# Article on Mike White, CEO of DIRECTV...authentication, 3D, TV Everywhere



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Some good information that touches on many things discussed here, including authentication, programming deals, etc, etc.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/455180-WHITE_KNIGHT.php


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From the link:

_"Historically, we had a very limited offering in terms of the number of pay-per-view movies that we could offer our customers. We're about to explode the variety that we can offer our customers later on this summer by a factor of 10 or more. * We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus.* As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands. "_

Still wondering how they're going to do that. Will the mystery of why Spaceway1 has been cleaned out of LIL's be answered?


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

Quite an interesting read...... Thanks.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Good insight, thanks Satelliteracer.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RAD said:


> Will the mystery of why Spaceway1 has been cleaned out of LIL's be answered?


Yep! To make room for LILs... at least partially anyway.

~Alan


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Web access? Very Cool! 

Mike


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

It's a good read. If they'd lower the price on 1080p VOD, they'd get most of my movie business.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Thanks Sat Racer .. Looks like some good stuff in there.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

> *MCN: You're offering about 200 HD channels*


Really? Where are they?


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

> ... movies in particular are a big opportunity for DirecTV.


Wow. What a concept.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Fascinating.









Obviously a very competent guy, but I can help but feel he's still learning. When asked about new opportunities, he talks about expanding VOD offerings dramatically, which will be huge, and the ability to insert local ads, which may be big for them but means diddly-squat to the viewer.

Where's that vision thing? Maybe the future is in the authentication side of the interview, but here he's talking about initial negotiations. One thing that's always impressed me about DirecTV is they are like the chess master, eight moves ahead of his opponent. With White, I get a guy who'd be a formidable competitor but is otherwise a lug-nut who grinds away to makes things happen.

I sure hope he's got a visionary hidden away in a dingy office.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> Yep! To make room for LILs at least partially anyway.


There would seem to be no reason to "make room" for LILs was all Spaceway 1 ever had (or could have, in terms of full-time programming) on it. I suspect that S1 represents one of DIRECTV's least economical assets and that's why it is idle.

I don't think Spaceway 1 is going to play much of a part in this PPV-heavy future unless there are a very few customers that buy a whole lot of PPVs. We all have a pretty good idea about how the satellite Internet carriers feel about downloading movies via satellite.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Carl Spock said:


> When asked about new opportunities, he talks about expanding VOD offerings dramatically, which will be huge, and the ability to insert local ads, which may be big for them but means diddly-squat to the viewer.


The interesting part is that he spent so much time on the idea of authentication which suggests Internet delivery as opposed to satellite delivery.

I'm not sure the all of the broadband Internet providers are ready for this vision of the future. It works for cable because cable has a known pipe. Steady streaming to a non-DVR over a DSL connection may not prove satisfactory and that's a big if for a company that is pushing WHDS so hard.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This is the part that was most interesting (and newer)...



> *MCN: When you say content on the Web, is that YouTube-like content, or content from broadcasters and cable programmers? *MW: All of the above. As media consumption has fragmented over the last 10 years, there are going to be a number of areas that consumers will want to access. We are already going to be streaming [the NFL] Sunday Ticket [out-of-market package] on an iPad for subscribers that take that package this fall. [We're] looking at ways that we can expand [content] that's available by either authenticating deals that we've done, and we're trialing some things with a couple of our programming partners. I think that will evolve as well.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> Obviously a very competent guy, but I can help but feel he's still learning. When asked about new opportunities, he talks about expanding VOD offerings dramatically, which will be huge, and the ability to insert local ads, which may be big for them but means diddly-squat to the viewer.


It's called more revenue streams, to help keep the customer prices as low as it can be. "Local" targeted ads are a key difference between SAT and Land-Based providers


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

More VOD people buy, the more they make, the less they plan to raise our rates (hopefully).


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

*Earl* and *elway*, of course you are both right. This is a good way to improve DirecTV's bottom line.

I'm just saying this kind of info is more important to the bean counters than the general public.

In pure PR terms, I didn't think it was that great of an interview. In a piece meant for the public, if White wants to discuss nuts and bolts issues, he should talk about improved customer service, not how he can sell more ads. There was nothing in there about customer care.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Very true, and as someone who does not use VOD, and would like a channel like BBCAHD, it's not very exciting. I also am not sold on 3D either.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> More VOD people buy, the more they make, the less they plan to raise our rates (hopefully).


