video store? I guess the world is filled with either rich or lazy (both?) people LOL who do not want to wait for the movie in the mail or take a trip to the video store.

-JB


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> It isn't a case of nobody ... it is a case of most. HDMe said *MOST* people do not subscribe to premium channels. Not that nobody does.
> 
> Check out E*'s and D*'s annual reports. There is no way that E* collects only $66 per customer and D* only $76 per customer if there is not a vast majority of customers at the lower programming levels without premium channels (and without HD).
> 
> You need to pull some better numbers to counter HDMe's claim that *MOST* people do not subscribe to a premium.


I've posted the numbers that debunk the claim the "most" people don't subscribe to premium channels. "All but 35-40 million subscribers" isn't what I would consider "most people".


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> HBO alone has about 26 million subscribers. Your comment that "most customers do not pay for premium channels like HBO" is simply incorrect.


There are currently about 100 million cable/sat customers. By your own admission, about 26 million subscribe to HBO. That is about 26% so, to me, that is not "most" since it is substantually under 50%.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

Its ok guys. You are all correct in your own special ways. :up:


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> So for a single $17 a month I get "all" the premium channel content. In the case of movies I get them before the premium channels. In the case of original shows I have to wait a year. Heck... most of the time I can get the darn movies before those $5 PPV options! Who in the world pays $5 for a PPV movie that they can get much cheaper at the video store? I guess the world is filled with either rich or lazy (both?) people LOL who do not want to wait for the movie in the mail or take a trip to the video store.
> 
> -JB


You can get most (not all) of the premium channel content from Netflix if you don't mind watching the movies and shows on standard-definition DVDs. Or you can watch them in HD if you want to spend a lot of money to buy both a Blu-ray and an HD DVD player, then hope one or both don't become obsolete anytime soon. I cancelled my Netflix subscription a few months ago because watching movies on standard-definition DVDs just doesn't compare to watching them on HD premium channels. And I don't have to mess with mailing in DVDs and waiting for new ones to arrive.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> You can get most (not all) of the premium channel content from Netflix if you don't mind watching the movies and shows on standard-definition DVDs. Or you can watch them in HD if you want to spend a lot of money to buy both a Blu-ray and an HD DVD player, then hope one or both don't become obsolete anytime soon. I cancelled my Netflix subscription a few months ago because watching movies on standard-definition DVDs just doesn't compare to watching them on HD premium channels. And I don't have to mess with mailing in DVDs and waiting for new ones to arrive.


i got a bunch of HD DVD's from netflix...but yeah there were some on blue ray i wanted too...I cancelled my netflix...got all the premiums (4 HD) and record them to my external...most movies I can wait until they come on premiums ...if there is one i really want before than...I usually will buy it anyway.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

rcoleman111 said:


> You can get most (not all) of the premium channel content from Netflix if you don't mind watching the movies and shows on standard-definition DVDs. Or you can watch them in HD if you want to spend a lot of money to buy both a Blu-ray and an HD DVD player, then hope one or both don't become obsolete anytime soon. I cancelled my Netflix subscription a few months ago because watching movies on standard-definition DVDs just doesn't compare to watching them on HD premium channels. And I don't have to mess with mailing in DVDs and waiting for new ones to arrive.


Well I find that watching a DVD on a quality up-converting DVD player is near as good as the over compressed "near HD" *smiles* that we now get.

Someday I'm sure that Dish will stop compressing the heck out of their HD and then I'm sure that DVD will look weaker but I just watched a DVD on my 50" DLP and the DVD looked either the same or better than Dish HD.

Eventually this stupid PS3 vs HD DVD war will be over LOL and we can move on to real HD DVD's but I'll not buy a player until one or the other wins.

While this Blu-Ray may or may not be better I hope it loses only because I'm sick of Sony and their "go it alone" BS in regard to trying to corner the market on new tech. Memory Stick? Why???? What was wrong with SD?

Well this is getting off subject and will spurn a Blu-ray vs HD DVD flame war so I'll drop it. Needless to say I feel a good DVD with a decent up-convert looks every bit as good as HD-lite.

-JB


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> There are currently about 100 million cable/sat customers. By your own admission, about 26 million subscribe to HBO. That is about 26% so, to me, that is not "most" since it is substantually under 50%.


