# HDNET v. DIRECTV Application for Restraining Order



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Over the past few days, we have been discussing a lawsuit filed by HDNET against DIRECTV in this thread.

Today, I received a copy of the Application for Temporary Restraining order and Temporary and Permanent Injunctions regarding this case. The original filing was on November 2, 2007, but an amended version was filed yesterday (November 6, 2007) in Dallas County, TX. You can find the entire text of the filing using the link below:

HDNET v. DIRECTV Application for Restraining Order


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

There is a fascinating section in that filing. It is an excerpt from the original contract between DirecTV and HDNet:



> > If DIRECTV distributes a tier of package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of *the most widely distributed tier of package *for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such services (the "[HD] Tier")&#8230;. Once launched, except as expressly set forth herein, _*at no time during the Term may DIRECTV delete either or both of [HDNet and HDNet Movies} from the platform.*_
> 
> 
> The contract's term runs from June 2, 2003 through December 31, 2008.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

I guess now we know why the regular HD pack is listed as an "HD access fee" instead of a package. Trying to get around contract language.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

It's a fascinating filing to read. There is a lot of inside baseball in there.

Now I want to read DirecTV's counter filing.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Funny, but I had never heard of HDNet prior to upgrading to the HD package and it certainly played no role in my decision to upgrade to HD with DirecTV. Actually, I can't ever recall watching much on HDNet or HDNet Movies - maybe 1 episode of ST: Enterprise and 1 movie. They're nice options to have and I'll keep the HD Extra pack, but they think way too highly of themselves.

Looks like there are going to be a lot of semantics at play as to what constitutes a separate "tier or package".


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

For those of you who have not read legal filings I'd suggest holding off on an opinion until you see the answer filed by DirecTV. There's almost always another side. I'm going to guess a TRO hearing will be held relatively quickly.

I think we'll get a real feeling for how the judge views this case with his ruling on the request for a Temporary Restraining Order. In general TROs are only given in cases where the plaintiff can't be compensated fairly for damages should they win the lawsuit.
It would seem to me that the difference in revenues between being in the main tier and the extra tier would be easily calculated. If the Judge grants a TRO...DirecTV should probably start negotiations to settle quickly.
Losing a request for a TRO does not mean the suit is without merit it can just be based on other remedies being available.

I'm not a member of the Texas Bar and don't know their state rules of civil procedure so I could be off. I am a bit interested in how the Texas rule on Discovery Plans works in practice. Any Longhorn Litigators out there?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, to a layman, there sure do not seem to be too many ways to interpret the paragraph posted above.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Lee L said:


> Well, to a layman, there sure do not seem to be too many ways to interpret the paragraph posted above.


Lee,

True, but we don't have the whole contract. There could be a section below that giving DirecTV to move the content to another tier based on some sort of condition.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

ggergm said:


> There is a fascinating section in that filing. It is an excerpt from the original contract between DirecTV and HDNet:
> *the most widely distributed tier of package*





flipptyfloppity said:


> I guess now we know why the regular HD pack is listed as an "HD access fee" instead of a package. Trying to get around contract language.





Lee L said:


> Well, to a layman, there sure do not seem to be too many ways to interpret the paragraph posted above.


Actually.....
since HD Access does not include any actual programming, as flippty mentioned that may be the "out".

Technically, "HD Extra" will be the first tier.


----------



## c152driver (Jan 21, 2007)

Lee L said:


> Well, to a layman, there sure do not seem to be too many ways to interpret the paragraph posted above.


That's why we have lawyers to come up with creative interpretations.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

There's also the phrase "except as expressly set forth herein" in that paragraph. What else in the contract could relieve DirecTV from honoring the paragraph?

Ken is right. We know half the story.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

MikeR said:


> Actually.....
> since HD Access does not include any actual programming, as flippty mentioned that may be the "out".
> 
> Technically, "HD Extra" will be the first tier.


Exactly, technically there has never been an HD tier to speak of until they proposed the HD Extra package. Based on the limited information in the initial petition, either side could have a valid argument as to why they are correct.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

say-what said:


> Funny, but I had never heard of HDNet prior to upgrading to the HD package and it certainly played no role in my decision to upgrade to HD with DirecTV. Actually, I can't ever recall watching much on HDNet or HDNet Movies - maybe 1 episode of ST: Enterprise and 1 movie. They're nice options to have and I'll keep the HD Extra pack, but they think way too highly of themselves.
> 
> Looks like there are going to be a lot of semantics at play as to what constitutes a separate "tier or package".


I also had never heard of HDNet before I got HD in 2004. Then again, I had never heard of "Heroes" until I had, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. HDNet quickly became one of my favorite channels just because of the stunning technical quality and variety of shows. I always liked Get Out, Art Mann Presents, and the various concerts if I liked the artist.

In 2007, obviously, they're not as unique as they were in 2004, but for all the pissing and moaning about HD-lite, strectch-o-vision, and pop-ups, I would think that the readership here would be up in arms about the de facto relegation of 2 nets that have always been at the forefront in quality and quantity of HD.

That said, we will have to wait to see all the claims and counterclaims come out before we know whether or not HD Net has a _legal_ leg to stand on. _Spiritually_, however, I can take a stand now and say I can't blame them for being a little ticked off about their treatment at the hands of D*. There are probably a number of subscribers who only kept the HD tier from 2003-2007 because HD Net was there.

-c


----------



## GenoV (Sep 12, 2007)

MikeR said:


> Actually.....
> since HD Access does not include any actual programming, as flippty mentioned that may be the "out".
> 
> Technically, "HD Extra" will be the first tier.


Don't you think that might be a hard sell though? You can't get the HD channels without paying the fee.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

This sounds like it is going to come down to interpretation of the contract (the entire contract, not just the snippet we've read).




Also, I started laughing when I read paragraph 40 on page 11: "In an effort to seek help, a call to DIRECTV's 1-800 phone number was worse." Welcome to our world.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  

I just read that and was in the process of "cutting and pasting" when I saw your post!


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Looks like we will be paying $14.99 for HD Access.

No point D* arguing that the HD Access isnt a tier/package as the invoked a clause in the contract when they introduced it to get a lower rate from Cuban - cant have both ways.

If HDNET can show just 1 advertiser or 3rd party (that they mention further into the filing) that has refused to re-order because of a suspected drop in subs then they have the right to the TRO immediately. You dont have to prove you would most likely win to get a TRO you have to show you are suffering damages (which they can show).

Without seeing D*'s reply yet I hold off on any opinion other than the TRO. It is going to be hard to argue that the HD Access isnt a tier if HDNet can show documentation (which again i am sure they can as they are stating it in their case) that D* called it a tier to get reduced costs in 2003. Looks like D* also cant say it is unique packages in that tier if Disc Theatre is not in it (I must admit I havent checked the site about that).

I do agree with HDNET about the premier package getting everything (it doesnt now - yes I get the Premier package) and that finding about the HD Extra Pack is not easy on their site - nor is it easy to order online.

If D* cant argue the tier/package stuff then they will have to bundle it all in one and put the price up of HD Access I think.

Just my opinion. Not a longhorn litigator but have just been involved in a very big litigation in TX.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

GenoV said:


> Don't you think that might be a hard sell though? You can't get the HD channels without paying the fee.


Certainly do...but if you follow Directv's legal speak on their site - that will be their defense.

That explains why it was so carefully worded before the actual launch of "HD Extra".

I'll be holding off on signing up for HD Extra...they'll get me with the $14.99+legal fee addition. ;-)


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

So HD-Net's contract with DTV expires at the end of 2008. Anyone think the networks will be dropped on the first day of January 2009?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I don't think they will.

I'm sure a new contract will be negotiated long before that.

This is just a lover's spat.

DirecTV needs content. That's all they have to deliver. HDNet needs a provider.

They'll work it out.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

I had not thought about the fact that there are HD channels with no SD counterpart that are not in the HD Extra Package, in particular Discovery HD Theater owned by Malone!

In addition, these are HD channels without an SD counter part that are not in the HD Extra Package:

Food HD* (231-1)
HGTV HD* (229-1) 

I also never thought about how DIRECTV was using the 101 concerts to compete with HDNet movies...

If you have not read it the restraining order is pretty straight forward to read. 

- Craig


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

It would be easier to accept HD "access" as not being a tier if there were no channels included that did not have a 1 to 1 SD equivalent. There are at least 4 channels that do not have a 1 to 1.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> If you have not read it the restraining order is pretty straight forward to read.


Technically, it's just an application for a restraining order .. :grin:


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Curiouser and curiouser...


----------



## loganbay (Oct 15, 2006)

OK. Am I missing somthing. Wasn't hd net always tied to a package sperate to any other programming and if so hasn't D* just changed the name of that package and lowered the price of it and then created a new "HD package" and charged $9.99 a month for it. So if the contract does tie it to a package that either has changed names or is no longer available, what leg is HDNet standing on?


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

loganbay said:


> OK. Am I missing somthing. Wasn't hd net always tied to a package sperate to any other programming and if so hasn't D* just changed the name of that package and lowered the price of it and then created a new "HD package" and charged $9.99 a month for it. So if the contract does tie it to a package that either has changed names or is no longer available, what leg is HDNet standing on?


I think they are standing on the "most widely distributed" part of that clause. If you need HD access to get HD Extra, then HD Extra cannot be more widely distributed.


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

MikeR said:


> Actually.....
> since HD Access does not include any actual programming, as flippty mentioned that may be the "out".
> 
> Technically, "HD Extra" will be the first tier.


I think this may be why they changed for HD Package to HD access. Extra pak will qualify as a Tier but HD access probably does not...


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

GenoV said:


> Don't you think that might be a hard sell though? You can't get the HD channels without paying the fee.


I can't? That's not obvious. I do get the HD channels (other than sports tier ones), and looking at my bill, I see no HD access fee item. There is only "PLUS HD DVR Monthly", which perhaps in some sense includes HD access. Or perhaps not.

I've read here about getting HDNET as part of the "HD Bonus Pack" free until Dec. 15, but I do get HDNET, and there is nothing about any HD Bonus Pack on my bill. When I signed up for DTV around 10/20, HDNET was listed as part of the package I got, and I saw nothing on the DTV web site about an HD Bonus Pack.

Needless to say, if I stop getting HDNET 12/15, I'm going to be pretty irritated.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Ken S said:


> In general TROs are only given in cases where the plaintiff can't be compensated fairly for damages should they win the lawsuit.
> It would seem to me that the difference in revenues between being in the main tier and the extra tier would be easily calculated.


HDNets argument claims that much more is involved than the mere number of subscribers they are paid for in one package versus the other, and that in fact a TRO is essential to prevent loss of viewership. Without it, during the time their channels are not available, those viewers who do not upgrade will most likely not return to watching HDNet even if HDNet prevails and is later returned to the normal HD tier. Thus an irrecoverable degree of damage justifying the TRO.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Carl


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

GregLee said:


> I can't? That's not obvious. I do get the HD channels (other than sports tier ones), and looking at my bill, I see no HD access fee item. There is only "PLUS HD DVR Monthly", which perhaps in some sense includes HD access. Or perhaps not.
> 
> I've read here about getting HDNET as part of the "HD Bonus Pack" free until Dec. 15, but I do get HDNET, and there is nothing about any HD Bonus Pack on my bill. When I signed up for DTV around 10/20, HDNET was listed as part of the package I got, and I saw nothing on the DTV web site about an HD Bonus Pack.
> 
> Needless to say, if I stop getting HDNET 12/15, I'm going to be pretty irritated.


The Plus HD DVR base package INDLUDES the DVR Service fee or 5.99 (you may or may not see the service and it being credited back to your account) and the HD Access Pass (you may or may not see the service and it being credited back to your account).

You will have to purchase the HD Extra Pack seperately from your base package.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

carl6 said:


> HDNets argument claims that much more is involved than the mere number of subscribers they are paid for in one package versus the other, and that in fact a TRO is essential to prevent loss of viewership. Without it, during the time their channels are not available, those viewers who do not upgrade will most likely not return to watching HDNet even if HDNet prevails and is later returned to the normal HD tier. Thus an irrecoverable degree of damage justifying the TRO.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens.
> 
> Carl


Carl .. Yes, that is in Paragraph #50 (page 14). I was getting ready to post the same thing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

GregLee said:


> I can't? That's not obvious. I do get the HD channels (other than sports tier ones), and looking at my bill, I see no HD access fee item. There is only "PLUS HD DVR Monthly", which perhaps in some sense includes HD access. Or perhaps not.
> 
> I've read here about getting HDNET as part of the "HD Bonus Pack" free until Dec. 15, but I do get HDNET, and there is nothing about any HD Bonus Pack on my bill. When I signed up for DTV around 10/20, HDNET was listed as part of the package I got, and I saw nothing on the DTV web site about an HD Bonus Pack.
> 
> Needless to say, if I stop getting HDNET 12/15, I'm going to be pretty irritated.


PLUS HD DVR Monthly, Includes the HD Access... but does not include the HD Extra Pack.

Well... then get your irritation out now, because you will not be getting HDNet on 12/15 unless you have the HD Extra Pack (unless something changes between now and then)


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

GregLee said:


> I can't? That's not obvious. I do get the HD channels (other than sports tier ones), and looking at my bill, I see no HD access fee item. There is only "PLUS HD DVR Monthly", which perhaps in some sense includes HD access. Or perhaps not.
> 
> I've read here about getting HDNET as part of the "HD Bonus Pack" free until Dec. 15, but I do get HDNET, and there is nothing about any HD Bonus Pack on my bill. When I signed up for DTV around 10/20, HDNET was listed as part of the package I got, and I saw nothing on the DTV web site about an HD Bonus Pack.
> 
> Needless to say, if I stop getting HDNET 12/15, I'm going to be pretty irritated.


Greg,

You will either stop getting it or begin getting charged an extra fee for the HD Extra package. Check the DirecTV website for more details.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

carl6 said:


> HDNets argument claims that much more is involved than the mere number of subscribers they are paid for in one package versus the other, and that in fact a TRO is essential to prevent loss of viewership. Without it, during the time their channels are not available, those viewers who do not upgrade will most likely not return to watching HDNet even if HDNet prevails and is later returned to the normal HD tier. Thus an irrecoverable degree of damage justifying the TRO.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens.
> 
> Carl


Carl,

I understand that...just not sure the Judge will go for it. But, as I said, if he does and grants a TRO it's a very strong sign about which way he's leaning on the facts.
Interesting that HDNet requested a jury trial...I'm surprised that DirecTV's contracts don't mandate non-jury trials.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

I am trying hard to get their point in this - I am sure most of the new HD channels make most of their money (profits) off of their SD channels. Since they ( and the other channels in the new 'package' ) don't have SD counterparts that would severely limit them. But - do they even sell advertising ? Do any of those channels have advertising ?

So to me they end up coming across like Al Gore inventing the 'worldwide net web'.

I would guess while most people would enjoy at least some of their programming - it probably wasn't reason #1 to buy an HDTV. I know personally for myself, I certainly didn't get Directv w/ HD to watch HDNet. I have only watched possibly 24 hours of programming on both HDNet and the movie channel in the 2+ years that I have had the HD package ( or whatever it is called now ). My motivation was ESPNHD and an HR10 DVR for my locals off air.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

I got curious and found these press releases from DirecTV & HDNet



2001 Launch of HDNet said:


> http://www.hd.net/pressrelease.html?2001-09-05-01.html
> DALLAS - Sept. 5, 2001 - HDNet, the world's only all-high definition national television network, debuts tomorrow on DIRECTV® channel 199....
> 
> "DIRECTV has a long history of bringing customers unique programming they can't get anywhere else, and HDNet is another example of this philosophy," said Stephanie Campbell, senior vice president of Programming, DIRECTV, Inc. "HDNet enables us to provide a national platform that we feel will generate a substantial interest and demand for high definition programming."
> ...


Couldn't find DirecTV press releases from 2001, but it's probably identical.



2003 DirecTV HD Package Launch said:


> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=570807&highlight= & http://www.hd.net/pressrelease.html?2003-06-03-01.html
> EL SEGUNDO, CA, June 3, 2003 - DIRECTV, Inc., the nation's leading digital multichannel television service provider, announced today that it will launch a new high-definition (HD) programming package on July 1. The HD package will include ESPN HD, Discovery HD Theater™, HDNet and HDNet Movies, and is available by subscription for $10.99 per month.


Not sure when the $10.99 HD Package fee became the $9.99 HD Access Fee. This will all be interesting to watch as it plays out in the courts. With about a year left on the current carriage agreement, I wonder if this isn't related to negotiations of a new agreement that might have grown contentious over carriage fees.


----------



## gdn (Aug 5, 2007)

For those of you that say you didn't know who or what HDNET was before you got HD Directv - you probably just didn't know it when you saw it. HDNet is one of the things that sold me on HD and possibly you too in reality. If I remember correctly its been as many as 4 or 5 years ago when I'd go into a Circuit City and look at HD TV's - they always had HDNet on them. It was the jaw dropping picture that always captured my attention - and thanks to HDNet for their picture quality I couldn't wait to get HD and stay with Directv so I could get it at home. I'm sure there are others in that same boat.

So HDNet has probably sold many TV's and many people on HD/Directv. I don't watch it day in and day out, but I like their programming and hope they work it out to leave it in a package without extra charge. If they don't then I'm ready to jump on the ala carte programming band wagon. My bill may stay the same or even go up if I choose just the channels I want to watch, but I'm really tired of subsidizing the 100 plus channels I don't want to watch. I'd rather my dollar support the type of programming I want to see and more of it - than some of what I want to see and a whole lot that I don't.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Greg,
> 
> You will either stop getting it or begin getting charged an extra fee for the HD Extra package.


I don't doubt it. I didn't bring this up because I thought anyone would be interested in whether I have to pay an extra fee, but rather because it seemed relevant to the discussion of "tier" vs. "package" vs. "access". It was being argued, I thought, that HD apart from HDNET was not a "tier" or "package" because the HD access fee was just something everyone who got HD had to pay. I was questioning the truth of this. DTV may follow some internal accounting practice that apportions $10 of what I pay them as an HD access fee, or $5, or whatever they like. But if I was never told about such a fee, it's not in their promotional literature, and it's not on my bill, it seems irrelevant to me to this question of whether HDNET will be put into a second HD tier.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

The way I read it, HDNet is supposed to be in the normal HD package, not some extra tier. 

That's also what I thought I paid for when I signed up on a 2 year contract.

I think new subscribers will shy away from the extra HD fee.

I also think HD Net has a strong case.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

islander66 said:


> The way I read it, HDNet is supposed to be in the normal HD package, not some extra tier.
> 
> That's also what I thought I paid for when I signed up on a 2 year contract.
> 
> ...


It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"

You can have HD Access... 
But:
If you don't have HBO Package... you don't have HBO-HD
If you don't have the extended sports Package... you don't have the other RSN's in HD

And you can have the basic of basic packages that includes locals, and you will have HD Locals

IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels.

ESPECIALLY if most get them free for the first 3 months, and can try it out and see the content on HDNet, Smithsonian and MGM.

I also don't see a massive INFLUX of people dropping the package when the trial is up...


----------



## Tibs (Jul 6, 2007)

Reminds me of this quote "Please define Sex". Lawyers....bah.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ESPECIALLY if most get them free for the first 3 months, and can try it out and see the content on HDNet, Smithsonian and MGM.


Most get them free for the first 3 months? I hadn't heard that before. I started service 10/24, so you're saying maybe I get them free through 1/24/08? Or maybe "most" doesn't include me ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

GregLee said:


> Most get them free for the first 3 months? I hadn't heard that before. I started service 10/24, so you're saying maybe I get them free through 1/24/08? Or maybe "most" doesn't include me ...


Even if you go to DirecTV.com to add the HD Extra Pack... is states right there: 3 Months Free

You are not being charged the $4.99 HD Extra Pack today on your bill... are you?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Swanni and TVPredictions are now onto the story, and has some comments from DirecTV.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/hdnet110707.htm


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Im not a lawyer, and I am not going to express an opinion about this suit.

I do think though that DirecTV has made a massive investment in HD and that they deserve every opportunity to recoup that investment.

That being said I think that raising the base HD fee by $2 or $3 for everybody with an HD package would generate a lot more income that creating this separate package that many HD customers might not purchase.

Personally, I will purchase the package as I like HDNet, the Smithsonian and MGM HD more than enough to pay the fee, but not everyone is going to feel that way. Even without the new tier, D* HD line up is overwhelmingly powerful.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Given a programming package called "DIRECTV HD Extra Pack", what DIRECTV HD Pack are you "Extra" above?


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

The reasoning in the application for the restraining order just made me laugh. Sounds like a little kid whining.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"
> 
> You can have HD Access...
> But:
> ...


Not a massive outflow perhaps, but count me out. I moved up from 3 DirecTiVos to 3 DirecTiVos plus the HR20-100. So add another receiver mirroring fee, HD access fee, an increased package fee for used to be Total Choice Plus, and $200 for the HR20 (unlike others I was unable to negotiate a free one). While I have enjoyed ST: Enterprise on HD-Net, the 6 channels they will be packaging for an additional $60/year aren't worth it to me. Too much repetition for one thing. There is plenty of HD programming on the other channels with more being added frequently.

I wish HD-Net/HD-Net Movies the best of luck. I suspect I would continue to watch them occasionally if they remained in the HD Access tier.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"
> 
> You can have HD Access...
> But:
> ...


Thanks for the response.

I don't think it's free for three months. It was a free trial. On December 15th you pay for the extra channels. At least that's what a D* customer rep told me this morning.

So, you can't claim this isn't confusing.

My point is people will want to make an informed decision.

I did pay for the HD DVR, two year contract, and I think the HD DVR Package should have all the HD channels, or it should say something like "HD limited package"


----------



## skohly (Mar 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Even if you go to DirecTV.com to add the HD Extra Pack... is states right there: 3 Months Free
> 
> You are not being charged the $4.99 HD Extra Pack today on your bill... are you?


Been reading for a few weeks about this new tier for an extra $4.99. It's a no brainer for me as I love HD NET and their sister movie channel. Throw in MGM and it makes more sense then the HBO package.


----------



## tealcomp (Sep 7, 2007)

Just my $.02 but I LOVE HDNET and HDM as well as the new MGMHD, and with them being COMMERCIAL free and showing things in the proper OAR, I am sold..if any of that ever changes (and I doubt it will) I might have to re-evaluate my decision.

-Dan


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

I've got to say I side with Cuban in this battle. He has supported this format more then anyone. When everybody wavered over the economics of HD and how was this whole thing suppose to happened. People complained there isn't enough HD content to go HD and on the other end people said there isn't enough HD viewers to warrant more HD content. While all this was going on Cuban took millions of his own money and forged the HD cable channel landscape. He produced and bought thousands of hours of HD content. People now complain "why doesn't SCIFI have enterprise in HD" it's because they are cheap *******s who didn't believe in investing in the format. Cuban stood up and put his money where his mouth is and provided us early adopters with great HD.

So those who would say "they think to highly of themselves" can kiss my $$$ and I'm sure millions of other early adopters who helped this format make it to this point. We should all admit the BS D* did here. They new the spirit of what they had agreed to with HDNET and then they sh** all over it. I paid 10$ a month for several years for HDNET in the HD package. They changed they name of it a mere 3 months or so, but earl came out and said not to worry you still get all the channels you do now it's just a name change preparing for the new channels. To me it meant nothing and I could care less about paying $5 more for these extra channels, but clearly it does to Cuban and I can understand why. Just look at the NFL network who sill isn't carried on most cable outlets because it wants to be in the basic tier. HDNET planed it's entire business around being in the basic HD tier and D* just went and stabbed them in the back. We all know the HD A is the same as the HD tier. Why else would they name the new $5 pack the HD *extra* pack???? So if HDNET has a contract to be in the base HD tier then thats the HD A and not the HD extra pack. You can call BS fertilizer but it's still BS and thats what we have here calling BS a different name.


----------



## Lowry666 (Sep 24, 2006)

Hi,
I am with Tubaman-Z on this. I used to watch alot of HDNet and then they started dropping shows, like Hogan's Heroes, Geek to Freek, to name a couple. I love the quality of their programming, but for me, I would much rather watch the Science Channel HD than HDNet. It seems like every time I turn it on it's Dan Rather on some travel show. Whoopee doo! But that is why we have CHOICE. I will choose to not spend the extra for a few channels that don't offer a worthwhile investment for me. 
I wish them luck and hope that they don't shoot themselves in the foot, as stated in an earlier post, they need a platform to send out their signal and D* is a pretty darn good one to do it on.


Lowry


----------



## Geekzilla (Jun 10, 2007)

generalpatton78,
That's a great post and I agree completely. To add insult to injury, half the "Extra" channels are still in HD-Lite! I know for a fact I would watch more HDNET is if was rebroadcast in MPEG4.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Even if you go to DirecTV.com to add the HD Extra Pack... is states right there: 3 Months Free
> 
> You are not being charged the $4.99 HD Extra Pack today on your bill... are you?


No, I'm not. It's not on my bill at all. Do I even have the HD Extra Pack (since I do get HDnet)? You seem to think I do. If I do, I'm just asking when my free 3 months start. September 15th (a month before I first subscribed to DTV)?

All this stuff about a free HD Pack and a $10 HD Access Fee just seems like double-talk, to me.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I signed up about a month ago and will have to pay for the extra pack.

Maybe it changed for November?

Anyway, I'm not going to pay the $5 either.


----------



## John in Georgia (Sep 24, 2006)

+1



generalpatton78 said:


> I've got to say I side with Cuban in this battle. He has supported this format more then anyone. When everybody wavered over the economics of HD and how was this whole thing suppose to happened. People complained there isn't enough HD content to go HD and on the other end people said there isn't enough HD viewers to warrant more HD content. While all this was going on Cuban took millions of his own money and forged the HD cable channel landscape. He produced and bought thousands of hours of HD content. People now complain "why doesn't SCIFI have enterprise in HD" it's because they are cheap *******s who didn't believe in investing in the format. Cuban stood up and put his money where his mouth is and provided us early adopters with great HD.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If HD acess isn't a tier, try getting a CSR to just provide the HD extra pack for $4.99 without the $9.95 fee. If they will do that, then Ill believe HD A isn't a tier. 

I love HD, don't watch SD at all except for a rare fox news episode, I'd love to just see a HD only package. 

In any case, regardless of how the lawyers and their doubletalk work it out, I think Directv is morally wrong on this issue.

Doesn't bother me, I have a set budget. Charge me $4.99 for HD Extra, Ill just drop Cinemax.


----------



## pavlov (Oct 18, 2006)

Hope HDNet wins!


----------



## Fuzzybear (Dec 29, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Doesn't bother me, I have a set budget. Charge me $4.99 for HD Extra, Ill just drop Cinemax.


No doubt! Charge me $4.99 and I too will dump Skin a max or showtime!


----------



## orayzio (Apr 23, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> Looks like we will be paying $14.99 for HD Access.


My prediction is that HDNet will be granted their TRO, DirecTV will keep HDNet's two channels in the HD Access tier at least until the contract ends at the end of 2008 (or until they can renogotiate a new contract), DirecTV will not increase the HD access for at least the next 6 months, after which we may see an increase of $2 for HD access, and they'll either postpone the HD Extra Tier fee for at least 6 more months or they'll move different channels into that HD Extra Tier.

They won't raise the HD Access price to $14.99 because they'll start losing HD customers and they won't raise it at all in the near term (less than 6 months from now) because they'd get far too much negative impact -- from a marketing standpoint, they get less negative feedback from clients by removing several channels from a package and then charging extra for those few channels than by just increasing the cost of the package for all users. That's what they were trying to do but they either didn't expect HDNet to go after them or they expected it but wanted to use their move as leverage for contract negotiations.

Again, the above is my prediction and my speculation.

I purchased my first HDTV this year and subscribed to DirecTV specifically for all the HD content that they were promising in the future (the 70+ channels that we now have). I don't watch sports, I hate the picture quality for SD channels and I'm a huge movie buff, so the channels I watch the most of the movie channels that broadcast uncut movies in their OAR in HD, and HDNet Movies is one of my favorite channels.

Oh, and one other thing, I thing it's lousy of DirecTV to start charging for their new HD Extras pack when so many of the new "HD" channels are HD in name only -- many of these channels still only broadcast SD content that has been upconverted.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

say-what said:


> Not sure when the $10.99 HD Package fee became the $9.99 HD Access Fee. This will all be interesting to watch as it plays out in the courts. With about a year left on the current carriage agreement, I wonder if this isn't related to negotiations of a new agreement that might have grown contentious over carriage fees.


Great work on the press releases, BTW.

I think the $10.99 HD package became the $9.99 HD access fee at the time that D*said you could no longer not get it. When I had my HR10-250, I didn't have the HD package fee, and thus I didn't get the HD channels except PPV, HBO and SHO. Now that it is a fee, you can't opt out, and thus you can't list the channels you don't get if you don't pay it and so they can pretend it's not a tier. It's just a maintenance fee for having an HD receiver.

But honestly, I still think it's a tier. Even if they say otherwise, you're paying $10/mo for the HD channels. I'd say we'll find out in court, but I doubt we'll really get that far.

I can see now why Cuban is angry, he made his business plans (including future spending like long-term commitments to buy exclusive programming) on the idea that he'd get money from every D* HD customer until the end of 2008. And now his finances start to look worse with that loss of future income.

With wanting to doom this thread with what killed the other, I now see another aspect of running a channel that contracts/bundles greatly affects. It's much more difficult to decide if you can afford to sign long-term contracts for content if your subscribers can appear and disappear willy-nilly on a weekly basis.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

islander66 said:


> Thanks for the response.
> 
> I don't think it's free for three months. It was a free trial. On December 15th you pay for the extra channels. At least that's what a D* customer rep told me this morning.
> 
> ...


The Website lists the HD Extra Pack (3 months FREE) on the change programming page. The 3 months start on the day you activate that's why some are waiting to 12/15 then adding the package and get three more months for no charge. However I don't know if the CSRs have access to the same deal as the website shows or if the promo will even still be valid on 12/15.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

D* messed up when they labeled the package 'hd extra', that in itself will hose their arguement that the hd extra package is the hd package . . . 

i wouldn't be surprised if this is all a ploy by d* to get hdnet to redo their contract, "ok we will put you in the package if . . . " furthermore, seeing that d* is planning package pricing changes early next year, the december implementation of the added cost for hdnet, etc allows time for this to be settled before the new costing structure is released.

just my .02


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"


So what is the definition of a "package".

a complete program produced for the theater, television, etc., or a series of these, sold as a unit.

Doesn't that define HD Access as a package?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Didn't someone just leave DirecTV, some higher up? Does anyone want to speculate it was tied to this?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> If HD acess isn't a tier, try getting a CSR to just provide the HD extra pack for $4.99 without the $9.95 fee. If they will do that, then Ill believe HD A isn't a tier.
> 
> I love HD, don't watch SD at all except for a rare fox news episode, I'd love to just see a HD only package.
> 
> ...


HD Access isn't a tier... it is a feature add-on...

I am sure you can go ahead an add HD Extra Pack, but you won't have access to it... since you need HD Access to "access" any HD channels.

Other then Discovery Theater... HD Access doesn't give you access to any more channels, then your base channel... (Yes, Food and History I think that are not exact simulcasts would also be "different channels)

It isn't "cut and dry"

Everyone has to make their own choice...

And at the end of the day... this "Suit" is nothing to do about the $4.99 Access fee... this suit is about HDNet wanting to be in a "tier" that they feel has more subscribers.

Given the packages today... were should they go... should they go down to Total Choice, where basically HDNet will then get 17 Million subscriber count at 1.35 a month per person... even if those people don't have HD Access?

As the channel would be in the "Tier"..

Or shoudl yet another new tier be created... ect... ect... ect...

After all is said and done...
Nothing is really going to change for us customers...

We are going to pay the increase fee as either:
-) Part of the base package
-) Part of the "HD Access"
-) Part of another tier

As long as HDNet wants money for their content... that money has to come from somewhere... and the BULK of DirecTV revenue, comes from our subscription dollars.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Didn't someone just leave DirecTV, some higher up? Does anyone want to speculate it was tied to this?


