# EchoStar: 6 More HDTV Channels In 2007



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/echo051107.htm



> In the investors call, EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen also said the company might add roughly six more high-def channels this year.


roughly ... 6 ...


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

seeing is believing, right now I don't believe


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

At one time he said they had capacity for up to 50 HD channels. At that time I believe he was referring to national channels not including locals.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

As a former Dish HD sub from 2000 to 2005, this is _under_whelming news.

After Charlie's HD 'news', if I were making a decision now between E* and 
D* based on anticipated HD content by the end of 2007, early 2008, there
is little doubt I would go with D*.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

My guess is the "6" is accurate, it's the HD that is "roughly."


----------



## sansha (Apr 27, 2007)

How can directtv claim to add 100 national HD channels by years end? It seems impossible. Are there 100 national (not locals) HD channels presently even in existence? Dish seems to have the most HD content for now. What are the 70+ national HD channels that could Dish presently add that they haven't? Where are these 70 phantom national HD channels?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> After Charlie's HD 'news', if I were making a decision now between E* and D* based on anticipated HD content by the end of 2007, early 2008, there is little doubt I would go with D*.


Believe the lie that sounds more positive?

E* has 32 and will have "roughly" 38 national HD channels by the end of the year.
D* has 10 and will have (??? - whatever you believe) national HD channels by the end of the year.

D* has a lot further to go to meet their "promise" than E*.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Nick said:


> As a former Dish HD sub from 2000 to 2005, this is _under_whelming news.
> 
> After Charlie's HD 'news', if I were making a decision now between E* and
> D* based on anticipated HD content by the end of 2007, early 2008, there
> is little doubt I would go with D*.


I'll never make a decision based on "anticipated" HD content.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> Believe the lie that sounds more positive?
> 
> E* has 32 and will have "roughly" 38 national HD channels by the end of the year.
> D* has 10 and will have (??? - whatever you believe) national HD channels by the end of the year.
> ...


E* has a lot further to go to meet their "promise than E*??? did yoy mean D* has a lot(ps this is a joke as my english is worse than some other englh)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Opps.


----------



## DIRECTV-10 (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Believe the lie that sounds more positive?
> 
> E* has 32 and will have "roughly" 38 national HD channels by the end of the year.
> D* has 10 and will have (??? - whatever you believe) national HD channels by the end of the year.
> ...


Well - correct in some sense (but not the way you meant). I have about 22,300 miles to go.

Once I am stationed in GTO, the rest is easy, I assure you. So unless you are hoping for my demise, we will have LOTS more than 38 HD Nationals by the end of 2007. I hear from pretty good sources that 100 is a pretty good number to hang your hats on.

Have a nice day!

:coolglass :coolglass :coolglass


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ah, but while you and your bro rest on your promises the satellites needed to add six channels to E* are already traveling roughly 165,000 miles per day ... about 6880 MPH ... which, from my perspective, keeps them at the same azimuth and elevation. You are traveling at less than 1000 miles per hour. A good thing you are on the ground moving that slow!


----------



## DIRECTV-10 (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Ah, but while you and your bro rest on your promises the satellites needed to add six channels to E* are already traveling roughly 165,000 miles per day ... about 6880 MPH ... which, from my perspective, keeps them at the same azimuth and elevation. You are traveling at less than 1000 miles per hour. A good thing you are on the ground moving that slow!


I respect ALL of my satellite brethren and make no ill comments towards any. But unless you are rooting for me to fail - the plans are already in motion for the addition of close to 100 HD Nationals by end of 2007.

So if you want to wait until June 20th to see if I make it safely - that's ok. But by approx. July 14th when I am scheduled to reach GTO - if all goes well - then you cannot and will not excape the inevitable HD expansion on DirecTV.

I will ask my brother DirecTV11 to send me up your comments upon my reaching my orbital slot.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Interesting.

Discovery channel announced couple of days ago that they're in the process of launching 6 new HD channels.