The 26 million figure is only for HBO. There are other premium services as well.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> Well this is getting off subject and will spurn a Blu-ray vs HD DVD flame war so I'll drop it. Needless to say I feel a good DVD with a decent up-convert looks every bit as good as HD-lite.
> 
> -JB


And I can tell you firsthand that there is nothing "lite" about those new HD premium channels. The picture quality on any of the HD premium channels is far superior to standard-def DVDs, upconverted or otherwise.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

It appears to me from reading this thread that someone needs to *read* or maybe *reread* people's comments and understand what they are saying before they respond. Seems perfectly clear to me what hdme and JL are saying. Sometimes when speaking to a person, they are so focused on responding that they don't hear what a person is saying to them. I didn't think that could happen with the written word but this thread shows it can.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> That makes about as much sense as the rest of your comments. According to you, people are spending thousands of dollars on high-definition TV sets because they _don't_ care about HD.


That's not what I said. You are making the assertion that everyone is paying thousands of dollars on HD sets. Where is this coming from?

I bought my HDTV about 5 years ago for around $3,000. My parents bought a comparable model last year for about $1,500. There are LOTS of options now for good quality HDTVs under $1000.

The lower price combined with the government mandate that all sets manufactured after a certain date (I forget what that date was) means all new TVs on the shelves right now are either EDTV or HDTV almost by default unless you find an older analog-only set that has been sitting for a while.

People who are spending thousands and more do care about HD... but those folks are making the minority of the HDTV purchases! The majority of the HDTVs being purchased right now in this "boom" period are folks who for the first time can afford one and/or need to replace a TV and have to buy from what is available.

Most folks don't even seem to really know what makes HD, HD.. and if asked, very few can give a valid answer much less a 100% correct one. Many seem to think all widescreen is HD, regardless of the resolution. Some think their upconverting DVD players are "converting" their old DVDs into HDTV.

You are making an assertion that all people buying HDTVs are doing so because they want and demand HD. I am countering that by saying I believe most people are buying HD (or ED) TVs because that is what is on the shelves when they go to buy. Sure some are buying for HD quality... but quite many are just buying what is out there.

IF we didn't have the upcoming mandated cutoff for analog and IF the government didn't mandate digital tuners in ALL TVs... then we could see how the market truly stood in terms of demand for HDTVs. As it is, the choice has mostly been taken away from the consumer.



rcoleman111 said:


> Nobody subscribes to premium channels, you say, except for the 35-40 million people who subscribe to them, but who's counting them?


I don't know why you keep misquoting me... and you even misquote yourself! I never said nobody gets premium channels... but if everyone got them they would not be premium channels. That logic point alone should be enough to diffuse your argument.. but your own numbers don't bear out what you are trying to say.

Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean most people do it. In case your math is fuzzy... 50% would be equal... greater than 50% would be a majority... less than 50% is a minority (i.e. not most).



rcoleman111 said:


> We need less HD so we can get more HD.


This is just an opinion of mine. Based upon how many seem to perceive HD as anything widescreen... I fear, as do others, that the more HD channels launched by Dish OR DirecTV that do not contain even 50% HD airing on them... the less likely pressure will be to increase that programming any time soon.

The more people accept the stretched non-HD, the less reason channels have to try and put on actual HD. How you can argue against this concept is odd, because it seems you would be on the side of it.

I also don't know how you turned this into a DirecTV rant, when I've been clear my comments here apply equally to both Dish and DirecTV. Many channels on Dish have less than 50% airtime actually in HD. I would rather have waited, or gotten less channels with more content. I am not jealous of DirecTV. If I were a DirecTV customer I would not have been jealous of Dish either.

At this point almost any channel either company adds is going to be something of a disappointment to those who truly want more HD... and further proof of my argument, unfortunately, that most people want more channels rather than necessarily more HD channels.



rcoleman111 said:


> And when DirecTV gives away freebies to keep customers from leaving, it's because they really don't care if those customers leave. There must be some logic in there somewhere.