IIRC, the person that left was in charge of Logistics...
(Aka the Installer Segment of DirecTV)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

vankai said:


> So what is the definition of a "package".
> 
> a complete program produced for the theater, television, etc., or a series of these, sold as a unit.
> 
> Doesn't that define HD Access as a package?


No..... not by at least that definition.

If you have HD Access... do you have access to all 70 HD Channels?
No.....

The channels you get are tied directly to your package... which would be Total Choice, Premier, ect...

That gives you the "channel"... HD Access, gives you the additional access to the HD version of the channel.
Discovery Theater, and the partial simulcasts are "grey" areas of that rule right now.

This is very similar to Sunday Ticket... and the extra fee for SuperFan to get access to the HD fees... Sunday Ticket is what gets you access to the games... SuperFan gives you access to the HD version.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DVDKingdom said:


> The Website lists the HD Extra Pack (3 months FREE) on the change programming page. The 3 months start on the day you activate that's why some are waiting to 12/15 then adding the package and get three more months for no charge. However I don't know if the CSRs have access to the same deal as the website shows or if the promo will even still be valid on 12/15.


Yes

See attached image.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

pavlov said:


> Hope HDNet wins!


Why?

So you can end up paying more in either your base package, or the HD Access package...

Because at the end of the day... that $$ value has to come from our pockets somehow.

----

IMHO... this is a strong hand tactic by HDNet... to reap a maximum amount of revenue for the next 14 months (till the contract runs out in 2008).

As it will be a pretty sure deal... that DirecTV will change the language and the wording of the next contract.

DirecTV doesn't "need" HDNet/HDMovies as much as they used to now, with the addtional HD channels...

HDNet / HDMovies needs DirecTV a whole lot more, then DirecTV needs them.

As just show in this and the other thread, by how many people stated that even $4.99 is too much for them... to get 6 channels...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

orayzio said:


> Oh, and one other thing, I thing it's lousy of DirecTV to start charging for their new HD Extras pack when so many of the new "HD" channels are HD in name only -- many of these channels still only broadcast SD content that has been upconverted.


So DirecTV should have to sit on the expenses for rolling out the technology to be able to deliver the content?

Those SATs, the uplink center, the equipment in the uplink center, ect... all wasn't free...

If it wasn't for DirecTV building the distribution channel... a lot of these channels would still not even HAVE HD networks....

The HD aspect of DirecTV bills for their customers are STILL cheaper then their main competitor Dish Network...

And are right on par with at least COMCAST... I haven't seen a TWC or COX pricing for their HD material..

All this stuff has a cost... even if we are not getting 24x7 HD...

For me... Getting Stargate Atlantis in HD, Food Network (about 5 shows) in HD, Law and Order Criminal intent... the Big Ten Network... and so on... at least to me... very much worth the $9.99 + the $4.99 a month...


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IIRC, the person that left was in charge of Logistics...
> (Aka the Installer Segment of DirecTV)


Well there goes my thoughts on that...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And before any one jumps on me for being... "Earl the DirecTV Guy"...

All these comments above... I would still have the same feelings about them, as for the most part... I stated the same stuff when I was paying $10.99 for the HD channels back when I got my HR10-250, before I was just a "guy" on TCF...

This is the reality of the situation folks.... All this HD stuff, has a cost... and ultimately... we the customers have to "pay" for it.

The only way our bills stay the same or gown down... is for the HD stuff to get cheaper... and for that to happen... a lot more in the entire aspect of the industry has to change.

So long as HDNet wants $1.30 a subscriber a month... ESPN wants their cut... CNN... ect...

And no.. I absolutely don't think AlaCarte is the answer either..
But we can go down that topic (again) in another thread.


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels.


Thanks for clearing up your definition of package, as I thought you were inadvertently referring to HD Access as a package.

Do you think a judge will be able to define tiers, packages and semantics, be it HDNet or DirecTV's interpretation?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

vankai said:


> Thanks for clearing up your definition of package, as I thought you were inadvertently referring to HD Access as a package.
> 
> Do you think a judge will be able to define tiers, packages and semantics, be it HDNet or DirecTV's interpretation?


Sure... why not...

He/She is going to hear both sides "interpretations"... and IIRC, someone pointed out that HDNet is requesting a Jury Trial ultimately...

Especially too, if DirecTV shows the programming model... SundayTicket/SuperFan

And shows that SuperFan is just the HD Access piece to SundayTicket

ect..

Time will tell


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And before any one jumps on me for being... "Earl the DirecTV Guy"...


If we do, does this mean you'll do what Larry the Cable Guy did, go into show business? :lol:



Earl Bonovich said:


> All these comments above... I would still have the same feelings about them, as for the most part... I stated the same stuff when I was paying $10.99 for the HD channels back when I got my HR10-250, before I was just a "guy" on TCF...
> 
> This is the reality of the situation folks.... All this HD stuff, has a cost... and ultimately... we the customers have to "pay" for it.
> 
> ...


I think no matter how you slice it, the programming is going to cost something. It is up to the individual to determine what is their best value based on what is available to them; at least I think it is that simple.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

DVDKingdom said:


> The Website lists the HD Extra Pack (3 months FREE) on the change programming page. The 3 months start on the day you activate that's why some are waiting to 12/15 then adding the package and get three more months for no charge. However I don't know if the CSRs have access to the same deal as the website shows or if the promo will even still be valid on 12/15.


This HD package has turned into a real shell game.

I signed up about a month ago. October 11th I think, and I'll have to pay for HD extra on December 15th.

Anyway, I'm not down on D*.

I just don't like this approach and hope HD Net wins. I don't mind the HD extra cost but think it needs to be set and not switched around at a whim.

For example, channels could be offered for a few months "promotional" then put in the extra pack. Or specific programming could be in an extra cost.

I'm not saying this would go over, but if HD Net wins, we should expect to see channels stay in the same level of subscription. And if not, we could see D* and other providers create other ways to price HD content.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Earl the problem with you argument is your wrong. This isn't a case of another channel negotiating for more money and thus we have to pay more. This is a case where we have paid for this channel for several years now. None of us altered our package, but D* changed the name and D* is the one strong arming HDNET. Honestly Earl if you can't agree that paying $10 and getting 50-60 HD channels doesn't amount to a package. Well I don't know what to call you but D* Major Nelson because your always towing that company line. I repeat I have no problem with the new system I actually like it, but if Hdnet has a contract saying base HD package then D* needs to honor that because HDA is the base HD package. Although I guess he could always launch SDnet  . 

PS I respect the he!! out of you earl, but if D* killed your mom I think you would say cable did it.:hurah: Seriously Earl anytime a issue with D* comes up you defend D* as if it were you first born child. It would be nice to see you criticize D* for once besides your stance that they shouldn't offer people "deals" anymore.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Hey wouldn't it be great if Mark Cuban could break up that HD Extra Pack :sunsmile:


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Problem with that logic is....Mark Cuban doesn't care if Directv increases the HD Access fee to $14.99


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

MikeR said:


> Problem with that logic is....Mark Cuban doesn't care if Directv increases the HD Access fee to $14.99


That is true .. MC is just looking for his cut like everyone else.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Wow step away for a bit and see what I miss. I obviously have a lot of reading to do but a quick scan through this thread leads me to one firm set of beliefs.

It seems that HDNet and D* entered into a mutually beneficial agreement over content at a time with D* needed it badly (as proof of concept, profitability etc). They both got what they needed for a time.

Now D* has a full stable, granted some of the horses are still a bit immature but they do meet the description of a horse even if they couldn't outrace a rabbit(i.e. HD channels with minimum content). So they can advertise them as horses. Now D* has leverage.

D* also has a slightly uncomfortable contract with HDNet and a lot more leverage (if HDNet leaves they still have tons of horses) than previously. HDNet is more or less fighting to keep the rug from being pulled out from under them.

And there is us, the consumers. Above all if they can dump HDNet and the content they are free to fee us up however they want. The content most likely they would like to keep (only under their amended terms), but they have other content and if they loose HDNet it wont cripple their HD offerings.

Does that sum it up to most of yall? Or am I reading this all wrong?


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

One could easily argue that _Choice_ is the most widespread package that contains HDNet. Especially if you are going to go on about "access fees" not being a package.

If _NFL Sunday Ticket_ is a package, and _SuperFan_ just an access fee, then _Choice_ and _HD Access_ seem to be very similar. So either _HD Access_ is a package, or _Choice_ is.

But saying that _HD Extra Pack_ is the lowest tier package is trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth.


----------



## orayzio (Apr 23, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So DirecTV should have to sit on the expenses for rolling out the technology to be able to deliver the content?
> 
> Those SATs, the uplink center, the equipment in the uplink center, ect... all wasn't free...
> 
> ...


You didn't understand what I was complaining about. I'm not complaining that DirecTV is trying to recoup their costs, I'm complaining about how they're doing it and who they're socking it to. Average Joe consumer on DirecTV with HD Access isn't going to get an increase in their bill on 12/15 because average Joe Consumer won't go to the trouble of adding the HD Extra Pack - they'll just stop receiving those 6 channels and will live with it. Instead, the cost of the expansion will be bore on the shoulders of the diehard HD fan that wants these 6 channels and is willing to pay for them. If I were to guess, let's say that means that 1 in 5 people with HD Access today decide to go to the trouble of adding the HD Extras Pack, increasing the price of their HD access by 49.9% and getting only an 8.6% increase in the number of HD channels for that extra 49.9%. And I'm calculating the 8.6% by dividing the number of additional channels (6) by the minimum number of channels that DirecTV touts as being in HD (70).

My complaint is that it's lousy that they're passing a 49.9% increase onto me when it would be much more fair if they spread the increase out to all HD users, which would equate to a 10% increase or $1.50 more for HD Access. I have every right to complain that this was a lousy marketing decision because, to me, it is.

Oh, and your last statement is misleading: you're not paying an extra $5 a month to get the shows and channels you mentioned ("Stargate Atlantis, Food Network, Law and Order Criminal intent... the Big Ten Network...") in HD. You will still get those shows for $9.99 because they're not on the 6 channels in the HD Extras Pack.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> No..... not by at least that definition.
> 
> If you have HD Access... do you have access to all 70 HD Channels?
> No.....
> ...


If Total Choice is a "package" and access is just access to technology, then the lowest *package* is _Total Choice With HD Access_ and by that part of the contract HDNet belongs there. To say that there is some other SD/HD bundling is nice, but I don't see that contract language supporting it. There are several other unique HD channels that come with HD Access (e.g. Food HD).


----------



## techieguy23 (Oct 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And before any one jumps on me for being... "Earl the DirecTV Guy"...
> 
> All these comments above... I would still have the same feelings about them, as for the most part... I stated the same stuff when I was paying $10.99 for the HD channels back when I got my HR10-250, before I was just a "guy" on TCF...
> 
> ...


Seriously... Do you work for Directv? All your comments so far in this thread seem to indicate you do, or are heavily vested in them in some aspect.

HDNet and HDNMovies are two of the few HD channels that show unique and completely HD material. Things like the shuttle launches, World Report, Get Out!, etc, that have been HD from the start (unlike all these new additions, with like 4-5 hours a day in HD). I also like how many of the movies on the HDNM are films you wouldn't normally see on the premium movie channels, and definitely not in HD.

Cuban has done alot of good for HD in general. As mentioned by some in this thread, it was HDNet that showcased the "wow" of HD to them for the first time. To say Directv doesn't "need" the HDNets as much as it used to is doing a disservice to HDNet. There is much a viewer would lose out on if they do not opt to pay the increased HD package price to continue receiving channels they were getting before the new package was added.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

techieguy23 said:


> Seriously... Do you work for Directv? All your comments so far in this thread seem to indicate you do, or are heavily vested in them in some aspect.
> 
> HDNet and HDNMovies are two of the few HD channels that show unique and completely HD material. Things like the shuttle launches, World Report, Get Out!, etc, that have been HD from the start (unlike all these new additions, with like 4-5 hours a day in HD). I also like how many of the movies on the HDNM are films you wouldn't normally see on the premium movie channels, and definitely not in HD.
> 
> Cuban has done alot of good for HD in general. As mentioned by some in this thread, it was HDNet that showcased the "wow" of HD to them for the first time. To say Directv doesn't "need" the HDNets as much as it used to is doing a disservice to HDNet. There is much a viewer would lose out on if they do not opt to pay the increased HD package price to continue receiving channels they were getting before the new package was added.


Earl is knowledgeable, but has said time and time again he is not paid or affiliated, just has connections with DirecTV.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels.


Another $5 is another $5. I am already at or beyond what my budget allows me to spend on television, and it isn't going up (unless social security gives me a 10% raise next year:lol: ).

I am at the point where every increase in my DirecTV service cost is going to have to have a corresponding offset someplace. I would love to continue to get those channels, but if it's going to cost me $5 a month more to do so, then I am probably going to have to bypass them or find some corresponding $5 reduction (drop a receiver someplace for example).

I fully appreciate that DirecTV is in the business to make money and do not begrudge them the right to do so. Unfortunately television is a 100% discretionary expense. They are going to have to make that additional $5 from someone else.

Carl


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And before any one jumps on me for being... "Earl the DirecTV Guy"...
> 
> All these comments above... I would still have the same feelings about them, as for the most part... I stated the same stuff when I was paying $10.99 for the HD channels back when I got my HR10-250, before I was just a "guy" on TCF...
> 
> ...


Your answer is spot on, except for the cost of HD going down (I know you actually said bill, but I will take some poetic license here). I have 2 HR20's in my house. 2 years ago the equivalent tech (HR10) would have cost me $2k. Now the cost would be $600 at the most. So $5 a month for 23 plus years and I could catch up.


----------



## Geekzilla (Jun 10, 2007)

A lot of us paid $10 or $11 dollars for years of the HD tier when it was something like 7 channels. One of the arguments for that fee was that it was to help pay for the new sats. We shared that burden, but to now that there are plenty of channels and a rapidly increasing number of HD subs, DirecTV is suddenly unwilling to distribute that burden equally among all the HD subs. It is really disingenuous and I as an HDNet viewer really feel betrayed. I imagine if they’d raise the fee for a single HD tier to $12.50, both DirecTV and HDNet would be well ahead. 

Most of us are at least fairly well off and probably spend >$5 on coffee daily. The money is not the point for me. This is an issue of being asked to sacrifice for all that time, and now having that sacrifice discounted by DirecTV.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

kcmurphy88 said:


> If Total Choice is a "package" and access is just access to technology, then the lowest *package* is _Total Choice With HD Access_ and by that part of the contract HDNet belongs there. To say that there is some other SD/HD bundling is nice, but I don't see that contract language supporting it. There are several other unique HD channels that come with HD Access (e.g. Food HD).


Which will kill any attempt by D* to claim that HD access is not a tier. The logic behind that claim is preposterous, but then people here are only speculating that that will be D*'s defense.

If D* tried to argue the wacky logic that HD Access is a "feature add on" and not a tier, then logically HDNet could argue that HDNet is part of cheapest D* package that 3 months ago along with HD Access would get you HDNet.


----------



## bigwad (Oct 19, 2006)

The thing that gets me the most is getting what I believed was a good deal and committing to D* for 2 more years, which I did not have a problem with. I have a friend who is upgrading to HD and is being charged 100 bucks to replace her regular receiver. Plus a commitment. When I complained that this long term customer should get the receiver the same as a NEW subscriber, they wrote me back telling me the DEMAND was so high that they were no longer doing anything for currentt subscribers. They also indicated that they set fees based on demand. Which tells me this may only be the tip of the iceberg! It's a ***** when they suck you in to a long term commitment at a certain fee, then start changing the rules during the game. I don't see how they can defend this!


----------



## jkast (Sep 4, 2007)

If the contract language posted above is correct, then Cuban should win his suit and DirecTV was not operating with integrity when it planned to put his channels in it's EXTRA package.

Arguments that include "it makes more sense" or "everyone will have to pay more" or "I'm not interested in the content" completely miss the point. Mr. Cuban supported HD and DirecTV in the early days with his investments and his channels in exchange for an agreement that DirecTV would broadcast them in it's least costly and most available package. This made DirecTV's early claims to be the leader in new video technologies plausible and Mr. Cuban's investments more valuable. Moving Mr. Cuban's channels to a more "exclusive" offering will lower viewership and make them less valuable. This is probably being done because DirecTV is trying to steal his viewers for their copycat 101 offering. 

I am confident that a jury will agree. Less confident that the DirecTV executives who decided to pursue this approach get fired for lack of ethics --- but they should be.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Oh boy! The more I read the TRO filing by HDNet, the worse it looks for D*. According to to the document, because HDNet was not originally part of any HD tier, the contract between D and HDNet had a clause in it that stated that if D* ever created an HD tier, that D* was entitled to invoke provisions in the clause which allowed them to decrease payments to HDNet for their channels based on a formula that took into account how many other HD channels were in the HD tier, and when D* created the $9.99 HD Access tier, D* invoked that clause and began paying reduced fees to HDNet based on the fact that D* had moved HDNet into a HD tier with a number of other HD channels, so by D*'s own actions they defined HD Access as an HD tier, so that they could pay HDNet the reduced fees that the contract allowed whenever an HD tier was created.

D* can't have it both ways. If the $9.99 HD Access package was a tier which allowed D* to pay reduced fees to HDNet for being placed in an HD tier, they can't now claim that HD access isn't an HD tier so they don't have to include HDNet in it. Can you say weasels? I'll bet you can!


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bigwad said:


> The thing that gets me the most is getting what I believed was a good deal and committing to D* for 2 more years, which I did not have a problem with. I have a friend who is upgrading to HD and is being charged 100 bucks to replace her regular receiver. Plus a commitment. When I complained that this long term customer should get the receiver the same as a NEW subscriber, they wrote me back telling me the DEMAND was so high that they were no longer doing anything for currentt subscribers. They also indicated that they set fees based on demand. Which tells me this may only be the tip of the iceberg! It's a ***** when they suck you in to a long term commitment at a certain fee, then start changing the rules during the game. I don't see how they can defend this!


Which will bring D* to the next chapter in this saga.... the class action lawsuit that claims that D* subscribers were fraudulently induced into two year commitments when D* knowingly made false statements promising that no extra fees would be charged for HD programming beyond the $9.99 HD Access charge.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

IMHO, HDNet is pretty worthless. It seems to be that if somebody had a channel called "Color Net" in 1960, and all it showed was Grade Z programming, but in COLOR!!! Fine. Early adopters have to have something to watch, and the store has to have something to put the sets on to show that the technology actually works. But by 1965, the regular networks are in color and everybody forgets about Color Net.

Same thing here. There is no reason to watch anything on HD Net other than *its in HD*. In another 5 years, when everything except Mexican Home Shopping and preacher channels are in HD, no one will care.

However, this is, as described above, just a "lovers quarel". HD Net needs DirecTV, and DirecTV needs HD Net for a few more years. The whole thing does not strike me as a long term venture.

I love the hype of lawyers nowdays. The whole complaint is a basic contract case. It could have easily been covered in three pages.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

well D* Has already publicly stated that they have negotiated HD carry rights at the same time they get SD carriage rights so the HD access fee is a cash cow kind of like a customer who adds the Protection plan. It is all about money if you owned a DVR why do you have to pay for a DVR Service fee not like they do anything but collect your money… unless something goes wrong and you have to call the joke of a CSR who really knows nothing about anything other then what their computer tells them. Sorry will get off my soap box:soapbox:


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Swanni and TVPredictions are now onto the story, and has some comments from DirecTV.
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/hdnet110707.htm


I'm not really concerned with mark Cuban's financial position (unless, of course he buys the Pirates) and I think he'll be alright no matter how this plays out.

Also, I know Directv is a business and they sell stuff. It's up to me to decide what I'll buy and if it's worth the cost.

However there is one issue here that concerns me.

I have no idea if the accusation about liberty media channels receiving preferential treatment is true or not but I'm going to assume it is for the purposes of discussion.

If HDNet is being moved in feature Liberty Media Corporation programming as claimed in the lawsuit I think it illustrates the danger of one entity controlling both the programming and the delivery system. It reminds me a lot of Comcast charging us more for internet service if we don't have their cable service or refusing to put Comcast Sports net Philadelphia on satellite. Again, I'm not worried about how this affects Mark Cuban but how it affects the consumer.
Isn't this what anti-trust laws were designed to protect?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

So...why isn't Discovery HD Theater placed in the HD Extra pack? Funny about that.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Billzebub said:


> If HDNet is being moved in feature Liberty Media Corporation programming as claimed in the lawsuit I think it illustrates the danger of one entity controlling both the programming and the delivery system. It reminds me a lot of Comcast charging us more for internet service if we don't have their cable service or refusing to put Comcast Sports net Philadelphia on satellite. Again, I'm not worried about how this affects Mark Cuban but how it affects the consumer.
> Isn't this what anti-trust laws were designed to protect?


Well stated.

My take on this - there is no way in HELL I'm paying a red cent for these channels if they're still in HD-LITE!  :nono:  Simulcast in MPEG4, or up the res/bitrate in MPEG2, and we'll talk.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"
> 
> You can have HD Access...
> But:
> ...


I don't know, there was a poll done on this forum, _a D* fan forum_, and over 40% said they won't get the new package. That would be a pretty big hit to potential viewership for HDNET if D* moves it into an upper programming tier.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So...why isn't Discovery HD Theater placed in the HD Extra pack? Funny about that.


Probably because virtually all of Discovery HD Theater's programming is now available on the four new HD Discovery Networks. Why would I pay more to watch it on an mpeg2 channel?


----------



## shoelessjoe (Apr 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> DirecTV doesn't "need" HDNet/HDMovies as much as they used to now, with the addtional HD channels...
> 
> ...


If D* gets rid of HDNET I will cancel my HD entirely (save $15/month). HDNET is truly why I got HD in the first place. It is a unique channel, something that has been missing in this whole HD explosion. I would be perfectly happy if I could keep the original plan I signed up for. There were not many channels but they were adequate. Now I am paying extra for channels that I do not want and I am having a channel I DO want taken away. IMHO Directv needs HDNET as much as HDNEt needs it.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Probably because virtually all of Discovery HD Theater's programming is now available on the four new HD Discovery Networks. Why would I pay more to watch it on an mpeg2 channel?


According to DirecTV you would pay extra because it's an HD station without an SD equivalent.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So...why isn't Discovery HD Theater placed in the HD Extra pack? Funny about that.


This is from Multichannel News.


> ...The suit also alleges that both News Corp., one of DirecTV's current owners, and Liberty Media, a future owner, are getting preferential carriage for their HDTV networks by the satellite provider, distribution as part of the main HDTV offering.
> 
> "Based on a rough view of the available channels, it appears more than one-third of all HDTV channels that are being provided in the main tiers are owned or controlled by either News Corp., Liberty or Mr. [John] Malone [Liberty's chairman]," the suit says.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I personally don't watch too much HDNet. The channel looks great but the content is not part of my regular viewing habits. 

I'm also not a big fan of Mark Cuban. His defiant attitude regarding issues both inside and outside of satellite TV tend to come off as a bit childish.

If HDNet should go off the air tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it and I sure as heck won't pay an extra $4.99 to get it.

Mark needs to step back and re-think is business plan instead of trying to ruffle feathers in court. Any good business man knows that change brings opportunity. Mark is so blinded with this issue that he's missing the chance to come up with ideas to capitalize on the change. Maybe create HDNet 2 for the lower tear or something like that. 

Come on Mark. You can do better than this.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I find myself respectfully disagreeing with you, boss. I like the channel a lot and although I agree it's a bit light on content I have enjoyed the movies they've shown, and with one exception (Top Gun) I think the transfers have been top notch. West Side Story in HD was really excellent.

As for Mr. Cuban, running down the line I could find things to disagree with him, but I have to say, I would probably be just like him if I unexpectedly sold one of my pet projects for 4 billion dollars. He likes basketball, so he bought a basketball team. He likes HD, so he started an HD network. He wants to hang around with someone not his wife, so he goes on Dancing with the Stars. If I had those bucks, I wouldn't make those exact decisions but I would use a decent amount of my money making the world more like the way it should be, regardless of whether it made a profit.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

As an attorney, I am amazed at the overly dramatic nature of the filing. While judges tend to like filings that are easy to read, they tend to frown on overstatement.

They sort of wrote this filing up as a story. I don't think the judge will like wording like "DirecTV's actions were clearly illegal," and "DirecTV's statement was obviously false."

Judges don't like attorneys telling them what is illegal and false. Judges like to decide that for themselves.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> I'm also not a big fan of Mark Cuban. His defiant attitude regarding issues both inside and outside of satellite TV tend to come off as a bit childish.


Regardless of what you think of Mr. Cuban and his antics, he has a contract that is part of his business plan. If he didn't defend that contract, he would be a very poor businessman.

To me it would be kind of like your ISP reducing the number of channels to DBSTalk for you but not Brand S and offering to restore them for an additional monthly cost.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> No..... not by at least that definition.
> 
> If you have HD Access... do you have access to all 70 HD Channels?
> No.....
> ...


It depends on what the word "is" is.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Chris Blount said:


> I personally don't watch too much HDNet. The channel looks great but the content is not part of my regular viewing habits.
> 
> I'm also not a big fan of Mark Cuban. His defiant attitude regarding issues both inside and outside of satellite TV tend to come off as a bit childish.
> 
> ...


Chris,

Have you ever met Mark?

His two channels are among the few we do watch here. Not just because they're in HD, but because they have more and better movies than most of the so-called premium channels.

As for him needing to step back. If the contract is what it appears shouldn't DirecTV live up to their obligation or shouldn't that apply to them? He's the one that stepped up and invested in product for DirecTV to sell when they needed it. Was he charitable? No...but he took a large risk and DirecTV benefited.

What about the statement they made about no fee increase for HD? I guess that doesn't matter. How about DirecTV show a little integrity?

By the way...how many DirecTV executives answer email personally from their customers? Send Mark an email and you'll get a response....and it won't be a form from some CSR. Let him know your concerns...you may be surprised.

I've had the benefit of knowing him for many years (not as friends...we both ran similar businesses...although he sold his for a few dollars more than I did mind ). I'd take him over the glad-handing, buddy-fest that goes on in most executive offices and board rooms any day.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> As an attorney, I am amazed at the overly dramatic nature of the filing. While judges tend to like filings that are easy to read, they tend to frown on overstatement.
> 
> They sort of wrote this filing up as a story. I don't think the judge will like wording like "DirecTV's actions were clearly illegal," and "DirecTV's statement was obviously false."
> 
> Judges don't like attorneys telling them what is illegal and false. Judges like to decide that for themselves.


jason,

The Hollywood screenwriters are on strike...they have to pickup work wherever they can.

Seriously, I've seen many filings like this in the past. Some won't like it...some will state it's the attorney's job to make the claims and sell their point. As you probably know Judges will get a lot more upset about what you say than what you write.

Compared to some of the drivel I've seen lately...some of which barely passes for English...this isn't horrible.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Chris,
> 
> Have you ever met Mark?
> 
> ...


"How about DirecTV show a little integrity?"
Well said.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

generalpatton78 said:


> Earl the problem with you argument is your wrong. This isn't a case of another channel negotiating for more money and thus we have to pay more. This is a case where we have paid for this channel for several years now. None of us altered our package, but D* changed the name and D* is the one strong arming HDNET. Honestly Earl if you can't agree that paying $10 and getting 50-60 HD channels doesn't amount to a package. Well I don't know what to call you but D* Major Nelson because your always towing that company line. I repeat I have no problem with the new system I actually like it, but if Hdnet has a contract saying base HD package then D* needs to honor that because HDA is the base HD package. Although I guess he could always launch SDnet  .
> 
> PS I respect the he!! out of you earl, but if D* killed your mom I think you would say cable did it.:hurah: Seriously Earl anytime a issue with D* comes up you defend D* as if it were you first born child. It would be nice to see you criticize D* for once besides your stance that they shouldn't offer people "deals" anymore.


Well if you feel I am wrong... so be it.
I person do not see it as a package... as I still need "another" package to get some of the HD channels....

Again... HDNet suit against DirecTV is about their contract and what tier they want to be placed in... not "us" consumers paying $4.99

Just because I pose the "other" side the argument... don't think I am blindly defending DirecTV... you can go back and check my posting history... way before I started to do what I do here... my tune hasn't changed much over the 8ish years I have been in forum world.

Just because I look at things through a different angle.. but hey... 
Someone has to point out the other side of the discussion


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

kcmurphy88 said:


> If Total Choice is a "package" and access is just access to technology, then the lowest *package* is _Total Choice With HD Access_ and by that part of the contract HDNet belongs there. To say that there is some other SD/HD bundling is nice, but I don't see that contract language supporting it. There are several other unique HD channels that come with HD Access (e.g. Food HD).


As I noted in some of my replies: Food-HD, History-HD (I think) and Discovery-HD... Are not really in line with that.

They are not really "unique" they don't offer drastically different programming then the base SD versions... just on a different schedule.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

techieguy23 said:


> Seriously... Do you work for Directv? All your comments so far in this thread seem to indicate you do, or are heavily vested in them in some aspect.
> 
> HDNet and HDNMovies are two of the few HD channels that show unique and completely HD material. Things like the shuttle launches, World Report, Get Out!, etc, that have been HD from the start (unlike all these new additions, with like 4-5 hours a day in HD). I also like how many of the movies on the HDNM are films you wouldn't normally see on the premium movie channels, and definitely not in HD.
> 
> Cuban has done alot of good for HD in general. As mentioned by some in this thread, it was HDNet that showcased the "wow" of HD to them for the first time. To say Directv doesn't "need" the HDNets as much as it used to is doing a disservice to HDNet. There is much a viewer would lose out on if they do not opt to pay the increased HD package price to continue receiving channels they were getting before the new package was added.


As someone else pointed out...
Seriously: No....I don't work for DirecTV.

I have no stock in DirecTV, nor NewsCorp, nor Liberty (only "stock I have" is 1 share of Coke, and my 401k)

I completely agree that HDNet has some unique programming... but up until this year... HDNet/HDMovies was in a very small company... now that has changed... and there are a lot more HD Networks.

Why is it a disservice? 
It is what it is.... DirecTV as a carrier doesn't need HDNet as much as they used to... they have dozens of other HD channels now... This isn't earlier this year, when HDNet made up 1/10th of the HD package, and arguable was the #1 or #2 HD channel on the system....

So the "ball" is in DirecTV's hand and they have a significantly higher leverage point then they used to....


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> As an attorney, I am amazed at the overly dramatic nature of the filing.


I'm not an attorney, but I felt the same way as I was reading it.

Carl


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> Which will kill any attempt by D* to claim that HD access is not a tier. The logic behind that claim is preposterous, but then people here are only speculating that that will be D*'s defense.
> 
> If D* tried to argue the wacky logic that HD Access is a "feature add on" and not a tier, then logically HDNet could argue that HDNet is part of cheapest D* package that 3 months ago along with HD Access would get you HDNet.


Do you truely see HD Theater... Food-HD and History-HD as "unique" channels?

Food-HD and History-HD don't show anything different then their SD counter parts... just pretty much on a different schedule...

Discovery Theater.. That would be pretty much as close as you could come to a unique "channel" you get from HD-Access.

So if that is the stickler channel... Simple fix... Discovery HD Theater goes up to the HD-Extra pack


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Billzebub said:


> If HDNet is being moved in feature Liberty Media Corporation programming as claimed in the lawsuit I think it illustrates the danger of one entity controlling both the programming and the delivery system. It reminds me a lot of Comcast charging us more for internet service if we don't have their cable service or refusing to put Comcast Sports net Philadelphia on satellite. Again, I'm not worried about how this affects Mark Cuban but how it affects the consumer.
> Isn't this what anti-trust laws were designed to protect?


What Distinct Liberty Media Corporation channels are being "featured"....
That you don't have to purchase another package to get?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> So...why isn't Discovery HD Theater placed in the HD Extra pack? Funny about that.


I do think it is funny... as for the longest time I thought it was... (until I was correct)

The only thing that would make sense... is that it is "tied" to Discovery Channel... in the base package, or wording of the new updated contract (the one they agreed to for Discovery HD, TLC HD, Science Channel HD......)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> I don't know, there was a poll done on this forum, _a D* fan forum_, and over 40% said they won't get the new package. That would be a pretty big hit to potential viewership for HDNET if D* moves it into an upper programming tier.