Echostar now says they plan to add 6 new HD channels.

Do I see a strong connection here, or is it mere coincidence?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DirecTV10 - I do wish you would curb your enthusiasm for the appropriate forum, lest you be labeled as a troll. 

Call me when you have 32 national HD channels ... promises and plans are not worth the response time.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> DirecTV10 - I do wish you would curb your enthusiasm for the appropriate forum, lest you be labeled as a troll.
> 
> Call me when you have 32 national HD channels ... promises and plans are not worth the response time.


It would be nice if the same comments were posted in the D* forums when E* fans are responding to threads.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

DirecTV10 said:


> I respect ALL of my satellite brethren and make ano ill comments towards any. But unless you are rooting for me to fail - the plans are already in motion for the addition of close to 100 HD Nationals by end of 2007.
> 
> So if you want to wait until June 20th to see if I make it safely - that's ok. But by approx. July 14th when I am scheduled to reach GTO - if all goes well - then you cannot and will not excape the inevitable HD expansion on DirecTV.
> 
> I will ask my brother DirecTV11 to send me up your comments upon my reaching my orbital slot.


Laving aside any discussion of whether you actually area satellite, I hope tht you know that getting the satellite into position is just part of what has to happen.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Nick said:


> As a former Dish HD sub from 2000 to 2005, this is _under_whelming news.
> 
> After Charlie's HD 'news', if I were making a decision now between E* and
> D* based on anticipated HD content by the end of 2007, early 2008, there
> is little doubt I would go with D*.


All these chicken little people are great. E* has 32 hd's and said they would add up to 6 by years end. *Right now there may not even me that many to add*. YET, everyone believes the D* propaganda. Im willing to bet that E* still has more national HD offerings than D* at years end. D* still has to get their sat off the ground, E* on the other hand still has capacity in the air.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Let's not hope for problems with the D* satellites. Any delay in getting them operational could result in a delay in launching several of the announced HD networks. Remember, several are promised to launch on D* first, so E* can't get them until the D* birds are operating. We should be hoping for those D* satellites to be operational as soon as possible, so that D* can start pressuring the networks to go live with their HD channels.

This kind of competition is good for all of us HD viewers, whether we're DBS, cable or IPTV.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Discovery channel announced couple of days ago that they're in the process of launching 6 new HD channels.
> 
> ...


Also the addition of Starz HD channels that got some mention a couple days back.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I still see no point in getting worked up over channels that do not yet exist! DirecTV can have all the capacity they want by year's end with the new satellites in orbit, but if the channels don't exist for them to have, then they will be right where Dish is (or less if you're counting Voom).

Dish's "6 new HD" announcement may seem underwhelming... but I would not be surprised if we are sitting here in December and wondering if there actually are 6 HD channels worth adding to the lineup.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RAD said:


> It would be nice if the same comments were posted in the D* forums when E* fans are responding to threads.


We call them when we see them. I don't hang out on the D* side too often, but when I am there I respect that it is a D* forum full primarily of people who have chosen that system and try not to be annoying.

If there are people you feel are trolling for E* you should report the posts ... trolling does no one any good on any forum - it just serves to annoy everyone.

That being said - enough about moderation ... let's get back to the topic.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

HDMe said:


> but I would not be surprised if we are sitting here in December and wondering if there actually are 6 HD channels worth adding to the lineup.


Who else can't wait for TWC in HD :lol: 
I would almost guarantee none of their in-studio graphics, or on-site cameras will be HD...just the anchors.

Excellent point, HDMe!


----------



## sansha (Apr 27, 2007)

I would be happy to have chiller though on E*. Ort anything new.