Again, not sure why you applied this only to DirecTV. I spoke for/against both companies in this regard. When a customer has to threaten a company to get a freebie, then it wasn't free. I am a customer. If I am to the point where I am mad and threatening to leave... then giving me a freebie doesn't make me feel better. I am already "stirred up" at that point.. and no freebie makes me think suddenly that a company cares about me. I reiterate, if a company cares about you... they will show you before you get to that point.

This is very much like a relationship with another person... Do you believe someone loves you when they say it all the time? How about when they say it at times when you need to hear it but weren't expecting it? Ok... now how about if they only say they love you when they want something in return or when you threaten to leave?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> And I can tell you firsthand that there is nothing "lite" about those new HD premium channels. The picture quality on any of the HD premium channels is far superior to standard-def DVDs, upconverted or otherwise.


i compared SW episode II when it came on a premium HD...then put the dvd in my HD player..which up converted it...and I gotta tell you..on that one ....the upconversion was much better...my buddy and i were shocked how much better it looked...cuz the dish version looked fine in the first place...but like i said that was that movie alone....a majority of the movies i record...are no big deal as far as quality go...now for films like transformers and 300....the HD version gets bought...no questions


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Let's see, I watched first-run episodes of "The Closer" and "Heartland" in HD on TNT recently (there's other HD content there as well, if you bother to look for it). And baseball fans have been raving about the HD baseball playoff games on TBS. But I guess those don't count as HD programs in your view? I suppose if there is any non-HD content on a channel, stretched or otherwise, we should overlook any of the HD programs and not watch them, either? Have you ever considered just _not watching_ the non-HD programs and watching only the HD stuff?


You seem to have a problem with terms like "most"... I watch Closer and other shows on TNTHD as well as Law & Order reruns and NBA games that are in HD. But I also see stretched out Charmed, some movies, Judging Amy, Angel, and other shows not in HD.

As for TBSHD... The only thing anyone has reported seeing there in HD was baseball... and baseball on TBSHD is over with for this season... and no one I've seen has reported seeing anything else besides stretched upconverts there.

A&EHD, History, Science, TLC, and many of the other recent additions have either stretched or zoomed or both much of the day.

Note that I have also seen HD on these channels. For the understanding challenged... I have seen HD on these channels. BUT I would not say that most programming on these channels is HD. Some have more than others, but only a handful of channels have all HD all the time.

Even HBO and MAX and SHO and Starz are not HD all the time. I've seen plenty of SD upconvert on HBO and MAX recently... I've also seen HD on HBO and MAX that was not in original aspect ratio. Superman Returns and Batman Begins are good examples from last month that were on HBO in 16x9 ratio instead of 2.35:1 as they should have been.

You seem to be reading only parts of what I write. I enjoy the HD I see... and I don't enjoy the stretched stuff. When a new channel (like TBSHD) launches that has practically no HD on it at all, I do not get excited... and I was sad to see Dish add it.

From what I hear, I might like to see USAHD... but even SciFiHD doesn't seem (by the posts I've read) to be airing everything it could in HD... so I can wait for them to get more content. I don't even watch Bravo so I'm not clamoring for that in HD either. But everyone has their tastes.

I just don't want to see lots and lots of upconverted/stretched stuff launched by any company and then have the average public think we now have lots of HD... when we really don't.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> From what I hear, I might like to see USAHD... but even SciFiHD doesn't seem (by the posts I've read) to be airing everything it could in HD... so I can wait for them to get more content. I don't even watch Bravo so I'm not clamoring for that in HD either. But everyone has their tastes.


the big shows..BSG and Stargate are in HD...and FX has Nip/Tuck and Rescue me in HD...as far as other stuff..i don't know...but that is the main reason i want those two channels....i know those shows are in HD...and thats good enough for me right now


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I don't pull numbers out of thin air, James. Here's a CNNMoney article from 2005 that shows HBO with 28 million subscribers and Showtime with 13 million.


Congrats ... now ACCURATELY relate those figures to E* and D* subscribers and explain why you believe "most" E* and D* subscribers have a premium service.



rcoleman111 said:


> That's because the demand for SD sets just isn't there anymore. And that's because the demand is for HD.


Chicken, meet egg. It is amazing how well SD sets were selling until the FCC told manufacturers they could not import them without changing the tuners. The choice for the manufacturers comes down to "do we design a SD set with a DTV tuner or just crank out more HD sets". When it comes down to it, the manufacturers can - MAKE MORE MONEY - by selling HD sets and using the FCC's action as an excuse for not having SD sets (even SD sets with DTV tuners) readily available.