How many people voted in that poll?

If only 100 people voted... 40 people isn't a dent in the big picture.

If people don't want the package even with HDNet in there... that should tell Mark Cuban and the HDNet people something about their channel, and how people value it....


----------



## bigwad (Oct 19, 2006)

Please don't suggest adding more channels to their extra 5 buck HD package. I'm not missing anything I usually watch as it stands now. I'm not paying more for what I feel they gave me when I "committed"!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

shoelessjoe said:


> If D* gets rid of HDNET I will cancel my HD entirely (save $15/month). HDNET is truly why I got HD in the first place. It is a unique channel, something that has been missing in this whole HD explosion. I would be perfectly happy if I could keep the original plan I signed up for. There were not many channels but they were adequate. Now I am paying extra for channels that I do not want and I am having a channel I DO want taken away. IMHO Directv needs HDNET as much as HDNEt needs it.


Sorry... don't agree with that

DirecTV doesn't NEED HDNet as much as it did before (Even at the beginning part of this year).

DirecTV now has dozens more HD networks, and mroe still comming.

HDNet was 1/10th of their HD package... now they are much smaller then that.

Will they lose customers if HDNet is dropped, sure.... but it is not like everyone is going to abandon DirecTV if HDNet is dropped...

HDNet needs the distribution channel... and the opportunity to be in another 17 million homes...

The original HD package with 10 channels wasn't enough to entice a larger population to get HD channels... now that it is 40-70 or more... that is driving it more so... If HDNet was so critical to customers, why wasn't the demand larger before?

For the past 4 years... HDNet was one of the key HD channels on DirecTV... Why? It was 1 of 3 channels that showed HD content 24/7... that isn't the case anymore... there are others out there now....

HDNet does have some very unique programming... (Like the Shuttle Launch and "Nothing but trailers")... but it is so unique that people will be willing to move carriers... if they are no longer there.

It is so unique, that they could demand to be in a lower tier... at a higher price... when they have to renew their contract...

IMHO... No, it is not... and DirecTV has the momentum and the balance this time around with the next contract negotiation.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> "How about DirecTV show a little integrity?"
> Well said.


What kind of "integrity" are you looking for?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

This isnt about whether you think HDNET is worth it or not. This is about a contract. One party in the contract feels strongly enough that the other party has broken the terms of that contract and gives some evidence of that.
You can argue all you like whether HD Access is a tier or not, but as I an others have said before - it states clearly in the filing that in 2003 D* invoked a clause in the contract that said there was now a package and HDNET was in that package and so D* could now pay less to HDNET.
They did that until now - 4yrs. When they changed the package name to HD Access they did not say HDNET is no longer in that package or that an HD package no longer exists so D* will pay full price again. Sorry but Cuban is correct.
If you still want to argue that HD Access is just a feature and not a package or tier and just gives you the HD Access to the channels in your tier then this is where Cuban argues about HD Discovery Theatre. You cant aruge about Food and HGTV because it is not D*s fault that they arent simultcast and i would bet D* doesnt get charged extra for them. You also cant argue that Discovery HD Theatre is part of the Discovery suite as the SD channels are not all in one package - had they been then it may have been an argument.
So D* brought this extra package out that they say is because these channels dont have an SD counterpart (doesnt have to be simultcast just an SD counterpart) but Discovery HD Theatre doesnt either.
It is also "strange" how the HD Extra Pack menu suddenly appeared on D*s website AFTER the filing - when the filing mentioned how hard it was to find on there - I know because I looked for it 3 days ago and couldnt find it.
It also says on there that it is for HD Channels that do not have and SD channel. But Discovery HD Theatre is not in there.
The premium package also states 


> Want the best in HD? The PREMIER package has it all, including the best in HD programming when you add HD Access


But that isnt true. It doesnt have it all if you have to pay extra for the extra pack (we dont pay extra for any of the premiums)
Dont get me wrong - I dont usually like Cuban (I live in Dallas too and have to listen to him more than you) and am Pro D*. But in this case I feel he has a case and I do think D* is wrong. Mind you I havent seen D*s reply yet so not all the facts are there.
I applaud D* on coming up with the extra pack which is optional when they could have come up with the one package and charged $14.98 like most other providers.
I will be paying for it too. But that is my choice. And frankly I would have moaned if I was "made" to pay $14.98 instead of the $9.99 + $4.99 - as the second is my choice.
But I do think that until Dec 2008 when their contract runs out that D* should abide by it (based on the current facts we have which are only from the one party). You cant invoke a clause for 4yrs and then say "oh well it wasnt really a tier" - then you have to give back 4yrs of discounts.
I think D* was misleading people on the website and other places from the begining when it was first leaked and then hurriedly withdrawn and denied. Maybe intentionally maybe not. I would like to think not.
I think that either D* will have to move HDNET to the same tier that Discovery HD Theatre is in or merge the extra pack and we all have to pay or move Discovery HD Theatre out of the package and into the extra pack. and THEN they can say it is an access fee for your tier.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 24, 2002)

there's alot of thread here, so if somebody said this basic idea already, sorry:

>>through December 31, 2008.

You'd think DirecTV would just wait the *one* year and try to reneogotiate the terms. It can't be costing them more than what this lawsuit will ending up costing...

I see some points on both sides of the issue, but it seems the contract leans towards HDNets case...no religating them to a sub/super tier of HD programming.

On the otherhand, I could see HDNet ending up on the main tier and the HDNet Movie channel ending up on the 'extra' tier at some point.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 24, 2002)

>>If only 100 people voted... 40 people isn't a dent in the big picture.

C'mon, you know that you can extrapolate something from that data.

If a poll of 1000 people says 45% like Hilliary Clinton, does that mean she's only getting 450 votes?

While not a statistically valid sample, I'd agree that a poll on DBStalk does have some signifigance.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ryan said:


> >>If only 100 people voted... 40 people isn't a dent in the big picture.
> 
> C'mon, you know that you can extrapolate something from that data.
> 
> ...


It does have some significance...

But the bigger question is how does that signifance translate to the entire population.

Many people jump on both sides of the "polls" here...
Either it means the world or it means nothing...

As you said... it is not a statistically valid sample, as the sampling base is an issolated, fairly specific sampling base.

Same arguments with all the polls on OTA...... "in this sampling base" it is has "this" importance... but how does that translate to the entire population/sampling base... ect.

Also... it is easy to vote in a poll...
But when the time comes to actually make that choice.. to turn off/on when it has real "cost"... how much would the actualls change compared to the "votes"


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How many people voted in that poll?
> 
> If only 100 people voted... 40 people isn't a dent in the big picture.
> 
> If people don't want the package even with HDNet in there... that should tell Mark Cuban and the HDNet people something about their channel, and how people value it....


Over 900 people voted, and I would imagine the poll shows the general trend. The poll was on whether folks here would pay more for the HD Extra Pack, not HDNet, or Cuban.


----------



## gdn (Aug 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> IMHO... this is a strong hand tactic by HDNet... to reap a maximum amount of revenue for the next 14 months (till the contract runs out in 2008).
> 
> ...


And as much as I like Directv - this is the problem with them and most of corporate America. Directv doesn't need HDnet as much today - but they did several years ago and I still argue that we wouldn't have and Directv wouldn't have the HD content and subscribers they have today if it weren't for HDNet in the early days.

So now that Directv doesn't "need" HDnet as much - they want to reintrepret the contract and screw their partners and try to benefit. They don't care- they'll find new ones or they've got 70 others ones now - who cares about the original one that helped get them where they are. If they wrote a contract that says what we've been led to believe it does - then Directv needs to pay up through the end of 08 and not put HDNet in an "extra cost" class to subscribers.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It does have some significance...
> 
> But the bigger question is how does that signifance translate to the entire population.
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is forum is primarily D* fans, and over 40% of them are not willing to pay for it. I imagine the average Joe will be even less likely to opt for it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What kind of "integrity" are you looking for?


I said DirecTV.
Are you DirecTV?
Or are you just speaking for them?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> I said DirecTV.
> Are you DirecTV?
> Or are you just speaking for them?


I asked you to clarrify what type of "integrity" you are looking for...
I am very much aware you were referring to DirecTV.

And as noted in my signature, and my statements.... I do not speak for them.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Yeah, this is forum is primarily D* fans, and over 40% of them are not willing to pay for it. I imagine the average Joe will be even less likely to opt for it.


What does being a DirecTV fan have to do with finding value in the $4.99 package?

Either it is worth it to a customer or it isn't.

I am very much a fan of DirecTV, but I don't have a single movie package, nor Sunday Ticket, nor any of the other extended sports packages.

Total Choice Family Plus (or what ever it is called today) and the HD Access (and eventually the HD Extra Pack) and $45 in mirroring fees... constitue my bill.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Why not have all the HD channels in the HD DVR package for $70?

That was the basses for the that package, because you are also purchasing equipment and committing to a long term agreement. There is already an extra $5 for additional channels.

I think this is poor strategy for D* when they have to be making good money off that package.

That' s my only real gripe with D*. 

I mean, is this $70 subscription not making money for them already?

Do they need to start taking channels away?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What does being a DirecTV fan have to do with finding value in the $4.99 package?
> 
> Either it is worth it to a customer or it isn't.
> 
> ...


I see it as 43% of people who are fans, and more likely to be forgiving of D* when they do something like this, don't see the value in this package.

People who are not so in love with D* will be even less likely to see the value.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

I Only made it to page 11. But it is clear that HDnet are the ones being wronged. In fact they mention asking D* about the rumor of the extra package and are told that nothing is wrong. The sky is not falling, ect... Any HR20, HR21 folks see any similarities here? 

But that asside, it seems clear to any rational person what the most widely distributed programing is as the contract states. So the D* response will be very interesting to see. Seems like they should just put HDnet back in the normal place it is now. They probably moved it to get out of paying that fee as stated in the contract.


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

The apologists will not agree but DirecTV is fully aware of the way the initial $10.99 fee was perceived by the typical customer back when it was put in place. The general consensus was that it was to offset the costs incurred and to provide access to all HD programming (very much like the DVR fee covers the extra cost of the DVR technology). They also made it pretty clear in subsequent stockholder meetings that they realized the fee was initially high given the limited number of channels it covered but planned to ramp up the number.

We then waited years for this to materialize and now that it has, surprise, now we get additional fees. Some of you can twist this any way you like. To me it's just another way to try to wring a few more dollars out of most of us.

At some point you need to draw a line in the sand and say, enough. 

I have to think about it. While I have yet to find a single thing worth watching on MGM, I have enjoyed Smithsonian and HD-Net Movies.

As I've said elsewhere, it'll be very interesting to see what the world looks like in a few years when EVERYTHING is HD. How will you justify an HD access fee when there's no SD?

This seems to me like a move to simply push the bar forward for the day when you roll all these charges into a single package and drop the HD-access concept entirely.


----------



## noneroy (Aug 21, 2006)

islander66 said:


> Why not have all the HD channels in the HD DVR package for $70?


See, I agree with this and think this is probably where HDNet starts to get angry. There is a Choice Plus HD and DVR package. 'It includes HD!' ..but not all HD channels, like HDnet.

However, it also doesn't include HBOHD or ShowtimeHD either....but those are separate tiers.....so wait...doesn't it follow that HDNet then is on another tier? If it isn't on a different tier, then why wouldn't i get it ?

I like D* as much as the next guy, but they are playing the verbal equivalent of the 'shell game'. I'm not sure semantics is going to help them much.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What kind of "integrity" are you looking for?


Doing what the contract you signed would be a good start. Don't you think?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Yeah, this is forum is primarily D* fans, and over 40% of them are not willing to pay for it. I imagine the average Joe will be even less likely to opt for it.


You got that right. . . It's hard to sort out objective thoughts.
There are those getting DirecTV receivers and other equipment at no cost ahead of the general public that comment on these posts. If you're getting equipment from a company ahead of the general public, you are going to be swayed; its only human nature. It's not the opinions that bother me, its the misrepresentations.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... don't agree with that
> 
> DirecTV doesn't NEED HDNet as much as it did before (Even at the beginning part of this year).


"Sorry... don't agree with that"...

They do have to honor the contract they signed. No?


----------



## gdn (Aug 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... don't agree with that
> 
> DirecTV doesn't NEED HDNet as much as it did before (Even at the beginning part of this year).
> 
> ...


This isn't about "need" - this is about a contract. Earl - your statements like this are why people want to tie you to Directv's pockets. It isn't about our intrepretations and need. It is about a contract. I'll abide by whatever judgement rules. If D* wins and they can charge more for HDNet - I'll pay it - others may not.

If D* thinks they can jerk their parnters around because of "Need" then I hope like He** that D* is out of business tomorrow. If the courts side agains HDNet - then HDNet needs to review their contracts a little better.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Snip...
> 
> IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels.
> 
> Snip...


Earl that is a 50% for in HD access for only 6 channels. Joe average won't go for it.



bhelton71 said:


> Snip...
> I would guess while most people would enjoy at least some of their programming - it probably wasn't reason #1 to buy an HDTV. I know personally for myself, I certainly didn't get Directv w/ HD to watch HDNet. I have only watched possibly 24 hours of programming on both HDNet and the movie channel in the 2+ years that I have had the HD package ( or whatever it is called now ). My motivation was ESPNHD and an HR10 DVR for my locals off air.


When HD TV sets became affordable for me a little over a year ago I looked at the line up and HDNet and HD Movies were one of the draws that made me decide to go HD. Shows like Art Mann, the shuttle launches, World Report, Get Out!, and the movies along with a decent percentage of Prime Time network TV made me decide to go HD. Even after going HD I didn't add any premium movie networks until recently and now I find that the same thing applies as in years past. I have them and watch 2 or 3 things from them in the whole week. And that is mainly the older movies. I'll probably be dropping the premium movie networks again and saving $$$ not from being cheap but lack of decent content. Cinemax, I've looked at their content and their nighttime content (Silicon Alley)....

Shuttle launches in HD, now there is a sight to see. Next best thing to bing there.

Some things shouldn't be in HD, Closeups of sweaty rock stars in concert, Adult content, etc.

D* is now working just like a cable company, add tiers and move best programming to them to Hoover more money from their subscribers. With one big difference, Cable has not started requiring a 2 year commitment yet, AFAIK.

BTW I don't spend $5 on coffee a day. I do spend whatever the coffee cost is for the coffee to brew the one cup a day I drink in the morning.

And FWIW I think HD Net is in the right on this. Ultimately it will most likely come down to who has better lawyers or deeper pockets.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> "Sorry... don't agree with that"...
> 
> They do have to honor the contract they signed. No?


Yes they do...

But it is in the wording of the contract..... and thus is the merit of the case, that the court will decide.... are they honoring the contract... based on an interpretation.

Just like when people here (on this forum), have beeing trying to find a way out of their contrats with DirecTV... and looking for loopholes.

These are not handshake agreements... these are multi-million/billion dollar corporations... who frankly play this "game" all the time... Why do you think it takes months to get contracts done, and why lawyers (and teams of lawyers are involved) to review them......

If it has gotten to this point with litgation and the courts, that means that everything failed in negotiating a new contract (to either make it very specific with only 1 interpretation), and HDNet is playing their hand.

-------------------

And my "not agreeing with that", with the quote you copied... was with regards to the "Value" of HDNet to DirecTV now.... nothing about the current stance of the contract.

The courts will decide now......


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Earl that is a 50% for in HD access for only 6 channels. Joe average won't go for it.


People see it as $4.99 more... not 50% more..
They see some HD at $9.99 or more HD at $14.99.

I still think Joe Average will go for it, especially if they get it for 3 months free, to at least evaluate it.

And if they don't... then that speeks VOLUMES for the content in that tier... that it is not worth the equivilent of a McDonalds Value Meal... to get those extra channels.

I completely agree that the Shuttle Launches are fantastic to see... especially in HD... and to me... the package is worth the $4.99.


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

This was not their interpretation Earl. It was clearly them playing semantics. They know damned right well what that clause meant and are now trying to apply semantics to get around it. No one at DirecTV ever read this an interpreted it incorrectly.

Your next statement about the lawyers playing "games" shows exactly that you believe this as well. 

HD Net is "playing their hand" because they believe DirecTV knew what the clause meant as well and now is jerking them around with wording to get out of the deal.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes they do...
> 
> But it is in the wording of the contract..... and thus is the merit of the case, that the court will decide.... are they honoring the contract... based on an interpretation.


And this is the thing that gets my radar going. I cannot stand "it depends on the definition of what 'is' is". I think we all remember that one about 8 years ago. When I see something that is clearly black and white, I am offended when someone insists that it is pink polka dotted.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Just like when people here (on this forum), have beeing trying to find a way out of their contrats with DirecTV... and looking for loopholes.


Obviously I think that is totally wrong. However if they just got a new HR20 a year or 15 months ago and wanted out because it was not working and the software was not working then I would totally agree with that.



Earl Bonovich said:


> These are not handshake agreements... these are multi-million/billion dollar corporations... who frankly play this "game" all the time... Why do you think it takes months to get contracts done, and why lawyers (and teams of lawyers are involved) to review them......
> 
> If it has gotten to this point with litgation and the courts, that means that everything failed in negotiating a new contract (to either make it very specific with only 1 interpretation), and HDNet is playing their hand.
> 
> ...


Sorry I am just burnt out on loopholes and cool wording to get out of certain things. So I cannot agree with you on this one. It is not right IMHO.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gdn said:


> This isn't about "need" - this is about a contract. Earl - your statements like this are why people want to tie you to Directv's pockets. It isn't about our intrepretations and need. It is about a contract. I'll abide by whatever judgement rules. If D* wins and they can charge more for HDNet - I'll pay it - others may not.
> 
> If D* thinks they can jerk their parnters around because of "Need" then I hope like He** that D* is out of business tomorrow. If the courts side agains HDNet - then HDNet needs to review their contracts a little better.


I completely understand this is about the contract.

But... what do you think has been going on for the last few months, even year... there is no doubt DirecTV has been trying to redo the contract, especially since it ends in 2008....

And obviously it hasn't gone the way that HDNet (and/or DirecTV) has wanted it to.... so they are playing this hand.

Can you honestly state.. .that HDNet is of the same value to DirecTV today (and in 2008), then it was back in 2004 (or when ever) when that contract in question was agreed to? The playing field has changed... major factors have changed.

As for my statements.... and people then linking me to DirecTV... 
Well I guess you all then are for COMCAST and DISHNETWORK, since you are against DirecTV... Come-on now... I guess I can't have an opinion... and it happen to be on the side of the company you all want to take swings out.

I have stated my reasons for my opinions, and if you have issues with my reasons then so be it... I don't care... that is why this is a discussion forum.... It is not like I am making statements and not backing them up with my reasons for making them.

...............

Take a major step back... and look at it picture... big step back.. and look at the big picture... it is all about the $$$ that HDNet wants from DirecTV, and their customers... that's it...

This isn't about "integrity"... IMHO: This is about HDNet seeing an opportunity to get more money for the remainder of the contract, because they know (as DirecTV has probably already laid out the offer for the next contract), that it isn't going to be as "sweet" as it was the first time.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> People see it as $4.99 more... not 50% more..
> They see some HD at $9.99 or more HD at $14.99.
> 
> I still think Joe Average will go for it, especially if they get it for 3 months free, to at least evaluate it.
> ...


Fine. But for now according to the contract, HDnet has to go in the most widely distributed package.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Sorry I am just burnt out on loopholes and cool wording to get out of certain things. So I cannot agree with you on this one. It is not right IMHO.


I totally agree that it is not right....
And one of the reasons why I don't constantly call for credits or "free-bees" ect...

But it doesn't change the fact that in today's world... people go by the letter of the written word... and if that written word if vague... they are going to use it to their advantage...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Fine. But for now according to the contract, HDnet has to go in the most widely distributed package.


Then you can see why HDNet would want to get into Total Choice...
17+ million customers have that tier...

You don't think it is worth the 20+ million they would get in revenue a month... regardless that nearly 60% of the customers with that package in that tier, won't be able to access the channel.

I think DirecTV should develop technology in all their boxes, to actually record the hours/minutes/seconds that channels are watched... and have a by the hour rate... and simply pay for usage rates... 
(Yes I am satiracle and exagerating)


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Take a major step back... and look at it picture... big step back.. and look at the big picture... it is all about the $$$ that HDNet wants from DirecTV, and their customers... that's it...
> 
> This isn't about "integrity"... IMHO: This is about HDNet seeing an opportunity to get more money for the remainder of the contract, because they know (as DirecTV has probably already laid out the offer for the next contract), that it isn't going to be as "sweet" as it was the first time.


Maybe. But moving HDnet away form the most widely distributed package is not what the contract is about right now. I agree with you totally about any future contract.


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

While morality isn't business, we are not in DirecTV's business. We are, again, consumers and morality does interest most of us. 

There is right and there is wrong. Supporting DirecTV's attempt to sneak out of something with loopholes is just wrong. Doing it is wrong too. There seems to be a lot of justifying and excuses going on here in this thread.....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

A question for you all: On both sides.

Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.

And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Agrajag said:


> While morality isn't business, we are not in DirecTV's business. We are, again, consumers and morality does interest most of us.
> 
> There is right and there is wrong. Supporting DirecTV's attempt to sneak out of something with loopholes is just wrong. Doing it is wrong too. There seems to be a lot of justifying and excuses going on here in this thread.....


And supporting HDNet to get pushed into the Total Choice tier, isn't sneeking on their part?


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A question for you all: On both sides.
> 
> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.


NO.

I can see how the clauses are being USED by both sides to their respective advantages. No one is reading them and misunderstanding them.

Language interpreters that would interpret the way you use it here would be fired for incompetence. Reminds me of a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Maybe. But moving HDnet away form the most widely distributed package is not what the contract is about right now. I agree with you totally about any future contract.


Your right... it doesn't have a bearing on what the contract says today...

But it certainly does play a factor into why this case has been filed... and they couldn't straighted this out without the courts getting involved.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then you can see why HDNet would want to get into Total Choice...
> 17+ million customers have that tier...
> 
> You don't think it is worth the 20+ million they would get in revenue a month... regardless that nearly 60% of the customers with that package in that tier, won't be able to access the channel.
> ...


I believe the contract stated the most widely distributed HD package not standard definition. I do not believe they should get $$$ for standard when their channel is not accessable.

And they do know when we watch whatever. The Janet Jackson thing a few super bowls ago was the largest Tivo spike in their history. Many news articles about that the next day. They also know when you do on demand right? So your satiracle comment is not such an exaggeration


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> I believe the contract stated the most widely distributed HD package not standard definition. I do not believe they should get $$$ for standard when their channel is not accessable.
> 
> And they do know when we watch whatever. The Janet Jackson thing a few super bowls ago was the largest Tivo spike in their history. Many news articles about that the next day. They also know when you do on demand right? So your satiracle comment is not such an exaggeration


Then in the current definition of how the HD Access works..

What is the widest distributed HD Package ?


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And supporting HDNet to get pushed into the Total Choice tier, isn't sneeking on their part?


That is what they want? _I guess I should have read farther than page 11 _ If that is true then no one is clean. And I agree with you it is greedy on HDnet's part.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

The only contract that concerns me now is the one I have with Direct...My major concern is the package I am paying for now... HD programming had better improve over the CURRENT offerings...when the current crop of so called HD channels actually begin showing true HD programing more than 10% of the time then I will stay with Direct, but if months from now my programming is still mainly upconverted SD with the hollow promises of more to come I will then reconsider my options....


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

gcisko said:


> That is what they want? _I guess I should have read farther than page 11 _ If that is true then no one is clean. And I agree with you it is greedy on HDnet's part.


We agree there. I have little doubt that neither of them are "clean" with regard to this.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then in the current definition of how the HD Access works..
> 
> What is the widest distributed HD Package ?


Obviously the one I have been paying $9.99 for the past 15 months (with 6 channels). Now with all the HD channels that they turned on, I feel I am getting what I had been paying for. From what I read once this goes active according to the contract HDnet cannot be removed. Which also means no total choice for HDnet by contract rule


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> looking for loopholes.


I think that's the point. Integrity means living within the spirit of the agreement, not looking for loopholes. Legally, DTV is only required to live within the letter of the agreement. But integrity requires more.

[In fairness to DTV, we are only reading the snippets of the agreement which HDNet chose to quote. The may be more to the agreement which shows that DTV is living within the spirit of the agreement. Or the total agreement may be so confusing that HDNet and DTV might have honest differences regarding what the spirit of the agreement requires.]


----------



## gdn (Aug 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A question for you all: On both sides.
> 
> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.
> 
> And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


Earl - I do respect your opinions and I've already stated that I'll wait on the outcome and pay extra if I need to so I can get HDNet. I also don't personally believe you are tied to D*.

My beef with your postings and you are entitled to your opinions is that just because things have swung now in D*'s favor and it is costing them a lot to carry HDNet - doesn't mean a contract should be thrown out the window or renegotiated due to "NEED".

Don't you think that HDNet and Cuban sank millions of dollars into their start up costs and they were taking a big risk on HDNet and D* carrying them. For years you know there was no way they were profitable (and might not still be for all I know). Their risk has paid off though - they are making handsomely from D* on the risks they took. This is all about free enterprise and the American way.

Now that it is costing D* they want to relevel the playing field - they are entitled to try - but I hope the court enforces the contract they way they intrepret it - regardless of the way it falls. This is just payoff to HDNet for the risk they took and they deserve it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Obviously the one I have been paying $9.99 for the past 15 months (with 6 channels). Now with all the HD channels that they turned on, I feel I am getting what I had been paying for. From what I read once this goes active according to the contract HDnet cannot be removed. Which also means no total choice for HDnet by contract rule


But that particular "package" doesn't exist anymore.

With the HD Access... and today's packages... what package.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

warriorking said:


> The only contract that concerns me now is the one I have with Direct...My major concern is the package I am paying for now... HD programming had better improve over the CURRENT offerings...when the current crop of so called HD channels actually begin showing true HD programing more than 10% of the time then I will stay with Direct, but if months from now my programming is still mainly upconverted SD with the hollow promises of more to come we will see where I go from here....


I have been looking at other options like everyone else. I do not think you can do better. But if you find something I am sure many will be curious. I am set with D* and there is no worry of me leaving anytime soon. But this is a fascinating discussion :lol:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken S said:


> According to DirecTV you would pay extra because it's an HD station without an SD equivalent.


I think HD Theater is part of a family of channels (not just owned by the same company but a family). We also have (don't have the guide data here) a Starz channel in HD that is not in SD (is it Starz Comedy?).

As there are -1 channels, the "SD equivalent" talk obviously does not mean a one-to-one mapping of content.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes they do...
> 
> But it is in the wording of the contract..... and thus is the merit of the case, that the court will decide.... are they honoring the contract... based on an interpretation.
> 
> ...


DirecTV, as well as you, know quite well what the essence and "spirit" of the agreement was. It is clear. To argue semantics against the clear spirit of a contract is exactly what gives lawyers bad reputations.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then you can see why HDNet would want to get into Total Choice...
> 17+ million customers have that tier...
> 
> You don't think it is worth the 20+ million they would get in revenue a month... regardless that nearly 60% of the customers with that package in that tier, won't be able to access the channel.
> ...


Earl, the day they were able to track my viewing habits that closely I'd be gone. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid I don't trust anybody that much.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> DirecTV, as well as you, know quite well what the essence and "spirit" of the agreement was. It is clear. To argue semantics against the clear spirit of a contract is exactly what gives lawyers bad reputations.


Here is the thing...

"Spirit" has only marginal value when it gets to the court....

Sadly... The "spirit" of agreements just don't fly anymore...

Not to really "drag this in", but it does relate to "spirit".

When I signed up for "unlimited" internet access from COMCAST, the "spirit" of the contract/agreement, is that it would be "unlimited".... not a modified version of unlimited that actually has a limit...


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that particular "package" doesn't exist anymore.
> 
> With the HD Access... and today's packages... what package.


OK I Just checked the D* website. I did not realize they have 6 HD package choices now. My account just says "HD access" so I guess I am grandfathered in or something. But I would guess it would have to be in the set of channels that are included with "Family" as they are also included in each of upper tier packages as well. It should definately not be in "extra".

So taking the current contract in mind. Where do you think it should go until the contract expires?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Earl, the day they were able to track my viewing habits that closely I'd be gone. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid I don't trust anybody that much.


The obvious question of "why" is a discussion for another day...
But I for one, absolutely want to let DirecTV, every carrier, ect... EXACTLY what I watch... as I am tired of shows that I enjoy, getting cancelled.

But to each their own, and we can discuss that in depth in another thread if you want to.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Here is the thing...
> 
> "Spirit" has only marginal value when it gets to the court....
> 
> ...


Okay. You've managed to rip HDNet. And now Comcast. Just get it over with now and drag Dish down in the gutter too.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then in the current definition of how the HD Access works..
> 
> What is the widest distributed HD Package ?


I would say that can be debated with math and sub figures. That one is open to interpretation. You could argue that Premium + HD Access + HD DVR Plus subs > total choice plus + HD Access subs. That one is for the lawyers etc.

But I think you have to compare like with like.

Discovery HD Theatre does not have an SD counterpart (simultcast or not). It is in Total Choice Plus (and above) if you have HD Access. I think until Dec 2008 that is where HDNETs channels should go, according to the current contract.

I have no doubt that Cuban has ulterior motives. I have no doubt that he thinks if he can get them in there now, then he can keep them in there in the next contract.

His current stance is only valid until Dec 2008. But it is correct i think.

However I am also willing to bet that the out of court settlement they will come to will put HDNET in with Total Choice Plus and HD NET movies in an extra pack.

We know it is all to do with business, tactics and forthcoming contracts.

I wish we could see D*'s reply. Woudl clear up a few things. They have to answer his claim about the HD Access. If they are still using it as a clause to pay less (that they invoked when it was the HD tier in 2003 and didnt change their payments when they renamed it HD Access) then in the eyes of the law D* acknowledges it is an HD tier.

Then we get into the lawyers arguments about the widely distributed tier. HD Access is a tier if they say so. But it only gives you access to those programs you get in SD. But it is still the widest HD Tier. D* could then argue that Premium is the only package that gives you everything so only D* Premium subs with HD Access get it until Dec 2008. It is still the widest HD Tier. But now less than probably 3% will get it. Put that to Cuban and give him the choice between 3% or the HD Extra subs and he will probably negotiate better deal somewhere.

but thats just my $0.02


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Okay. You've managed to rip HDNet. And now Comcast. Just get it over with now and drag Dish down in the gutter too.


Get over it?

This isn't "ripping" on them... but if you want to continue to rip on me... have at..


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Question:
If the TRO is denied and December 15 arrives, what exactly do I have to do to cancel HDNet, painful as that will be after having it and loving it for going on 5 yrs.???? Will D* contact me and say "unless you contact D*, we automatically cancel it"??

P.S. It's not the money but the principle and to me D* is dead wrong.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bill Johnson said:


> Question:
> If the TRO is denied and December 15 arrives, what exactly do I have to do to cancel HDNet, painful as that will be after having it and loving it for going on 5 yrs.???? Will D* contact me and say "unless you contact D*, we automatically cancel it"??
> 
> P.S. It's not the money but the principle and to me D* is dead wrong.


If I understand it correctly... you won't have to do anything.
As none of us are signed up for the HD-Extra pack automatically.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Here's a thought .. Clearly there are diminishing returns to HDNet as the number of HD channels increases. I imagine that there is some dollar amount that HDNet will be able to claim between now and the end of the contract (EOY 2008). What if DIRECTV pays this amount regardless of tier location? Right now the TRO application is seeking monetary equilibrium for the life of the contract -- What if DIRECTV says OK to that? Will HDNET then amend the argument to still try and get out of the HD Extra tier?

Also, are we 100% certain that the value of being in the HD Extra tier (to HDNet) is going to be worse for HDNet than being out of it? HDNet obviously thinks so, but I'm not certain there is truly enough data to know this yet. It will be easier to see once HD Extra kicks in as a required package .. Once that happens, HDNet may decide it's not that bad after all.

It's also possible that this is just a negotiating tactic so that HDNet can get itself locked up past 2008 ..


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Earl, the day they were able to track my viewing habits that closely I'd be gone. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid I don't trust anybody that much.