I like the discovery channels but if they are just HD feeds of the same SD channels, it's nice, but I'd rather have different programming than an HD duplicate of what I already have.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

This week meet w/ engineering ppl that supply the encoders for E* to do their MPEG 4. Well part of what D* is counting on as far as delivery of stations. D* is dumping their existing encoders for the same units as E* is now using. So now the more HD channels will be possible for both using the algorithm method. As far as how many nets will have their plants ready that is a different thing entirely.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

D* is moving to E*'s latest and greatest (currently allowing 6 HDs on an 8PSK transponder)?
Or are you saying D* is moving to the more common 4HDs on an 8PSK?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

kdg454 said:


> Who else can't wait for TWC in HD :lol:
> I would almost guarantee none of their in-studio graphics, or on-site cameras will be HD...just the anchors.
> 
> Excellent point, HDMe!


All of these are available now It is just a matter of money and time to put it in. Pannasonic now have 3 different cameras that record and transmit 720p up to 1080p using memory cards or SDI outputs. 2 of these units can select any resolution from 480i up to 1080p. 1 is a heavy duty shoulder camera similar to what broadcast journalist are used to now.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I still see no point in getting worked up over channels that do not yet exist! DirecTV can have all the capacity they want by year's end with the new satellites in orbit, but if the channels don't exist for them to have, then they will be right where Dish is (or less if you're counting Voom).
> 
> Dish's "6 new HD" announcement may seem underwhelming... but I would not be surprised if we are sitting here in December and wondering if there actually are 6 HD channels worth adding to the lineup.


Correct, there isnt any point of spewing over the 'idea' or 'goal' or whatever either company is calling it.

I am more apt to believe E* when they say 6 by end of year rather than 100 from D*.


----------



## Hunter844 (Apr 26, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> This week meet w/ engineering ppl that supply the encoders for E* to do their MPEG 4. Well part of what D* is counting on as far as delivery of stations. D* is dumping their existing encoders for the same units as E* is now using. So now the more HD channels will be possible for both using the algorithm method. As far as how many nets will have their plants ready that is a different thing entirely.


This is basically what I heard several months ago through 3rd hand information. I think I'm going to wait it out for a while longer before figuring which one to go with. I'm currently among the few that have the dishnetwork old hd receiver and only get like 5 channels for 10 bucks a month.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> D* is moving to E*'s latest and greatest (currently allowing 6 HDs on an 8PSK transponder)?
> Or are you saying D* is moving to the more common 4HDs on an 8PSK?


D* has placed an order for numerous of the same encoders that E* is using now for their HD channels. How many streams they put into each transponder will be up to them. Yes it will do 6 HD's in 1 transponder. In fact the company was able to show a pq at 6 MHZ that is now taking 10 to 12 HMZ. So if they are using a transponder that is 36 MHZ wide then 6 X 6 equals 36. And before the HDLITE camp ask this was at full 1920 X 1080i resolution or 1280 X 720p. We had 2 different companies doing encoder shoot outs for the purchase of their products. Both were very close in performance.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Everyone focuses and speculates on what new HD channels will be added. They say the more HD the better because, even at a lower resolution, it's still better than SD. Since both D* and E* are pushing each other to improve compression codecs and vie for HD programs, maybe we should focus more on demanding they improve the SD picture to at least DVD quality? That wouldn't be too bad. I doubt if all programming will ever be in HD, and besides, the average person pays for a bunch of SD programming and only watches a handful anyway so why do we need more and more HD channels that few people will probably watch and will probably pay more for regardless of what is said? How much is enough?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

whatchel1 said:


> D* has placed an order for numerous of the same encoders that E* is using now for their HD channels. How many streams they put into each transponder will be up to them. Yes it will do 6 HD's in 1 transponder. In fact the company was able to show a pq at 6 MHZ that is now taking 10 to 12 HMZ. So if they are using a transponder that is 36 MHZ wide then 6 X 6 equals 36. And before the HDLITE camp ask this was at full 1920 X 1080i resolution or 1280 X 720p. We had 2 different companies doing encoder shoot outs for the purchase of their products. Both were very close in performance.


