# How many of you think Directv should start compressing their hd more so we can get more channels?



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Directv is starting to lack a lot of hd channels and it's going to be a while till they launch D14 and will be operational. I have seen Dish's hd and it seems satisfactory. I think the average viewer and not geeks like you all here would not notice the difference between Dish and Directv. To me at this point it is more important to get more channels available with the sacrifice of slight degrading of picture quality.


----------



## samrs (May 30, 2004)

You didn't vote in your own poll. I can wait.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Start compression?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Leave the picture alone. No more compression. If we do that we are like the weather channel, wanting more money for less quality picture.
A lot of a poor product is not worth near as much as less of a quality product. What is it that we brag on all the time ? Picture Quality!!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Sacrificing quality for quantity is never a good idea.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "he who sacrifices quality for some temporary quantity, will have neither quality nor quantity."


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Absolutely not.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Start compression?


You must have missed the "a little more" part.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

No friggin way! We have enough channels and quality is always better than quantity.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

If it can be done without loss of quality, sure. If not, no way. We have plenty.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The question is, are there a lot missing that a large number of customers actually miss? For the vast majority of customers, they either have everything they want in HD, only a few (or one) are missing, or they want something in HD that doesn't exist.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

ridiculous question/poll.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> No friggin way! We have enough channels and quality is always better than quantity.


Agree. 
I think we are right on the threshold now.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Having gone through the over-compression of HD channels back before D10, I say drop a few and lessen compression.


----------



## revm1m (Jul 2, 2006)

What happened to D14, I thought it was to go up by now???


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Having gone through the over-compression of HD channels back before D10, I say drop a few and lessen compression.


Even if they're ones you watch? Or just the ones you deem unworthy?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Having gone through the over-compression of HD channels back before D10, I say drop a few and lessen compression.


Question is what would you drop that wouldn't piss people off?

I know where I would start dropping HD channels, but I'm not saying it. 

But yes I may complain about the PQ lately, but not because bad , it's just degraded from what I'm used to with Directv.
To me it lost that pop that it had over most of the competition.

Is it to the point that I think channels should start getting dropped?
No that's Dumb!

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Question is what would you drop that wouldn't piss people off?I know where I would start dropping HD channels, but I'm not saying it. But yes I may complain about the PQ lately, but not because bad , it's just degraded from what I'm used to with Directv.To me it lost that pop that it had over most of the competition. Is it to the point that I think channels should start getting dropped?No that's Dumb!Sent from my Galaxy S5


Not to mention that dropping channels would be PR suicide for directv.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

DIRECTV's stance is that it has enough capacity to add more channels (not tons more, just more.) Unfortunately content providers are not approaching them with fair terms.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> DIRECTV's stance is that it has enough capacity to add more channels (not tons more, just more.) Unfortunately content providers are not approaching them with fair terms.


I'd rather them not unless they have active place holders currently running they can use.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Not to mention that dropping channels would be PR suicide for directv.


And what Network would let them?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

"A while" before they launch D14 and get it operational?

I suppose that's a relative assessment. To me its' been "a while" since they added bandwidth with D12. Years.

With D14 likely on line in a year or less and considering the UCR timelines associated with the rollout of a new bird I'd be inclined to characaterize that with the dreaded "soon" label.

If DirecTV were going to pad bandwidth with bit starved feeds the time to roll that out would have been several years ago when they were entering into the long lapse between scheduled launches. They apparently were comfortable playing the cards they had.

And if the last few years have led me to one conclusion it's that DirecTV still has the ability to add channnels without taking the measures you suggest and have not been prevented from adding any content that I am aware of. The hardest part about adding a channel isn't airing it. It is getting it all in writing. The infamous "tango" involved in negotiating a carriage agreement. Thesimple broadcasting of programming isn't the only dog in that fight any more. DRM of the content is equally (and possibly soon to be more) important.

I don't believe that there is a backlog of channels just waiting to light up were it not for the limited bandwidth available. What you propose is, in my opinion, unnecessary.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

revm1m said:


> What happened to D14, I thought it was to go up by now???


Current schedule is launch in Q4.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I can wait. D14 is not that far off.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

No chance on earth should they compress any more. There's a reason I don't have cable.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

No way Jose! Leave it alone 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## discoliveson (Feb 4, 2012)

I don't want to see us end up like Sirius.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Even if they're ones you watch? Or just the ones you deem unworthy?


Just the ones I deem unworthy. 

I forgot to put the wink in my earlier post.



damondlt said:


> Question is what would you drop that wouldn't piss people off?
> 
> I know where I would start dropping HD channels, but I'm not saying it.


The Weather Channel. Wait, that is a discussion in a different thread. LOL

Since I was really just kidding about dropping the channels, I had to think about it. But if I had to pick, I would say the West Coast versions of the movie channels. Now I know that will tick off some west coasters, but lets face it, you don't have west coast versions of lots of cable channels like you would if you were on cable. So get a DVR and plan ahead.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

There is plenty of channels I would be willing to get rid of before DirecTV considers any further type of compression.


----------



## Crow159 (May 23, 2007)

Not just no but "Awww hell no!".

Sure there are channels I want added, but I can wait for the next sat for those. I'm still hoping that they use some of that extra space on the next sat to lessen the compression of some of the current channels to make the quality even better.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Just the ones I deem unworthy.
> 
> I forgot to put the wink in my earlier post.
> 
> ...