!rolling


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I'd believe Earl before I got overly paranoid...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


Are you sure you didn't forget to turn the glasses on so you could see it wasn't a dead end


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


Whole heartedly agree! I was out shopping over the weekend. There's still "old school" 3D blu-ray movies for sale. By old school I mean the red and blue glasses style 3D. This has got to be so confusing for the average consumer.

3D with Glasses--->:kickbutt:<---Grim reaper


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


My take on that comment was different than yours Stuart. I think he was being a bit less optimistic than he made it sound. For instance, immediately after that he said "That's not to say I think it's the same as HD - I don't believe it is - but I certainly think that's an opportunity."

This (to me) translates to: "3D is big, but it ain't that big."

Certainly everyone can draw their own conclusion, though.


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


I agree. I tend to think 3D it is just a fad. On the other hand, the industry is pushing it so hard as the Next Big Thing that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Whole heartedly agree! I was out shopping over the weekend. There's still "old school" 3D blu-ray movies for sale. By old school I mean the red and blue glasses style 3D. This has got to be so confusing for the average consumer.


I can see it now ..

Government Warning: This is "old school" 3D. It will not work the way you expect on new digital 3DTVs.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

"but we want to ensure that we don’t undermine the business model that creates the economics for us to create great content and, frankly, for us to be able to distribute it"

We don't want to piss-off our content providers, so we will be limiting where and how you can watch what you have already paid for by implementing more layers of DRM.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

cover said:


> I agree. I tend to think 3D it is just a fad. On the other hand, the industry is pushing it so hard as the Next Big Thing that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


I will be purchasing a new TV next month -- 3D will not be a selling point for me -- in fact, it will be a moot point.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ATARI said:


> "but we want to ensure that we don't undermine the business model that creates the economics for us to create great content and, frankly, for us to be able to distribute it"
> 
> We don't want to piss-off our content providers, so we will be limiting where and how you can watch what you have already paid for by implementing more layers of DRM.


Is it really more layers or just a different methodology .. heck, they may even be using the Apple model with the HR2x as the "iTunes" device. The good news is that this seems to be a crack in the "on the go" conservatism that DIRECTV has shown in the past. It's the implementation part that's not so clear at the moment.

although I suspect we'll hear about it @ DBSTalk first :grin:


----------



## daisydog6 (Jun 11, 2009)

I'd really like to see some true cost-saving bundles from DirecTV. Mr. White mentions their telco partners. Maybe they should move on to someone new like LightSquared, who is building a nationwide 4G wireless broadband network and will wholesale their service.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There are already some bundles in parts of the country, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more.


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

I tend to think 3-D seems to have all the earmarks of a fad. Even as a nominal early adopter, I plan on steering clear of that. I'm still smarting over my loss in the HD-DVD v. Blu-Ray war!!

Since Earl is sniffing around this thread let me pose a question. Revenue streams are important, but I suspect that long term viability also includes making certain that the customer receives superior value for their $$$. Rates are trending up and (with the economy the way it is) income for many is either flat or declining. D* has a huge investment in infrastructure so it seems to me they need to find, and walk, a fine line that rewards their investment without losing customers who simply decide that they can't afford as much entertainment expenses, especially with web-based alternatives.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.





Doug Brott said:


> My take on that comment was different than yours Stuart. I think he was being a bit less optimistic than he made it sound. For instance, immediately after that he said "That's not to say I think it's the same as HD - I don't believe it is - but I certainly think that's an opportunity."
> 
> This (to me) translates to: "3D is big, but it ain't that big."
> 
> Certainly everyone can draw their own conclusion, though.


I have the same take as Doug...

"3D will be big, but not as big as HD" was what I got out of it...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

harsh said:


> There would seem to be no reason to "make room" for LILs was all Spaceway 1 ever had (or could have, in terms of full-time programming) on it. I suspect that S1 represents one of DIRECTV's least economical assets and that's why it is idle.


I should have worded it better.