Tandberg and ?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

richiephx said:


> Everyone focuses and speculates on what new HD channels will be added. They say the more HD the better because, even at a lower resolution, it's still better than SD. Since both D* and E* are pushing each other to improve compression codecs and vie for HD programs, maybe we should focus more on demanding they improve the SD picture to at least DVD quality? That wouldn't be too bad. I doubt if all programming will ever be in HD, and besides, the average person pays for a bunch of SD programming and only watches a handful anyway so why do we need more and more HD channels that few people will probably watch and will probably pay more for regardless of what is said? How much is enough?


In the shoot out it did show that 1 company had better HD & the other had better SD. Before long (no exact date) the SD will be upconverted to HD. It won't be as good as true HD but will be much cleaner than present SD.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Tandberg and ?


Sorry forum I can't give the names on the forum. This why I have not been saying any brands.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

How's that dual tuner Mpeg4 HD DVR comming for D*?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

ssmith10pn said:


> How's that dual tuner Mpeg4 HD DVR comming for D*?


Very nicely, thank you.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

SMosher said:


> Correct, there isnt any point of spewing over the 'idea' or 'goal' or whatever either company is calling it.
> 
> I am more apt to believe E* when they say 6 by end of year rather than 100 from D*.


And I choose to believe just the other way around - that's what makes this all so interesting.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The good news (for E* customers) is if E* doesn't add a single new HD channel they will have 32 national channels available including all four major premium channels. If D* fails there is no telling how many channels they will have at the end of the year. Certainly more than the 10 they have now (including two premium channels) but how many more? That is what remains to be proven.

It sure would be nice to make it to September without rehashing this "E* delivered" vs "D* promised" debate over and over. Until D* actually adds channels the answer remains the same. Come back when something CHANGES!


----------



## Cocoatreat (May 16, 2006)

i wish the best for d*. if they get their channels, great! ....but i have been with e* for a long time. i have been totally satisfied with their performance. now do i think that d* has been a bit unfair in making those exclusive sports contracts? indeed! however, in this world ya gotta do what u can to stay ahead. just think........if e* was included in those lucratives...... the yield would be unbelievable......i just dont think d* would stand a chance.... but then .....thats my opinion... now i dont ever go into the d* forum ...i just have no interests.... but a lot of them sure do visit the e* forum.. wonder why!?????


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are E* people who cross over to D* forums as well ... 
But that's talking about people, and I'd rather follow the forum rules and talk about DBS!


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

richiephx said:


> I doubt if all programming will ever be in HD ...


Why ? Even all old programs recorded on film are in HD ...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nataraj said:


> Why ? Even all old programs recorded on film are in HD ...


As there can be crappy video, there is also crappy film. I've seen more than a few film transfers that were decidedly inferior. If they don't start with a quality print, the result will be less than stellar.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

harsh said:


> As there can be crappy video, there is also crappy film. I've seen more than a few film transfers that were decidedly inferior. If they don't start with a quality print, the result will be less than stellar.


True. But that is OT ...

There is no reason why all programs can't be in HD - just like they moved from B&W to color, they will move from SD to HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I watch The Burns and Allen Show each week ...
Even though I am watching it on a HD set the show is still in black and white. I suppose someone could "colorize" it but can they truly give me a HD picture? It would take a lot of work (returning to original film if available and digitally enhancing it).

It you believe that all old programs are going to be digitally enhanced from their original source and we will end up with HD quality then that is your opinion. We have not seen such widespread conversion of B&W to color ... even though the technology exists.

Before one says "all TV will be in HD" it would be good to look and see if "all TV is in color". It isn't all in color (although I suspect that the "noir" crowd will produce true HD B&W productions in the future ... such as the Smallville episode a couple of weeks ago).