But they do with a lot of the stuff you watch.

VOD is definately monitored. As is PPV.

Soon remote booking will be too.

So that leaves just the TV. Not too hard to monitor. How do you know they arent already (they arent unless you know how to compress all that data into a ping as i monitor my HR20/21s)

But I would think it would give us better content on TV if they did.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Okay. You've managed to rip HDNet. And now Comcast. Just get it over with now and drag Dish down in the gutter too.


Actually, Comcast deserves to be ripped .. I'm happy to be Comcast free since 2003.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Here's a thought .. Clearly there are diminishing returns to HDNet as the number of HD channels increases. I imagine that there is some dollar amount that HDNet will be able to claim between now and the end of the contract (EOY 2008). What if DIRECTV pays this amount regardless of tier location? Right now the TRO application is seeking monetary equilibrium for the life of the contract -- What if DIRECTV says OK to that? Will HDNET then amend the argument to still try and get out of the HD Extra tier?
> 
> Also, are we 100% certain that the value of being in the HD Extra tier (to HDNet) is going to be worse for HDNet than being out of it? HDNet obviously thinks so, but I'm not certain there is truly enough data to know this yet. It will be easier to see once HD Extra kicks in as a required package .. Once that happens, HDNet may decide it's not that bad after all.
> 
> It's also possible that this is just a negotiating tactic so that HDNet can get itself locked up past 2008 ..


They werent just claiming that Doug. They were claiming that as a result of going into the Extra Pack they were losing 3rd party (Advertising or program suppliers) revenue. They cite that at least 1 has dropped them because of this. That is the basis of the TRO. Not lost revenue through D* so much as 3rd party which i would imagine pay them more.

Ad revenue is based on viewers. If you are forced into a smaller viewer base then your revenue drops. That is their gripe.

In which case you could argue that they should go to D* for less $$ per sub. So there are faults on both sides. But again that is future contracts. I think (so far) that this contract is plain and simple and D* breached it. D* invoked the HD Tier clause not HDNET, so D* has to stick with it.


----------



## chopperjc (Oct 2, 2006)

This isn't about "integrity"... IMHO: This is about HDNet seeing an opportunity to get more money for the remainder of the contract, because they know (as DirecTV has probably already laid out the offer for the next contract), that it isn't going to be as "sweet" as it was the first time.[/QUOTE]

This is a contract dispute plain and simple. HDNET wants the most coverage with the most subscribers possible. I am sure there has been negotiations and HDNET felt like it was not getting done so they filed a lawsuit. This is not uncommon. A judge will decide on the merits. We only have 1/2 of the picture so far. Sit back relax. Eventually their will be a compromise.


----------



## DCFSCAZARES (Dec 4, 2006)

I smell something fishy here. This is a strategy Directv is doing. They used HDNet as their bait to increase our HD access fees to $14.95. D* is going to come out later and say that they have settled the legal situation with HDNet and due to such outcome, D* has no choice but to increase our fees. Remember, the D* Committee is aware of the legal implications by charging an additional HD fee for the Extra Package, but the results at the end will make D* and HDnet both winners. Overall...it is a strategy my friends. Watch and See!


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Get over it?
> 
> This isn't "ripping" on them... but if you want to continue to rip on me... have at..


If it appears that I am ripping on you Earl, I apologize. I have no opinion of you good or bad, just what I read.

You have posted almost 30 of the last 70 posts, all defending DirecTV. Proclaiming your independence regarding DirecTV, some might think it certainly is odd that you would feign victimhood when they are attacked.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

I think it's also important to remember the re-branding of Discovery HD Theater to just HD theater when the Discovery HD simulcast launched. It's a clear case of a Liberty Media channel getter preferential treatment over HDNET and HDNET movies. There can be no case for the argument that HDA is only a fee to access the HD versions of channels while HD theater is included with no SD counterpart. The HDA *is* a package of HD channels.

I checked my bills and in May I had a HD access charge. In May that got me TNTHD,Universal,Discovery HDTH,HDNET,HDNET Movies,ESPN HD, ESPN HD2 and that is clearly a package of channels. Now if this just got me the HD counterparts of SD channels I shouldn't have gotten several of these channels. So I guess D* decided to have their cake and eat it to by trying to change the definition of the HDA package. The problem is they got sued and they already billed people months ago for HDA and customers received a HD package of channels and many didn't have a SD counterpart.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> If it appears that I am ripping on you Earl, I apologize. I have no opinion of you good or bad, just what I read.
> 
> You have posted almost 30 of the last 70 posts, all defending DirecTV. Proclaiming your independence regarding DirecTV, some might think it certainly is odd that you would feign victimhood when they are attacked.


Just because I have an opinion that is on DirecTV's side of the fence... it is not a defence of them.

Where have I stated that I feel "victimized" or victimhood here.

Just because I am posting and discussing the other side of the argument... isn't that what a discussion forum is about?

Or should we change this to DBSRant... instead of DBSTalk ?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Just because I have an opinion that is on DirecTV's side of the fence... it is not a defence of them.
> 
> Where have I stated that I feel "victimized" or victimhood here.
> 
> ...


The absurd part of this discussion is that you and everyone else know that if this was somehow Comcast in DirecTV's place, you would be leading the charge after that horrible, greedy cable company. No? You would be defending Comcast or E* if they did the same thing? Of course not.

Some would describe 30 out of 70 posts a rant.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> The absurd part of this discussion is that you and everyone else know that if this was somehow Comcast in DirecTV's place, you would be leading the charge after that horrible, greedy cable company. No? You would be defending Comcast or E* if they did the same thing? Of course not.
> 
> Some would describe 30 out of 70 posts a rant.


Actually in all honesty... if everything was the same... and the names were changed... all my arguments would still apply... and I would not be singing a different tune... But hey... since you have already classified everyone that way...

Wouldn't mater if it COMCAST, DishNetwork, or what...

30 out of 70... I am slowing down... I need to get back above the 50% mark.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Maybe Earl, if you linked to a criticism by you about D*?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Maybe Earl, if you linked to a criticism by you about D*?


I'll get right on that... I will scan my 30,000+ posts over the two forums...

Please....

I don't like the fact that I have to pay $45 in mirroring fees, for my 9 extra receivers.
I don't like that I spent $1,000 on my HR10-250 and ultimately had to sell it for $50.

Just because I don't loath DirecTV like some of you do... doesn't mean I blindly back them up...
But hey... if you all want to continue to make this about me... instead of what the topic is about... have at it.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> As an attorney, I am amazed at the overly dramatic nature of the filing. While judges tend to like filings that are easy to read, they tend to frown on overstatement.
> 
> They sort of wrote this filing up as a story. I don't think the judge will like wording like "DirecTV's actions were clearly illegal," and "DirecTV's statement was obviously false."
> 
> Judges don't like attorneys telling them what is illegal and false. Judges like to decide that for themselves.


I seem to recall from my limited law courses that the facts are what should be stipulated. The decision as to their legality and true or false statements is as you say, up to the judge. The writing seems highly emotional.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Maybe Earl, if you linked to a criticism by you about D*?


I actually disagree with Earl about this issue. He thinks D* is correct I think Cuban has a case.

But I think Earl made his opinion based on what he read, just like I did.

I am pro D* and I think he is, just like most of us are or we wouldnt be here or D* subs. Doesnt mean I have to agree with them or Earl. Also doesnt mean Earl has to disagree with D* either.

I am new to both D* and this forum but have always found Earl straight up and honest. He may be slightly biased but that makes him human not in D*s pocket. He is going to get jumped on whatever he says, he is always in a no win situation, but I for one am grateful he is here - I remember all the hard work he put in when D* were having problems with the HD and we had extra channels up to try and solve it.

I would think if Earl was on D*s pay list he would at least be on the Premium package dont you? He has never forced us to do anything and has always stated his reasons why he says something just as he did earlier in this topic.

And if you want to cite a time when Earl was not 100% pro D*, ask him how he is working so closely with them? A long time ago he wrote one of his "First Looks" about a D* receiver. It was apparently pretty scathing. So I think D* contacted him thinking it was better to work with him than against him. Hence the CE program.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

I will look forward to D's response and see what kind of lawyer double speak they will come up with about this current contract....Let the Games begin....


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I'll get right on that... I will scan my 30,000+ posts over the two forums...
> 
> Please....
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here loathes D*. Some people just aren't as loyal to them as you. I think many of us see D* as a corporation with which we are doing business, and don't feel like we are betraying them if we don't agree with all of their policies. (or in this case, and change in policy.) We don't worry about hurting D*'s feelings if we criticize them, for say missing deadlines, etc.

D* is the one changing the deal, not HDNet. Why should Mark Cuban just let D* make this change when it will adversely affect his business. The networks will lose potential viewers, as many will not opt for the package, but in your opinion, D* is completely right to do this, and HDNet should just accept it without question as you have.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A question for you all: On both sides.
> 
> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.
> 
> And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


Yes I can...I certainly try to set aside bias and understand both perspective in order to weigh the merits of both sides, without concluding anything. But that is just me...


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

back on topic.

Has anyone found a copy of D*s reply yet? I went to the courthouse online but it says it is closed to the public.

Tried a search but still no luck


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> D* is the one changing the deal, not HDNet. Why should Mark Cuban just let D* make this change when it will adversely affect his business. The networks will lose potential viewers, as many will not opt for the package, but in your opinion, D* is completely right to do this, and HDNet should just accept it without question as you have.


So... you have access to the contract?
Or are you basing that completely off HDNet's filing (and thus their interpretation of the contract, and their argument to the court)

How do you know for a fact, that it is not HDNet that is "changing" the interpretation.

There is no doubt that DirecTV is creating the new "package".... but as for who is changing the deal... or the spirit of the deal...

Were any of us there in the board room when it was agreed to?
Were any of us in the lawyer review session about actual contract?

No...

So gosh forbid, that there could be another side to this "spat" between the billion dollar companies...

And if the court rules that DirecTV violated the contract... so be it...

At the end of the day:
1 way or another... "You and Me" will have to pay for HDNet if we want it or not.

Be it as an extra package, as part of another package.....


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I tried looking yesterday, but found nothing as well.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... you have access to the contract?
> Or are you basing that completely off HDNet's filing (and thus their interpretation of the contract, and their argument to the court)
> 
> How do you know for a fact, that it is not HDNet that is "changing" the interpretation.
> ...


Were the HDNet channels in the HD Extra Pack before?

Which company is moving them?

Mark Cuban should just accept this change without challenge why?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Were the HDNet channels in the HD Extra Pack before?


Yes, they were in the HD Package... 
However, isn't that part of the core of this argument... is HD Access a Package or not?



man_rob said:


> Which company is moving them?


DirecTV



man_rob said:


> Why should Mark Cuban just accept this change without challenge why?


Who said he had to accept it... that is a different argument then a violation of the contract.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Wonder if Dan Rather will report on this anytime soon....If he does look for a lot of 721 Messeges during airtime....


----------



## psweig (Feb 4, 2006)

We all have gotten quite a few new HD channels, although not the number that D* would have you believe. Many of them are just sd quality. But from my standpoint, I have been paying $10.99 then $9.99 for a select few HD channels and I haven't complained. So what is the difference if I now have to pay extra for 20 or so great HD channels? I don't think this argument is worth the argument. That is to say you're NITPICKING


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes, they were in the HD Package...
> However, isn't that part of the core of this argument... is HD Access a Package or not?
> DirecTV
> Who said he had to accept it... that is a different argument then a violation of the contract.


So D* didn't just create a new HD Extra Pack?

The basic HD access fee didn't cover the HDNets before?

The HD access was always called the HD Extra Pack?

Edit: How would programming that is accessed by the customer requesting it, paying a fee to get it, not considered a package?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> So D* didn't just create a new HD Extra Pack?
> The basic HD access fee didn't cover the HDNets before?
> The HD access was always called the HD Extra Pack?


Yes.. the original HD Package covered the HDNets.
That package no longer exists.

DirecTV did create the HD Extra Pack.

HD Access was not ever called the HD Extra Pack... 
It was the HD Package...

And in fact, you could get HD content without it: Your HD Locals, HD for HBO and Showtime, were not part of that package.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

At the end of the contract, this whole dispute is going to be moot. That's just 1 year from now (roughly). Just as professional athletes want to renew their contracts before the final year, I suspect that HDNet/DIRECTV want to renew contracts in the not too distant future .. This suit will likely put a damper on negotiations, but could also speed them up.

If this doesn't get solved by this time next year, the consumer will be left without HDNet and HDNet will be left without carriage on DIRECTV. It may have been true at one time that DIRECTV needed HDNet, but now? At this point, I suspect that HDNet needs DIRECTV more than the other way around.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes.. the original HD Package covered the HDNets.
> That package no longer exists.
> 
> DirecTV did create the HD Extra Pack.
> ...


Um, You can't even have the HD equipment without having the HD package.

Please show me where it it stated that you can get any HD channels without the HD package.

D created a new, higher priced tier, and is putting HDNet in it.

HDNet's viewership, and potential viewership will go down as a result.

Again, why is _"this is a strong hand tactic by HDNet... to reap a maximum amount of revenue for the next 14 months"_ rather than a move by Mark Cuban to maintain his networks' audience, and protect his business?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Um, You can't even have the HD equipment without having the HD package.
> 
> Please show me where it it stated that you can get any HD channels without the HD package.
> 
> ...


HD Equipment with out the package:
You can turn HD Access off if you want... you just won't have any HD any longer. And that too is a recent change, to what has been in place for the last 5 years.

"Potentially" go down as a result... but there is also the Potential that it will go up as well... but it will never be 100% of the HD subscribers to DirecTV, as they once had.

And yes... I totally believe this court case is a strong hand tactic by HDNet, because they have seen DirecTV's new offerings for the next contract... and they are going to try and maximize the existing contract (which they feel is in their favor)... until they are forced into something that is not a beneficial to them.

There is nothing wrong with Mark Cuban and HDNet attempting to do that either... The question for the court is... what is allowed by the contract, and how it should be executed...

DirecTV is doing so similarly... They are protecting their investiments, and their company.... If they are going to be required to pay the $1.30 (or what ever it is)...... if that has to come out of the $9.99 package, or out of the total choice tier "amount", ect... then DirecTV is doing the exact same thing...

If HDNet and Cuban wants to MAXIMIZE his audience.... improve the programming to the point, that people are willing to pay for it... since he want's money for it (from the carrier), then it has to be a product that people are willing to pay for it.

Be it $1.30 for an individual AlaCarte offering, or part of a $4.99 package.

But forcing it into a lower tier, does nothing to "maintain" the audience... it just keeps the revenue flow comming in, regardless if anyone is watching it or not.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A question for you all: On both sides.
> 
> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.
> 
> And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


If the portion of the TRO petition that states that DirecTV took advantage of the HD Tier provision in the HDNet contract, when they initiated the HD Access fee, which allowed DirecTV to "decrease its payments to HDNet by a set percentage for each HDTV network that was included in the HD tier" and contunued to reduce its payments as other HD chanels were offered, is true, then there can be no dual interpretation of the contract.

DirecTV took advantage of the "HD tier" provision in the contract. Therefore, they have already acknowledged that "HD Access" is, in fact, a tier. If D* claims that HD Access is not a tier, then they are admitting that they are in violation of their contract in the fact that they improperly reduced their payments to HDNet.

D* is trying to have it both ways. HD Access is a tier for the purposes of paying for programming, yet HD Access is not a tier for the purpose of channel placement. It can't work both ways.


----------



## shollowa74 (Jan 24, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> back on topic.
> 
> Has anyone found a copy of D*s reply yet? I went to the courthouse online but it says it is closed to the public.
> 
> Tried a search but still no luck


I have not seen a copy of Directv's reply yet. I believe they have 30 days to respond but the rules may be different in the case of a request for a TRO.

Most of my information on court filings come from Lexis, but when you get down to the state court level information is a little tougher to come by and it is much more expensive to get a hold of.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bill Broderick said:


> If the portion of the TRO petition that states that DirecTV took advantage of the HD Tier provision in the HDNet contract, when they initiated the HD Access fee, which allowed DirecTV to "decrease its payments to HDNet by a set percentage for each HDTV network that was included in the HD tier" and contunued to reduce its payments as other HD chanels were offered, is true, then there can be no dual interpretation of the contract.
> 
> DirecTV took advantage of the "HD tier" provision in the contract. Therefore, they have already acknowledged that "HD Access" is, in fact, a tier. If D* claims that HD Access is not a tier, then they are admitting that they are in violation of their contract in the fact that they improperly reduced their payments to HDNet.
> 
> D* is trying to have it both ways. HD Access is a tier for the purposes of paying for programming, yet HD Access is not a tier for the purpose of channel placement. It can't work both ways.


What if HD Access is not paying for programming...
And all the HD programming, is tied to the base contracts for the channels (Be it Food Network's contract, is based on subscriber count to Food Network.. Not Food Network-HD; And HD-Theater is tied to Discovery, so on...)

And HD Access is the same as SuperFan (where it is just access to HD feeds, but nothing more to the base channel "owner")

At the end of the day... it is really going to boil down to the definition of HD Access what it is, what it means, and where does the $9.99 go from that...

Is it just a fee to access the HD feeds, to cover DirecTV's cost for distributing it... vs a payment back to the content providers...

And the answer to that question, we will probable never see, as that would most definently be "confidential" information, as it would lead directly to other competitors and their agreements with those networks... ect...


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> If the portion of the TRO petition that states that DirecTV took advantage of the HD Tier provision in the HDNet contract, when they initiated the HD Access fee, which allowed DirecTV to "decrease its payments to HDNet by a set percentage for each HDTV network that was included in the HD tier" and contunued to reduce its payments as other HD chanels were offered, is true, then there can be no dual interpretation of the contract.
> 
> DirecTV took advantage of the "HD tier" provision in the contract. Therefore, they have already acknowledged that "HD Access" is, in fact, a tier. If D* claims that HD Access is not a tier, then they are admitting that they are in violation of their contract in the fact that they improperly reduced their payments to HDNet.
> 
> D* is trying to have it both ways. HD Access is a tier for the purposes of paying for programming, yet HD Access is not a tier for the purpose of channel placement. It can't work both ways.


Thanks for dumbing it down at the end there...
What I dont understand is WHEN D* said HD Access was a tier. Since it is no longer the HD Package, and is HD Access (tier_x)


----------



## pardon (Jul 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes.. the original HD Package covered the HDNets.
> That package no longer exists.
> 
> DirecTV did create the HD Extra Pack.
> ...


---------------------------------------

So can I sue DirecTV because they changed my programming without my permission? They added a HD Access that didn't exist before and removed my HD Package and never Added the HD Extra Pack. Are they allowed to add packages/fees/tiers to my account without me asking first?

I think that by switching all the accounts from the HD Package to the HD Access they implicitly made them equivalent.

If not, they can switch me whenever they want from Cinemax to Showtime to Sports Pack because the pricing is the same.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

pardon said:


> ---------------------------------------
> 
> So can I sue DirecTV because they changed my programming without my permission? They added a HD Access that didn't exist before and removed my HD Package and never Added the HD Extra Pack. Are they allowed to add packages/fees/tiers to my account without me asking first?
> 
> ...


Yes, you can sue DirecTV...whether you win or not will involve the facts of the case and applicable law.

In the DirecTV User Agreement you give DirecTV the right to change anything including the prices, channels, etc. You may cancel, but may be held liable for a cancellation fee based on your programming commitment.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

D* told me if I didn't keep the HD package, I'd have to send the HD equipment back, and pay a penalty.

So to hold D* to the "existing contract" is a "strong arm tactic"?

Where are you getting this $1.30 figure?

D* is the one moving the channel to a higher priced, lower subscriber tier, but the burden should be on HDNet?

You're saying that there is _no one_ who doesn't want to pay for this new upper echelon tier who even occasionally tunes into the HDNet channels because they are available at the current price? Your argument is that everyone who tunes into these channels will pay the extra price?


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

gdn said:


> And as much as I like Directv - this is the problem with them and most of corporate America. Directv doesn't need HDnet as much today - but they did several years ago and I still argue that we wouldn't have and Directv wouldn't have the HD content and subscribers they have today if it weren't for HDNet in the early days.
> 
> So now that Directv doesn't "need" HDnet as much - they want to reintrepret the contract and screw their partners and try to benefit. They don't care- they'll find new ones or they've got 70 others ones now - who cares about the original one that helped get them where they are. If they wrote a contract that says what we've been led to believe it does - then Directv needs to pay up through the end of 08 and not put HDNet in an "extra cost" class to subscribers.


DEAD ON ... Direct TV treats older customers, who made their existence possible, the same way.

There would be no Direct TV without people like me that paid $ 500 for receivers back in 1997. There would have been no Direct TV HD .. without HD Net the last few years.

Why would you expect HD Net to be treated any differently than some old customer who has to call and beg 6 reps to get a receiver upgrade?

HD Net has skipped the begging part and put there larger legal services to work.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What if HD Access is not paying for programming...
> And all the HD programming, is tied to the base contracts for the channels (Be it Food Network's contract, is based on subscriber count to Food Network.. Not Food Network-HD; And HD-Theater is tied to Discovery, so on...)
> 
> And HD Access is the same as SuperFan (where it is just access to HD feeds, but nothing more to the base channel "owner")


The problem with that argument is HD Theatre is not in the same package as Discovery it is in a higher one.

I really do think that HDNET is arguing based on HD Theatre not being in the Extra pack - and we all thought in the beginning it was going to be for the same reason - no sd counterpart.

I think you may find that to stop HDNET then they will move HD Theatre to the extra pack. Then HD Access is truely an access not a tier.

One thing I also picked up on in their filing was that when the HD Tier was introduced in 2003 and D* invoked a clause in the contract it was to reduce the fee to HDNET as a % of what D* gets for the tier vs the number of channels in that tier. So if it is the same clause and HDNET gets $1.30 now then the price hasnt changed but the channels have gone up by 700% so HDNET stands to only get something like 20c per sub (Still x 3million = a lot per month).

I also think (from memory so could well be wrong) that a TRO can be granted without a reply from D* if the judge thinks their case is worthy. I think D* gets a few days to reply but it is quick as it is a TRO. They can then appeal (again quickly) against it if they feel it warrants it. Currently the only thing it would affect until Dec 15th is D* not allowed to say HDNET channels are in the extra pack.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

say-what said:


> Exactly, technically there has never been an HD tier to speak of until they proposed the HD Extra package. Based on the limited information in the initial petition, either side could have a valid argument as to why they are correct.


I'll call you on that one. There has always been an HD package, until they changed the wording to 'HD access monthly' a couple of months ago.

From my March 2006 invoice: *HD Package Monthly 10.99*



Ken S said:


> Carl,
> 
> I understand that...just not sure the Judge will go for it. But, as I said, if he does and grants a TRO it's a very strong sign about which way he's leaning on the facts.
> *Interesting that HDNet requested a jury trial...I'm surprised that DirecTV's contracts don't mandate non-jury trials*.


It has nothing to do with D* contract. If I remember correctly, Texas law establishes that civil plaintiffs are entitled to trial by jury, if so requested. That's one of the reasons that Texas has such a long history of large civil litigation awards, and why tort reform (i.e. damages maximums) took so long to come into law a few years back.



bhelton71 said:


> ...........
> I would guess while most people would enjoy at least some of their programming - it probably wasn't reason #1 to buy an HDTV. I know personally for myself, I certainly didn't get Directv w/ HD to watch HDNet. I have only watched possibly 24 hours of programming on both HDNet and the movie channel in the 2+ years that I have had the HD package ( or whatever it is called now ). My motivation was ESPNHD and an HR10 DVR for my locals off air.


That's you. You have to look at when this contract started -- 2003. There was precious little HD content then and no 24 hr HD content. Except HDNet, and then HDNet movies. And yes, they sell ads -- in HD. I, and many others I know, bought into HD for HDNet and hockey, which they had quite a bit of. The entire 3rd period of which had no broadcasters -- just the sound of the game as if you were in the arena! 



Earl Bonovich said:


> It all depends on what is the definition of a "package"
> 
> You can have HD Access...
> But:
> ...


Read my first paragraph re: names changes on the package. That's what a judge and jury will look at -- intent sure is strong there, IMHO.

Additionally, your arguments about people getting it free for a trial and then not dropping it is a huge straw dog. We already know that if you don't sign up for it, you don't get it. So, you lose HDNet/HDNet Movies which you (contractually according to Cuban) had a basic tier right to before they changed the names on the invoices. So, they are harmed contractually as they lose eyes, and the customer is losing out, too. That's where they are going with this.

It's a very strong case from my POV and what you are suggesting is irrelevant to the matter as filed.



highheater said:


> .....................
> 
> *There would be no Direct TV without people like me that paid $ 500 for receivers back in 1997. There would have been no Direct TV HD .. without HD Net the last few years. *
> ...............


Very well put. I think that's a basis of where Cuban is coming from. In addition to the D* contract polka, of course.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> D* told me if I didn't keep the HD package, I'd have to send the HD equipment back, and pay a penalty.
> 
> So to hold D* to the "existing contract" is a "strong arm tactic"?
> 
> ...


As for what DirecTV told you about the HD Package... and having to return the equipment... I have not seen a single posts by someone that has turned of HD Package, and had to return their equipment...

Actuall the going to "court" is the strong hold tatic... but yes... I still think it is their tatic because they have seen the next contract, and they want to get what they can out of this one.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it: I do not see HD Access as a tier... so there is only 1 HD "tier" and that is the HD Extra Pack.

Actually no... my argument is that everyone that has the corresponding tier that HDNet is in, has to pay for it... as that is usually how the subscriber/numbers work... not based on the number of people that actually "tune" the channel, just the number of people that have access to it.

As for the $1.30... I picked it somewhere in this discussion from somewhere else... but until I re-locate the source, I will discontinue using an exact number and referr to it as $$


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

F1 Fan said:


> The problem with that argument is HD Theatre is not in the same package as Discovery it is in a higher one.
> 
> I really do think that HDNET is arguing based on HD Theatre not being in the Extra pack - and we all thought in the beginning it was going to be for the same reason - no sd counterpart.
> 
> ...


Well, unless we can see the contract from Discovery Channels... we don't know. It is possible that HD Theater is tied to Discovery Channel (For viewership numbers).... as they have had to recently redo their contract for the inclusion of Discovery, TLC, Science and future launches.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BK EH said:


> Additionally, your arguments about people getting it free for a trial and then not dropping it is a huge straw dog. We already know that if you don't sign up for it, you don't get it. So, you lose HDNet/HDNet Movies which you (contractually according to Cuban) had a basic tier right to before they changed the names on the invoices. So, they are harmed contractually as they lose eyes, and the customer is losing out, too. That's where they are going with this.


How is that any different in past years, where people got HD Package for free for a limited time, but then had to signup after it was over?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As for the $1.30... I picked it somewhere in this discussion from somewhere else... but until I re-locate the source, I will discontinue using an exact number and referr to it as $$


Found it:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1266286&postcount=84

So Ken S... where did you get that number from...
If we can't confirm it, we will have to going forward refer to it as $$


----------



## sawCME (Apr 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I don't know how many times I have to repeat it: I do not see HD Access as a tier... so there is only 1 HD "tier" and that is the HD Extra Pack.


Per the DirecTV Website, the Family Package with HD Access gets you the "the best in HD for the whole family with channels like the Food Network, HGTV, National Geographic and more."

So, given this, which is the Package, or tier, the Family Pack or HD Access? It must be one or the other, as one of them grants you the ability to view HD Channels that you otherwise cannot.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.
> 
> And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


Based on what is available to us..

emotionally, I side with HDNet. but unfortunately I gotta believe the DIRECTV lawyers did their homework prior to implementing the Extra Pack. (tend to believe this because of the careful wording on the website when rumors of the Extra Pack was coming, but actual information could not be found.)

Much easier to say HDNet is right in this fight. But technically, Directv may win. This could change depending on what else the contract stipulates.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually in all honesty... if everything was the same... and the names were changed... all my arguments would still apply... and I would not be singing a different tune... But hey... since you have already classified everyone that way...
> 
> Wouldn't mater if it COMCAST, DishNetwork, or what...
> 
> 30 out of 70... I am slowing down... I need to get back above the 50% mark.


The evidence suggests you would be.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As for what DirecTV told you about the HD Package... and having to return the equipment... I have not seen a single posts by someone that has turned of HD Package, and had to return their equipment...
> 
> Actuall the going to "court" is the strong hold tatic... but yes... I still think it is their tatic because they have seen the next contract, and they want to get what they can out of this one.
> 
> ...


All I can tell you is what they told me when I signed up.

So not wanting D* to move HDNet into a higher priced, lower subscriber tier is just a cover because they've already seen the next contract, over a year before it's time? Your saying it has nothing to do with maximizing HDNet's audience?

D* deciding to move the networks had nothing to do with HDNet's real motivations for fighting it? You're saying HDNet would have just rolled over and accepted this new arrangement if this new contract was more to their liking?

You're saying D* just wrote the next contract without any negotiation with, or input from HD Net. Then they just sprang it on HDNet over a year ahead of time. And you know this is about a future contract how?

You can't get the "Xtra" SD channels without having the "Choice" programming. The "Xtra" is a tier above Choice. To get HD programming you must pay for it. You can't get HD without getting SD. It is a tier above non-HD programming. To get the new HD Extra package, that is a tier above the basic HD package. You can't get the Extra pack without having the basic HD access. D* HD package is now, or will be in Dec., a two tier programming system, three if you count that you cannot get HD without SD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV now has dozens more HD networks, and mroe still comming.


Even a world class DIRECTV apologist like yourself must realize that all the new channels (including premium movie channels) put together don't make up more than a few channels per day worth of HD content. HD Net and HD Net Movies offer all HD, all the time.

HD Net and HD Net movies are critical to any respectable HD channel lineup.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Found it:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1266286&postcount=84
> 
> So Ken S... where did you get that number from...
> If we can't confirm it, we will have to going forward refer to it as $$


It was from an article I read. I'll see if I can't find a link.

Updated:
This isn't the original article I read, but it has similar information Variety


----------



## cbearnm (Sep 6, 2006)

Since the only 'official' word we have so far is from HDNet, that is all that can be used as guidance. Once D* responds then the debate can begin in earnest. But why let that stop us?

Based on the filing, HDN has claimed that D* has agreed to distribute HDNet and HDNM on their most widely distributed tier. It is plain to see that effective 12/15/07, D* does not intend to do that. The whole 'package' argument is a smoke screen.

The intent of the agreement (as presented by HDN) is that HDNet(s) is available to as wide an audience as any other HD offering. Moving them to HD Extra (or whatever it is called, it doesn't matter) prevents that. If there is 1 less subscriber on that package than on the 'base' package, HDNet is harmed. Considering that you have to have the base to get the extra, that is an easy assumption to make.

Since HDNet's revenue is based, in part, on their advertisers spending, placing them at anything other than maximum exposure is a breach of the contract on D*'s part. Of course, the courts will determine the viability of HDN's claims. But if the contract is presented by HDN accurately (and they would be ill advised to try to stretch it too far), they have a good chance in this case.

All that being said, I really see this as an attempt to force an extension of the contract for the most benefit to HDN. Cuban is a smart guy and a shrewd business man. If we, as consumers, benefit, so much the better. But I have a feeling that even if HDN prevails, we are going to be paying at least $15 for the HD that we want.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

man_rob said:


> You can't get the "Xtra" SD channels without having the "Choice" programming. The "Xtra" is a tier above Choice. To get HD programming you must pay for it. You can't get HD without getting SD. It is a tier above non-HD programming. To get the new HD Extra package, that is a tier above the basic HD package. You can't get the Extra pack without having the basic HD access. D* HD package is now, or will be in Dec., a two tier programming system, three if you count that you cannot get HD without SD.


Well, that $9.99 HD fee is an access fee - that's all it is. If it were a programming tier fee, it would vary for each underlying program package - Family Package HD would be the lowest fee as it provides the fewest channel, the Choice Package would be somewhat higher and the Premier Package would be the highest. But it's not an HD tier, everyone pays the same $9.99 for HD Access regardless of how many HD channels they gain access to. The only "HD Tier" is the HD Extra Package and it's available to all.