I'm sure there was a reason why SW1 was emptied... however, they have already transitioned some markets to SW1, so it's no longer empty. That last part was what I was trying to get across...

~Alan


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, maybe, but I personally think 3D will have about the same effect on the TV market as minidiscs had on the audio market.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

As for my take on the article?! Well, I wasn't really impressed. 

It seemed to imply (to me) that one of the reasons channel negotiations are taking so long is that DirecTV wants permission to allow their subscribers to watch programming on the web. 

As someone who has spent a considerable amount of money (for me anyway) on HDTVs, audio equipment, and lease/mirroring fees, the prospect of watching TV on a computer/iPad, etc. REALLY doesn't interest me in the least. 

If however this will lead to DirecTV officially supporting eSATA and allowing one to transfer programming from one DVR to another on the same account, I will call it a good thing. 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, maybe, but I personally think 3D will have about the same effect on the TV market as minidiscs had on the audio market.


You may be right...

I still think it will become a feature... much like 1080p or 120hz/240hz.

~Alan


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, maybe, but I personally think 3D will have about the same effect on the TV market as minidiscs had on the audio market.


Maybe, but that was bacially just a different method of distributing content, it wasn't new content. IMHO 3D on the other hand is new content, yes the same movie can be seen in 2D but if you look at what it's done for the movies there must be some demand out there for it. And if the CE folks keep the pricing for 3D hardware reasonable I think it will roll out a lot quicker then HD did. Looking at ad's in past Sundays paper I could get a 46" Samsung 1080p 240hz 3D set, a 3D bluray player and two glasses for $2100, four years ago I paid $3,200 for a 46" Samsung 1080p 60Hz set.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I'd really like to see some movement on the portability of content. I recently purchaed a van with an entertainment system. DVDs are OK, but there needs to be more than just movies. It came with FLO TV, but that the signal is very limited in my area and there are only a few channels.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

"Historically, we had a very limited offering in terms of the number of pay-per-view movies that we could offer our customers. We're about to explode the variety that we can offer our customers later on this summer by a factor of 10 or more. We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus. As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands. "

I sure hope they add the missing HD channels (BBCA, etc) before doing this. I've never watched a single PPV movie. The video quality doesn't compare to Blu-ray and the audio quality doesn't even compare to DVD. Until they can give me the same (or at least similar) experience, I'll stick to Netflix (even with the 30 day wait).

Give us more non-PPV HD channels.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

For the gazillionth time .. this will NOT be 400 HD PPV channels. The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> As for my take on the article?! Well, I wasn't really impressed.
> 
> It seemed to imply (to me) that one of the reasons channel negotiations are taking so long is that DirecTV wants permission to allow their subscribers to watch programming on the web.
> 
> ...


I understand that position, fair point. I would only say that Authentication goes beyond just "the web" and it's very much a big deal in where the viewing experience is going in society in the next 5, 10 , 20 years.

There's no doubt, in my mind anyway, that authentication is part of the new frontier and as a result, everything gets a touch more complicated with agreements and such.

This is why when people say "Company X has a deal with channel Y", well it's not apples to apples anymore on so many levels. I would also argue that no longer is it just about dollars and cents anymore either. A common theme I read is "Company Y isn't willing to pay channel A's demands". Of course money is always an important part, but there are many other attributes involved as well. In essence, often times the financial parts can get worked out in a deal but it's the other stuff that delays things.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> For the gazillionth time .. this will NOT be 400 HD PPV channels. The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


+1

Doug is absolutely correct.


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, maybe, but I personally think 3D will have about the same effect on the TV market as minidiscs had on the audio market.


Agreed. I've seen quite a few of the "new" 3D movies and have not been impressed. With very few exceptions, it seems to be a gimmick more than anything.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> I understand that position, fair point. I would only say that Authentication goes beyond just "the web" and it's very much a big deal in where the viewing experience is going in society in the next 5, 10 , 20 years.


I'm very glad to hear it goes beyond "just the web".

I'm happy with DirecTV, and while I don't mind DirecTV dabbling in technologies like "TV Everywhere" (or whatever name you want to give it), TVApps, DirecTV2PC, etc., what I REALLY want to see them do is continue to focus on their TV service.... whether it's remaining competitive with their channel lineup, new services that enhance their TV service (Whole Home DVR), or enhancing their current TV services (some DVR features I can think of, as well as more customization for WHDS).