Those walking into stores increasingly face the non-choice of buying HD. You cannot give credit to the "demand" for HD when the consumer is given practically no choice.



> Why do you suppose DirecTV has spent hundreds of millions of dollars launching all of these new satellites and HD channels, not to mention millions of dollars more advertising them? Is it because DirecTV execs are just stupid?


Careful, we'll take away your D* lover's credentials if you give credit to anyone else for driving D* into the HD market.  I guess you're not one of the ones who feel that D* is leading the way on HD. 

Chickens and eggs ... headed in the same direction. All looking toward the future.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Found this:

FCC hands out fines for sales of analog-only TVs

The digital switchover is coming, and there's no more sure sign of it than fines being handed out by the FCC to retailers that continue to sell sets with only analog tuners. Any remaining inventory retailers have can be sold, but must be accompanied by signage "in close proximity" that explains the limitations of these devices in our coming digital airwaves. Fewer than one dozen violations were cited by the FCC's dragnet, which is pretty incredible. The small number of infractions is a credit to the teeth the FCC put into the regulation: an $8000 fine per model, per store. This kind of financial pressure was certainly a factor in Best Buy's recent removal of analog-only sets from their shelves entirely; one careless stocking error or misplaced sign could have proven very costly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:



> the big shows..BSG and Stargate are in HD...and FX has Nip/Tuck and Rescue me in HD...as far as other stuff..i don't know...but that is the main reason i want those two channels....i know those shows are in HD...and thats good enough for me right now


By the time the new season of BSG comes around, I would agree with you. All I regularly watch on SciFi is BSG and Dr Who... both of which are out-of-season at the moment.

I can't remember the last time I watched FX. I do watch USA though, for shows like Monk, Psych, Dead Zone (which may or may not be cancelled seems to be up in the air).

I remember thinking I wanted UniversalHD until I got it... I watch it sometimes now, but honestly not that much since the shows airing there are a couple of seasons out of date usually. This season I find myself watching a lot of OTA HD as it happens... so much of the week I wouldn't even know what other channels I don't yet have.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> Found this:
> 
> FCC hands out fines for sales of analog-only TVs


Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was talking about... where today's consumer really doesn't have a "choice" to not buy at least a low-end HD set... maybe an ED set still around.. but as JL pointed out, once manufacturers were forced to include digital tuners, they had a nice excuse to just stop making SD sets entirely and blame it on the government.

And while it seemed to confuse at least one person... I was likening this to the increased bundling of non-phone features on phones where you don't have a choice really to buy (or even take for free) a phone that is just a phone anymore.. so you can't make a blanket statement about consumers choosing HDTVs more than SDTVs today without considering that they very rarely even have the choice of buying an SD set anymore.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> By the time the new season of BSG comes around, I would agree with you. All I regularly watch on SciFi is BSG and Dr Who... both of which are out-of-season at the moment.
> 
> I can't remember the last time I watched FX. I do watch USA though, for shows like Monk, Psych, Dead Zone (which may or may not be cancelled seems to be up in the air).
> 
> I remember thinking I wanted UniversalHD until I got it... I watch it sometimes now, but honestly not that much since the shows airing there are a couple of seasons out of date usually. This season I find myself watching a lot of OTA HD as it happens... so much of the week I wouldn't even know what other channels I don't yet have.


yeah...rescue me is out of season right now too...only other thing i think of FX is "its always sunny in PA"...funniest damn show...but no way that would be in HD....however BSG Razor is coming out soon...im hoping we get SCI FI HD by then


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> yeah...rescue me is out of season right now too...only other thing i think of FX is "its always sunny in PA"...funniest damn show...but no way that would be in HD....however BSG Razor is coming out soon...im hoping we get SCI FI HD by then


We might have an outside shot at seeing Razor on UniHD. They did that with the pilot for the new Flash Gordon a week later... but yeah, that and the Tin Man made for SciFi movie/mini are the only things I know to look forward to until January.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Congrats ... now ACCURATELY relate those figures to E* and D* subscribers and explain why you believe "most" E* and D* subscribers have a premium service.