The poor Family pack people only get 9 channels + locals for their 9.99. Choice gets 30 + locals. Choice Extra gets 40 + locals. Each of these also get access to premium HD's if they subscribe to any premium channels. Then Premier gets up to 150. All varying numbers of channels based on the same HD Access fee.

So to say that the HD Access fee is payment for an HD Tier that gives you all the HD Channels doesn't fly. The HD Access fee only gives you access to HD Programming based on your underlying subscriptions.

There is no current HD tier per se.


----------



## vtfan99 (Apr 12, 2006)

say-what said:


> Well, that $9.99 HD fee is an access fee - that's all it is. If it were a programming tier fee, it would vary for each underlying program package - Family Package HD would be the lowest fee as it provides the fewest channel, the Choice Package would be somewhat higher and the Premier Package would be the highest. But it's not an HD tier, everyone pays the same $9.99 for HD Access regardless of how many HD channels they gain access to. The only "HD Tier" is the HD Extra Package and it's available to all.
> 
> The poor Family pack people only get 9 channels + locals for their 9.99. Choice gets 30 + locals. Choice Extra gets 40 + locals. Each of these also get access to premium HD's if they subscribe to any premium channels. Then Premier gets up to 150. All varying numbers of channels based on the same HD Access fee.
> 
> ...


I never really thought of it that way. Once you spell it out like that, I tend to agree with you.

I do have to say that it seems this entire thread is a debate between Earl and "man_rob"....our posts are just scattered at random in between to keep it on the level.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

say-what said:


> Well, that $9.99 HD fee is an access fee - that's all it is. If it were a programming tier fee, it would vary for each underlying program package - Family Package HD would be the lowest fee as it provides the fewest channel, the Choice Package would be somewhat higher and the Premier Package would be the highest. But it's not an HD tier, everyone pays the same $9.99 for HD Access regardless of how many HD channels they gain access to. The only "HD Tier" is the HD Extra Package and it's available to all.
> 
> The poor Family pack people only get 9 channels + locals for their 9.99. Choice gets 30 + locals. Choice Extra gets 40 + locals. Each of these also get access to premium HD's if they subscribe to any premium channels. Then Premier gets up to 150. All varying numbers of channels based on the same HD Access fee.
> 
> ...


You're playing word games now. You can't get HD programming unless you pay for the HD package.

You can't D* programming at all if you don't pay for it. Does that mean that family or Choice aren't tiers?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Found it:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1266286&postcount=84
> 
> So Ken S... where did you get that number from...
> If we can't confirm it, we will have to going forward refer to it as $$


found it
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970463.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=HDNet



> In contrast to the free carriage of HD duplicates, Cuban charges his cable/satellite clients a stiff monthly fee of $1.37 a subscriber for HDNet and HDNet Movies, which could tempt DirecTV and his other clients to say no when the license-fee contract comes up for renewal.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

shollowa74 said:


> I have not seen a copy of Directv's reply yet. I believe they have 30 days to respond but the rules may be different in the case of a request for a TRO.
> 
> Most of my information on court filings come from Lexis, but when you get down to the state court level information is a little tougher to come by and it is much more expensive to get a hold of.


The TRO hearing should come much quicker than 30 days. It can happen the same days as service in some cases.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> The evidence suggests you would be.


Well... glad that you have already made up your mind on what I would say...


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

say-what said:


> Well, that $9.99 HD fee is an access fee - that's all it is. If it were a programming tier fee, it would vary for each underlying program package - Family Package HD would be the lowest fee as it provides the fewest channel, the Choice Package would be somewhat higher and the Premier Package would be the highest. But it's not an HD tier, everyone pays the same $9.99 for HD Access regardless of how many HD channels they gain access to. The only "HD Tier" is the HD Extra Package and it's available to all.
> 
> The poor Family pack people only get 9 channels + locals for their 9.99. Choice gets 30 + locals. Choice Extra gets 40 + locals. Each of these also get access to premium HD's if they subscribe to any premium channels. Then Premier gets up to 150. All varying numbers of channels based on the same HD Access fee.
> 
> ...


Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. I love D* but IMO this is unfair to HDNet and their subscribers. BOOOOOO D*.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> found it
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970463.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=HDNet


from the same article (august 2007)



> And Cuban says his price is high because HDNet and HDNet Movies mostly reside on tiers that cost subscribers extra monthly fees. And Cuban's prices are much cheaper when cable ops move his webs from a tier to HD Basic, where all subscribers with HD hookups can watch it.
> 
> The accelerating push to HD Basic will only ramp up subscriber demand for high def; Cuban is convinced that he'll be able to carve out a lucrative niche for his two services.


Earl: can i change my plea? :lol:

Now I see a bit more where he is coming from. Or did he just have an amazing premonition in August?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> Even a world class DIRECTV apologist like yourself must realize that all the new channels (including premium movie channels) put together don't make up more than a few channels per day worth of HD content. HD Net and HD Net Movies offer all HD, all the time.
> 
> HD Net and HD Net movies are critical to any respectable HD channel lineup.


Honestly...

I have watched more all the new HD channels, in the last month... then I hae on HDNet in the last 4 years. No joke.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

man_rob said:


> You're playing word games now. You can't get HD programming unless you pay for the HD package.
> 
> You can't D* programming at all if you don't pay for it. Does that mean that family or Choice aren't tiers?


Your HD programming is based on your underlying subscriptions. If you want access to the HD programming, you pay the HD Access fee, which is the same, whether you get 9 channels or 150 channels. It's not a programming fee in the sense that it's not based on the underlying number of channels you recieve like your normal programming package fees are set.

Call it what you want, but the fact that there is an argument that's going on for numerous pages suggests that resolution to HDNet's lawsuit isn't going to be as clear cut as HDNet or DirecTV may suggest.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

F1 Fan said:


> Earl: can i change my plea? :lol:


 Hey... isn't that what a discussion is about... to get the ideas out there... and the information, so that you can form, or update your opinion on a topic?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> It was from an article I read. I'll see if I can't find a link.
> 
> Updated:
> This isn't the original article I read, but it has similar information Variety





F1 Fan said:


> found it
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970463.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=HDNet


Thank you... $1.37 it is until we hear other wise.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Um, You can't even have the HD equipment without having the HD package.
> 
> Please show me where it it stated that you can get any HD channels without the HD package.
> 
> ...


Good point. You cannot get the free HD local channels without the HD reciever. Good luck asking for one and not paying the $9.99. Has anyone tried to do that?


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

CJTE said:


> Thanks for dumbing it down at the end there...
> What I dont understand is WHEN D* said HD Access was a tier. Since it is no longer the HD Package, and is HD Access (tier_x)


According to section 22 of the TRO Petition, the contract says "If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such service (the "[HD] Tier")...

According to section 22 of the TRO petition, on June 3, 2003, DIRECTV issued a press release announcing the new HDTV premium package referenced in the contract. In the press release, Eddy Hartenstein (of DirecTV) noted "Beginning July 1st, DIRECTV will offer a new HDTV programming package consisting of Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies. This package will be offered to customers a la carte for $10.99 per month and will include selected sporting events in high-definition."

According to section 26 of the TRO: "This announcement formally triggered the "HD Tier" provision of the contract. As required, Defendants broadcast the two HDNet networks on the most widely distributed tier for which they charged a fee (then called the "HD Access" fee). Because the HD Tier clause was triggered, Defendants also had the ability to decrease its payments to HDNet by a set percentage for each HDTV network that was included in the HD tier. *DIRECTV immediately took advantage of that provision and reduced its payments (due to the inclusion of ESPN HD and Discovery HD Theater). The fee was reduced further when other HDTV channels were offered/* _(highlighted by me)_.

So, as of July 2003, by taking advantage of the HD tier provision in the contract, DirecTV acknowledged that HD Access is "a tier or package". If it wasn't "a tier or package", they wouldn't have been entitled to reduce the payments that they made to HDNet. The fact that they haven't raised the payments to HDNet means that they have continued to consider HD Access to be "a tier or package".


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Good point. You cannot get the free HD local channels without the HD reciever. Good luck asking for one and not paying the $9.99. Has anyone tried to do that?


Sure don't get an H20 and HR20

Get one of the many other used receivers out there... and you have access to all the OTA you want, and SD programming (if you activate it).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

man_rob said:


> You're playing word games now. You can't get HD programming unless you pay for the HD package.
> 
> You can't D* programming at all if you don't pay for it. Does that mean that family or Choice aren't tiers?


Isn't that the point? The wording and the interpretation of the wording is going to make all of the difference in the world on this case. Contracts are all about how they are worded.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> According to section 22 of the TRO Petition, the contract says "If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such service (the "[HD] Tier")...
> 
> According to section 22 of the TRO petition, on June 3, 2003, DIRECTV issued a press release announcing the new HDTV premium package referenced in the contract. In the press release, Eddy Hartenstein (of DirecTV) noted "Beginning July 1st, DIRECTV will offer a new HDTV programming package consisting of Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies. This package will be offered to customers a la carte for $10.99 per month and will include selected sporting events in high-definition."
> 
> ...


that was my point a couple of hundred posts ago  I think D* might have made their own bed. When they changed HD Access earlier this year they didnt pay the old price again and said it was still a tier.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

say-what said:


> So to say that the HD Access fee is payment for an HD Tier that gives you all the HD Channels doesn't fly. The HD Access fee only gives you access to HD Programming based on your underlying subscriptions.
> 
> There is no current HD tier per se.


Then DirecTV wasn't entitled to reduce their payments to HDNet based on the HD Tier provision in the contract. If their is no HD tier, then DirecTV has been in violation of their contract since July 2003 (assuming that the TRO petition is accurate).


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> According to section 22 of the TRO Petition, the contract says "If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such service (the "[HD] Tier")...
> 
> According to section 22 of the TRO petition, on June 3, 2003, DIRECTV issued a press release announcing the new HDTV premium package referenced in the contract. In the press release, Eddy Hartenstein (of DirecTV) noted "Beginning July 1st, DIRECTV will offer a new HDTV programming package consisting of Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies. This package will be offered to customers a la carte for $10.99 per month and will include selected sporting events in high-definition."
> 
> ...


It wasn't an HD Access fee in 2003, it was referred to as the HD Package fee back then. HD Access is a relatively new term. See my earlier post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1270373&postcount=36


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sure don't get an H20 and HR20
> 
> Get one of the many other used receivers out there... and you have access to all the OTA you want, and SD programming (if you activate it).


Obviously I greatly appreciate everything you have done here. But I am amazed at how you constantly have an answer for everything, when it is obvious (as in this case) what the deal is the the D* HD access & HDnet. I do believe HDnet wanted to be put on total choice AFTER they were moved to the HD extra tier, not before. Is that correct?

The real issue seems to me that D* changed the situation with regards to HDnet while they had a valid signed contract. So HDnet responding by wanting to be put on total choice, is sort of an obvious reply by them IMHO. I do believe D* acted first here.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

say-what said:


> It wasn't an HD Access fee in 2003, it was referred to as the HD Package fee back then. HD Access is a relatively new term. See my earlier post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1270373&postcount=36


But it is technically the same thing just called something different. And that is what I see as totally inappropriate. Changing the name so you claim it has a different purpose. I didn't wantto use the "H" word but it is right there.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> According to section 22 of the TRO Petition, the contract says "If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such service (the "[HD] Tier")...
> 
> According to section 22 of the TRO petition, on June 3, 2003, DIRECTV issued a press release announcing the new HDTV premium package referenced in the contract. In the press release, Eddy Hartenstein (of DirecTV) noted "Beginning July 1st, DIRECTV will offer a new HDTV programming package consisting of Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies. This package will be offered to customers a la carte for $10.99 per month and will include selected sporting events in high-definition."
> 
> ...


About 5 pages back I pointed out that obvious hole in the DirecTV apologist's persistent claims that HD access isn't a "tier", but I have yet to see any of them address the issue. Clearly, by invoking that clause and starting to pay HDNet less for their channels when they created the $9.99 HD package, DirecTV themselves defined it as an HD tier and used the fact that is was an HD tier to start paying HDNet less when the HD Access tier was created because the contract allowed them to do so if HDNet was placed in a tier with other HD channels.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

gcisko said:


> But it is technically the same thing just called something different. And that is what I see as totally inappropriate. Changing the name so you claim it has a different purpose. I didn't wantto use the "H" word but it is right there.


Originally, when DirecTV introduced the 10.99 HD Package, it was a tier and everyone who paid the fee got all the channels. That changed when it became the 9.99 HD Access Fee and payment no longer guaranteed that you'd get all the HD channels as D10 and D11 went online.

The entire lawsuit is going to be about how these clauses are interpreted and you're going to need the ENTIRE contract to do that, not just those clauses conveniently selected by HDNet in their initial filing.

I'm not taking any sides, just pointing out that things aren't as clear as either side may want you to believe.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

The HDnet is just the latest in a long line of tier reassignments that have left people bewildered. Direct TV has consistently taken programming that people have received in their current packages and reassigned it to other packages in hopes you'll suck it up and cough up the dough to get what you have been getting all along.

Three examples

1. Folding locals and the associated $ 3-5 charge into new base level selections.
2. Reassingment of channels to 'plus' package.
3. Golf Channel moved from sports package to plus package.

While there have been some grandfathering of past services, those will be lost if you undertake any kind of unrelated upgrade (for example to HD). 

The bottom line - to upgrade to HD I've got to accept locals that I don't pay for now, sign up for plus to receive channels I already get, and keep a sports package that is inferior to the one I receive now - all at a cost of an additonal $ 5- 10 in addition to the HD access fee.

The manner in which Direct TV is handling HD Net only suggests the situation will get worse before getting any better.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Earl, the day they were able to track my viewing habits that closely I'd be gone. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid I don't trust anybody that much.


what makes you so sure that they can't, they know what ppv movies you watch and they do sell information to Neilson media reserch, I know it is anonamous but the technology is there, how do you think in the active menu they get the what is hot information? there you can get an idea of what other people are watching now... :eek2: and personaly i don't care if they know i watched 6 hours of porn this week it is just tv I can live with out it


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

vtfan99 said:


> I never really thought of it that way. Once you spell it out like that, I tend to agree with you.
> 
> I do have to say that it seems this entire thread is a debate between Earl and "man_rob"....our posts are just scattered at random in between to keep it on the level.


+1

That is a much clearer way to spell it out as an access fee and not a tier.


----------



## afulkerson (Jan 14, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Good point. You cannot get the free HD local channels without the HD reciever. Good luck asking for one and not paying the $9.99. Has anyone tried to do that?


Yes I got a H20-100 without getting the HD package.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

say-what said:


> It wasn't an HD Access fee in 2003, it was referred to as the HD Package fee back then. HD Access is a relatively new term. See my earlier post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1270373&postcount=36


Changing it's name after DirecTV had already defined it as a tier and then used the fact that it was a tier in order to reduce payments to HDNet because their channels had been placed in the tier by DirectV, doesn't suddenly make it not a tier. :nono2:

It certainly was a tier when that definition allowed DirecTV to pay HDNet less, so trying to claim that it's not now a tier now does not pass a credibility test in my book.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> Obviously I greatly appreciate everything you have done here. But I am amazed at how you constantly have an answer for everything, when it is obvious (as in this case) what the deal is the the D* HD access & HDnet. I do believe HDnet wanted to be put on total choice AFTER they were moved to the HD extra tier, not before. Is that correct?


That is not what you asked in that question... I just answered what you asked... So yes... for that question, I had an answer... sorry to disappoint you.

I am sure HDNet wanted to be in the base tier, or HD Access or what ever that will get them a higher subscriber base... isn't that the goal of ANY content provider?


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How is that any different in past years, where people got HD Package for free for a limited time, but then had to signup after it was over?


I never said it was any different. You threw out the straw dog, not me -- it has *nothing* to do with the TRO as filed. Which is HDNet properties being removed from the base package contrary to contract.



Bill Broderick said:


> According to section 22 of the TRO Petition, the contract says "If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such service (the "[HD] Tier")...
> 
> According to section 22 of the TRO petition, on June 3, 2003, DIRECTV issued a press release announcing the new HDTV premium package referenced in the contract. In the press release, Eddy Hartenstein (of DirecTV) noted "Beginning July 1st, DIRECTV will offer a new HDTV programming package consisting of Discovery HD Theater, ESPN HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies. This package will be offered to customers a la carte for $10.99 per month and will include selected sporting events in high-definition."
> 
> ...


As one Bill to another, I say "spot on analysis" and it says what I have been trying to say, only better. Good research!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> But it is technically the same thing just called something different. And that is what I see as totally inappropriate. Changing the name so you claim it has a different purpose. I didn't wantto use the "H" word but it is right there.


I guess that is a fundimental difference in the way "we" are looking at it..
---------
I don't see HD Access and the former HD Package, as "technically" the same thing at all.

It is functionally different... HD Package before, gave you access to channels that didn't exist before... Eventually ESPN / TNT were added to it, but when it started the HD Package, truely gave you more channels...

Now... the HD Access is just giving you access to the HD versions of the channels you are already getting... if you don't have HD Access, you will still have the SD versions... you are not getting any new content...

HD Theater is again a screwball to that definition....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> About 5 pages back I pointed out that obvious hole in the DirecTV apologist's persistent claims that HD access isn't a "tier", but I have yet to see any of them address the issue. Clearly, by invoking that clause and starting to pay HDNet less for their channels when they created the $9.99 HD package, DirecTV themselves defined it as an HD tier and used the fact that is was an HD tier to start paying HDNet less when the HD Access tier was created because the contract allowed them to do so if HDNet was placed in a tier with other HD channels.


Yes, but I think what is being argued is that particular tier is now gone .. What folks are saying (I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, BTW) is that there is still only going to be one tier which will is now called HD Extra. Even if the previous tier was called "HD Access," the idea is that the new fee (called "HD Access") allows you to view the channels in a different (albeit better) format.

It truly is all semantics .. Is Animal Planet SD the same channel as Animal Planet HD? DIRECTV is saying "yes they are" and HDNet is saying "No they are not." HDNet did pointedly go out of it's way to talk about Discovery Theater HD which doesn't have an SD counterpart. I'm sure that DIRECTV will claim that it is the same thing with the shows at different times .. Again, who's right on that one?

HDNet filed the lawsuit, so obviously they want more money than they think that they are going to get under the current circumstances. In the end, this suit will likely be dropped as both sides go back to the drawing board and work it out. I suspect that HDNet needs DIRECTV more than DIRECTV needs HDNet, but they both need each other to some degree .. The best plan will be to work out a new mutually agreed upon contract and toss out the old one. I'm pretty sure, though that $1.37/month ain't gonna happen this time, though.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

The "HD access fee" is going to defray the costs of carrying these HD channels. From what we see from Cuban, this contract was written to cover the case where D* decided at some point they wanted to charge extra for HD and to make sure Cuban didn't get cut out of the picture when it happened. And then D* did cut him out of the picture.

Although I side with Cuban on this, D* definitely is trying to be sneaky just to avoid doing what the committed to do, I find my interests lie on the other side of the main point. If Cuban succeeds at forcing his way back into the main HD tier, D* will raise our rates. They're not going to eat $2.50 per HD customer.

And since I don't want to pay this extra fee, seeing the prospect if it being made mandatory doesn't please me.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> About 5 pages back I pointed out that obvious hole in the DirecTV apologist's persistent claims that HD access isn't a "tier", but I have yet to see any of them address the issue. Clearly, by invoking that clause and starting to pay HDNet less for their channels when they created the $9.99 HD package, DirecTV themselves defined it as an HD tier and used the fact that is was an HD tier to start paying HDNet less when the HD Access tier was created because the contract allowed them to do so if HDNet was placed in a tier with other HD channels.


Where has DirecTV stated HD Access is a "tier"... where ?

If you have the HBO Package... you get HBO... you don't get HBO-HD
If you must add the HD-ACCESS to get the HBO-HD programming... which is the same "content" as the HBO, just in a different format.

HD Access is not a tier....

It is the same as SuperFan is to Sunday Ticket...
as HD Access is to Total Choice (or Premier, or what ever you have)


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> If Cuban succeeds at forcing his way back into the main HD tier, D* will raise our rates. They're not going to eat $2.50 per HD customer.


You're right on this .. The cost, I suspect would not be quite that high since apparently there are smaller payments as more HD channels exist. But DIRECTV will not eat the cost .. It will show up on our bill ..


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Changing it's name after DirecTV had already defined it as a tier and then used the fact that it was a tier in order to reduce payments to HDNet because their channels had been placed in the tier by DirectV, doesn't suddenly make it not a tier. :nono2:
> 
> It certainly was a tier when that definition allowed DirecTV to pay HDNet less, so trying to claim that it's not now a tier now does not pass a credibility test in my book.


Furthermore, if it suddenly stopped being a tier when DirecTV changed it to "HD Access" do you think that DirecTV stopped paying HDNet the reduced fees that they started paying them when it was a tier, and raised their payments to HDNet back up to what they were before HDNet was (by DirecTV's definition) in the HD tier?

I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that DirecTV didn't go back to the higher "non-tier" payments for HDNet when the name change occurred, and that will be the fatal flaw in any attempt to claim that the name change somehow made the package something other than an HD tier.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I guess that is a fundimental difference in the way "we" are looking at it..
> ---------
> I don't see HD Access and the former HD Package, as "technically" the same thing at all.
> 
> ...


So I guess what you are saying is that there currently is not a D* programming solution that would fit the HDnet programming requirements. Too bad there is still that contract thing. Until the contract is up it seems that HDnet should be available to anyone with HD access as that is the most widely distributed solution. You are correct that is should not go on Total Choice.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Changing it's name after DirecTV had already defined it as a tier and then used the fact that it was a tier in order to reduce payments to HDNet because their channels had been placed in the tier by DirectV, doesn't suddenly make it not a tier. :nono2:
> 
> It certainly was a tier when that definition allowed DirecTV to pay HDNet less, so trying to claim that it's not now a tier now does not pass a credibility test in my book.


The portions of the contract cited by HDNet don't prevent DirecTV from changing the channels offered in the "HD tier." The base definition for a programming tier that most people will understand is that anyone who subscribes to that programming tier gets all included channels. The HD Access fee does not do this.

For the current version of HD Access to be a tier as HDNet argues based on the past composition of the now defunct HD Package, then people subscribing to the Family Package with HD Access should get all channels included with HD Access, but that's certainly not the case - in fact, under the new HD distribution system by DirecTV, the Family Package is losing access to ESPN and maybe TNT (I forget).

The clauses cited by HDNet don't prohibit DirecTV from changing the composition of the "HD tier", they just require DirecTV to include HDNet in the widest distributed "HD tier." DirecTV has in effect done away with an HD tier for most HD channels as that term was previously understood and contemplated when the HDNet carriage agreement was originally executed.

It's all contextual - each clause read in context of the others and each term defined based on the understanding of the parties at the time of the agreement.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gcisko said:


> So I guess what you are saying is that there currently is not a D* programming solution that would fit the HDnet programming requirements. Too bad there is still that contract thing. Until the contract is up it seems that HDnet should be available to anyone with HD access as that is the most widely distributed solution. You are correct that is should not go on Total Choice.


Not saying that at all: HD Extra Pack (as that is a tier) would be the place they would need to go... as it is the only "HD Tier" available for distribution.

If HD Extra Pack was eliminated... then were would they go?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Furthermore, if it suddenly stopped being a tier when DirecTV changed it to "HD Access" do you think that DirecTV stopped paying HDNet the reduced fees that they started paying them when it was a tier, and raised their payments to HDNet back up to what they were before HDNet was by (DirecTV's definition) in the HD tier?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that DirecTV didn't go back to the higher "non-tier" payments for HDNet when the name change occurred, and that will be the fatal flaw in any attempt to claim that the name change somehow made the package something other than an HD tier.


We don't know that .. DIRECTV may now be paying based on the changed tier which includes Smithsonian, MGM, etc.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not saying that at all: HD Extra Pack (as that is a tier) would be the place they would need to go... as it is the only "HD Tier" available for distribution.
> 
> If HD Extra Pack was eliminated... then were would they go?


I believe that to be a totally bogus solution and 100% not in the spirit of the contract that was signed. It seems programming and names of programming packages were purposely changed no doubt to end up where we are today with HD programing.

Fascinating as it is


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

say-what said:


> For the current version of HD Access to be a tier as HDNet argues based on the past composition of the now defunct HD Package, then people subscribing to the Family Package with HD Access should get all channels included with HD Access, but that's certainly not the case - in fact, under the new HD distribution system by DirecTV, the Family Package is losing access to ESPN and maybe TNT (I forget).


Correct... look at their site:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114

The "channels" change when you pick a different package... but the constant factor is the HD Access fee...

You will pay $9.99 for HD Access on the Family Tier and only get 5 channels today.

YOu will pay $9.99 for HD Access on the Choice and only get 22 channels today.

etc... (Note those counts, that is not including any add-ons like HBO, Showtime, HD Extra Pack, Sports Tier, and your locals)


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

gcisko said:


> I believe that to be a totally bogus solution and 100% not in the spirit of the contract that was signed. It seems programming and names of programming packages were purposely changed no doubt to end up where we are today with HD programing.


That is not prohibited by the clauses cited by HDNet and is expressly contemplated therein, and hence within the "spirit of the contract."


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gcisko said:


> I believe that to be a totally bogus solution and 100% not in the spirit of the contract that was signed. It seems programming and names of programming packages were purposely changed no doubt to end up where we are today with HD programing.
> 
> Fascinating as it is


Well, you are probably correct about the spirit of the contract. Unfortunately, the wording will probably win out. The lawyers who drew up the contracts for HDNet harped on being in a particular channel grouping and the methodology is different than they expected. The original contract should have simply been written better in the beginning because I'm sure DIRECTV would have agreed at the time .. That's when the spirit would be most effective.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where has DirecTV stated HD Access is a "tier"... where ?


According to the TRO filing, when DirecTV took advantage of the fact that if it was a tier that they could then pay reduced fees to HDNet.... which apparently DirecTV did and continues to do.

It's pretty clear that DirecTV defines it as a tier when that allows them to reduce the fees that they have to pay HDNet.

The notion that it's a tier when that definition is advantageous to DirecTV and then suddenly it's not a tier when that definition is disadvantageous to DirecTV is just not a credible argument.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> According to the TRO filing, when DirecTV took advantage of the fact that if it was a tier that they could then pay reduced fees to HDNet.... which apparently DirecTV did and continues to do.
> 
> It's pretty clear that DirecTV defines it as a tier when that allows them to reduce the fees that they have to pay HDNet.
> 
> The notion that it's a tier when that definition is advantageous to DirecTV and then suddenly it's not a tier when that definition is disadvantageous to DirecTV is just not a credible argument.


The TRO is HDNet's voice, not DirecTV's
And that is HDNet's argument on the topic...


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> We don't know that .. DIRECTV may now be paying based on the changed tier which includes Smithsonian, MGM, etc.


I'm sure that they are. I was talking about when it was in the HD Access "tier that's not a tier". If DirecTV didn't revert back to the higher "non-tier" payments to HDNet when it was still in the HD Access package, then DirecTV isn't going to be able to claim that HD Access isn't a tier.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mtnsackett said:


> what makes you so sure that they can't, they know what ppv movies you watch and they do sell information to Neilson media reserch, I know it is anonamous but the technology is there, how do you think in the active menu they get the what is hot information? there you can get an idea of what other people are watching now... :eek2: and personaly i don't care if they know i watched 6 hours of porn this week it is just tv I can live with out it


They can. Tivo is doing it as well. Look up the Tivo "Stopwatch" program. My guess is every key press is logged.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> You're right on this .. The cost, I suspect would not be quite that high since apparently there are smaller payments as more HD channels exist. But DIRECTV will not eat the cost .. It will show up on our bill ..


Has anyone noticed the quote in the Variety article:

"Since these HD channels will be alter egos of their standard-definition parents, most of them won't charge any extra license fees to DirecTV. *Equally, subscribers won't pay any additional monthly fees to DirecTV for these duplicate networks, except for the cost of renting the HD digital box.*"<emphasis mine>

Where is this info coming from? Regardless of whether or not HDA is a tier or simply a fee, it's extra $$. Customers ARE paying more to receive the simulcast HD channels. Apparently D* isn't necessarily paying additional fees to rebroadcast simulcast HD channels. So, as I understand it, D* has used the HD fee (first $10.99 then $9.99) to pay providers like HDNet their fees and to subsidize partially the MPEG4 rollout. HDA will presumably continue to subsidize current and future capacity, since D* mostly (according to Variety) doesn't need to pay extra for simulcast HD. HDNet was a major reason people would pay the pre-Sept 2007 HD fee ($10.99/9.99), because, frankly, there wasn't much else out there. Yeah, I can't see why HDNet would be upset. 

That said, Earl is right. Currently HDNet needs D* more than D* needs HDNet. Lawsuits are typically a last resort, right? (I'm asking the lawyers in the audience.) Companies that have a good relationship don't need to resort to parsing contract language, right? They work out their disagreements without going that far. Leaning on the contract and having a judge or jury interpret the language to determine how you interact with another entity is risky business!

Does the willingness to take this risk indicate HDNet feels they're backed into a corner and might not survive losing? I certainly hope not, because they've stayed at the forefront of the technology. They've always done it right. When I first got HD, ESPNHD had little content in HD and stretched SD. I only received NBC in HD locally and most of their programming was SD. Discovery Theater HD, HDNet and HDNet Movies were the saving grace of HD. Without those channels, I would have returned my 52" TV and HD cable box without hesitation and considered HD a joke.

I don't know who's right legally and contractually, but I hope this doesn't spell the end of HDNet and HDNet Movies. For the longest time, they were a small oasis in what was a very large HD desert.

-c


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I'm sure that they are. I was talking about when it was in the HD Access "tier that's not a tier". If DirecTV didn't revert back to the higher "non-tier" payments to HDNet when it was still in the HD Access package, then DirecTV isn't going to be able to claim that HD Access isn't a tier.


Huh? When that was a tier, it included ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, UHD, etc. when the "new" HD Access was created, the HD Extra Tier was also created - it's just free right now. So HDNet was moved from the one "old" tier to the one "new" tier.

The debate is whether the "new" HD Access is actually a tier or not, but I don't think HDNet was ever in the "new" HD Access.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> The notion that it's a tier when that definition is advantageous to DirecTV and then suddenly it's not a tier when that definition is disadvantageous to DirecTV is just not a credible argument.





Earl Bonovich said:


> The TRO is HDNet's voice, not DirecTV's
> And that is HDNet's argument on the topic...


Earl,
I agree that we must reserve judgment until we (and by we I mean a lawyer or the judge  ) either review the entire contract or review D*'s response. Having said that, don't you that the way D* has changed terminology seems to position them to make the same arguments you've made in the forums?

To paraphrase the basic D* defense in this thread (please correct if I misstate, since I disagree with it.  ):
- HDA is a fee, not a tier. It simply allows you to view HD simulcasts (or near simulcasts) of channels you already subscribe to in an SD package.
- HD Extra is the only HD tier D* offers; therefore, placing HDNet & HDNet Movies in that tier meets the letter of the contract by including them in the most widely distributed HD-programming tier.

Making that argument would seem to presume that there isn't another clause in the contract that allows D* to place HDNet^2 in a higher tier than the most widely distributed HD tier. Then the argument ensues as to what constitutes a tier.

-c


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

noneroy said:


> See, I agree with this and think this is probably where HDNet starts to get angry. There is a Choice Plus HD and DVR package. 'It includes HD!' ..but not all HD channels, like HDnet.
> 
> However, it also doesn't include HBOHD or ShowtimeHD either....but those are separate tiers.....so wait...doesn't it follow that HDNet then is on another tier? If it isn't on a different tier, then why wouldn't i get it ?
> 
> I like D* as much as the next guy, but they are playing the verbal equivalent of the 'shell game'. I'm not sure semantics is going to help them much.


I agree HBO and Showtime are in the Premium channels. That and sports packages should have nothing to do with HD pricing for non premium channels.

This Hd pricing for non premium channels makes no sense at all.

Are we also going to see a HD rate increase for the base package from $10 to $15 in addition to this extra package fee of $5?

I usually start shopping around when companies start hiking rates.

D* should keep the HD DVR package at $70 with all the non premium channels.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The TRO is HDNet's voice, not DirecTV's
> And that is HDNet's argument on the topic...