I think dropping the west coast feeds wouldn't bother as many people as suggested here.
I would be all for that, but not if they are going to replace them with RSNs and PPVs.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I think dropping the west coast feeds wouldn't bother as many people as suggested here.


I think that it would bother a whole lot of people who don't have DVR's.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> I think that it would bother a whole lot of people who don't have DVR's.


I don't think it would, what's really out there in terms of West feeds?
Premiums are so repetitive, I don't think anyone would notice.

DNS, well I think they should keep them.

Beside ION, Disney, Nick, and Cartoon, what else am I missing.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> I think that it would bother a whole lot of people who don't have DVR's.


Who are these people you speak of. I have heard about them, but never met one. :eek2:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I'll be honest I don't personally know anyone who doesn't have at least 1 DVR.

But I'm sure there are millions

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I wouldn't mind dropping west feeds of Starz and getting the Multiplex channels instead. 


Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I don't think it would, what's really out there in terms of West feeds?
> Premiums are so repetitive, I don't think anyone would notice.
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Basically, that is what Comcast did. They dropped a lot of premiums. Or, in some places, never added them. They make it up in On Demand. A bit harder for directv but doable.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Basically, that is what Comcast did. They dropped a lot of premiums. Or, in some places, never added them. They make it up in On Demand. A bit harder for directv but doable.


Definitely harder for directv, because on demand is only exclusive to HR'S. 
Cable on demand is available with any box.
Even if you don't have DVR's.

So Directv would have their work cut out for them.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Why can't their be both? Less compression and more HD channels?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

There can be once Directv 14 and 15 are launched.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Will DTV 14 and 15 help with HD being less prone to rain and snow fade?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> DIRECTV's stance is that it has enough capacity to add more channels (not tons more, just more.) Unfortunately content providers are not approaching them with fair terms.


So are you saying that D* could launch D14 and not add any new HD channels because the content providers are asking too much money?

I thought the HD feeds were pretty much part of any new contracts signed nowadays?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Will DTV 14 and 15 help with HD being less prone to rain and snow fade?


hard to fight against mother nature


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Will DTV 14 and 15 help with HD being less prone to rain and snow fade?


The short answer is... No


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

I don't think we need anymore BS channels. There are not too many channels I watch. I can't stand movies with commercials. But that just me. My wife watches them. I would rather have quality than quantity.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

peds48 said:


> hard to fight against mother nature


Maybe I should have said be out less? I wouldn't mind it if say HD was out for just maybe 1 or 2 mins then came back on. With the other providers they could go out even in good weather.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

What channels are there that more than a couple percent of customers feel they "need" in HD instead of SD? Sure, there are channels they don't have in HD, but they're all niche channels. If they were lacking some heavily watched channels there might be more of a reason.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> What channels are there that more than a couple percent of customers feel they "need" in HD instead of SD? Sure, there are channels they don't have in HD, but they're all niche channels. If they were lacking some heavily watched channels there might be more of a reason.


I really don't have any right now that I can't live without.
I have a few requests in general of channels not currently carried. 
But again nothing major.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

OP, You might as well have asked us to go back to SD in order to get more channels.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> OP, You might as well have asked us to go back to SD in order to get more channels.


Are you saying there is no difference in picture quality between Dish's HD and SD?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Have no idea as Dish doesn't carry the channels I watch.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Have no idea as Dish doesn't carry the channels I watch.


I'm not sure where that question even came from.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> Are you saying there is no difference in picture quality between Dish's HD and SD?


Where did you come up with that from what he wrote?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Where did you come up with that from what he wrote?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Wow, you are really "moody" today :righton:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Wow, you are really "moody" today :righton:


Not moody just a question.
Why you have to start right away?

Read the post, He quoted a guy with a remark that looks like it came out of nowhere.

Which is why I Asked him a question.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

The question is a fair one. OP is willing to trash HD channels in order to get more trashed HD channels. So then why not making everything SD and add a helluva more SD channels in return.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

PEDS READ POST 50 PLEASE

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> The question is a fair one. OP is willing to trash HD channels in order to get more trashed HD channels. So then why not making everything SD and add a helluva more SD channels in return.


Again what does that have to do with Dish networks PQ?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Again what does that have to do with Dish networks PQ?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


ohh, my bad!


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

I'm trying to say that there is still a big difference in picture quality between overly compressed hd and sd which is what Dish does. Watching hd on dish is not as good as Directv but it's still a lot better than sd.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> I'm trying to say that there is still a big difference in picture quality between overly compressed hd and sd which is what Dish does. Watching hd on dish is not as good as Directv but it's still a lot better than sd.


Okay 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

mkdtv21 said:


> I'm trying to say that there is still a big difference in picture quality between overly compressed hd and sd which is what Dish does. Watching hd on dish is not as good as Directv but it's still a lot better than sd.


You make it sound like Dish's HD is really bad, But so does Directv over compressed SD, Although SD is not as bad like before it was being showed HD programs on SD, It's nowhere like Comcast SD at least in this area, but I would leave Directv's HD PQ how it is, unless it's for improving it somehow


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

So, who were the 2 votes for degradation of PQ??


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> So, who were the 2 votes for degradation of PQ??