I never said that "most" people have a premium service, only that a significant percentage of subscribers have one or more of them. The numbers I pointed you to confirm that there are a large number of subscribers who get premium channels - probably at least a third of all cable and satellite subscribers, if not more, which debunks the claim that "most" people don't get them.

And what difference does it make anyway? If not everyone (or even two-thirds) of subscribers don't take premiums channels, does that mean they don't count as HD channels? That seems to have been the gist of HDMe's comment about "most" people not getting premiums. It's just another example of what I was talking about: DirecTV envy. If DirecTV has something you're not getting from Dish, like its new lineup of HD channels, just pretend you don't want them anyway or that really aren't HD channels.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> We might have an outside shot at seeing Razor on UniHD. They did that with the pilot for the new Flash Gordon a week later... but yeah, that and the Tin Man made for SciFi movie/mini are the only things I know to look forward to until January.


How is Flash? Is it in HD?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> And while it seemed to confuse at least one person... I was likening this to the increased bundling of non-phone features on phones where you don't have a choice really to buy (or even take for free) a phone that is just a phone anymore.. so you can't make a blanket statement about consumers choosing HDTVs more than SDTVs today without considering that they very rarely even have the choice of buying an SD set anymore.


Well, there you go again comparing a cell phone purchase to buying a high-definition TV set.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> That's not what I said. You are making the assertion that everyone is paying thousands of dollars on HD sets. Where is this coming from?


You're the one who compared buying an HDTV to a cell phone. Whether you pay thousands of dollars for a TV or just hundreds, it's a lot more than you'll pay for a cell phone and it's a ridiculous analogy.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> You seem to have a problem with terms like "most"... I watch Closer and other shows on TNTHD as well as Law & Order reruns and NBA games that are in HD. But I also see stretched out Charmed, some movies, Judging Amy, Angel, and other shows not in HD.


When you say "most people", I take that to mean "just about everybody", not just a majority. And why does it matter if a majority of DirecTV subs don't take premiums. Does that mean they shouldn't be counted as HD channels? Not everyone subscribes to the basic tiers, either.



HDMe said:


> As for TBSHD... The only thing anyone has reported seeing there in HD was baseball... and baseball on TBSHD is over with for this season... and no one I've seen has reported seeing anything else besides stretched upconverts there.
> 
> A&EHD, History, Science, TLC, and many of the other recent additions have either stretched or zoomed or both much of the day.
> 
> ...


Were you really expecting all of these channels to have 100% HD content? As to the aspect ratio, I really don't care if movies are cropped to 16:9, as long as they are HD. If they aren't HD, I don't watch them. There are plenty of HD movies to choose from.



HDMe said:


> You seem to be reading only parts of what I write. I enjoy the HD I see... and I don't enjoy the stretched stuff.


That's true. Some of your posts are a bit wordy, which is why I skim over parts of them. You might want to consider boiling them down if you want them to be read in their entirety.



HDMe said:


> When a new channel (like TBSHD) launches that has practically no HD on it at all, I do not get excited... and I was sad to see Dish add it.


I'm sure baseball fans weren't sorry to see it added.



HDMe said:


> From what I hear, I might like to see USAHD... but even SciFiHD doesn't seem (by the posts I've read) to be airing everything it could in HD... so I can wait for them to get more content. I don't even watch Bravo so I'm not clamoring for that in HD either. But everyone has their tastes.
> 
> I just don't want to see lots and lots of upconverted/stretched stuff launched by any company and then have the average public think we now have lots of HD... when we really don't.


I can confirm that USA has some good HD content. In fact, even the upconverted shows like "JAG" look a lot better than on the SD channel. SciFi may be a little light on HD content at the moment, but at least they are showing their first-run stuff like Stargate:Atlantis in HD, in addition to the upcoming season of Battlestar Galactica.

I don't like stretched stuff any more than anyone else does, which is why I don't watch it. Between all of these new channels, I can find more HD content than I have time to watch.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Check out E*'s and D*'s annual reports. There is no way that E* collects only $66 per customer and D* only $76 per customer if there is not a vast majority of customers at the lower programming levels without premium channels (and without HD).