I see, so if DirecTV didn't say it, you completely discount it even though the you have no reasonable justification for doing so. I see no reason why HDNet would claim that DirecTV started paying them lower fees (which are allowed if HDNet is was packaged in a tier with other HD channels) if that claim wasn't true. They wouldn't just make something like that up in a TRO filing, because a false claim like that would be trivial for DirecTV to disprove. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on hanging your hat on this "HD Access is not a tier" notion, because that argument is full of holes.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I see, so if DirecTV didn't say it, you completely discount it even though the you have no reasonable justification for doing so. I see no reason why HDNet would claim that DirecTV started paying them lower fees (which are allowed if HDNet is was packaged in a tier with other HD channels) if that claim wasn't true. They wouldn't just make something like that up in a TRO filing, because a false claim like that would be trivial for DirecTV to disprove. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on hanging your hat on this "HD Access is not a tier" notion, because that argument is full of holes.


I feel compelled to defend Earl. Even though I side more with you on this issue than I do with him, Earl has always been a standup guy on DBSTalk and AVSForum. I'm not sure why we can't simply disagree without casting aspersions.

I think what Earl is saying (and most would agree) is that this is HDNet's filing. They would be silly to include anything in the filing, even contract language, that didn't help them make their case. You can't really draw conclusions based on one side's unchallenged filings in a case. Nothing more; nothing less.

-c


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Huh? When that was a tier, it included ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, UHD, etc. when the "new" HD Access was created, the HD Extra Tier was also created - it's just free right now. So HDNet was moved from the one "old" tier to the one "new" tier.
> 
> The debate is whether the "new" HD Access is actually a tier or not, but I don't think HDNet was ever in the "new" HD Access.


That's incorrect. The current incarnation of HD Access existed for quite some time before the HD Extra tier was created and HDNet was moved out of HD Access. In fact, HDNet heard the same rumors of the HD Extra tier back when we did here, and according to their filing, DirecTV lied to them about it's plans to create the new tier and move HDNet into it, just like DirecTV lied to their customers in their HD FAQ at the time where they stated that all the HD channels would be covered by a subscription to Premier and HD Access.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I didn't realize this was the same Mark Cuban who owned the Dallas Mavericks?

What on earth is D* thinking? Jacking around someone like that?

This is really poor business acumen on D* part.

They are also depriving us of a normal HD channel just so they can make a few more dollars. 

The programming for HD Net was meant to be viewed in a normal subscription. Not many people will consider it worthy of a premium subscription, as that wasn't in the programming budget.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... don't agree with that
> 
> DirecTV doesn't NEED HDNet as much as it did before (Even at the beginning part of this year).
> 
> ...


You may be right like I said in my post D* has leverage now, but the biggest stick doesn't make you morally right. Speaking from a higher bargaining point doesn't mean you're right either otherwise there wouldn't be anymore DirecTivos in service. They would have shut them down and forced everyone to upgrade to D* Dvr's. The problem is they dont have the guts to *Directly* tick off that many rabidly addicted customers and Earl you know how strongly most DirectTivo customers feel about their device.

The problem is a Lot of the HD early adopters seem almost as rabidly unhappy about the whole HDNet debacle. D* might have thought this was merely between themselves and HDNet but its starting to look like folks are choosing sides and maybe they should listen to their customers instead of listening to their own pockets while they thump their chest and show the rest of HD land "Just how life as a hd channel on the new more HD powerful D* is gonna be".


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

cruxer said:


> I feel compelled to defend Earl. Even though I side more with you on this issue than I do with him, Earl has always been a standup guy on DBSTalk and AVSForum. I'm not sure why we can't simply disagree without casting aspersions.
> 
> I think what Earl is saying (and most would agree) is that this is HDNet's filing. They would be silly to include anything in the filing, even contract language, that didn't help them make their case. You can't really draw conclusions based on one side's unchallenged filings in a case. Nothing more; nothing less.
> 
> -c


I'm not casting any aspersions on Earl, but I am insisting on a logical counterargument from him instead of just a blanket dismisal of even the most basic and easily provable types of statements that HDNet made in their filing.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Ryan said:


> there's alot of thread here, so if somebody said this basic idea already, sorry:
> 
> >>through December 31, 2008.
> 
> You'd think DirecTV would just wait the *one* year and try to reneogotiate the terms. It can't be costing them more than what this lawsuit will ending up costing...


Win or loose they dont view it as them paying the costs. One way or the other either HDNet is paying or they can just pass the cost along to OMG why us....


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> People see it as $4.99 more... not 50% more..
> They see some HD at $9.99 or more HD at $14.99.
> 
> I still think Joe Average will go for it, especially if they get it for 3 months free, to at least evaluate it.
> ...


Earl, they already charge a Red Lobster dinner for 2 a month from me, now they want a happy meal too for just a few channels! Not Worth it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> I see, so if DirecTV didn't say it, you completely discount it even though the you have no reasonable justification for doing so. I see no reason why HDNet would claim that DirecTV started paying them lower fees (which are allowed if HDNet is was packaged in a tier with other HD channels) if that claim wasn't true. They wouldn't just make something like that up in a TRO filing, because a false claim like that would be trivial for DirecTV to disprove. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on hanging your hat on this "HD Access is not a tier" notion, because that argument is full of holes.


Where is the "HD Access is not a tier" notion, full of holes?

Again: Check this page:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114

Family Package + HD Access: 5 HD Channels
Choice + HD Access: 22 HD Channels
Choice XTRA + HD Access: 30 HD Channels
Premier + HD Access: 44 HD Channels

So what changed there? The Tier
What stayed the same: The HD Access...

HD Access is NOT a tier

The only "hole" is Discovery HD Theater... but as pointed out multiple times, you could arge that HD Theater is nothing more of a rollup of the HD offereings from Discovery, TLC, Science... just shown at different times...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> I'm not casting any aspersions on Earl, but I am insisting on a logical counterargument from him instead of just a blanket dismisal of even the most basic and easily provable types of statements that HDNet made in their filing.


So me providing a logical, counter-argument to those statments in HDNet's filings.... I am not blanket dismissing anything... I have stated my rational/reasoning on every point I have made.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A question for you all: On both sides.
> 
> Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.
> 
> And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.


Yes

I can see both sides, trust me I work for an advertising company (with an annual revenue of just under $1bn) and our revenue is tied to how strongly our contracts can (rightly) hold our customers to their agreements. However, there is intent, let me give you and example.

Say we bind advertiser Xyz to a contract for one year that they agree to for a color billboard by the side of a surface street. Everyone agrees and everyone is happy. Now a few months into the contract our marketing dept decides that the color billboard product sucks and they have them all torn down in favor of new electronic shared ones that work much like a large plasma screen. As part of this upgrade we now increase our rates 30% because the billboards are more eye catching and can have motion!

We have no moral ground and most courts would agree no legal ground to force that customer who is mid contract to pay the new rate for the new product we have created unless the wording of the contract is very explicit or extremely broad. Since we have substantially changed the product we cannot simply bill Xyz at the new rate because we continue to display their ad on the new electronic billboard. It is not legal.

What D* appears to be banking on is a settlement, a middle ground or the judge saying the contract is too open to interpretation. Its a gamble, they are betting the judge will find for them but again if he does not what to they loose? They bruise HDNets feelings, like they care. If it winds up costing them more they dont care about that either they can point the finger and tell us customers, "The judge said we had to pay it and we don't have the money unless you pay us".

This move shows the arrogant pride with which D* is starting to see the world and IMHO its ugly.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Earl, the day they were able to track my viewing habits that closely I'd be gone. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid I don't trust anybody that much.


Bye.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I really don't think this is going to court. D* doesn't have a leg to stand on. They violated their agreement with HD Net.

None of the channels will willing go into the obscure HD tier.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Honestly...
> 
> I have watched more all the new HD channels, in the last month... then I hae on HDNet in the last 4 years. No joke.


Know whats ironic? I have NEVER watched HDNet on my HD reciever here (I'll even let D* supply my viewing logs if they want) and I still find this a very dirty bit of maneuvering, and that from someoen who could care less about HDNet's content.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

islander66 said:


> I really don't think this is going to court. D* doesn't have a leg to stand on. They violated their agreement with HD Net.
> 
> None of the channels will willing go into the obscure HD tier.


If DirecTV didn't think they had a leg to stand on... it would not have gotten to the point that a suit was filed....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> That's incorrect. The current incarnation of HD Access existed for quite some time before the HD Extra tier was created and HDNet was moved out of HD Access. In fact, HDNet heard the same rumors of the HD Extra tier back when we did here, and according to their filing, DirecTV lied to them about it's plans to create the new tier and move HDNet into it, just like DirecTV lied to their customers in their HD FAQ at the time where they stated that all the HD channels would be covered by a subscription to Premier and HD Access.


The HD Extra Pack was created at the time the first new set of HD channels were put on the satellite. It is true that the HD Extra Pack was grandfathered (for 3 months - until 12/15/2007) for everyone that had HD equipment and the HD programming package at the time (early September) .. I'll list a few references for you:

From someone's bill (they posted) - http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1101010&postcount=22


EaglePC said:


> strange bill; me too just went to my account and some of this i don't see on my tv like statrz-hd?
> 
> 09/09/2007 xxxxxxxx7315 Black Snake Moan (HD) - Charge $4.99 $0.00
> *09/09/2007 xxxxxxxx7315 HD Extra Pack - Charge $0.00 $0.00 *
> ...


From CSR rep - http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=99073


cnmsales said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11631960#post11631960
> 
> A E-mail from D* to me...
> Dear Mr. xxxxxxx
> ...


So, HD Extra tier STARTED on September 19, 2007 .. The first new HD channels (and the HD Access Fee) did not show up until a few days after that on September 26, 2007.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So me providing a logical, counter-argument to those statments in HDNet's filings.... I am not blanket dismissing anything... I have stated my rational/reasoning on every point I have made.


No you didn't. You asked me a question about something that if true, renders the "HD Access is not a tier" argument full of holes, and not at all credible. I answered your question by pointing to a simple statement of one of the background facts in the HDNet filing, and your response was to completely dismiss it because it was only HDNet's side of the story.

The background statement that you dismissed is so basic and would be easily provable by HDNet (or easily disproved by DirecTV) that you questioning it's veracity isn't much different than if you had said that we don't even know if HDnet and DirecTV had an agreement with each other because we've only heard HDNet's side where they claim that they do.

I'm telling you Earl. The argument that HD Access isn't an HD tier under the terms of the contract is weak and full of holes, unless HDNet is completely lying in their filing when they state that DirecTV started paying reduced fees for HDNet because it was placed an HD tier with other HD channels. I don't think it is going to take too much effort to prove or disprove that point.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If DirecTV didn't think they had a leg to stand on... it would not have gotten to the point that a suit was filed....


I believe D* is the defendant.

They have violated the contract with HD Net.

This is not a profitable way for D* to run a business making stupid decisions that wind up right in court with themselves at a disadvantage.

They need to put place HD Net back in the normal subscription tier, or run a high risk of legal cost and paying out damages.

It's the only reasonable action for them right now.

Although, I would like to learn how D* can justify their actions?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

islander66 said:


> I believe D* is the defendant.
> 
> They have violated the contract with HD Net.
> 
> ...


You don't think that they have had conversations before the filing?

Or did HDNet just go ahead and file the complaint before trying to resolve the issue before going to court?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> I'm telling you Earl. The argument that HD Access isn't an HD tier under the terms of the contract is weak and full of holes, unless HDNet is completely lying in their filing when they state that DirecTV started paying reduced fees for HDNet because it was placed an HD tier with other HD channels. I don't think it is going to take too much effort to prove or disprove that point.


We don't have the "Terms of the Contract"... we have HDNet's selective cut and paste, and their interpretation of their analysis of it.

So unless we have access to the un-altered contract... we do'nt have the "Terms of the Contract"


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> The HD Extra Pack was created at the time the first new set of HD channels were put on the satellite. It is true that the HD Extra Pack was grandfathered (for 3 months - until 12/15/2007) for everyone that had HD equipment and the HD programming package at the time (early September)


You're missing the point. The point is that the HD Access tier existed before that, that HDNet was in that tier along with many of the channels that are still in that tier, and that DirecTV moved HDNet out of that tier, which HDNet claims is a violation of the agreement between them and DirecTV. Also, when any of the new channels started being included the HD Access tier is irrelevant.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> We don't have the "Terms of the Contract"... we have HDNet's selective cut and paste, and their interpretation of their analysis of it.
> 
> So unless we have access to the un-altered contract... we do'nt have the "Terms of the Contract"


I never claimed to have the terms of the contract.... I'm only trying to look at what we do have so far logically... logic which so far I haven't seen from you.... at least on this particular point.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You don't think that they have had conversations before the filing?
> 
> Or did HDNet just go ahead and file the complaint before trying to resolve the issue before going to court?


Yeah, that would be interesting to find out!

I'll bet Cuban contacted them and D* blew him off, so here we are?

I appreciate your arguments though! The extra tier could be a good thing.

The more I read the more it appears it was handled in the wrong way.

I signed up for HD DVR one week before the extra tier was announced, so I also felt misinformed. Most people want to know the total cost and don't want these extra cost thrown in after the fact.

But I agree with a lot of your other points, and hope D* provides a good service for the next couple of years without any more fast moves.

Edit: I signed up for D* on Sept 27th, first install on Nov. 4th, partial activation, final activation on Nov. 11th. But, there was no information about this extra tier. Anyway that's my extra tier hard luck story.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that the HD Access tier existed before that, that HDNet was in that tier along with many of the channels that are still in that tier, and that DirecTV moved HDNet out of that tier, which HDNet claims is a violation of the agreement between them and DirecTV. Also, when any of the new channels started being included the HD Access tier is irrelevant.


No ..

prior to September 19th

HD Programming tier (HDNet, HDNM, ESPN, ESNP2, etc.) - was it called "HD Access" .. maybe, I don't remember, but the actual name is not relevant - the relevance is the "most widely distributed" tier since that is apparently what the contract says.

September 19th and beyond

An *HD Access fee* granted you access to the HD programming simulcasts - those HD channels turned on for those channels in your existing programming tier (Family Choice, Total Choice, Plus, Premier).

A new tier was created called HD Extra that includes (HDNet, HDNM, MGM, Smithosonian .. and a couple I can't remember now)

The argument is whether or not the HD channels that are turned on as part of the HD Access Fee (post September 19th) are actually a tier or not. It sounds like you want to call it a tier. I'm still trying to decide for myself whether it is or not, but I'm starting to lean towards .. it's not.

So IF the HD Access fee does not constitute a programming tier, then the one and only HD programming tier availble on DIRECTV will be the HD Extra Pack. From my reading of HDNet's filing .. it looks like DIRECTV is playing by the rules .. again, this is ONLY if the HD Access fee does not constitute a programming tier.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> No ..
> 
> prior to September 19th
> 
> ...


Im not sure why you're so stuck on 9/19. Pre 9/19 or post 9/19 has nothing to do with it because "HD Access" existed before 9/19. All that matters is if HDNet was in a "tier" with some of the other HD channels that are still in that "tier". While 9/19 seems to be the date when the HD Extra tier officially came into existence and HDNet was moved into that tier, that has no effect on whether or not HD Access was an HD tier under the terms of the contract, which is the crux of HDNet's claim.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> We don't have the "Terms of the Contract"... we have HDNet's selective cut and paste, and their interpretation of their analysis of it.
> 
> So unless we have access to the un-altered contract... we do'nt have the "Terms of the Contract"


As usual earl is actualy a voice of reason not #1fanboy... they will have a response soon and thenwe will have all the facts:lol: at least as they each stack the deck in their favor

From someone I talked to from D* today and No he was not a csr, much higher up. he stated that the $9.99 fee is a technology access fee just like the $5.99 DVR access fee. the HD Extra Pack is the first and only Tier for Hd. with the Hd Access fee you get access to the Simulcast Hd feeds of channels that are in your Programing package, which is the same with all Premium channels like Starz and even Playboy if it was in Hd. this way those of us who have Hd equipment are the ones paying for those channels. It is like the Service call fee of $70 not every one needs a service call so why should they pay for something they can't or will not use think cable where you pay one way or another

It makes sense to me because there are no HD only packages from D* maybe someday there will be but I don't think there are enough people with all hd equipment or enough channels yet to do that.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Im not sure why you're so stuck on 9/19. Pre 9/19 or post 9/19 has nothing to do with it because "HD Access" existed before 9/19. All that matters is if HDNet was in a "tier" with some of the other HD channels that are still in that "tier". While 9/19 seems to be the date when the HD Extra tier officially came into existence and HDNet was moved into that tier, that has no effect on whether or not HD Access was an HD tier under the terms of the contract, which is the crux of HDNet's claim.


Ah .. so you're not reading what I actually wrote .. you ARE saying that HD Access is a tier .. My comment was if it is *NOT* a tier then the HD Extra Pack would be the only tier and as a result the "most widely distributed" tier.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> Im not sure why you're so stuck on 9/19. Pre 9/19 or post 9/19 has nothing to do with it because "HD Access" existed before 9/19. All that matters is if HDNet was in a "tier" with some of the other HD channels that are still in that "tier". While 9/19 seems to be the date when the HD Extra tier officially came into existence and HDNet was moved into that tier, that has no effect on whether or not HD Access was an HD tier under the terms of the contract, which is the crux of HDNet's claim.


But that is just it...

"HD Access" absolutely did not exsist before 9/19

There was the HD Package... a Tier Package.

HDNet is no longer in that tier package, as that tier package does not exist any longer.

And you are correct... that is one of the main crux's of HDNet's claim....
and one of the "our" (the discussion here), basis of contention/discussion..

And will be one of the main topics (certainly) during the legal procedings.

Is HD Access a tier or is it an optional access to a higher resolution version of channels.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

:rant:


cartrivision said:


> Im not sure why you're so stuck on 9/19. Pre 9/19 or post 9/19 has nothing to do with it because "HD Access" existed before 9/19. All that matters is if HDNet was in a "tier" with some of the other HD channels that are still in that "tier". While 9/19 seems to be the date when the HD Extra tier officially came into existence and HDNet was moved into that tier, that has no effect on whether or not HD Access was an HD tier under the terms of the contract, which is the crux of HDNet's claim.


:beatdeadhorse:

I have to put this out there but in any of the standard deff packages can anyone show us where Hdnet, Hdnet movies and Universal were included? I think Not.....I know ESPN and ESPN 2 were are but they still are as they have Sd counterparts, and if Hdnet wanted to they could nip this in the butt fast just launch a sd version of the channels and call them SDNet and SDnet Movies then no fuss no muss D* would not have a leg to stand on
:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Does anyone know what tier the new HD channels will go into in the upcoming months?


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

vankai said:


> Does anyone know what tier the new HD channels will go into in the upcoming months?


If the channel is in your Package as a Sd Channel you will get the Hd version with Hd access.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> No ..
> 
> prior to September 19th
> 
> ...


Except there is no SD equivalent for Discovery HD Theater and you had to have the HD Access to get that channel. You can say it's like Discovery, but in reality it's nowhere close to a simulcast.

People should also remember who will be interpreting this contract at trial (not at the TRO hearing...unless Texas RoCP are significantly different than other states). will be a jury. DirecTV will have an uphill battle trying to explain that an HD "Extra" pack is their only HD programming tier.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Except there is no SD equivalent for Discovery HD Theater and you had to have the HD Access to get that channel. You can say it's like Discovery, but in reality it's nowhere close to a simulcast.


well for that you can say any channel with a -1 that is hd is not a Simulcast of the Hd channel and could be on the Extra pack but Discovery considers Discovery HD Theater to be a Hd version of Discovery as it has the same programing

And Remember You HAVE to have HD Access to get any Hd Programing unless it is thru an off air antenna No Access fee, No Hd Programing... Zip... Zilch... Nada.....


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mtnsackett said:


> well for that you can say any channel with a -1 that is hd is not a Simulcast of the Hd channel and could be on the Extra pack but Discovery considers Discovery HD Theater to be a Hd version of Discovery as it has the same programing


So, what is Discovery HD then? When does Sunrise Earth appear on Discovery? Many of the shows that appeared on Discovery SD never were shown on HD Theater as well. Yes, they shared some programming...but many of the Discovery channels share some programming.

As for the -1 channels, you're probably correct on those as well although the argument isn't quite as good as Discovery which has Discovery, Discovery HD and Discovery HD Theater.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> So, what is Discovery HD then? When does Sunrise Earth appear on Discovery? Many of the shows that appeared on Discovery SD never were shown on HD Theater as well. Yes, they shared some programming...but many of the Discovery channels share some programming.
> 
> As for the -1 channels, you're probably correct on those as well although the argument isn't quite as good as Discovery which has Discovery, Discovery HD and Discovery HD Theater.


But that still doesn't make HD Access a Tier

As if you have the FAMILY package and HD Access, you don't get Discovery HD Theater....

My guess is that it is tied to the Discovery channel base channel in the contract with Discovery (and thus any rates are directly related to the subscriber count of those with Discovery)


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that still doesn't make HD Access a Tier
> 
> As if you have the FAMILY package and HD Access, you don't get Discovery HD Theater....
> 
> My guess is that it is tied to the Discovery channel base channel in the contract with Discovery (and thus any rates are directly related to the subscriber count of those with Discovery)


from what I understood you are really close, when they negotiated for the Sd carrage rights they were getting the hd rights as well.just not sure if it was a flat rate or for hd and sd. thus no new contract. so yes HD theater is diffrent and has a few programs not on its sd couinter ppart but it is still close and discovery would be not verry business savy not to make a Hd version of discovery or anyother channel as Hd brings in viewers if you don't beleave me search the internet Hd shows are watched more than sd when available and Hd commercials bring in more revanue then sd commercials so someday soon I predict that even QVC and the 24 hour jewlery and infomertial channel will be in Hd, looke ad ION tv they just anounced they will broadcast in Hd in Q1 08.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I don't think the simulcast argument will go over very well for D*.

The contract indicated that HD Net would be in the most widely distributed tier, which any reasonable person will consider as the base HD subscription.

Moving the HD Net into the new tier, which requires additional subscription, will limit reduce the viewers who subscribe to HD with D* and watch HD, thus violating the merit of the contract. 

Therefore just because a HD channel has a simulcast doesn't mean it's no longer a HD channel.

A HD non premium channel is a HD non premium channel.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Ah .. so you're not reading what I actually wrote .. you ARE saying that HD Access is a tier .. My comment was if it is *NOT* a tier then the HD Extra Pack would be the only tier and as a result the "most widely distributed" tier.


What happened on 9/19 isn't what's in dispute. What's in dispute is what happened before the HD Extra tier was created and HDNet was moved into it. If prior to 9/19 DirecTV was classifying HD Access as an HD tier so that they could pay HDNet a reduced rate which the contract supposedly allowed if HDNet was part of an HD tier, then logically HD Access still is an HD tier post 9/19, making HD Extra DirecTV's second, smaller and less subscribed to HD tier, which HDNet says would put DirecTV in breach of their contract.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

islander66 said:


> I don't think the simulcast argument will go over very well for D*.
> 
> The contract indicated that HD Net would be in the most widely distributed tier, which any reasonable person will consider as the base HD subscription.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Language like "most widely distributed tier" clearly implies that with a base Total Choice subscription (or whatever it's called these days), and an HD Access subscription, that you should receive the HDNet channels, but then a lot of what DirecTV has done regarding the HD Extra package has been shady, so I guess that it should come as no surprise if they are trying to do something else that looks even shadier.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

When you look at this page it looks like a package, quacks like a package...but I guess it isn't a package.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packProg/channelChart2.jsp?assetId=1100084

My guess is this thing will be settled long before it goes to trial, but it would make for good theater to watch DirecTV's attorneys try to win over a jury by explaining their various fees and charges.

"So there's the base programming package, the receiver fee, the hd fee, the hd extra fee, but you can't get the HD extra without the HD fee and you can't get either of them without the base fee unless you have the base premium package which is..."

If I was DirecTV I'd be figuring a way to get this as a non-jury trial.

Y'know...if this ever ends up in front of a jury I may just have to go watch...lord knows it'll be better than most of the stuff on TV lately .


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where is the "HD Access is not a tier" notion, full of holes?
> 
> Again: Check this page:
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114
> ...


Earl... You really need to stop all this "look at the website now" stuff because it is so much just another straw dog. You are trying to use package changes now to justify stuff that the TRO is not about.

You are slowly moving from a great tech resource to an all purpose talking head. You remind me of a guy I used to work with who was in a similar position to you with Microsoft 10 yrs ago. Privy to all sorts of new hardware loaded with NT and SQL Server and Exchange and the machinations behind such programs. All of a sudden he was also a marketing and biz dev expert on all MS contracts and agreements with how MS would sell stuff once things went public. He finally became such an "expert" people started blowing him off. 6 months later MS fropped him from his volunteer insider position. Slow down. IJS.



Earl Bonovich said:


> If DirecTV didn't think they had a leg to stand on... it would not have gotten to the point that a suit was filed....


See... there you go again. You are not an employee so quit defending like one. It WILL come back to bite you as far as community evangelsism from our side is concerned.

And, by the way, that a very specious statement ungrounded in fact. The fact that a suit was filed is in NO WAY related to what D* thought about their legs. Nothing. NADA. :sure:

Because it was an action totally unrelated to D* -- it was an HDNet action.


----------



## elguevon (May 20, 2004)

This is just a big pissing match against Mark Cuban...nothing more. DirecTV will lose this lawsuit based on the present contract, but come the end of the existing contract HDNet networks will go down to some 100th-tier HD package that I'm sure D* will manage to create by then.

Comical that this all comes down to billionaires and their egos rather than subscribers.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that is just it...
> 
> "HD Access" absolutely did not exsist before 9/19
> 
> ...


And this is my point. I believe D* is prohibited by contract to remove that package and therefore relegate HDnet to the EXTRA package. The have a contract with HDnet which must be maintained for the duration of the contract. D* changed it. I do not believe it is correct for them to do so.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The argument is whether or not the HD channels that are turned on as part of the HD Access Fee (post September 19th) are actually a tier or not. It sounds like you want to call it a tier. I'm still trying to decide for myself whether it is or not, but I'm starting to lean towards .. it's not.
> 
> So IF the HD Access fee does not constitute a programming tier, then the one and only HD programming tier availble on DIRECTV will be the HD Extra Pack. From my reading of HDNet's filing .. it looks like DIRECTV is playing by the rules .. again, this is ONLY if the HD Access fee does not constitute a programming tier.


This is really just symantics. We all know what is going on. Just because you do not call it a tier doesn't make it not a tier. And I understand what they are trying to claim with the HD access is HD versions of SD channels we already get. I Just see that as a bogus explaination.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> What happened on 9/19 isn't what's in dispute. What's in dispute is what happened before the HD Extra tier was created and HDNet was moved into it. If prior to 9/19 DirecTV was classifying HD Access as an HD tier so that they could pay HDNet a reduced rate which the contract supposedly allowed if HDNet was part of an HD tier, then logically HD Access still is an HD tier post 9/19, making HD Extra DirecTV's second, smaller and less subscribed to HD tier, which HDNet says would put DirecTV in breach of their contract.


You're hung up on it being called "HD Access" and the new fee being called "HD Access"

In the actual press release used the term "HD Package." Can you point me to information (other than the lawsuit filing) where the package was called "HD Access?"

The press release cited (linked above) never uses the term "HD Access" yet the lawsuit uses that term (in quotes) as if it were in the actual announcement.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ahh screw it... D* should eliminate the HD Access fee and just raise all their packages by 1.50. This would net D* even more money and they could call all simulcasted HD channels FREE!!!!!! Then no one could argue that the HD extra is their only HD teir....


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Ahh screw it... D* should eliminate the HD Access fee and just raise all their packages by 1.50. This would net D* even more money and they could call all simulcasted HD channels FREE!!!!!! Then no one could argue that the HD extra is their only HD teir....


In the long run this may make the most sense, since eventually there will be less and less SD channels (I hope) and more and more HD channels. I can't recall the last time I sat in front of my entertainment viewers and chose a non HD channel to watch. My son does, me and my wife, none, all HD.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "HD Access" absolutely did not exsist before 9/19


It absolutely did: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=896432&highlight=HD+Access#post896432


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gcisko said:


> Good luck asking for one and not paying the $9.99. Has anyone tried to do that?


Subscribing to the HD Access fee is a condition of the lease of an HD receiver.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where has DirecTV stated HD Access is a "tier"... where ?
> 
> If you have the HBO Package... you get HBO... you don't get HBO-HD
> If you must add the HD-ACCESS to get the HBO-HD programming... which is the same "content" as the HBO, just in a different format.
> ...


While I do agree with your standpoint on this Earl... (Access = Access to a subversion of the channel you already have whereas Tier is a a package that adds ADD'L channels that you DONT currently have).

The Superfan to Sunday Ticket comparison is a little off. Superfan is not an access, it is a tier, as it adds I beleive 3 channels, as well as ACCESS to the hd versions.
Superfan gives you the red zone the snap, and the mix, I think...
I may be incorrect on exactly what ADDITIONAL channels you get with superfan, my point being you do actually receive ACCESS to the HD games, and ADDITIONAL channels, with superfan.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It absolutely did: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=896432&highlight=HD+Access#post896432


Jeremy, thanks for the link .. I just check checked my bill from from 4/07 and the words do say "HD Access Monthly." I didn't look later, but as late as 12/04, the designation was "HD Package." So the wording fits what cartrivision was trying to convey.

I'm still uncertain as to whether the new methodology can be called a tier or not regardless of what it was called prior to the change. To some folks it's clear as day that the new HD Access is a tier .. To others it's clear that it's not a tier .. It's kinda muddy for me. I'm with Ken S, though .. It could be an interesting argument. I'd really like to see any filing that DIRECTV makes as a counter to what HDNet claims.

I suspect, though, that this will be settled long before it goes the distance in a trial.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm still uncertain as to whether the new methodology can be called a tier or not.


It's very tough. I'm leaning towards it not being a tier, however.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that is just it...
> 
> "HD Access" absolutely did not exsist before 9/19


I have billing stataments that contradict that.

Earl, you need to stop blindly defending DirecTV on this dispute with HDNet while you still have some credibility left.

_Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary profanity_


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It's very tough. I'm leaning towards it not being a tier, however.


Here's the thing: It doesn't really matter. We're arguing over whether or not D* did the right thing contractually and WE don't really have any way of knowing that yet. What we CAN say is that it was a pretty underhanded move on their part, regardless of the contract.

Clearly HDNet put that clause in the contract because they were aware the HD landscape would be changing. They didn't need that stipulation in 2003; there wasn't enough competition out there to be worried. In 2003, HDNet was the big draw for getting HD. That clause was written for today, once competition had heated up. They recognized that in the future HDNet _wouldn't_ necessarily be the linchpin of HD programming packages. There would be too much competition from HD simulcasts that had much wider audiences. So what did they do? They wrote a clause that basically says keep distributing us to most of your users who receive HD through the life of the contract and you can pay us less. D* conveniently jumped on the "pay us less" part and is now trying to screw HDNet out of the "distribute us to most of your users who receive HD" part. After all, _nobody knows_ how many folks will sign up for HD Extra. Suppose 45% do (aggressive considering the polling done here). Suppose D* has 2.5M HDA users next year. D* will have to go to court and say we are delivering HD to 2.5M users and HDNet to 1M users. Clearly this is not the way HDNet was intending to hedge their bets against the future in 2003.

Whether or not they can get away with this is a matter for the courts and the lawyers. It's possible that HDNet had bad lawyers and the contract (and the clause) aren't ironclad. But the intent of that clause in the contract can't be denied. What D* is trying to do now also can't be denied. A healthy, trusting partnership never depends on the wording in the contract.

-c


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Ahh screw it... D* should eliminate the HD Access fee and just raise all their packages by 1.50. This would net D* even more money and they could call all simulcasted HD channels FREE!!!!!! Then no one could argue that the HD extra is their only HD teir....


This doesn't preclude D* from raising rates as well.

All D* is trying to do is break off just enough HD programs so most people won't complain or notice, and enough will pay extra for. A lot of new subscribers aren't going to be aware of this extra HD fee when they are comparing prices.