Be careful with generalizations such as "ALL" and expect a certain level of ED and SD programming ... new programming in ED and SD ... even after "digital conversion" is complete in 2009 ish.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

If Direct can open a huge lead on Dish in HD programming at the end of the year I'll take a more serious look at them. Until then promisses of stations that don't exist yet on a bird that isn't even in the air are nothing to get excited about. Especially if that Sat goes the way of poor old Scotty.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

"Captain ! The engines can't stand the strrrrraaaaiiiinnnnn!"


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

James Long said:


> I watch The Burns and Allen Show each week ...
> Even though I am watching it on a HD set the show is still in black and white. I suppose someone could "colorize" it but can they truly give me a HD picture? It would take a lot of work (returning to original film if available and digitally enhancing it).


Definitely old shows that are shot in SD will be in SD. Those that are shot in film can be mastered in HD - afterall RobinHood (1935) has been released in glorious color in HD DVD ...



> It you believe that all old programs are going to be digitally enhanced from their original source and we will end up with HD quality then that is your opinion. We have not seen such widespread conversion of B&W to color ... even though the technology exists.


Ofcourse not - everything will not be remastered. Only shows that can atleast recoup their remastering cost will be remastered. Just like all 100K DVDs won't be released in HiDef.



> Be careful with generalizations such as "ALL" and expect a certain level of ED and SD programming ... new programming in ED and SD ... even after "digital conversion" is complete in 2009 ish.


But there is no reason why ALL new TV programs will not be in HD in a few years. Ofcourse this doesn't include youtube 

BTW, I've said this a few times earlier. There is no reason to have TV channels at all - everything can be a la carte on demand. We only need live sports and news channels. But thats entirely off-topic.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> The good news (for E* customers) is if E* doesn't add a single new HD channel they will have 32 national channels available including all four major premium channels. If D* fails there is no telling how many channels they will have at the end of the year. Certainly more than the 10 they have now (including two premium channels) but how many more? That is what remains to be proven.
> 
> It sure would be nice to make it to September without rehashing this "E* delivered" vs "D* promised" debate over and over. Until D* actually adds channels the answer remains the same. Come back when something CHANGES!


But they ARE adding HD channels - the most important ones really - the HD lils. These are BY FAR and AWAY the most watched channels in EVERY DMA. Why are these shuffled off to the side when you make your comments? I see plenty of D* AND E* threads and posts of subs asking WHEN WILL MY DMA light? In fact more than I see of any other HD channels request. In many markets the difference in the number of HD channels available to a sub is really very close - counting RSNS and lils. Networks and sports ARE among the highest rated channels.

But isn't this one of the ways people determine which service is better for them?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Poker Charlie is playing the odds on HD LIL ... looking at the percentage of people who can get OT LIL (all channels - not just HD) vs the price the locals demand for satellite carriage of their HD channels. The same reason why E* generally looks to the more populous markets when adding locals ... if they can cover 95% of the population with SD and 85% of the population with HD then they are doing OK (especially when a good portion of the markets not carried have OTA available).

D* is having problems in some markets with HD LILs ... not carrying all networks. One can put up an antenna and get the missing networks. Or just put up an antenna and get them all without spending the satellite space.

Satellite should be delivering something I can't get for free ... if satellite delivers free channels they should do it to make it more convenient - let there be some purpose to have a channel uplinked and taking up space that could be used for something else.

In D* case the space cannot be used for something else. They are using spotbeam satellites. Putting up channels of LIL and regional interest works best. Trying to use spotbeams to deliver national content requires a lot of duplication. Not the best use of the space. E*'s ConUS space is better used for ConUS uses.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Poker Charlie is playing the odds on HD LIL ... looking at the percentage of people who can get OT LIL (all channels - not just HD) vs the price the locals demand for satellite carriage of their HD channels. The same reason why E* generally looks to the more populous markets when adding locals ... if they can cover 95% of the population with SD and 85% of the population with HD then they are doing OK (especially when a good portion of the markets not carried have OTA available).
> 
> D* is having problems in some markets with HD LILs ... not carrying all networks. One can put up an antenna and get the missing networks. Or just put up an antenna and get them all without spending the satellite space.
> 
> ...