One is probably obvious. The other?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> The question wasn't asking about if we think Directv PQ was degrading.
> 
> It was asking if we should degrade/compress more to fit more channels.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I know, reread exactly what I said....2 votes FOR degradation ... meaning they're for making it worse.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I wouldn't worry about it.

You guys would just attack the crap out of him or her.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> You guys would just attack the crap out of him or her.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


And others will keep trolling. The circle of forum life...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Ok now that's out of the way,
I haven't really seen dishes HD PQ, but in 2010 it really wasn't bad. There may have been a handful of betting looking channels on Directv, but overall, hardly a deciding factor. 
Now though dish added quite a bit more HD, but so has directv , so I don't see Directv really having a commanding lead in PQ.

Another thing is Directv SD vs HD is so far apart, it help make Directv HD look superior compared to their SD which is the worst I've ever seen.

Dish on the other SD HD gap is not as wide. I think that's tricks a lot of people into thinking it's not much better in HD vs SD.


Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

D* already has PQ that isn't as good as Verizon FiOS. I'd fire them immediately if it got worse.


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

Time to go ala carte and shed the channel welfare state. Sorry but there are channels that can't possibly be paid for but the people who watch!


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Will DTV 14 and 15 help with HD being less prone to rain and snow fade?


Since DirecTV has opted to use a technology for HD that is more prone to rain fade than the Satellite band that they, And Dishnetwork too, started with for DBS. I do not see a cure, I suspect that tripling the Satellites transmit power would have a marginal effect on rain fade. I could also be wrong about that.

For the record, as I understand it, Dishnetworks HD is less prone to rain fade.

Moving on, Everybody seems to think that the New satellites when launched will bring much more capacity. That will depend on what they do with them after a successful launch. I have a suspicion it will actually replace one of the satellites now serving HD channels that may not be completely healthy. Time will tell.

TBoneit


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

After switching to FiOs over two years ago I did not notice any PQ difference between DirecTV and FiOS in HD on my 40-inch set. However, SD pictures looked much better on FiOS than on DirecTV.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Stop with the personal comments. Either discuss the topic or don't post at all. 

Mike


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Whatever modern compression/mutiplexing techniques being used on at least a few of the latest HD channel additions seem to me in some cases providing little of both (increase in PQ *and* less bandwidth)!

For example, BBCAHD and the very latest HBO additions to me at least seem - if nothing else - to take up less disc space, w/o making the PQ any _worse_. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't they *already* getting an HD channel or two more per transponder with the latest technology?

As long as the (perceived) PQ doesn't decrease, I've no problem with adding more channels using the "modernest" technology. But count me among the NFW crowd if it means *decreasing* the PQ in any way.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TBoneit said:


> Since DirecTV has opted to use a technology for HD that is more prone to rain fade than the Satellite band that they, And Dishnetwork too, started with for DBS. I do not see a cure, I suspect that tripling the Satellites transmit power would have a marginal effect on rain fade. I could also be wrong about that.
> 
> For the record, as I understand it, Dishnetworks HD is less prone to rain fade.
> 
> Moving on, Everybody seems to think that the New satellites when launched will bring much more capacity. That will depend on what they do with them after a successful launch. I have a suspicion it will actually replace one of the satellites now serving HD channels that may not be completely healthy. Time will tell.


Transmit power is regulated by the FCC, unless they're transmitting at less than the maximum allowed today, increasing it is not an option, and as you say small increases would have a very marginal effect. To beat rain fade you'd need transmit power _2-3 orders of magnitude_ higher.

The Ka band Directv uses for HD is marginally more affected by rain fade than the Ku band Dish uses, but there isn't that much difference. A few years down the road when Directv drops SD, they'll be able to move many HD channels to Ku, presumably those with the highest viewership.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Transmit power is regulated by the FCC, unless they're transmitting at less than the maximum allowed today, increasing it is not an option, and as you say small increases would have a very marginal effect. To beat rain fade you'd need transmit power _2-3 orders of magnitude_ higher.
> 
> The Ka band Directv uses for HD is marginally more affected by rain fade than the Ku band Dish uses, but there isn't that much difference. A few years down the road when Directv drops SD, they'll be able to move many HD channels to Ku, presumably those with the highest viewership.


I think HD goes out more in rain and Snow using KA. So you don't think going all HD and switching to KU would make it go out less that KA? SD comes back more quickly then HD after a heavy downpour and snow then HD does. HD stays out a lot longer and my levels are in 90's.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

The expense does not justify the results....


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I think the poll reflects proper thought well and hopefully direct listens.


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

THIS IS NOT A WHINE SESSION, it's intended to be constructive.

I think there's more a poll might cover to assist DTV. I've been a continuous subscriber since very early on, about 20 years. Always paid up on time, never a huge premium subscriber, but a solid upper middle class subscription. However, I've noticed a definite move towards the "fees, add-ons, ...." coupled with reduced levels of support. I've also been the "victim" of plan flipping in the past year. I had a grandfathered plan which included DVR fees that got changed. The initial change didn't change my bill, I'm on paperless, and I didn't catch the change for almost 12 months when I found out they added the protection plan. Again, not going to go into a bunch more because that's not this thread....

Back to the topic.