Check out DirecTV's pricing, do the arithmetic, and you'll see that it's possible to pay $76 and have one or more premium channels. In fact, I know people who are paying less than that who have premium channels.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

HDMe said:


> As for premiums like HBO or SHO in HD... Most customers do not subscribe to HBO or SHO or any of the premiums...





rcoleman111 said:


> Sorry, but that just isn't so.


Later...



rcoleman111 said:


> I've posted the numbers that debunk the claim the "most" people don't subscribe to premium channels. "All but 35-40 million subscribers" isn't what I would consider "most people".


I wish you'd make up your mind! In the first set of quotes you say that HDMe's statement that MOST do not subscribe is NOT correct meaning you think that MOST do.

In the second quote you are now saying that you think most DON'T subscribe. In fact the second statement doesn't make ANY sense at all! Are you that confused or do you just try to twist your story to fit whatever point you think you are trying to make?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> How is Flash? Is it in HD?


I only watched the Flash pilot on UniHD... and to be honest, it didn't hold my interest so I haven't looked back. From reading in DirecTV discussions it appears SciFiHD is airing new Flash episodes in HD now so if you like Flash that would be another HD program plus for having that channel.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> When you say "most people", I take that to mean "just about everybody", not just a majority.


You should really spend some time with a dictionary then, because if you don't know what words mean or how to use them in sentences, you are going to have a hard time participating in online discussions.

Seriously... most means most... not all or "almost everybody". If I meant "almost everybody" then that is what I would have said. I said "most" and I meant most.. and even your own numbers support my statement, yet you continue to try and argue against it. That makes no sense to me.



rcoleman111 said:


> And why does it matter if a majority of DirecTV subs don't take premiums. Does that mean they shouldn't be counted as HD channels? Not everyone subscribes to the basic tiers, either.


Here we go again... but with Dish anyway there is a minimum package requirement in order to get HD... so while I am not 100% sure, I am reasonably certain that most Dish HD subscribers are at least basic package subscribers. I believe this same assertion holds true for cable. In my area at least, Time Warner requires their digital tier to get HD and requires basic cable to get the digital tier (not counting in-the-clear QAM stuff like locals of course).

I'm not sure why you keep steering this back to a DirecTV only discussion. Are you a DirecTV customer?



rcoleman111 said:


> Were you really expecting all of these channels to have 100% HD content?


Realistically, no... but ideally yes. When a big splash is made about new HD (and pleast note I am not just talking about DirecTV, I am talking about current channels on Dish as well)... then I expect at least 50% of the channel to be in HD. Using TBSHD as an extreme example, baseball playoffs in HD and nothing else... especially with baseball on TBS now done for the year... does NOT make my list of must-see-HD when nothing on the channel now is in HD!



rcoleman111 said:


> Some of your posts are a bit wordy, which is why I skim over parts of them. You might want to consider boiling them down if you want them to be read in their entirety.


That is certainly your choice not to read entire posts... but don't blame your lack of reading comprehension on me. If you need help, feel free to ask and I'm sure I can explain things to you in a simpler way


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> I never said that "most" people have a premium service, only that a significant percentage of subscribers have one or more of them. The numbers I pointed you to confirm that there are a large number of subscribers who get premium channels - probably at least a third of all cable and satellite subscribers, if not more, which debunks the claim that "most" people don't get them.


I know you said you skim over long posts... but do you not even read your own short posts?

In this paragraph you contradict yourself. First you say you never said most people have a premium service... then you end by saying you have debunked the claim that most people don't get them.

So which side are you on? Do you even remember at this point?



rcoleman111 said:


> It's just another example of what I was talking about: DirecTV envy. If DirecTV has something you're not getting from Dish, like its new lineup of HD channels, just pretend you don't want them anyway or that really aren't HD channels.


I'm guessing you are a DirecTV customer feeling the need to defend DirecTV's honor or something? I have repeated many times that the statements I make apply to Dish and DirecTV equally. I am not jealous of DirecTV having a bunch of new channels right now. I actually wish Dish had less in some cases based upon the actual HD content on those channels.

You can try to make this a jealousy about DirecTV if you want.. but that has never been my position. I just can't want channels that don't have HD even half the time and right now don't have anything on them that I would watch... and I was sad to see a non-HD channel like TBSHD come on before a channel with proportionally more HD content.