Hey - I really don't want to get into a E* vs D* argument, they all prove to be useless. The only point I am trying to make is that there are 2 differing opinions on all of this, and most people on both sides say they are right. And truth be known they are ALL right, why else would they choose a particular provider.

Further, it is a pretty well known fact that 90% of people paying for tv utilize whatever provider they have for thier locals. Most houses built in the last 20 years NEVER had an antenna on the roof. But I agree that it makes sense if you can to get your locals OTA - but making sense and reality are as usual not one and the same. A very small percentage of people receive OTA signals anymore.

That being the case, having HD locals is an important issue for both D* and E*. If it wasn't they would automatically provide an OTA installation with EVERY new sub. But they want to be able to charge for it - it is a big revenue source for both companies.

Yes, I am a currently a DirecTV sub - but that is ONLY because I prefer their programming, it is not because I have ANY ill regard for Dish Network. To me its only another choice that's out there.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm not saying you're wrong (except you do enjoy getting into D* vs E* and do so often so I seriously doubt that you don't want to do so again). E* and D* both have their goals and capabilities ... and both have management that take risks balancing what they do and how it will cause gains and losses to their subscriber levels and balance sheet.

Six more HDs by years end? A respectable and obtainable goal.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> But they ARE adding HD channels - the most important ones really - the HD lils. These are BY FAR and AWAY the most watched channels in EVERY DMA. Why are these shuffled off to the side when you make your comments? I see plenty of D* AND E* threads and posts of subs asking WHEN WILL MY DMA light? In fact more than I see of any other HD channels request. In many markets the difference in the number of HD channels available to a sub is really very close - counting RSNS and lils. Networks and sports ARE among the highest rated channels.


I know plenty of markets that E* has had SD locals for years and these same markets aren't even on D*s radar screen because they are busy giving away national locals to customers within miles of their local towers.
E* was forced to stop offering any national network feeds while D* is thumbing there nose at the Local DMA.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I would rather NOT debate your post in this thead, but would appreciate even a partial list of the DMAs that you claim directv is thumbing their nose at. Please pm me your info. Thanks.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

I sure hope that 1 of the 6 be at least FOXBA-HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I would rather NOT debate your post in this thead, but would appreciate even a partial list of the DMAs that you claim directv is thumbing their nose at. Please pm me your info. Thanks.


I make no such claim. There are several markets where D* does not carry all four major networks in HD. There are 60-70 markets where D* doesn't provide a SD signal. If you want to charactarize those choices as "markets D* thumbing their nose at" it is your statement, not mine.

E* makes their choices, D* makes theirs, we make ours. Enough said.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> I make no such claim. There are several markets where D* does not carry all four major networks in HD. There are 60-70 markets where D* doesn't provide a SD signal. If you want to charactarize those choices as "markets D* thumbing their nose at" it is your statement, not mine.
> 
> E* makes their choices, D* makes theirs, we make ours. Enough said.


Don't take this the wrong way but........I wasn't talking about you - please read post # 52 - this is 'his statement' NOT MINE.



ssmith10pn said:


> I know plenty of markets that E* has had SD locals for years and these same markets aren't even on D*s radar screen because they are busy giving away national locals to customers within miles of their local towers.
> E* was forced to stop offering any national network feeds while D* is thumbing there nose at the Local DMA.


Enough said.

ssmith, can you please pm me this list of DMAs you are referring to. thanks.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

PM sent.


----------



## epaul (Aug 16, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> I would rather NOT debate your post in this thead, but would appreciate even a partial list of the DMAs that you claim directv is thumbing their nose at. Please pm me your info. Thanks.


I don't want to debate either but one of them is the Wichita Falls / Lawton DMA.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

Maybe even one of the 6 would be Oasis. That would be cool.


----------