I think there are a lot of subscribers on the "edge" of switching/dumping all in one services and it might be good to help DTV with the "straws on the camel's back" (although I'm sure their marketers are on it). Beyond the above and the possibility of increasing compression, I'm disappointed by the unnecessary channels I have to support to get what I want, the volume of repeat programming, and the volume of commercials. The value of my monthly bill is rapidly decreasing for me. I also am finding a lot more on OTA that fills my needs. We're probably 50% OTA. For NOW, I'm still a DTV fan but change is under consideration!!!!!!!

Hope I didn't derail or step out of line!!!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

No I think that was a Fair post.

The wife and I were Just discussing a similar conversation.

What are we really paying for?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Does having an all fiber to the home like UVerse has in some area's not have to deal with more HD vs compression? Does an all fiber to the home and Ethernet outlets in home improve HD PQ over coax? I guess DTV could never have dishes and mulit-switches with Ethernet instead of coax?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

damondlt said:
 

> Ok now that's out of the way,
> I haven't really seen dishes HD PQ, but in 2010 it really wasn't bad. There may have been a handful of betting looking channels on Directv, but overall, hardly a deciding factor.
> Now though dish added quite a bit more HD, but so has directv , so I don't see Directv really having a commanding lead in PQ.
> 
> ...


LMAO! Really.

The guy that spends every day around here talking about how bad Directv's HD is getting, yet you havent seen DIsh's PQ since 2010 and say it wasnt that bad. Only a handful of channels look better on Directv, and its not a deciding factor? Since when, PQ is all you seem to care about. You are trolling man. Directv's PQ was better than Dish in 2010, and gues what, its still better...

Dish's PQ is obviously worse than Directv, its easy to see on my 65", and as many folks that say "can't really see a difference", you can always get em to admit Directv looks better. People can trivialize how small the difference is, but its there and the compression artifacts on DIsh are quite easy for me to see. You can't have it both ways that you are unhappy with Directv's PQ, but Dish's subpar HD is "no big deal" and "not a deciding factor" between the two for you. What a joke.

Directv aint perfect, but its certainly better than Dish's PQ.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Jason Whiddon said:


> LMAO! Really.
> 
> The guy that spends every day around here talking about how bad Directv's HD is getting, yet you havent seen DIsh's PQ since 2010 and say it wasnt that bad. Only a handful of channels look better on Directv, and its not a deciding factor? Since when, PQ is all you seem to care about. You are trolling man. Directv's PQ was better than Dish in 2010, and gues what, its still better...
> 
> ...


And again. Who are you?
Get your facts straight.
Show me anywhere I complain about how horrible Directv's HD is.
Do I thinks it's worse then before. YEP!
Prove all your false unresearched personal claims.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

damondlt said:


> And again. Who are you?
> Get your facts straight.
> Show me anywhere I complain about how horrible Directv's HD is.
> Do I thinks it's worse then before. YEP!
> ...


Like I said in my thread I think DTV's HD is better than ever. I have a Samsung 55" ES7500.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Does having an all fiber to the home like UVerse has in some area's not have to deal with more HD vs compression? Does an all fiber to the home and Ethernet outlets in home improve HD PQ over coax? I guess DTV could never have dishes and mulit-switches with Ethernet instead of coax?


Having fiber to the home makes it easier to use more bandwidth and therefore have more HD/less compression. They're still limited by the feed they're provided by the network, so there's a quality ceiling that no provider can exceed for a given channel.

Directv could have dishes/switches that output ethernet but it wouldn't help at all. The limitation for Directv is the 44k miles to/from orbit, not the coax from the dish to the receiver.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> l. The limitation for Directv is the 44k miles to/from orbit


why is that a limitation? or you mean the need for mere sats?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Does having an all fiber to the home like UVerse has in some area's not have to deal with more HD vs compression? Does an all fiber to the home and Ethernet outlets in home improve HD PQ over coax? I guess DTV could never have dishes and mulit-switches with Ethernet instead of coax?


Those things have nothing to do with pq directly. None.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Those things have nothing to do with pq directly. None.


Do you mean if its Fiber Ethernet and Fiber Coax? What about Fiber Ethernet and regular Coax? Or is their a difference with those?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Do you mean if its Fiber Ethernet and Fiber Coax? What about Fiber Ethernet and regular Coax? Or is their a difference with those?


there is no difference because there is no such thing


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Charter has ads saying they now have fiber rich lines that aren't effected by weather.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Charter has ads saying they now have fiber rich lines that aren't effected by weather.


of course cable is not affected by weather, unless a pole or tree falls on them as consequence of weather....


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

Is there a thread that reviews simultaneous HD streams by provider? I think that discussion is relevant to the compression discussion.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> why is that a limitation? or you mean the need for mere sats?


I was talking about the efficiency of spectrum usage, due to the modulation and error correction required for long haul.

More sats will of course help, and that will be addressed in a year. Of course, if they try to push 4K more heavily than they pushed 3D, little of the new bandwidth would end up for HD (whether more channels or more quality)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Do you mean if its Fiber Ethernet and Fiber Coax? What about Fiber Ethernet and regular Coax? Or is their a difference with those?


I mean the type of cabling doesn't matter I don't care what it is. The only thing different types of cable can do is change the quantity of info sent through at one time. It can't dictate the quality of what's being sent through.