~Alan


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

I would agree with White that the 2009 new adds numbers were a blip due to temporary circumstances that are rapidly disappearing. I am one of those adds, and I know what drove me to it --a local cableco that I had finally reached the end of my rope on waiting for them to provide more HD. But that local cableco, a year later, is about to add enough HD channels in my neighborhood to at least be competitive. If they had done that 14 months ago, I might not be here writing about this (tho I've been very happy with my choice to move).

I'm not saying DirecTV doesn't still have advantages to offer (you don't really emotionally understand the difference it will make for you between a 160GB Comcast DVR and a 500GB DirecTV DVR until you've had one; tho Comcast is now up to 250GB, it still isn't enough). But that early 2009 degree of separation for people like me who really care about HD is closing to something more like the long-term difference it will maintain going forward rather than the gaping maw it was for awhile there.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Multichannel News is an industry-targeted news service, not really consumer-oriented. He addressed many of the hot topics in the industry now - 3D, authentication (web accessible content), the relationship between Directv and Liberty, etc.

For a guy who has only been with Directv for six months and used to work for Pepsi, he seems to have a fairly good grasp of what's going on. I don't think he said anything surprising, it was all pretty much in line with what Directv has been saying for the last year or so, but that's to be expected.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug,
You should be proud of me - I learned the PPV lesson 

Question though - could somebody explain "authentication"?


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> +1
> 
> Doug is absolutely correct.


Can you give any insight on how the channels will be delivered.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Doug,
> You should be proud of me - I learned the PPV lesson
> 
> Question though - could somebody explain "authentication"?


If you want to allow someone to watch/record something on DirecTV hardware, like an HR24 - and then open that up to allow them to watch the programming the distributor makes available (online HBO for example) or make it so they can watch the programming on their HR24 from another location (like an iPhone) - you need an agreed upon method for authentication.

Basically - its the mechanism to allow DirecTV to be more versatile with its subscribers regarding when, where, what, and how you watch your programming. They want to be your content provider - NOT just your DVR and satellite TV provider.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

What about this quote from the last paragraph of the article.

"as well as in our relaunch of movies later this year"

relaunch of movies? I figure this is about the 400 HD movies, but the "relaunch" is an interesting term.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

woj027 said:


> What about this quote from the last paragraph of the article.
> 
> "as well as in our relaunch of movies later this year"
> 
> relaunch of movies? I figure this is about the 400 HD movies, but the "relaunch" is an interesting term.


"Relaunch" will be about the look and feel, but it will retain many similarities to what you are currently used to.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> For the gazillionth time .. this will NOT be 400 HD PPV channels. The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


Amazingly...some just can't understand/accept this simple fact.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> "Relaunch" will be about the look and feel, but it will retain many similarities to what you are currently used to.


Oh, ok. it just seemed like an interesting word choice.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

woj027 said:


> Oh, ok. it just seemed like an interesting word choice.


Satellite-Rocket talk I suppose. :lol:


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

"MCN: So, no plans for a broadband offering?
MW: We certainly think that providing broadband to our customers through some kind of bundle is an important strategy for us, but we’ve been doing it by partnering up with a number of diff erent telcos. Frankly, we have enough telco partnerships that we should be able to reach 90% of the entire U.S. with broadband bundles. And we’re going to continue to look for ways to do that more smoothly and to provide even more robust bundled offerings. I see us more as the aggregator working with other partners on broadband than us literally providing the wires or the network. "

Uh.... I'm not so sure about that 90% figure, buddy. Just in Chicago alone (market #3) there is no bundle partner since AT&T has DSL landline/UVerse and Communinistcast has it's own services. I thought their deal with Verizon had lapsed since they have FIOS now. What about other large markets?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BudShark said:


> If you want to allow someone to watch/record something on DirecTV hardware, like an HR24 - and then open that up to allow them to watch the programming the distributor makes available (online HBO for example) or make it so they can watch the programming on their HR24 from another location (like an iPhone) - you need an agreed upon method for authentication.
> 
> Basically - its the mechanism to allow DirecTV to be more versatile with its subscribers regarding when, where, what, and how you watch your programming. They want to be your content provider - NOT just your DVR and satellite TV provider.