Their defense will be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. D* can also continue to see an increase in cost from confused and unsatisfied customers calling in to complain.

HD Net has nothing to lose.

Then if D* decides to drop HD Net in a year, how is that good for anyone?

Edit: althouth I fully agree D* should just raise all rates by $1.50.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

The real issue here is not the wording of the contract between Direct TV and HDNet. This will be argued between lawyers and before a judge who have a much better understanding of the law than those here (but perhaps decided by a jury even less informed than those here).

The real issue is what this means for Direct TV customers in the future. Will all future stations offered in 'only HD' be folded into the HD Extra Package?

Remember the Feb 2009 cut-off only extends to OTA signals. You may be getting those poor SD versions for years to come on cable and sat. Will that provide justification for DTV to keep its HD access fee and make you pony up for any new 'HD only' channel on an HD Extra package. Perhaps one you might want more than HDNet.

Focusing on the specifics of the DTV and HDNet only draws attention away from the continued policy of Direct TV to jerk around their tier packages. While HDNet may not be your favorite channel, do you really have faith that Direct TV won't do a similiar thing with YOUR favorite channel in the future?


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

highheater said:


> The real issue here is not the wording of the contract between Direct TV and HDNet. This will be argued between lawyers and before a judge who have a much better understanding of the law than those here (but perhaps decided by a jury even less informed than those here).
> 
> The real issue is what this means for Direct TV customers in the future. Will all future stations offered in 'only HD' be folded into the HD Extra Package?
> 
> ...


I agree. They should immediately move FoodHD into the package as it is different content than the Food SD. I am sure Earl will have some explaination for that one - why it shouldn't be in the extra package  The fact that it is not makes the D* argument for moving HDnet totally bogus. Is Universal HD in there as well?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> I have billing stataments that contradict that.
> 
> Earl, you need to stop blindly defending DirecTV on this dispute with HDNet while you still have some credibility left.


"If DirecTV didn't think they had a leg to stand on... it would not have gotten to the point that a suit was filed...."

This one actually had me laughing out loud.

_Mod Edit: Removed Quoted Profanity_


----------



## Bay CIty (Dec 4, 2006)

I`ve been a D* subscriber for over around 12 years now. I`ve been very happy with both their programming and pricing.

I also stuck with them thru the disastrous start up of the HR-20 700, and today I feel that this is one of the best DVR`s on the market.

However This recent attempt to create a new tier out of a few select HD channels
has me fuming. This is the type of crap that I would expect from Comcast not D*.

The HDnetworks (Channel 78 & 79) are two of the best channels available for HD viewer today. Mark Cuban continues to raise the bar with the excellent programming found here.

I wish him luck with his lawsuit against D*. 

And D* you finally did it, if you create a special HD tier (Which in affect is a rate increase) I will no long require your services. I day this goes into effect you can come and get your rented box and remove your antenna.

Our long relationship will be over


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

On the one hand, DIRECTV is presenting the HD Access Fee as a subsidy for HD equipment but on the other hand and for the last number of years, these HD only channels have been thrown in.

The fact that DHDT isn't part of HD Extra is what seals it for me.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

At the end of the day, I'm going to guess the initial contract was intended to ensure that if a customer had HD service from DirecTV, the HDNet channels would be part of that service. It certainly seems reasonable, and from the quotes from HDnet, seems to be the spirit HDnet offered the channels to DirecTV. 

It also seems like HDnet was willing to compromise on per/sub fees in order to be part of that service and DirecTV took advantage of that provision.

It looks like DirecTV is looking for a loophole (using some sort of semantic difference) to get out of that deal. At its best, its really weaselly. Whether it breaks the contract is for the courts to decide.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bay CIty said:


> This is the type of crap that I would expect from Comcast not D*.


This is deja vu of when Speed and Versus were part of Comcast's obscure "Digital Extra" package of six channels for $6/month. Versus is now part of basic cable and Speed is part of basic digital service.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BK EH said:


> Earl... You really need to stop all this "look at the website now" stuff because it is so much just another straw dog. You are trying to use package changes now to justify stuff that the TRO is not about.
> 
> You are slowly moving from a great tech resource to an all purpose talking head. You remind me of a guy I used to work with who was in a similar position to you with Microsoft 10 yrs ago. Privy to all sorts of new hardware loaded with NT and SQL Server and Exchange and the machinations behind such programs. All of a sudden he was also a marketing and biz dev expert on all MS contracts and agreements with how MS would sell stuff once things went public. He finally became such an "expert" people started blowing him off. 6 months later MS fropped him from his volunteer insider position. Slow down. IJS.
> 
> ...


So... I can't have an opinion... and I can't defend that opinion?
Guess you all must work for HDNet or someone else... or should I start tearing down your opinions...

So please... I don't tell you what to do.... don't tell me what to do.
And that middle point "It WILL come back to bite you as far as community evangelsism from our side is concerned"
Is that a threat? And what is your side? You wouldn't be part of the group that has made it a point to continuously attack me, and even started a hate site about me and DBSTalk... would ya?

If you don't want to have a discussion about this......

-----------
To your last point...

If you have an issue with a company... do you try to call them to straighten it out first? Or do you just go ahead and file a lawsuit?
Do you really honestly think, there were no discussions between the two companies before hand?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> I have billing stataments that contradict that.
> 
> Earl, you need to stop blindly defending DirecTV on this dispute with HDNet while you still have some credibility left.
> 
> _Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary profanity_


Enough... I have plenty of credibility left... if it wasn't the case... you wouldn't be attacking me.

But then again... I am not worry about my credibility with you, as you have long sinced reserved your judgement about me. And it was way before this thread ever started.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> It absolutely did: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=896432&highlight=HD+Access#post896432


Thank you for the correction...

Do we have a set date then on when it first started to apear on the bills?

And if it did show up back in April...

Why is HDNet filling this 6 months later ?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To your last point...
> 
> If you have an issue with a company... do you try to call them to straighten it out first? Or do you just go ahead and file a lawsuit?
> Do you really honestly think, there were no discussions between the two companies before hand?


Earl,

It goes both ways. I've seen companies just do what they want despite their contracts. Happens all the time. They figure they can force a settlement, or better have the company go out of business before they can collect.

Sometimes it's more about someone's ego than anything else. Sometimes it's a message to others...there are all sorts of reasons and a large percentage of the time it isn't because they sat down and tried to work it out and they just couldn't come to a fair resolution.

Perhaps the "discussion" was "We're doing this and if you don't go along with it now we won't renew."

There are a lot of people who believe they can do whatever they want no matter what the law or contracts state. DirecTV has been shown to have those type of employees in the past.

We don't know if that's the case here...we may find out though.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... I can't have an opinion... and I can't defend that opinion?


Sure you absolutely can have an opinion. But when you are somewhat a D* insider, and agruing against 90% opinion in opposition, you will get this kind of flak.

Don't make me start a poll on whether HDnet was wronged  :lol:  :sure:  :hurah:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> It goes both ways. I've seen companies just do what they want despite their contracts. Happens all the time. They figure they can force a settlement, or better have the company go out of business before they can collect.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the other "look at it"... 
I guess it could be possible that they decided to go straight to the courts... and ultimately try to get their "opinion" out on it first as well...

I just find it hard to believe, that they could not work this out... without having to go to court... they are two multi-billion dollar company's that have had (at least from what we have seen), a very good mutual relationship over the last 4 years


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... I can't have an opinion... and I can't defend that opinion?
> Guess you all must work for HDNet or someone else... or should I start tearing down your opinions...
> 
> So please... I don't tell you what to do.... don't tell me what to do.
> ...


A link?


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

"they have the upper hand....."

"they don't have a leg to stand on....."




i'm having DirecTivo flashbacks


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> A link?


No... I will not post the link...

*MOD HAT ON* 
And it will be deleted if anyone else does post it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hey .. This thread isn't supposed to be about hating on each other .. A heated debate is one thing .. Let's please get back to talking about the actual lawsuit rather than talking about each other ..

Thank You.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Speaking of the lawsuit .. If HDNet wins (or negotiates a "win" behind closed doors) what do you guys think will happen.

I can see two scenarios. (1) HDNet and HDNM moves back to Plus (or Premium) tier and is activated when HD Access is added or (2) HDNet and HDNM stays in the HD Extra tier just the way it is, but DIRECTV pays HDNet based on the number of subscribers in either Plus (or Premium) tier.

The contract is over in a little over a year from now. If HDNet strong arms too much (regardless of whether they are right or not), they will not be well accepted post 2008. In a worst case scenario, HDNet may have saved their face at the cost of their nose.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Thank you for the correction...
> 
> Do we have a set date then on when it first started to apear on the bills?


Earl, the HD Access fee appeared as part of the 3/1/07 rate increase, along with the new packages Choice, Choice Xtra, Plus DVR and Plus HD DVR.



Earl Bonovich said:


> And if it did show up back in April...
> 
> Why is HDNet filling this 6 months later ?


Probably because D* didn't announce the HD Extras Pack until recently. There was no indication back in March that D* would make a separate tier for some "orphan" HD channels.

Oh, and Universal HD is also in the HD Extras Pack.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Newshawk said:


> Earl, the HD Access fee appeared as part of the 3/1/07 rate increase, along with the new packages Choice, Choice Xtra, Plus DVR and Plus HD DVR.


Thank you.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

So a general time line seems to be coming forward:

6/3/2003 - HD Programming tier created

3/7/2007 - HD Programming tier renamed HD Access (but it still functioned as a tier)

9/26/2007 - HD Extra tier created, HD Access re-purposed (may or may not be a tier)

11/2/2007 - HDNet files lawsuit claiming HD Access is a tier and violates contract because (1) HD Access is most widely distributed HD tier and (2) HDNet is supposed to be in the most widely distributed HD tier.

Sound right?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

mtnsackett said:


> what makes you so sure that they can't, they know what ppv movies you watch and they do sell information to Neilson media reserch, I know it is anonamous but the technology is there, how do you think in the active menu they get the what is hot information? there you can get an idea of what other people are watching now... :eek2: and personaly i don't care if they know i watched 6 hours of porn this week it is just tv I can live with out it


Well lucky me I don't watch PPV....
My Old Tivo Stand Alone is unplugged from the phone line, Just not using it these days. I understood that you could opt out of the Tivo Data gathering?



cartrivision said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that the HD Access tier existed before that, that HDNet was in that tier along with many of the channels that are still in that tier, and that DirecTV moved HDNet out of that tier, which HDNet claims is a violation of the agreement between them and DirecTV. Also, when any of the new channels started being included the HD Access tier is irrelevant.


Name changes do not void contracts. If that were so all D* or E* or any cable company would have to do is rename a tier and renegotiate the contracts. Since D* took advantage of the tier additions to get a lower payment rate to HDNet and HDMovies it seems they decided it was a tier and now they are stuck with it.

I suppose it could end up with no HDN or HDM on D* and E* adverts including a line something like Channels Exclusively on E* on Staellite.



rahlquist said:


> You may be right like I said in my post D* has leverage now, but the biggest stick doesn't make you morally right. Speaking from a higher bargaining point doesn't mean you're right either otherwise there wouldn't be anymore DirecTivos in service. They would have shut them down and forced everyone to upgrade to D* Dvr's. The problem is they dont have the guts to *Directly* tick off that many rabidly addicted customers and Earl you know how strongly most DirectTivo customers feel about their device.
> 
> The problem is a Lot of the HD early adopters seem almost as rabidly unhappy about the whole HDNet debacle. D* might have thought this was merely between themselves and HDNet but its starting to look like folks are choosing sides and maybe they should listen to their customers instead of listening to their own pockets while they thump their chest and show the rest of HD land "Just how life as a hd channel on the new more HD powerful D* is gonna be".


If I were looking to provide a HD channel in the future I would sure be looking at this as a guide to how ethical D* is and as a guide to my lawyers for what to watch out for.

I suspect that the top levels of management of D* are unhappy about how public this has become and never expected it to become a public brawl like this.

It is my feeling that D* is a much more cards close to the chest company compared to E*.?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Thank you for the correction...
> 
> Do we have a set date then on when it first started to apear on the bills?
> 
> ...


They arent.

When it changed back whenever (lets say April for sake of argument) they were still in that tier/package whatever the lawyers decide it is.

Their argument is when it changed from HD Package to HD Access Directv STILL invoked the clause in the contract that called it a tier and allowed them to pay HDNET less (based on the number of other channels in that tier). So by doing that HDNET is arguing (correctly I think) that Directv defined HD Access as a tier/package - not HDNET.

HDNET could have argued that it is not a package and Directv should pay more now but they saw no reason to. Nothing had changed except the name and the Extra Pack hadnt been conceived (to anyones knowledge outside of Directv).

So when they first heard about the Extra Pack (and it was probably through this site, as I know they post their weekly schedule here) they contacted Directv and were assured they were not going to change and the contract is ok.

But their case is based on the fact that
1. Directv called HD Access a tier when it changed back in April(?) and carried on with the tier clause of the contract.
2. They are now putting them in a seperate tier in December with (apparantly) no negotiation - which HDNET feels is against the contract and there appears to be no talks or compromise on this.
3. As a result HDNET is losing 3rd party customers and hence money.

They are asking for a temp restraint so they can then argue their cases. They are also asking for a permanent one but for now a temp one will suffice.

So the judge doesnt have to really decide if the package is a tier or not for the TRO (yes he does for the PRO) as long as HDNET can show they are losing money until the argument is settled - which they can as they are showing at least one customer who has failed to renew citing the Extra Pack as the reason.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Thank you for the other "look at it"...
> I guess it could be possible that they decided to go straight to the courts... and ultimately try to get their "opinion" out on it first as well...
> 
> I just find it hard to believe, that they could not work this out... without having to go to court... they are two multi-billion dollar company's that have had (at least from what we have seen), a very good mutual relationship over the last 4 years


Why do you keep claiming HDNet is a multi-billion dollar company? All of the financial data I've seen lists them as a pretty small company in comparison to DirecTV. They're private so there's not a lot of information available.


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

TIER ?? !! ?? !! ??


"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> If I were looking to provide a HD channel in the future I would sure be looking at this as a guide to how ethical D* is and as a guide to my lawyers for what to watch out for.
> 
> I suspect that the top levels of management of D* are unhappy about how public this has become and never expected it to become a public brawl like this.
> 
> It is my feeling that D* is a much more cards close to the chest company compared to E*.?


Don't forget that there are two sides to every story. In football, if folks start throwing punches and things get out of hand, how often is it that the second punch is the one that gets most penalized? Regardless of the merits, DIRECTV may be trying to exercise a loop hole in the contract because HDNet did something that could be considered equally unethical last year and we just never heard about it. I'm not saying it did happen just that there are always two sides to the story and we've only heard one. HDNet is (of course) going to paint the picture in a way that best supports their position.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Why do you keep claiming HDNet is a multi-billion dollar company? All of the financial data I've seen lists them as a pretty small company in comparison to DirecTV. They're private so there's not a lot of information available.


Sorry... I will go down to multi-million dollar companies...

Given that Mr. Cuban was worth more then 2 Billion back in 2006...
But fair is fair.

I'll just refer to them as two very high valued companies....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And with that last statement:

I have made my points... And until we see the full contract, or DirecTV's official reply... There is not much more to say...

I stand by my statements... and I am going to take the same road as the OTA discussion... untill something else changes... 

Keep it clean... and Keep it mature...


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Speaking of the lawsuit .. If HDNet wins (or negotiates a "win" behind closed doors) what do you guys think will happen.
> 
> I can see two scenarios. (1) HDNet and HDNM moves back to Plus (or Premium) tier and is activated when HD Access is added or (2) HDNet and HDNM stays in the HD Extra tier just the way it is, but DIRECTV pays HDNet based on the number of subscribers in either Plus (or Premium) tier.
> 
> The contract is over in a little over a year from now. If HDNet strong arms too much (regardless of whether they are right or not), they will not be well accepted post 2008. In a worst case scenario, HDNet may have saved their face at the cost of their nose.


HDNET are arguing against #2 Doug.

IT isnt so much about subs income. It is about sub counts. They charge advertisers more based on the number of subs. That far outweighs any money D* pays them.

I would be willing to bet that in the 2008/9 contract HDNET will offer it for free to get into the basic package of every provider to max their audience base.

They will recoup that 100 fold selling ad time.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> But their case is based on the fact that
> 1. Directv called HD Access a tier when it changed back in April(?) and carried on with the tier clause of the contract.
> 2. They are now putting them in a seperate tier in December with (apparantly) no negotiation - which HDNET feels is against the contract and there appears to be no talks or compromise on this.
> 3. As a result HDNET is losing 3rd party customers and hence money.


As to point 2, it happened in September, but clearly that's not your point. It does appear that DIRECTV will make the claim that the words "HD Access" were re-purposed to no longer be a tier .. HDNet is obviously disagreeing with that because they have filed a lTRO application.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> So a general time line seems to be coming forward:
> 
> 6/3/2003 - HD Programming tier created
> 
> ...


Almost.

Except 9/26/2007 - HD Extra Tier created, HD Access is still a tier as defined by Directv as Directv are paying HDNET the tier rate and not the full rate per sub.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> So a general time line seems to be coming forward:
> 
> 6/3/2003 - HD Programming tier created
> 
> ...


Yep absolutely. Black and white. So don't tell me it is pink polka dots


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... I will go down to multi-million dollar companies...
> 
> Given that Mr. Cuban was worth more then 2 Billion back in 2006...
> But fair is fair.
> ...


You really shouldn't consider one of the owner's personal worth in the valuation of a company. They're very different things. Doing so means Jennifer Gates runs a billion dollar lemonade stand. 

I don't know how accurate they are...the data has HDNet with about 40 employees (which seems low to me). Annual revenue and profit numbers are real hard to figure. My guess is they gross under 100M a year and may still be operating in the red. In the battle of resources it probably isn't close.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> HDNET are arguing against #2 Doug.
> 
> IT isnt so much about subs income. It is about sub counts. They charge advertisers more based on the number of subs. That far outweighs any money D* pays them.
> 
> ...


It's always about the money .. Clearly HDNet wants more money than DIRECTV is willing to offer. If HDNet were to sign a new contract today giving their channel for free starting in 2009 if they were in the Plus tier, I'd be shocked if DIRECTV didn't take it. It would mean bigger payouts in 2007/8 by DIRECTV, but that could be accounted for over the life of the current contract and the next contract .. It's unlikely that it is that simple.

More likely, HDNet wants more money in the new contract than DIRECTV is willing to offer .. As a result, DIRECTV is trying to spend less now .. HDNet wants more now. If they could reach a conclusion on the next contract, this contract would likely be much less of a problem.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> As to point 2, it happened in September, but clearly that's not your point. It does appear that DIRECTV will make the claim that the words "HD Access" were re-purposed to no longer be a tier .. HDNet is obviously disagreeing with that because they have filed a lTRO application.


I have no doubt that Directvs stance is just that.

And for the PRO (remember they filed for a TRO and a PRO) that will be the argument.

But for the TRO I think they will satisfy the judge if 
1. They can show that in 2003 Directv invoked the tier clause and made lower per sub payments.
2. When it renamed to HD Access in March 2007 they still paid the lower fee.
3. When the HD Extra Pack was launched in September 2007 they still paid the lower fee
4. They can show that 1 existing customer has failed to renew a contract with HDNET citing the Extra Pack as the reason.

Then they go into the long debate for the PRO as to whether the HD Access is a tier or not. But for the TRO they only have to show those 4 things. A judge doenst have to think they will win their PRO to get a TRO, just that they are losing business while the PRO is being settled. So maybe they just have to show #4 above - but the others will help.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> Almost.
> 
> Except 9/26/2007 - HD Extra Tier created, HD Access is still a tier as defined by Directv as Directv are paying HDNET the tier rate and not the full rate per sub.


I don't know the actual answer, but since HDNet was moved to HD Extra I suspect that DIRECTV is paying HDNet the rate based on being in the HD EXtra tier .. not the HD Access tier. I think this is the crux of the entire case .. HDNet thinks that they should be paid based on what HDNet is calling a tier (HD Access) and DIRECTV thinks that HDNet should be paid based on the tier that they are in (HD Extra) because (in DIRECTV's mind) HD Access is no longer a tier.

That is what I was trying to convey in my time line.


----------



## Jotas (Jan 5, 2006)

Just stopped by and read on this. On one hand I totally agree with HDNet but I don't agree with the lawsuit tactic. It would have been more amicable if both sides had resolved this prior to legal proceedings. (OK, no "he started it!" talk)

I do agree that D* did rely on HDNet's programming in its HD infancy years. It's like biting the hand that feeds you in a way. I'm one of those who enjoys the HDNet programming and prefer HDNet's concerts over D*'s 101 content.

In the end though, as always it seems the consumer has to bare the burden of any outcome. Unfortunate as it may seem for both companies to go at each other like this, in the end it's unfortunate for us subscribers.

No good.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> Then they go into the long debate for the PRO as to whether the HD Access is a tier or not. But for the TRO they only have to show those 4 things. A judge doenst have to think they will win their PRO to get a TRO, just that they are losing business while the PRO is being settled. So maybe they just have to show #4 above - but the others will help.


You may be right on that .. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if a TRO were issued. It's tough to unring a bell.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> I have no doubt that Directvs stance is just that.
> 
> And for the PRO (remember they filed for a TRO and a PRO) that will be the argument.
> 
> ...


Losing money is not enough for a TRO to be granted...you have to be able to show damages that cannot be remedied with a monetary award.

I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard of a hearing date for the TRO. They are usually held very quickly and can be ex parte (only the party bringing the action has to be there). Maybe Texas is different.

In addition, getting a TRO isn't always a bed of roses the other side can request a bond be put in place to cover the damages caused by the TRO if its later proven that the the underlying cause of action was without basis.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's always about the money .. Clearly HDNet wants more money than DIRECTV is willing to offer. If HDNet were to sign a new contract today giving their channel for free starting in 2009 if they were in the Plus tier, I'd be shocked if DIRECTV didn't take it. It would mean bigger payouts in 2007/8 by DIRECTV, but that could be accounted for over the life of the current contract and the next contract .. It's unlikely that it is that simple.
> 
> More likely, HDNet wants more money in the new contract than DIRECTV is willing to offer .. As a result, DIRECTV is trying to spend less now .. HDNet wants more now. If they could reach a conclusion on the next contract, this contract would likely be much less of a problem.


That is certainly one scenario.

However, reading the filing it appears (and I stress appears) that there has been no talks at all up till now. Nothing coming from Directv to HDNET and HDNET's attempts to clarify the current situation have been met with "everything is ok and not been decided yet".

Now HDNET could have conveniently left other conversations out of their filing to help their case (and I have no doubt that they may have). Neither side is squeaky clean and both sides want the best for themselves.

I am sceptical that the 2008 contract was being renegotiated. Only because with so much new HD going on with Directv and trying to get new channels on board, Directv would be in a more powerful position (and have more time) when these are completed. They would probably hope to force their will on HDNET then as they wont need them so much then. But this is the current contract and I feel Directv may have messed up by paying the lower rate to HDNET after the Extra Pack was created and hence defined it as a tier.

Now, if Directv show they paid the full price to HDNET per sub then that is a different story altogether. But there is no mention of the increase in the filing and it really isnt something you can accidently forget to mention.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Ahh screw it... D* should eliminate the HD Access fee and just raise all their packages by 1.50. This would net D* even more money and they could call all simulcasted HD channels FREE!!!!!! Then no one could argue that the HD extra is their only HD teir....


But then they would be able to trumpet the same thing canle is doing in their advertisements around where I live. Free HD. They do not charge extra for HD equivelents of the channels in your package.

I keep basic cable and I can watch the HD feeds of my Locals including the subchannels as I have a HDTV that has a QAM tuner in it. Otherwise I'd have to pay the rental for the HD box. All other channels require the HD Box to descramble the channels.

So free except you need to rent the box or have a Cable card TV and rent the card.

So D* or E* or both could do the same. Restructure the HD box rental to $10 a month and the rental for a HD DVR to $15 to $20 a month and trumpet free HD. Get all the HD channels that are in your subscription package for no extra fee. Add the channels with no SD equivelent into the different SD packages. Done. Big advertising Blitz, Steal Cables(Fios) thunder and pick up more subs.

Looking at the bill someone posted I'd bet the billing software was rented/leased form the same people that do the billing software for cable companies. They are both clear as mud if you make any changes.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Losing money is not enough for a TRO to be granted...you have to be able to show damages that cannot be remedied with a monetary award.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard of a hearing date for the TRO. They are usually held very quickly and can be ex parte (only the party bringing the action has to be there). Maybe Texas is different.
> 
> In addition, getting a TRO isn't always a bed of roses the other side can request a bond be put in place to cover the damages caused by the TRO if its later proven that the the underlying cause of action was without basis.





> To be entitled to a temporary injunction an applicant need not show they will win at trial, but that it is probable that they will prevail and that they will likely suffer harm while waiting for the trial of their case


So if they prove my 4 points earlier I believe they have met this requirment for a TRO


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard of a hearing date for the TRO. They are usually held very quickly and can be ex parte (only the party bringing the action has to be there). Maybe Texas is different.


The original TRO was filed last Friday (11/2) .. I have a copy of the original TRO application as well. In researching the validity of the original TRO, I lucked out and actually obtained the amended TRO literally 16 hours after it was filed. I have no idea when court dates are set based on the filing, though. I had the amended TRO in my hands early Wednesday morning (11/7) after it had been filed on Tuesday afternoon (11/6).


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The only "hole" is Discovery HD Theater... but as pointed out multiple times, you could arge that HD Theater is nothing more of a rollup of the HD offereings from Discovery, TLC, Science... just shown at different times...


So is Universal HD:NBC/Universal.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

vankai said:


> TIER ?? !! ?? !! ??
> 
> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."


I honestly felt (I was told by a CSR.) that customers that had the HD would not be charged if or when D* got more hd channels. To me, it feels a little like the old 'bait and switch' con.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Basically if everyone or a majority skips the HDextra Package D' will reconsider the HD package parceling scheme and revert back to a simple one package plan... I still find this whole affair kind of sleezy...so I am going to vote with my wallet......


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Jotas said:


> Just stopped by and read on this. On one hand I totally agree with HDNet but I don't agree with the lawsuit tactic. It would have been more amicable if both sides had resolved this prior to legal proceedings. (OK, no "he started it!" talk)
> 
> I do agree that D* did rely on HDNet's programming in its HD infancy years. It's like biting the hand that feeds you in a way. I'm one of those who enjoys the HDNet programming and prefer HDNet's concerts over D*'s 101 content.
> 
> ...


I see D* as responsible for this situation. All they need to do cancel this extra tier, or put HD Net where it belongs.

Also if HD Net waits they will be at a further disadvantage by allowing D* time to move HD Theater to the upper tier.

On another note, the real issue HD Net has is that they will experience a loss of viewship which clearly they didn't intend to be an "obscure" channel.

But I agree it's not good for anyone.

The management for D* must be questionable.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

islander66 said:


> I see D* as responsible for this situation. All they need to do cancel this extra tier, or put HD Net where it belongs.
> 
> Also if HD Net waits they will be at a further disadvantage by allowing D* time to move HD Theater to the upper tier.
> 
> ...


Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens? I'm sure the tier was created for a reason .. If it doesn't work out as DIRECTV hopes, then I'd expect to see an increase in costs to everyone to offset the cost to carry HDNet. Right now I can choose to not get HDNet and save a few dollars .. If it's required as part of HD Access, that will no longer be the case.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens?


Not a chance. They'll have perfect justification to raise the price, and won't hesitate to do so.


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Not a chance. They'll have perfect justification to raise the price, and won't hesitate to do so.


They have already planned on raising the price.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Not a chance. They'll have perfect justification to raise the price, and won't hesitate to do so.


:nono2: But first they will have to come up with a new Fancy name ....


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens?


thats not a good reason for DirecTV to screw over HDNet.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

It has come to my attention that DIRECTV has already filed an opposition to the TRO as well as a request to expedite the discovery. I'm trying to get these documents as well, but unfortunately I'm not really close to Dallas County, TX. If anyone has access to these additional documents, I'd love to make them available here .. Feel free to contact me via PM ..


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

tuff bob said:


> thats not a good reason for DirecTV to screw over HDNet.


The contract is in dispute and they'll work it out .. what we don't have is the behind-the-scenes history leading up to this action .. Either the court will decide or the two parties will negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

vankai said:


> They have already planned on raising the price.


Proof?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens? I'm sure the tier was created for a reason .. If it doesn't work out as DIRECTV hopes, then I'd expect to see an increase in costs to everyone to offset the cost to carry HDNet. Right now I can choose to not get HDNet and save a few dollars .. If it's required as part of HD Access, that will no longer be the case.


They're going to raise the price no matter what. Read their investor packages figure on 3% - 4% increases every year. Sure, they'll continue to play three-card monte with the packages and fees...but at the end of the day the price is going up. That's what the boss wants.

Take a look at slide 86 in this presentation if you want to see it spelled out.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens? I'm sure the tier was created for a reason .. If it doesn't work out as DIRECTV hopes, then I'd expect to see an increase in costs to everyone to offset the cost to carry HDNet. Right now I can choose to not get HDNet and save a few dollars .. If it's required as part of HD Access, that will no longer be the case.


I'm sure that the HD Extra Pack has been created for multiple reasons. The one that concerns me the most is that DirecTV, in its role as a DBS carrier, is attempting to harm HDNET because it competes with Liberty, the owner of DirecTV, in its role as a content provider. The contractual issue can and will be sorted out by the courts, although I'm skeptical that HDNET can meet the heavy burden of establishing irreparable injury and the lack of an adequate legal remedy. Although DirecTV is clearly a bigger Goliath than HDNET, Mark Cuban can take care of himself.

This issue is related to the net neutrality controversy. To what extent should John Malone be able to use his ownership of a content distribution mechanism [DirecTV] to the benefit of his programming businesses at the expense of other content providers like HDNET? I don't think there is a simple solution to this problem, because DirecTV doesn't have the ability to carry every conceivable channel. But, if it is going to continue to carry HDNET, I don't think it should be permitted by FCC rules to favor its own content by sticking HDNET into an extra-cost tier. If it wants to hammer down HDNET's price after the contract expires, that's fine. But what it's doing now will cost HDNET subscribers and bring more eyeballs and advertising revnue to Malone's [Liberty's] content. I think that's the biggest motivation behind the creation of the extra pack and I don't like the way it smells.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Everybody expected a price increase myself included when the HD programming finally arrived, what suprised many including myself was the package parceling right out of the gate... Of course the first channels to be pulled into the new Tier were the 100% HD ones, leaving us with upconverted SD channels with HD programing showing less than 10% of the time for the forseable future...I know...I know... just be patient, the programing will come sometime next year....or the next , or the next.....


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Proof?


Not My Qoute:

"IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels."


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> ... DirecTV, in its role as a DBS carrier, is attempting to harm HDNET because it competes with Liberty, the owner of DirecTV, in its role as a content provider.


HDNet is claiming this, yes, but I personally don't believe this statement to have anything to do with the reason behind DIRECTV's decision. I could be wrong and really have no way to find out for sure, but I would be very surprised if this were the case.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

I would not look at this Forum as a guide to how people are going to respond to the new HD Fee, we are a minority of subscribers...the test will come in December....I still look for D's phones to light up at that time....I think D will try to add the price automatically to the bill without cutting off the channels in hopes of keeping the complaints at a minumim, that is of course till the statements come out....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

warriorking said:


> I would not look at this Forum as a guide to how people are going to respond to the new HD Fee, we are a minority of subscribers...the test will come in December....I still look for D's phones to light up at that time....


It was more of a "be careful what you ask for" statement. Certainly, we are all pretty much just observers here and the bigger picture will be the bigger test.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

vankai said:


> Not My Qoute:
> 
> "IMHO... I don't see many new subscribers shying away from the $4.99 HD Extra Pack... why? They are spending $9.99 on the HD Access package... they just paid for the HD-DVR or HD Recievrs, got that new HD DTV... at the end of the day... what another $5 a month to get those other channels."


D* is quite a work of art, isn't it?

First you buy (thought you bought) the HR20 only to find out it's leased. (How many Joe Publics to this day really know it's leased?)