And there is Ethernet, there is coax, and then the is fiber. They are three different types of cables, there is no Ethernet fiber, or Ethernet coax, coax fiber, etc. its one or the other among the three.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Charter has ads saying they now have fiber rich lines that aren't effected by weather.


That sounds like they are using buzz words for marketing and not really describing what they are doing. They aren't running fiber into anyone's homes that I am aware of. Maybe fiber for a distance and then coax the last leg of the trip into someone's house. That could allow them to offer better Internet speeds to people and better on demand performance but it isn't going to do squat for pq or the number of linear channels they can provide.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

adamson said:


> ridiculous question/poll.


There are times when polls are necessary. This might be one of them. To dismiss it as you did without that knowledge is kinda...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> I think that it would bother a whole lot of people who don't have DVR's.


I keep forgetting about them. I wonder how many folks don't have DVRs. Can't be that many, no?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I'll be honest I don't personally know anyone who doesn't have at least 1 DVR.
> 
> But I'm sure there are millions
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Millions, really? That's kinda mind boggling.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I'm not sure where that question even came from.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Or what it meant.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Millions, really? That's kinda mind boggling.
> 
> Rich[/quote
> I'll bet close to 30% to 40% which equates to many millions if DIRECTV subs alone don't have DVRs. Some people are stubborn. I have a relative that fits that bill that I just visited. If he was closer to me hed have one by now.
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> No I think that was a Fair post.
> 
> The wife and I were Just discussing a similar conversation.
> 
> What are we really paying for?


My wife's finally starting to complain about the monthly bill. One of these days I'm gonna drop the Premier package and go to something lower. She was in Holland for a week, just got home yesterday. All I watched on D* was the Yankees games the whole time she was gone. Every time I call to drop that terribly expensive package, I get talked out of it and get all kinds of goodies that I don't care about. I gotta be firmer next time I call.

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rich said:


> My wife's finally starting to complain about the monthly bill. One of these days I'm gonna drop the Premier package and go to something lower. She was in Holland for a week, just got home yesterday. All I watched on D* was the Yankees games the whole time she was gone. Every time I call to drop that terribly expensive package, I get talked out of it and get all kinds of goodies that I don't care about. I gotta be firmer next time I call.
> 
> Rich


Yep same here, I ended up with MLB ei, but still over $180 a month.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Like I said in my thread I think DTV's HD is better than ever. I have a Samsung 55" ES7500.


I think a lot of these opinions being expressed are skewed a bit by the TVs that people have. Yours is a fairly expensive Sammy and that might make a big difference. I have no real complaints and I'm using plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Rich said:
> 
> 
> > Millions, really? That's kinda mind boggling.
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich said:


> You really think it's that many? I have no idea, never gave the subject a thought. After I found out what a DVR was I quickly switched from VCRs to DVRs. I've never had an H25 or any of its ilk either. I would have guessed in the thousands, not millions.
> 
> No, still no 44. Can't see any reason to have one. 24 tuners is enough. One of these days a guy in Retention will make me an offer I can't refuse, I suppose. It just hasn't happened yet.
> 
> ...


This is really odd, I can see the smilie rolling now, let me post and see what happens.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich said:


> This is really odd, I can see the smilie rolling now, let me post and see what happens.
> 
> Rich


I have no idea what just happened. That smilie always works for me and now it doesn't? What happened? Again: :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich said:


> I have no idea what just happened. That smilie always works for me and now it doesn't? What happened? Again: :rolling:
> 
> Rich


Now it works! What happened?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Yep same here, I ended up with MLB ei, but still over $180 a month.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Mine's over $200 again. I hate calling.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Rich said:
> 
> 
> > Millions, really? That's kinda mind boggling.
> ...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Bah. My sister has fios. She has the hardware that is a DVR but won't pay the fee to have them turn it on. Even though she would love it.


My M-I-L was similar with Uverse, except in her case, she didn't pay the HD fee. 

So one Thanksgiving my B-I-L and I gave her money to pay for a year's worth and had her turn it on. No way were we going to watch football in SD. She still defaults to the SD channel when she is watching. That was the best thing DirecTV did to thwart SD lovers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I keep forgetting about them. I wonder how many folks don't have DVRs. Can't be that many, no?


Last year the nation passed 50% DVR penetration. While I suspect satellite subscribers are ahead of the curve, millions of DirecTV subscribers without a DVR is not a hard concept to grasp.

For those of us who have had a DVR for over a decade the concept of not having one may be hard to grasp. About as hard as remembering that not all customers have HD.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

How soon will the Cloud replace the DVR?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> How soon will the Cloud replace the DVR?


As soon as the price of bandwidth becomes reasonable. With speed limits and data caps, satellite broadcast is still a better way to get content from one to many. Some cable has moved from broadcast to individual streams, but the number of channels one can receive via such a system can be limited. Broadcast still works.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> How soon will the Cloud replace the DVR?


It is a lot easier for this to happen with cable, since they control the pipe from their headend to the end user, than it would be for satellite companies. Maybe that's what Dish is working on with their purchase of broadband spectrum and assets. If they succeed, they'd put Directv in a very difficult position!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Last year the nation passed 50% DVR penetration. While I suspect satellite subscribers are ahead of the curve, millions of DirecTV subscribers without a DVR is not a hard concept to grasp.
> 
> For those of us who have had a DVR for over a decade the concept of not having one may be hard to grasp. About as hard as remembering that not all customers have HD.