This may be the DIRECTV-centric vision of authentication but the more widely accepted view is that it involves having a web login for content that you subscribe to. It represents an entirely Internet delivered experience.

For a company like DIRECTV there may also be some opportunities to authenticate their own content for subscribers to other services.

http://newteevee.com/2009/03/05/media-companies-plan-weapons-of-mass-authentication/

http://www.multichannel.com/article/262152-Satellite_Telcos_In_TV_Everywhere_Camp.php


----------



## reber1b (Jun 14, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


I had an interesting converation with one of the consumer electronics people in my local Costco a few weeks ago. I asked him when Costco would be getting in 3D TV's. He said they are waiting for the newer technology sets, which will not require glasses. He mentioned a plasma set that will have 3 layers of screens to create a 3D effect. Unfortunately he didn't have time to talk to me all day, so that's all I found out


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

reber1b said:


> I had an interesting converation with one of the consumer electronics people in my local Costco a few weeks ago. I asked him when Costco would be getting in 3D TV's. He said they are waiting for the newer technology sets, which will not require glasses. He mentioned a plasma set that will have 3 layers of screens to create a 3D effect. Unfortunately he didn't have time to talk to me all day, so that's all I found out


He's got a long wait. 

The only 3D plasma's I saw at CES from 3 different manufactuers all *didn't* use 3 layers of screens...they had a polarizing filter on top of a single screen with "wave pulse plasma" technology.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SO basically expect Directv2IPad this fall, followed by DIrectv2Mobile soon after...


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

aa9vi said:


> "MCN: So, no plans for a broadband offering?
> MW: We certainly think that providing broadband to our customers through some kind of bundle is an important strategy for us, but we've been doing it by partnering up with a number of diff erent telcos. Frankly, we have enough telco partnerships that we should be able to reach 90% of the entire U.S. with broadband bundles. And we're going to continue to look for ways to do that more smoothly and to provide even more robust bundled offerings. I see us more as the aggregator working with other partners on broadband than us literally providing the wires or the network. "
> 
> Uh.... I'm not so sure about that 90% figure, buddy. Just in Chicago alone (market #3) there is no bundle partner since AT&T has DSL landline/UVerse and Communinistcast has it's own services. I thought their deal with Verizon had lapsed since they have FIOS now. What about other large markets?


U-Verse is not all over and they don't EVEN have MLB Network.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

reber1b said:


> I had an interesting converation with one of the consumer electronics people in my local Costco a few weeks ago. I asked him when Costco would be getting in 3D TV's. He said they are waiting for the newer technology sets, which will not require glasses. He mentioned a plasma set that will have 3 layers of screens to create a 3D effect. Unfortunately he didn't have time to talk to me all day, so that's all I found out


The consumer electronics folks at Costco are about as knowledgeable regarding consumer electronics as your average family pet.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, that's certainly one way it could go.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> The consumer electronics folks at Costco are about as knowledgeable regarding consumer electronics as your average family pet.


I'm not sure I'd go quite that far.... :eek2:

...on the other hand...I wouldn't seek them for any kind of advanced technical advice either... 

There are plenty of folks at DBSTalk that I'd ask about that stuff before going to a retailer for most questions. I've learned plenty from others here.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm not sure I'd go quite that far.... :eek2:
> 
> ...on the other hand...I wouldn't seek them for any kind of advanced technical advice either...
> 
> There are plenty of folks at DBSTalk that I'd ask about that stuff before going to a retailer for most questions. I've learned plenty from others here.


Personally, I throw the Geek Squad folks in with that category as well. That's just me though.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Amazingly...some just can't understand/accept this simple fact.


I don't think it quite so simple.

DTV keeps talking about 400 more PPV channels to launch soon, they said today they expect to add more in the future using internet broadband which implies that they will be using satellite bandwidth to deliver the new PPV cinema. The most logical place would be all those free transponders on that brand new shiny satellite. DTV has already said they saturated the HD market.

Until Dtv comes out and gives any hints of where all this additional bandwidth this new service comes from we only have the logical conclusion that it will come from one of the satellites. I guess it could come from one of the spaceways, 110 or 119, but with all the SL3's they been pushing I doubt 110 or 119 is in the future plans for mainstream US customers.