I hate to say it... but for a DirecTV customer (apparently) you are spending a lot of time in a Dish forum trying to find jealousy where it doesn't exist. I might be inclined to think you are let down too by the lack of actual HD on the new channels and are fishing here to find reasons to feel better.

But this post is probably too long, so you probably didn't read it


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> You should really spend some time with a dictionary then, because if you don't know what words mean or how to use them in sentences, you are going to have a hard time participating in online discussions.


And maybe you should spend some time taking a course in English composition. Otherwise you're going to waste all of your time writing these rambling posts that nobody (that means "not anybody") reads.



HDMe said:


> Seriously... most means most... not all or "almost everybody". If I meant "almost everybody" then that is what I would have said. I said "most" and I meant most.. and even your own numbers support my statement, yet you continue to try and argue against it. That makes no sense to me.


Another brilliant comment. So most means most, does it? I'll have to try to remember that one, along with your cell phone analogy.  Obviously it means something different to you than to "most" people.



HDMe said:


> That is certainly your choice not to read entire posts... but don't blame your lack of reading comprehension on me. If you need help, feel free to ask and I'm sure I can explain things to you in a simpler way


And it's certainly your choice to ramble on with these run-on posts.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

I like it when two strong opinions are expressed. 

Hd is of course the wave of the future and now most folks will know about HD Tv(not what HD tv really is). The new wave of ads and news stories that are out will let folks know that HD is comming and their new current tv does not work. no need a set top box to make current tv work--must buy new tv.

As a past sales person in electronic retail I love those ads because it does bring in new consumers and brings up sales which increase my commission.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> You should really spend some time with a dictionary then, because if you don't know what words mean or how to use them in sentences, you are going to have a hard time participating in online discussions.
> 
> Seriously... most means most... not all or "almost everybody". If I meant "almost everybody" then that is what I would have said. I said "most" and I meant most.. and even your own numbers support my statement, yet you continue to try and argue against it. That makes no sense to me.


Per Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition of "most": almost all

Examples: 
_I don't eat meat, but I like most types of fish.
In this school, most of the children are from the Chinese community._


----------



## klegg (Oct 31, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> It's just another example of what I was talking about: DirecTV envy. If DirecTV has something you're not getting from Dish, like its new lineup of HD channels, just pretend you don't want them anyway or that really aren't HD channels.


You mean envy, like D* people and their opinion of the Voom channels?

E* has had TONS more HD than D* for a long time and will soon catch right back up. I'm with most people on this board that, sure, I'd like to have more HD channels but am more than willing to wait since E* has provided me TONS more than D* has for a long time. And I mean not even close.

You sound like a 3rd grader. Why would anyone go on a message board and "cry" about someone not preferring the same product they do??? Just sounds childish at best to me, but heck, what do I know???


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Per Cambridge Dictionary:
> 
> Definition of "most": almost all
> 
> ...


I didn't want to play this game... but why did you choose the 3rd definition of most instead of the 1st or 2nd ones? And in case you wanted to play the "your dictionary is different" game... feel free to visit dictionary.cambridge.org which is the online version of your apparently preferred dictionary...

As usual, you are picking and choosing and reading what you want to read. In the English language, strict definitions are not enough... you have to actually read the context of the sentence and paragraphs to determine the intent and meaning. I'm surprised you went to the dictionary, since it is so wordy and I know now how much you hate to read 

From their site:

*most*

determiner, pronoun, adverb
*1 the biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else:*
What's the most you've ever won at cards?
Which of you earns the most money?
He wanted to do the most good he could with the £200, so he gave it to charity.
The kids loved the fair, but they enjoyed the bumper cars most of all.

*2 used to form the superlative of many adjectives and adverbs:*
Joanne is the most intelligent person I know.
The department needs three more computers in order to work most effectively (= to work as effectively as possible).

*3 almost all:*
I don't eat meat, but I like most types of fish.
In this school, most of the children are from the Chinese community.

*4 FORMAL very:*
It was a most beautiful morning.

*5 MAINLY US INFORMAL almost:*
You'll find her in the bar most every evening about six o'clock.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I never said that "most" people have a premium service, only that a significant percentage of subscribers have one or more of them.