Yeah, I keep forgetting we're not normal. I've turned so many people onto this forum and few stayed, if any. A couple of them told me it was too technical for them to understand.

Rich


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I knew that people would choose PQ over the channel quantity but I would have never guessed that it would be such massive disparity.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> It is a lot easier for this to happen with cable, since they control the pipe from their headend to the end user, than it would be for satellite companies. Maybe that's what Dish is working on with their purchase of broadband spectrum and assets. If they succeed, they'd put Directv in a very difficult position!


But even cable has limits as well even more so in NON SDV systems. Comcast has just about no SDV and is lacking big time in ALT / over flows in HD as well part time HD feeds.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> How soon will the Cloud replace the DVR?


It will never entirely replace it.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Off topic but the rolling smilie didn't work on the original post, but worked in EVERY response / reply!

And about reducing costs, we have friends that cancel the $8 Netflix streaming because it's too high, but will go out for an afternoon bottle(s) of wine with a $150 bill and $40 tip - several times a week!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Rich said:


> Yeah, I keep forgetting we're not normal. I've turned so many people onto this forum and few stayed, if any. A couple of them told me it was too technical for them to understand.
> 
> Rich


I prefer watching live TV and would probably only need an HD Receiver unless one show was on during another or I was busy and had to record a show. Maybe the cloud wont be for awhile but that would be cool if they expanded VOD in HD and had all the network shows and popular cable shows on VOD in HD. Then maybe VOD could replace the DVR? However then you couldn't have pause and rewind live TV with just an HD Receiver and VOD right?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> How soon will the Cloud replace the DVR?


It could happen quickly if DirecTV could keep a copy of every program in their cloud (or a central cloud everyone subscribes to) but I think I remember there's some patent or contract clause that prevents the 1 to many storage. You could have just an index for your selections that you watch on Demand.

Or with the proper package, On Demand for every program.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I prefer watching live TV and would probably only need an HD Receiver unless one show was on during another or I was busy and had to record a show. Maybe the cloud wont be for awhile but that would be cool if they expanded VOD in HD and had all the network shows and popular cable shows on VOD in HD. Then maybe VOD could replace the DVR? However then you couldn't have pause and rewind live TV with just an HD Receiver and VOD right?


By live tv, do you mean sports and news and chat shows? Or do you mean as broadcast with commercials?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

tonyd79 said:


> By live tv, do you mean sports and news and chat shows? Or do you mean as broadcast with commercials?


News and broadcast and with commercials. I don't like sports.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dennisj00 said:


> It could happen quickly if DirecTV could keep a copy of every program in their cloud (or a central cloud everyone subscribes to) but I think I remember there's some patent or contract clause that prevents the 1 to many storage. You could have just an index for your selections that you watch on Demand.
> 
> Or with the proper package, On Demand for every program.


It could happen today for those with sufficient bandwidth, but will never be universally a solution. --Unless you believe every hamlet, every barnyard will be on the information superhighway.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Laxguy said:


> It could happen today for those with sufficient bandwidth, but will never be universally a solution. --Unless you believe every hamlet, every barnyard will be on the information superhighway.


What about with 1 Gbps internet starting to be deployed? Also what if we didn't need the cloud and instead just expanded on VOD? Or is VOD considered the cloud also?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> What about with 1 Gbps internet starting to be deployed? Also what if we didn't need the cloud and instead just expanded on VOD? Or is VOD considered the cloud also?


While 1Gbps internet is being deployed in some places, is naive to believe that it will be deployed every where anytime soon. "the cloud" means the internet so VOD may be considered as video in the cloud as well


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Everything is considered the Cloud!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> Everything is considered the Cloud!


Although the cloud term was made more for storage purposes, where you have the rights to edit the contents. like Google Drive, Dropbox, etc...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

peds48 said:


> Although the cloud term was made more for storage purposes, where you have the rights to edit the contents. like Google Drive, Dropbox, etc..


Isn't that how TV providers are looking at the cloud? Instead of having a home HD storage its stored at the TV providers severs? Wouldn't that reduce costs deploying equipment to a customers home? A customer could use their own equipment or a TV provider would just come out with a small HD Receiver connected to the cloud?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Right, but as is has been discussed before, this is something DirecTV can't rely on, as least as of now 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> Everything is considered the Cloud!


The cloud is undefined. Go back a few years before the term was commonly used and look at network diagrams. Diagrams that show computers connected to routers possibly through firewalls to other computers with lines showing the data path. When there is a part that is undefined (such as the public Internet or the public switched telephone system) a cloud is drawn. It is the easy way of omitting detail while acknowledging that something is there.

Cloud computing and cloud storage are something there but the details are less important than knowing that something is there providing the computing and/or storage. One could diagram the details of a cloud storage server farm, but the detail of the cloud is less important than the presence of the cloud.

Content from the cloud can be things an individual uploads for themselves or others or public services such as Amazon or iTunes. For public services one purchases the rights to access the content either individually or in bulk and the stored content is delivered to the home or portable device on demand. For private services one either uploads their own media or purchases a copy that is placed in their private storage. The cloud makes it easy to access the same content from multiple devices.