Then it turns out to be a buggy, beta-testing DVR that upsets its customers who have had to put up with it for the last year - A public relations nightmare.

Then it promises all these channels and half of them turn out to be sd 90% of the time.

Then as soon as they get a few more channels they move a channel that helped them early on to a "tier" so they could charge their customers 5 more dollars.

A company to be proud of, isn't it?


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It was more of a "be careful what you ask for" statement.


Could we use the same logic with DirecTV with regards to the contracts we agreed to ? I don't like that Early Termination Fee, so I'm not going to terminate, but I do want to indefinably no longer have DirecTV service ... so don't charge me the ETF, because I didn't terminate.

You think I can work that angle?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jjohns said:


> First you buy (thought you bought) the HR20 only to find out it's leased. (How many Joe Publics to this day really know it's leased?)


This is not DirecTV's fault. They make it as clear as they possibly can that it's a lease. If Joe Public is still too desnse to realize it, that's his problem.


jjohns said:


> Then it promises all these channels and half of them turn out to be sd 90% of the time.


Once again, it's not DirecTV's fault. They can only provide what they're given. DirecTV has fully stepped up to the plate by giving every HD channel a platform. It's up to the content providers to actually get the HD content.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> This is not DirecTV's fault. They make it as clear as they possibly can that it's a lease. If Joe Public is still too desnse to realize it, that's his problem.
> 
> Once again, it's not DirecTV's fault. They can only provide what they're given. DirecTV has fully stepped up to the plate by giving every HD channel a platform. It's up to the content providers to actually get the HD content.


"If Joe Public is still too desnse to realize it, that's his problem."

Nice attitude towards the general public.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Nice attitude towards the general public.


You're the one who implied that the general public is too stupid to pick up on the fact that DirecTV leases their receivers, despite things like red stickers on the boxes. I was just elaborating on your claim.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> You're the one who implied that the general public is too stupid to pick up on the fact that DirecTV leases their receivers, despite things like red stickers on the boxes. I was just elaborating on your claim.


yeah, everybody reads the fine print on boxes and when they walk out of Best Buy with DirecTV hardware after handing over cash realizes that they don't own it :nono2:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tuff bob said:


> yeah, everybody reads the fine print on boxes and when they walk out of Best Buy with DirecTV hardware after handing over cash realizes that they don't own it :nono2:


It's not fine print. It's a good sized red sticker. You can't miss it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> You're the one who implied that the general public is too stupid to pick up on the fact that DirecTV leases their receivers, despite things like red stickers on the boxes. I was just elaborating on your claim.


Typical D* double talk.
I state only that most of the public doesn't realize they don't own it. 
You call them stupid for it.
Then you say I implied they were stupid. 
Amazing.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

How many of us DID read the box, a year ago, and believed we would have OTA and then found out we didn't?!

How many of us thought that since D* toughted it as an improvement over the Tivo unit that we would have DLB and then found out it didn't have DLB?

I just looked at my original box my HR20 came in...No red sticker and there is nothing printed on the box about the HR20 being leased.

I first learned of the lease from this forum.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Typical D* double talk.


Yep, I'm a DirecTV employee. In Detroit. You got me.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> It's not fine print. It's a good sized red sticker. You can't miss it.


I don't remember seeing it when I bought an H20 at Best Buy, but then Best Buy just threw it on the pile of stuff I was buying since I was buying the HDTV + DirecTV + home theatre bundle.

When the "installers" brought me an HR20 (via DirecTV direct sales), it was already out of the box, installed and activated and the installer had me sign off on the install before giving me the "this is a lease / extend contract" document to sign. There was a smallish red sticker on the box, but I never opened it, nor do I recall DirecTV telling me it would be a lease.

I think it's much easier than you claim to "miss" that the hardware is lease. I only know that it is because I read the forums.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

:backtotop .. while discussing the print on the HR20 box is interesting, this isn't the place to do it .. Thank You.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Brott, sorry.
I was just was responding to the results of "new Posts" search. I didn't read the topic thread.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you think that HD Access will stay @ $9.99 if this happens? I'm sure the tier was created for a reason .. If it doesn't work out as DIRECTV hopes, then I'd expect to see an increase in costs to everyone to offset the cost to carry HDNet. Right now I can choose to not get HDNet and save a few dollars .. If it's required as part of HD Access, that will no longer be the case.


This extra HD fee will not preclude D* from raising rates for HD.

I also see this as a fee increase not a discount.

I just signed up and they are taking channels away from me right off the bat.

Also, what I don't like is the uncertainty of which other channels will be moved into a higher tier.

There has been no consistency with this policy.

Edit: This reminds me of when I was riding my bike and got run over by a pick up truck and the driver filed charges against me!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

islander66 said:


> Also, what I don't like is the uncertainty of which other channels will be moved into a higher tier.


There is no uncertainty. Of the HD channels DirecTV has now, six (6) of them will be in the HD Extra pack. That's it. None of the other current channels will be moving. If DirecTV adds a new HD channel, it'll go to the HD pack if it's a dedicated HD channel, or be part of HD Access if it's a simulcast.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Whether or not D* violated the contract is for the courts to decide. But one thing I have to wonder if D* has considered is who they are going up against.

This is not a battle with HDNet, but specifically with Mark Cuban. He is this generations PT Barnum with almost 2 billion dollars at his disposal. He is charismatic and is willing to spend money to make a point. And the press reports what he says.

So if HDNet loses this fight, you can bet Cuban will use every bit of media he can garner to recommend E* to the public. So even if D* wins, they may still lose.

Now with that thought out of the way, from a business standpoint, I think the HD Extra fee is a bad idea. I will pay it as I want the content, but D* is getting to the point of customer confustion with all these packages. They need to simplify the packages they have and hide the HD Extra package inside some other packages.

For example, for every SD package, have a corresponding HD package that is $10 more. Then take most widely distributed package and make the HD version $15 more and add the other HD channels. It would make it much easier for the customer to understand.

As a side note, I think the description of the call to D* customer service was a riot and hopefully will make D* management take notice of exactly what their CSR's are saying.

But as Earl has said numberous times, the money for all this HD has to come from somewhere, and unless we want 50 HD shopping networks, it is going to come from the subscribers. Finding the best way to extract it is the $64K question.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> *There is no uncertainty*. Of the HD channels DirecTV has now, six (6) of them will be in the HD Extra pack. That's it. None of the other current channels will be moving. If DirecTV adds a new HD channel, it'll go to the HD pack if it's a dedicated HD channel, or be part of HD Access if it's a simulcast.


I think there is abit of uncertainty. I f D* can move a channel that we received in the HD "Basic" to an upper tier what will stop them from moving other "basic" popular hd channels to that tier also. Especially if D* doesn't receive the monetary response they were hoping for. Forcing the pigs thru the gate. So to speak.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Whether or not D* violated the contract is for the courts to decide. But one thing I have to wonder if D* has considered is who they are going up against.
> 
> This is not a battle with HDNet, but specifically with Mark Cuban. He is this generations PT Barnum with almost 2 billion dollars at his disposal. He is charismatic and is willing to spend money to make a point. And the press reports what he says.
> 
> So if HDNet loses this fight, you can bet Cuban will use every bit of media he can garner to recommend E* to the public. So even if D* wins, they may still lose.


You vastly over-estimate the power of Mark Cuban with the public. Most don't know he has anything to do with HD (most know him as the idiot who yells at referees in NBA games if they know him at all or a guy who dances with stars).

All his yellling about Comcast hasn't hurt them much, has it?

BTW, I have hardly ever seen Cuban quoted in *mainstream* press.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> I f D* can move a channel that we received in the HD "Basic" to an upper tier what will stop them from moving other "basic" popular hd channels to that tier also.


The fact that they're simulcast channels. Simple.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The fact that they're simulcast channels. Simple.


Is HDNET simulcast? Why would D* simulcast the same channel in two different tiers?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> Is HDNET simulcast? Why would D* simulcast the same channel in two different tiers?


HDNet isn't a simulcast channel, because it's only available in HD.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> But as Earl has said numberous times, the money for all this HD has to come from somewhere, and unless we want 50 HD shopping networks, it is going to come from the subscribers. Finding the best way to extract it is the $64K question.


This extra HD is possibly D* best marketing opportunity ever to extract customers from cable. It is theoretically possible for D* to make up this extra cost in increased subscribers vs getting more money from existing subscribers. Although that is a long term strategy that may not win with the inversors short-term.


----------



## jbraden (Mar 23, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> HDNet isn't a simulcast channel, because it's only available in HD.


Food Network isn't a simulcast station either, since they offer different programming in the SD & HD version, but Food Network isn't slated for banishment to the HD Extra tier.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jbraden said:


> Food Network isn't a simulcast station either, since they offer different programming in the SD & HD version, but Food Network isn't slated for banishment to the HD Extra tier.


But Food HD is tied to Food SD, since it only shows programming from that one single channel.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Now with that thought out of the way, from a business standpoint, I think the HD Extra fee is a bad idea. I will pay it as I want the content, but D* is getting to the point of customer confustion with all these packages. They need to simplify the packages they have and hide the HD Extra package inside some other packages.
> 
> For example, for every SD package, have a corresponding HD package that is $10 more. Then take most widely distributed package and make the HD version $15 more and add the other HD channels. It would make it much easier for the customer to understand.


I think there are probably more people who would rather have the HD Extra pack separate and leave the HD Access at $9.99 (or whatever it will be) so they don't have to pay extra for channels they won't watch than there are people who would prefer that they just include all HD in one package for $15.00.

As for your example, "for every SD package, have a corresponding HD package that is $10 more", that's the way it is now. Pay $9.99 for HD Access and get the existing HD equivalent of the channels you subscribe to in your package. If you want the extra HD channels that don't have an SD equivalent, pay an extra $4.99 for that. Maybe it's just me, but that is easier for me to understand than your example, sorry.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> There is no uncertainty. Of the HD channels DirecTV has now, six (6) of them will be in the HD Extra pack. That's it. None of the other current channels will be moving. If DirecTV adds a new HD channel, it'll go to the HD pack if it's a dedicated HD channel, or be part of HD Access if it's a simulcast.


Of course HD Theater isn't a simulcast.

A simulcast means that it is an identical channel, one broadcast in HD the other in SD.

So these other channels with the same name are not a simulcast. I believe HGHD also has different programming.

But what if these other HD channels that are in the lower tier drop the SD broadcast? Do they then move into the upper tier?

How much content needs to be changed in each broadcast? Or do they simply change the name and some of the content? Instead of what they are doing now by keeping the same name but different programming?

Simple enough?

Maybe not. :nono:


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The fact that they're simulcast channels. Simple.


Then what HD channels are simulcast on D*'s tiers. Need to make a buying decision when I get the house and dump comblast.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> Then what HD channels are simulcast on D*'s tiers.


http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114

Click on Premier, and there you go.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV qalifies Discover HD Theater, Food HD and HGTV HD .. There may be others, but those are the ones I know are not exactly the same as an SD version.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV qalifies Discover HD Theater, Food HD and HGTV HD .. There may be others, but those are the ones I know are not exactly the same as an SD version.


Food HD and HGTV HD are easy. They're treated like simulcast channels, even though they're not. Each of them are strictly tied to a single SD channel, with no separate carriage fees. HD Theater is trickier, though.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I think there are probably more people who would rather have the HD Extra pack separate and leave the HD Access at $9.99 (or whatever it will be) so they don't have to pay extra for channels they won't watch than there are people who would prefer that they just include all HD in one package for $15.00.
> 
> As for your example, "for every SD package, have a corresponding HD package that is $10 more", that's the way it is now. Pay $9.99 for HD Access and get the existing HD equivalent of the channels you subscribe to in your package. If you want the extra HD channels that don't have an SD equivalent, pay an extra $4.99 for that. Maybe it's just me, but that is easier for me to understand than your example, sorry.


I would like to see the HD DVR package include all non premium HD channels.

That really is deceptive on D*s part for new subscribers like myself.

Then rate increases should have some consistency that non insular customers can understand.

It's no wonder no one at D* tried to explain this to me when I signed a two year contract for HD service.

"It includes all simulcast programs except for the ones we decide not to put in there. Or you can go to our website, but that hasn't been updated, or you can call back and talk to someone else who knows even less about this than I do. Hold on, while I disconnect your call. Did I answer all your questions?" :hurah:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> HD Theater is trickier, though.


Yes it is. In one way it is like MHD in that it pulls programming from sister networks. In the case of HD Theater the sisters are TDC, TLC and SCI. Now that those channels are in HD, will HD Theater keep running content from those or will it provide new content?

If it provides new content, then HDNet may have a legitimate complaint that Malone got a preferred deal.

As for the -1 channels, I don't really think of them as separate channels as they just rerun content from the main channel. In a way I applaud them for trying to keep HD content on their HD channel instead of just simulcasting SD stuff.


----------



## ernie6 (Sep 24, 2007)

It is all about money, nothing personal, same argument the NFL channel has with Time Warner and other cable systems. Time Warner wants to place the NFL channel in their "sports" tier to increase sales of that package. Time Warner sees no benefit to them to place the NFL channel in their basic programming. As of today the NFL channel is not on Time Warner and may never be.

DirecTV's HD game plan is well thought out when you take into consideration a la carte programming being pushed by the FCC and Congress. For now, to get around selling programming a la carte, cable, Dish and DirecTV have created several tiers, programming packages.

The $9.99 charge is for the privilege of watching SD programming already being received in HD. The $4.99 is for viewing programming exclusive to HD. DirecTV was smart to create the two packages to avoid complaints from subscribers being forced to buy the whole package. HD Net, Universal and MGM are terrific movie programs if one like old movies. Otherwise, they don't have much to offer.

HD Net and DirecTV need each other and they will surely come to some agreement. Its like the NFL player that swears he will never play for his current team again, but can't sign fast enough when the big contract is finally offered.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV qalifies Discover HD Theater, Food HD and HGTV HD .. There may be others, but those are the ones I know are not exactly the same as an SD version.


On HD Theater. I think the reason it is in the choice package is the fact that most cable operations have that channel on their digital channel pack along with the HDlocal channels
and if D* wants to compete with cable they just kept that one in to make themselves more competitive. Thank You D*


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ActiveHDdave said:


> On HD Theater. I think the reason it is in the choice package is the fact that most cable operations have that channel on their digital channel pack along with the HDlocal channels
> and if D* wants to compete with cable they just kept that one in to make themselves more competitive. Thank You D*


I can see the argument from both sides on this one channel .. It will be interesting to finally get the results.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Just an update on DIRECTV's response. I don't have it in my hand at the moment, but I am hoping to have it available. It is unlikely that I will have it before next week, though. If anyone has this earlier, then I'd be happy to help you get it posted here.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

HGTV and HD HGTV are not simulcast.

They have different programming. I couldn't find any of the same programs SD HGTV I used to watch on HD HGTV until D* broadcast HD HGTV.

Are they just playing old reruns on HGTV while HD HDTV has new programming?

"Simulcast is a portmanteau of "simultaneous broadcast", and refers to programs or events broadcast across more than one medium, or more than one service on the same medium, at the same time."

Are NBC and MSNBC simulcast because they both have NBC in their name and show reruns of "To Catch a Predator"?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

warriorking said:


> Basically if everyone or a majority skips the HDextra Package D' will reconsider the HD package parceling scheme and revert back to a simple one package plan... I still find this whole affair kind of sleezy...so I am going to vote with my wallet......


I could be wrong but if the majority skip the HD Extra package for the reason you suggest, the D* will just say, See it is a low viewership channel and we need to charge extra to distribute it to the minority who want it.

One thing I wouldn't expect is to see them drop a tier. Drop a channel that costs more to distribute than it brings in? I could see them drop a channel. Drop a tier no. They want the money.

If a tier doesn't perform as expected then you can be sure they will move channels into the tier that people want until the expected revenue is there.

Now that D* finally has a decent product, number of HD channels, They will be working to make the most of it while they can before the competition catches up.

I was talking to the Cable company guy yesterdayn (Sunday) while he was there working on my Cable Internet. He says that the cable company now has 50 channels of HD. I haven't checked his veracity yet. Last time I looked they had almost 30 channels and that was before the big D* expansion.

Out of curiousity which has better rain fade resistance? the regular DBS frequencies or D10?

Cheers


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Just an update on DIRECTV's response. I don't have it in my hand at the moment, but I am hoping to have it available. It is unlikely that I will have it before next week, though. If anyone has this earlier, then I'd be happy to help you get it posted here.


Doug, any update on Directv's response to this lawsuit?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

paulh said:


> This extra HD is possibly D* best marketing opportunity ever to extract customers from cable. It is theoretically possible for D* to make up this extra cost in increased subscribers vs getting more money from existing subscribers. Although that is a long term strategy that may not win with the inversors short-term.


Not sure about that. In the short term, people who are moving from cable to DTV for extra HD channels will do so regardless of the additional $5 fee (or they will forego the extra $5 and handful of channels on the higher tier, and make the move anyway).

Long-term, cable will catch up with DTV, as essentially all channels will be HD. Switching providers because they offer more HD, or paying more for HD channels, will be as meaningless as switching providers because they offer more color channels or paying more for color channels. Customers will pick providers based on content, not resolution.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> Doug, any update on Directv's response to this lawsuit?


Nothing at present .. I'll post it as soon as I get something.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Latest update:

A hearing date has been set for December 7th @ 10:00am. Also, I'm still trying to track down the response from DIRECTV. It doesn't look good for today, but if and when I get it I'll post it here for your review.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Latest update:
> 
> A hearing date has been set for December 7th @ 10:00am. Also, I'm still trying to track down the response from DIRECTV. It doesn't look good for today, but if and when I get it I'll post it here for your review.


Thanks for the update. I'm sure you will find any info available out there in cyberspace.  The court that this suit was filed in does not have a website.  At least I can not find one.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> Thanks for the update. I'm sure you will find any info available out there in cyberspace.  The court that this suit was filed in does not have a website.  At least I can not find one.


http://www.dallascounty.org/pars2/#

http://courts.dallascounty.org/default.aspx <- IE only (I'd suggest using this one although I'll just post the stuff here to save pounding their database if the mods would like.

These databases appears to be down. I was able to pull the record last week. (It's up now)


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Here's the court status to date:

Link deleted...accesssible via Ken S link.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Thanks for the link guys .. Mike, I get a public access error when I try that link


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

islander66 said:


> I just signed up and they are taking channels away from me right off the bat.
> 
> Also, what I don't like is the uncertainty of which other channels will be moved into a higher tier.


Right ON ! The problem in a nutshell.

HDNet today. Who knows what tomorrow?


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I get Access Denied to that case number. Looks like the public is being denied assess to these proceedings. 

Edit: Had to enter case number without dash (-)


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> Out of curiousity which has better rain fade resistance? the regular DBS frequencies or D10?


Completely off topic, but the "regular DBS frequencies" (Ku) are more resistant to rain fade than "D10" (Ka).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

The access was denied today...but that may just be because the courthouse was probably closed for the holiday. Some of these courthouse systems can be a bit...umm...fragile. Remember, your right to see the documents generally means you have the right to go to the courthouse (or send a messenger) to get them. The computerized stuff is a courtesy.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

That's true .. I forgot about the holiday since I had to work today :lol:


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Ken S said:


> The access was denied today...but that may just be because the courthouse was probably closed for the holiday. Some of these courthouse systems can be a bit...umm...fragile. Remember, your right to see the documents generally means you have the right to go to the courthouse (or send a messenger) to get them. The computerized stuff is a courtesy.


It could also mean that the filings were made under seal, so the public will not have access. I'm not sure what part of D*'s response would be confidential, but it is possible.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I just checked the docket and it says public access is denied. It is possible for one or both of the parties to ask the court to seal the docket so it is not accessible to the public. It appears that's what happened here.

Theoretically, you could make a FOIA request to get the information, but I don't know Texas law well enough to know the reach of the Texas FOIA law (assuming there is one--most states have them).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Here's what I got out of their system this morning.
For whatever reason I can't use it with Firefox and it's very, very picky about how you input the data in the search form....
-----------------
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 
11/02/2007 ISSUE CITATION 
11/02/2007 ISSUE TRO AND NOTICE 
11/02/2007 ORIGINAL PETITION (OCA) 
11/05/2007 MISCELLANOUS EVENT
OPPOSE APPL TRO 
11/05/2007 RESPONSE
M/EXPEDITE DSCY 
11/06/2007 AFFIDAVIT
AUPP APPL TRO 
11/06/2007 APPLICATION - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AMEND 
11/12/2007 BOND FILED 
11/12/2007 CITATIONDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved

11/12/2007 NOTICEDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved

11/12/2007 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
HARPER, GEOFFREY S unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved

12/07/2007 Temporary Injunction (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer LOWY, MARTIN) 12/05/2007 Reset by Court to 12/07/2007

Here's a short bio on Judge Martin Lowy, who it appears won an election last November. This is from the Dallas Morning News Link

Democrat Martin Lowy, 56 - first in his class at Southern Methodist University School of Law in 1979 - has 18 years in private practice and is a trained attorney-mediator with more than 100 mediations since 1993.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Ken, what link are you using to access the docket? When I tried last night, I got a message that public access was denied, which appeared to me to be a closed docket.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Ken, what link are you using to access the docket? When I tried last night, I got a message that public access was denied, which appeared to me to be a closed docket.


dave,

I could tell you but then.... 

Here's what I have figured out. The first link I listed is an older system. I was able to pull some cases up with it, but it just gives basic information...no document images.

The second link I used is their Odyssey system and has the docket. It doesn't appear to have imaging capabilities either.

Maybe at the end if it looks like something interesting happens (trial) it would be fun to get a runner to the courthouse to get all the docs and maybe buy a transcript.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Ken S said:


> dave,
> 
> I could tell you but then....
> 
> ...


Got it. When I try the other link, I just get invalid case number. I was finally able to get it by searching Directv as a party name.

We have an office in Dallas, but I would have to explain why I was asking one of our runners to go to the courthouse to retrieve this information.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Got it. When I try the other link, I just get invalid case number. I was finally able to get it by searching Directv as a party name.
> 
> We have an office in Dallas, but I would have to explain why I was asking one of our runners to go to the courthouse to retrieve this information.


Dave,

Wait until it's over...there's probably not much filed of interest right now. Either that or pack a lunch and go to the TRO hearing on the 7th .


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Dave,
> 
> Wait until it's over...there's probably not much filed of interest right now. Either that or pack a lunch and go to the TRO hearing on the 7th .


If I was in Dallas I would love to sit in on the TRO hearing, if it was open to the public. Maybe someone on the forum who lives in Dallas could go and report back to us. Or we can try to get the transcript afterwards.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

First, thanks for all the info on my price increase question/request. It is no wonder there is so much secrecy. "We are hoping that we will not have to raise the price of HD access" would have been a better response. Hindsight is 20/20. :lol:



Ken S said:


> Here's a short bio on Judge Martin Lowy, who it appears won an election last November. This is from the Dallas Morning News Link
> 
> Democrat Martin Lowy, 56 - first in his class at Southern Methodist University School of Law in 1979 - has 18 years in private practice and is a trained attorney-mediator with more than 100 mediations since 1993.


I wonder how much political clout Mark Cuban has in Dallas County. I believe that is where he lives and I assume he is a Democrat and the Judge is a Democrat. IMHO D* will not get a favorable outcome from this court. However, no matter the outcome, it will be appealed by the looser.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> First, thanks for all the info on my price increase question/request. It is no wonder there is so much secrecy. "We are hoping that we will not have to raise the price of HD access" would have been a better response. Hindsight is 20/20. :lol:
> 
> I wonder how much political clout Mark Cuban has in Dallas County. I believe that is where he lives and I assume he is a Democrat and the Judge is a Democrat. IMHO D* will not get a favorable outcome from this court. However, no matter the outcome, it will be appealed by the looser.


I don't think party affiliation will have anything to do with the outcome. Cuban has supported both Democrats and Republicans in the past..if he anything he's a libertarian.

While there are many judges I haven't agreed with in the past there are very, very few that were outright corrupt. There's no evidence to support Lowy being anything other than a very bright guy with a lot of working experience as a commercial lawyer and mediator.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I don't think party affiliation will have anything to do with the outcome. Cuban has supported both Democrats and Republicans in the past..if he anything he's a libertarian.
> 
> While there are many judges I haven't agreed with in the past there are very, very few that were outright corrupt. There's no evidence to support Lowy being anything other than a very bright guy with a lot of working experience as a commercial lawyer and mediator.


Lower court judges routinely make politically advantageous rulings. They know they will be appealed. Why make an unpopular ruling when it is going to be appealed anyway. This does not make them corrupt, just CYA so they can get reelected.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> Lower court judges routinely make politically advantageous rulings. They know they will be appealed. Why make an unpopular ruling when it is going to be appealed anyway. This does not make them corrupt, just CYA so they can get reelected.


I've been practicing for just about twenty years and I strongly disagree with you. Every judge I have known hated to be overruled on appeal. Do politics play a part in some cases...sure...they're humans...but I've never seen it on commercial cases like this especially since it really doesn't have political ramifications and Cuban is certainly not a staunch Democrat. District court is the highest trial level court in Texas...we're not talking fixing a ticket here.

Are their corrupt judges that can be bought? Of course...they exist...some come cheap as we learned with the roofer's union in Philadelphia year's back.


----------



## shollowa74 (Jan 24, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I've been practicing for just about twenty years and I strongly disagree with you. Every judge I have known hated to be overruled on appeal. Do politics play a part in some cases...sure...they're humans...but I've never seen it on commercial cases like this especially since it really doesn't have political ramifications and Cuban is certainly not a staunch Democrat. District court is the highest trial level court in Texas...we're not talking fixing a ticket here.
> 
> Are their corrupt judges that can be bought? Of course...they exist...some come cheap as we learned with the roofer's union in Philadelphia year's back.


Just to speculate a little further, I live in Dallas and the local judiciary changed completely in the last election. The judiciary in Dallas county was completely Republican for a number of years and they were alll but swept out of office last year by the Democrats. From talking to my lawyer friends, the change in party affiliation is not as much the issue in planning for court cases. The issue is that they do not know the judges as well and do not yet have the feeling as how they will rule in certain cases.

Cuban's lawyer in the case is with a national firm but has practiced in Dallas for a number of years and is really well respected.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

MikeR said:


> This would go along with the idea that this was a recent deviation from the original plan (along with the lack of communication with HDNet, previous statements & press coverage stating no price increases.) Probably a financial pro said...hey the "programming is not costing us extra"...but look at the cost to upgrade everyone & add new subscribers to HD. Can't add another DVR fee...what else is there? Ahh...."Extra Pack".


Or, Mark Cuban could be right: The decision was made by John Malone in order to screw HDNET. Frankly, adding the "tier" seems designed more to hurt HDNET than to raise revenue. Who knows?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Early in my career, I was a legal services attorney and often sought TRO's in welfare cases. The easy part of the decision for the judge will be whether moving HDNET to the Extra Pack is a breach of their contract. The hard part will be determining whether a failure to provide injunctive relief will irreparably harm HDNET and whether HDNET has an adequate remedy at law -- financial damages. Some judges are extremely averse to issuing TRO's, except perhaps in domestic violence cases. The reason that the TRO application seems a bit hyperbolic is precisely because Cuban's lawyers understand that they've got to get the judge to believe that moving HDNET will destroy it. I think it's a tough sell.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

shollowa74 said:


> Just to speculate a little further, I live in Dallas and the local judiciary changed completely in the last election. The judiciary in Dallas county was completely Republican for a number of years and they were alll but swept out of office last year by the Democrats. From talking to my lawyer friends, the change in party affiliation is not as much the issue in planning for court cases. The issue is that they do not know the judges as well and do not yet have the feeling as how they will rule in certain cases.
> 
> Cuban's lawyer in the case is with a national firm but has practiced in Dallas for a number of years and is really well respected.


Fully agree...although I'd rather have a good judge than one that I knew was going to be flaky. 

Both of the firms that HDNet has Richardson & Leboeuff are well respected firms. I don't know the attorneys involved. Unfortunately, just because someone works for a big firm nowadays doesn't mean much about their ability. There are some lawyers working at top firms who I wouldn't trust to draft a response to a parking ticket and guys in small firms that could prove to Moses that the Egyptians weren't all that bad.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Early in my career, I was a legal services attorney and often sought TRO's in welfare cases. The easy part of the decision for the judge will be whether moving HDNET to the Extra Pack is a breach of their contract. The hard part will be determining whether a failure to provide injunctive relief will irreparably harm HDNET and whether HDNET has an adequate remedy at law -- financial damages. Some judges are extremely averse to issuing TRO's, except perhaps in domestic violence cases. The reason that the TRO application seems a bit hyperbolic is precisely because Cuban's lawyers understand that they've got to get the judge to believe that moving HDNET will destroy it. I think it's a tough sell.


oakwcj,

Yes, I agree on the issuing of the TRO...that's the difficult hill for HDNet's attorneys. As I said earlier should a TRO be granted it will speak quite strongly on how the judge feels about this case.

If you look at the record I posted earlier today it appears that some sort of bond has already been posted (I don't know the Texas system and this may be something else).

I'm not sure how large it should be because what are DirecTV's actual damages if they can't put the HDNet channels in that package on 12/15 because of the TRO? They can still launch the package without them.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

FYI .. For those that my have discussed the cost of HD Extra and how HDNet fits in, I have split off those comments into another thread .. You can find that discussion here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=109314

Now for this thread .. :backtotop


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

Here are the DIRECTV Packages:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114










● The HD Access Fee must be paid as an added fee to enable the HD Channels in any package.

● On page six of the filing, HDNet states that the contract included this provision:

_If DIRECTV distributes a tier or package containing television-programming services in any high definition format, DIRECTV will immediately include both [HDNet and HDNet Movies] as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such services (the "[HD] Tier")&#8230;. Once launched, except as expressly set forth herein, at no time during the Term may DIRECTV delete either or both of [HDNet and HDNet Movies} from the platform._

Which is the "the most widely distributed tier or package?"

- Craig


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> Here are the DIRECTV Packages:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380114
> 
> ...


That sure sounds to me like HDNet must be included with the family or choice package group of HD channels. There is just no way to reasonably interpret this in DirecTV's favor even if you don't call HD Access a package or tier.

The most widely distributed HD tier is clearly one of those two entry level packages in combination with the HD Access "fee".


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

The Channel Lineup Card is probably the most conclusive proof source to show what is the base package offering HD.

It makes it very clear how all packages build on Choice.

Could DIRECTV have prevented this problem by just changing their wording? Could they get almost everyone to spend $15.98 on HD instead of just a few?

I think it would be this simple:

Declare HD Extra at $5.99 as the "base HD" package where you can buy just those 6 channels. Kind of like the Family Package. (No HD Locals)

Offer the HD Access $9.99 as a more expensive alternative. Like the Choice package relates to the Family package. Needed for HD locals as always.

So just changing the structure, HD Extra is now your Base HD package. Whenever someone signs up for the base HD Extra they would get HD Access for free for a month. Then at the end of the month, if they don't call to drop HD Access, the $9.99 fee starts. 95% will never take it back off. Most will not think about the fact that they can take off the HD Extra and leave that as well.

You get to advertise that you have HD packages starting at just $5.99.

Almost everyone ends up spending $15.98.

DIRECTV, you can win this lawsuit and turn the negative into a positive.

It's just in the wording. It's better marketing anyway!

- Craig

_If you use this idea, I would like just 1 cent per HD customer a month, please. _


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> The Channel Lineup Card is probably the most conclusive proof source to show what is the base package offering HD.
> 
> It makes it very clear how all packages build on Choice.
> 
> ...


That wouldn't work for DirecTV either. Just making the current HD Extra package of channels the available without having to buy any of the other channels which would be covered by HD Access still wouldn't make it the most widely distributed HD package. Despite that package being cheaper, the most widely distributed package of HD channels would still be the HD channels in the Choice package with the HD access fee.

It seems that HDNet was very smart and deliberate with the wording of the "most widely distributed" clause in the contract. Everybody knows exactly what that clause was meant to convey, and it's clear that DirecTV's actions at a minimum violate the clear intentions and spirit of the contract. It's a shame that DirecTV has evidently chosen to violate the spirit of the agreement by arguing semantics and technicalities, but knowing how the court system works, they may very well get away with it.


----------