HDMe said (accurately) that _most_ did not subscribe to a premium service. You disagreed. You have an interesting definition of "most" ...



> And what difference does it make anyway? If not everyone (or even two-thirds) of subscribers don't take premiums channels, does that mean they don't count as HD channels?


Who says they don't count? Premiums are just _not_ as important as channels that more people subscribe to.



> It's just another example of what I was talking about: DirecTV envy. If DirecTV has something you're not getting from Dish, like its new lineup of HD channels, just pretend you don't want them anyway or that really aren't HD channels.


It seems that there is a fair amount of "Dish envy" going on as well. Why else would D* subs spend so much time blasting E* subs in the forums?



rcoleman111 said:


> Well, there you go again comparing a cell phone purchase to buying a high-definition TV set.


To the extent that HDMe used it, it applies. How many analog cell phones were sold this year? Is the lack of analog sales due to a customer preference for digital or because the FCC will be allowing carriers to cease analog service in a few months (and in a few areas, have already permitted carriers to kill analog)? The same goes for cameras. It is practically impossible to find a cellphone without a camera. Not because customers are demanding cameras (some are demanding camera free phones so they can use them everywhere) but because camera phones are what are being produced.

Digital TV is now the only type of TV that can be imported to be sold in the US. The manufacturers have decided that those TVs are also going to be HD. The number of HDs being sold is tainted by the honest fact that there is not a lot of choice in the matter. Just like camera phones, you either buy a HDTV or go hunting for the rare non-HD set manufactured.



tomcrown1 said:


> I like it when two strong opinions are expressed.


I would appreciate it if the opinions expressed were more directed on the topic than each other. This thread is destined for a short lifespan. If people cannot discuss without insulting the discussion (unfortunately) will have to end.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> It seems that there is a fair amount of "Dish envy" going on as well. Why else would D* subs spend so much time blasting E* subs in the forums?


See the reverse in the DirecTV forums.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> I would appreciate it if the opinions expressed were more directed on the topic than each other. This thread is destined for a short lifespan. If people cannot discuss without insulting the discussion (unfortunately) will have to end.


James all I was trying to say was that I enjoyed the back and forth going on. Yes it is off topic.

Back on topic I hope that Dish does exceed the HD offerings from Direct TV.

I would like to see HD offerings from start ups if any are around.

2008 will be a big year for HD as more and more channels are offered.

I suspect that the fee on both Dish and Direct Tv will go up as HD programs begin to reach the 150 channels offering.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I didn't want to play this game... but why did you choose the 3rd definition of most instead of the 1st or 2nd ones? And in case you wanted to play the "your dictionary is different" game... feel free to visit dictionary.cambridge.org which is the online version of your apparently preferred dictionary...


Remember, you're the one who suggested I visit a dictionary. The definition I chose is based on the context in which the word "most" was used - i.e., it means "almost all". I guess that wasn't what you wanted to hear.



HDMe said:


> As usual, you are picking and choosing and reading what you want to read. In the English language, strict definitions are not enough... you have to actually read the context of the sentence and paragraphs to determine the intent and meaning. I'm surprised you went to the dictionary, since it is so wordy and I know now how much you hate to read


And once again, all you can offer is a slew of insults and personal attacks, which only proves you are losing the debate.


----------



## klegg (Oct 31, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> And once again, all you can offer is a slew of insults and personal attacks, which only proves you are losing the debate.


I believe the only debate here is whether you are gonna let this go. Sheesh...get a life!


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> I would appreciate it if the opinions expressed were more directed on the topic than each other. This thread is destined for a short lifespan. If people cannot discuss without insulting the discussion (unfortunately) will have to end.


Closing this thread is probably a good idea. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who started the personal attacks. I've tried to keep the debate civil and stick to the facts, but another poster has repeatedly responded with insults and personal attacks. There is nothing wrong with debating a topic, but there is no reason to make it personal.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> HDMe said (accurately) that _most_ did not subscribe to a premium service. You disagreed. You have an interesting definition of "most" ...


My definition of "most" is straight from a dictionary and reflects common usage.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

On that note, I think it is time to close this one... I think all that can say has been said at least twice.


----------