Regardless of the source of the material or storage location, getting content from the cloud is a one to one connection. The content delivery networks that deliver personal or public services must be robust enough to handle the individual demand from all viewers lest there be problems receiving the content. If two million people want to watch NASCAR on a weekend at the same time there needs to be two million streams (especially if server based trick plays are allowed). Or the race can be broadcast via satellite on a cable channel or to television affiliates and then distributed by broadcast reaching two million or two hundred million with no degradation.

The degradation on a broadcast signal such as satellite would come from competition ... not the millions of other people who want to watch the same content at the same time (with trick plays handled at the receiver) but the millions of other people who want to watch something else. The 20 million DirecTV subscribers that even if they love NASCAR want more in their subscription than one channel playing NASCAR. They want many or most of the ~200 channels DirecTV carries in HD - and probably want one or two channels that are not yet in HD.

That is where the cloud wins ... it doesn't matter to the data network if you are watching a stream of the most popular program or the most esoteric niche program. Your stream is your stream. But a hundred million homes all wanting their own stream - with multiple streams per home being requested and the cloud isn't so light and fluffy any more. It gets weighed down. Broadcast (one to many over the same bandwidth) works better when there are a lot of viewers wanting the same content.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

In addition to James' fine exposition, just because you (the generic "you") can get 30 or more down, doesn't mean everyone can. So, technology exists right now that'd make IP delivery of content to those people- at least some of those people, as we don't know how the two million folks in James' example watching NASCAR at the same time will scale at the server end.

And some will never be able to avail themselves of internet delivery. ( I prefer to not use cloud as a term for this.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Isn't that how TV providers are looking at the cloud? Instead of having a home HD storage its stored at the TV providers severs? Wouldn't that reduce costs deploying equipment to a customers home? A customer could use their own equipment or a TV provider would just come out with a small HD Receiver connected to the cloud?


It only makes sense to do when the TV provider is also the internet provider. Then the "cloud DVR" isn't going across the internet, but only across the provider's network. Once you're using someone else's network you have no knowledge/control over where the choke points are.

If they offer a competing service, they even have an incentive to not do anything to improve matters if there are problems. Can you imagine if a lot of people subscribed to Comcast for internet and Directv for TV, and Directv is streaming a lot of programming across Comcast's network, that Comcast is going to go out of their way to insure it streams well? Given the way the "net neutrality" thing is turning, they may throttle Directv traffic, hoping to get those customers to dump them for Comcast TV service.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Now, now! Comcast would *never* resort to such tactics!!

:bang !rolling


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I knew that people would choose PQ over the channel quantity but I would have never guessed that it would be such massive disparity.


I had hopes. Kinda surprised me, too. But that's just us, not the great majority of subs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Off topic but the rolling smilie didn't work on the original post, but worked in EVERY response / reply!
> 
> And about reducing costs, we have friends that cancel the $8 Netflix streaming because it's too high, but will go out for an afternoon bottle(s) of wine with a $150 bill and $40 tip - several times a week!


I just couldn't get that smilie to work on that one post. Still don't know why. :rolling: And, yet again, it works!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> In addition to James' fine exposition, just because you (the generic "you") can get 30 or more down, doesn't mean everyone can. So, technology exists right now that'd make IP delivery of content to those people- at least some of those people, as we don't know how the two million folks in James' example watching NASCAR at the same time will scale at the server end.
> 
> And some will never be able to avail themselves of internet delivery. ( _*I prefer to not use cloud as a term for this.*_)


Yet another term to baffle the masses with BS.

Rich


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

If you're really interested in what the future may hold, read up on Network Function Virtualization.

http://portal.etsi.org/NFV/NFV_White_Paper.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv
http://networkbuilders.intel.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Functions_Virtualization


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> In addition to James' fine exposition, just because you (the generic "you") can get 30 or more down, doesn't mean everyone can.)


 I can get up to 50 MBPS , but even still it doesn't mean I want to pay for such .

15 MBPS already cost me $60 per month.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

Not even worth a vote. More channels = more cost = higher billing = upset customer (me).


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

My point of view on this is that I have 3 TV's in the house, only the newest is 1080p the other 2 are 720p. I see enough compression artifacts on the 720p TV's that there is no point in me upgrading them. Period.

Only 10% of what I watch is not sourced from D* at this point, so for 90% of my programming my TV is capable of better than what D* sends, why would I want worse quality than that? Having worked in publishing for the last 20 years many jpeg/mpeg artifacts cry out to me like black ink on a white page, so I may be an extreme case. If I can see the results of the compression, its just too much.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

I have FiOS and DirecTV (among others) available and DirecTV is already soft enough compared to FiOS (though others are worse). DirecTV seems softer in comparison to FiOS than it was several years ago. 

I certainly would not go softer!


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

DTV doesn't need to do ANY compression on the hd channels! Are some of you guys crazy? The SD channels look like absolute crap and are unviewable due to over compression. That's why I usually will never watch a SD channel unless there is no choice. I have a 52" Sony and tv's as big as this one are very suspect to all the blurrieness and flaws of over compression.



Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sunfire9us said:


> DTV doesn't need to do ANY compression on the hd channels! Are some of you guys crazy?


"compression" is a necessary evil.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

sunfire9us said:


> DTV doesn't need to do ANY compression on the hd channels! Are some of you guys crazy? The SD channels look like absolute crap and are unviewable due to over compression. That's why I usually will never watch a SD channel unless there is no choice. I have a 52" Sony and tv's as big as this one are very suspect to all the blurrieness and flaws of over compression.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Well to clarify they have to compress. They always have and always will. Everyone must. You can't send uncompressed video there's not enough bandwidth for anyone to do that.

They key is the quality of it. I'd say don't ever compress more than they do now and we are ok.


----------



## VABlitz (Jan 20, 2013)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I'd rather have less channels with 4K down.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

They need to drop about 20 HD channels and bump up the quality on the main ones. The channel expansion has to stop. Too many channels with no content.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> They need to drop about 20 HD channels and bump up the quality on the main ones. The channel expansion has to stop. Too many channels with no content.


Your favorite 20 can go first, right?


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Your favorite 20 can go first, right?


If those 20 have the least viewership, yes. The shows that matter will migrate back to the remaining channels.


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

Another reason to switch to ala carte packages. It becomes obvious what should be prioritized!!!!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rakstr said:


> Another reason to switch to ala carte packages. It becomes obvious what should be prioritized!!!!


It does? Because ratings and viewership don't? In fact, a tenant of a la carte would be that each channel (or each subpackage) would be self-sustainable. Meaning it would make its own money. Following that theory, it would mean that even the least channel (if it is profitable) would still be around. In fact, a la carte would make it harder to remove channels.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> It does? Because ratings and viewership don't? In fact, a tenant of a la carte would be that each channel (or each subpackage) would be self-sustainable. Meaning it would make its own money. Following that theory, it would mean that even the least channel (if it is profitable) would still be around. In fact, a la carte would make it harder to remove channels.


Exactly! A channel with only 1000 subscribers could survive if those people wanted it enough to pay high enough monthly fees to cover its operational cost. Maybe a HFMC (Hedge Fund Managers Channel) that costs $100,000/month and gives out insider info 

To the rest of us, a channel with so few subscribers would seem like a waste, but Directv would make more off it than they make off something that has a couple million subscribers who were only willing to pay a few cents a month (hello Weather Channel, I'm talking about you)

Seems pretty obvious which one would be dropped or compressed to make room for the other!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Seems pretty obvious which one would be dropped or compressed to make room for the other!


Yep ... the channels owned by small companies that do not have the leverage to get what they demand.

The channels owned by Disney/ESPN, Viacom, NBC Universal - the 800 pound gorillas - would keep their place.


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> It does? Because ratings and viewership don't? In fact, a tenant of a la carte would be that each channel (or each subpackage) would be self-sustainable. Meaning it would make its own money. Following that theory, it would mean that even the least channel (if it is profitable) would still be around. In fact, a la carte would make it harder to remove channels.


Yes it does. THAT is the basis of capitalism. If there is profit in something, someone will make it happen. The cost of the product becomes equal to the value. The only time we ever see problems is when someone manipulates the cost and distorts value (e.g. government subsidies).


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rakstr said:


> Yes it does. THAT is the basis of capitalism. If there is profit in something, someone will make it happen. The cost of the product becomes equal to the value. The only time we ever see problems is when someone manipulates the cost and distorts value (e.g. government subsidies).


Far more manipulating by business than government. See the History Channel and H2. See espn. See Viacom. The list goes on. The INDUSTRY has rejected a la carte. Very little regulation in the business, actually.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Please no additional compression.


----------



## VABlitz (Jan 20, 2013)

I can offer some channels that I wouldn't mind seeing them compress the crap out of (or remove completely), but I believe everyone knows what they would be. The same channels the majority of people don't want: Home Shopping Channels, Religious Stations, the crappy music channels, the gaming channels.


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Far more manipulating by business than government. See the History Channel and H2. See espn. See Viacom. The list goes on. The INDUSTRY has rejected a la carte. Very little regulation in the business, actually.


Of course the INDUSTRY has rejected ala carte, it's not in their favor.

You missed the whole point. It has nothing to do with the INDUSTRY. If the channels were individually priced and the weak not supported by "bundling", the true value of a channel would be expressed by those will to pay. Very simple.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Currently, the vote is 28 to 1 against more compression to get more channels. I think the people have spoken.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rakstr said:


> Of course the INDUSTRY has rejected ala carte, it's not in their favor.
> 
> You missed the whole point. It has nothing to do with the INDUSTRY. If the channels were individually priced and the weak not supported by "bundling", the true value of a channel would be expressed by those will to pay. Very simple.


But the volume of profit would decrease so much that the losses would be huge in jobs and profits overall. The industry isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot. They need a tweak not a complete redo that would fire three quarters the industry. Not to mention wed then be paying more than we do now for only a handful of channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rakstr said:


> If the channels were individually priced and the weak not supported by "bundling", the true value of a channel would be expressed by those will to pay. Very simple.


If the channels were all free we would not be haggling over prices. We would just pay DirecTV or other provider the cost of operating their satellites and other physical systems and not pay content providers anything.

If wishes were horses we all could ride.

The reality is your "if" is controlled by the industry ... ignoring that industry influence leads one into a world where anything goes and reality is tossed out of the window. For example: "If all content providers paid for carriage we could all get satellite for free." A true statement, but pie in the sky as there is no way ALL content providers are going to pay for distribution.


----------