The only other method I could for see is a cell phone app distribution like they used Sunday ticket last year as a pre-test/proof of concept.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> I don't think it quite so simple.
> 
> DTV keeps talking about 400 more PPV channels to launch soon, they said today they expect to add more in the future using internet broadband which implies that they will be using satellite bandwidth to deliver the new PPV cinema. The most logical place would be all those free transponders on that brand new shiny satellite. DTV has already said they saturated the HD market.
> 
> ...


They've never said anything about 400 additional PPV channels. Not once. Never happened.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> They've never said anything about 400 additional PPV channels. Not once. Never happened.


Correct....

....400 HD movies (a selection)....not 400 HD movie channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Correct....
> 
> ....400 HD movies (a selection)....not 400 HD movie channels.


Yep. A huge difference. You'd think we had mentioned that often enough around here, but I guess not.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep. A huge difference. You'd think we had mentioned that often enough around here, but I guess not.


It's been asked and answered often since that topic started...but not everyone "travels" in the same threads...so I can see how it might have been missed...or more accurately...misunderstood.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> I don't think it quite so simple.
> 
> DTV keeps talking about 400 more PPV channels to launch soon, they said today they expect to add more in the future using internet broadband which implies that they will be using satellite bandwidth to deliver the new PPV cinema. The most logical place would be all those free transponders on that brand new shiny satellite. DTV has already said they saturated the HD market.
> 
> ...


Well you can think that .. I'm pretty sure me saying it and satracer +1'ing it is a hint, though. What more do you want?


----------



## georule (Mar 31, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> "Relaunch" will be about the look and feel, but it will retain many similarities to what you are currently used to.


I hope they get the UI right. Nothing turns me off quicker from being willing to pay for dls than not having the right menus to group stuff in a way that I find friendly. The HD better be grouped together. "New HD Movies" would be accepted with gratitude. "1080p Movies" something like that.

If I have to flip thru page after page after page after page of what I am uninterested in to find what I might be interested in, I just won't do it. I know that about me by now.


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Personally, I throw the Geek Squad folks in with that category as well. That's just me though.


Yes, but they are both an improvement over what existed at Circuit City after they fired their knowledgeable staff members and replaced them with minimum wagers who didn't care or know anything.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Well you can think that .. I'm pretty sure me saying it and satracer +1'ing it is a hint, though. What more do you want?


I know I'm looking forward to loosing all the current HD channels we have, all 200 of them, and having them replaced with half bitrate (HD-lite-lite) PPV channels. Lets face it, thats hat would be required to accomplish this 

OK, back the authentications... Haben't read much on it, but I work with our IT security guy sometimes, and I want to see if this kind of makes sense...

In the IT Security world, they talk about credentials to access the system, which has two components, authorization and authentication. uthorization deals with what a particular user can do. Authentication deals with proving you are the authorized user. So, our STBs have an access card, which authenticates that the STB is authorized to receive subscribed channels.

In a larger sense, authentications would allow you to prove who you are to access the features you are authorized to use through a variety of devices apart from your STB. This could include viewing content over the internet (streaming from DTV servers to your PC), to viewing content on your DVR remotely over the internet (slingbox), but also things like a PC tuner card that you can put into a media center PC. It would also handle the DRM to protect content.

So, I could imagine negotitations could be heck... Some providers wanting as wide a distribution as possible, others wanting less. Some wanting very tight authentication protocols, or super secure DRM. All of this means that the engineering guys and lawyers negotiating contracts have to be in contact to understand whether whats being negotiated can be done, while management types must be kept abreast of costs to determine whether its worth the investment.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> Personally, I throw the Geek Squad folks in with that category as well. That's just me though.


Keep in mind that there are people who take their PCs to the geek squad to get new hard drives installed. :nono2:


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

ffemtreed said:


> I don't think it quite so simple.
> 
> DTV keeps talking about 400 more PPV channels to launch soon, they said today they expect to add more in the future using internet broadband which implies that they will be using satellite bandwidth to deliver the new PPV cinema. The most logical place would be all those free transponders on that brand new shiny satellite. DTV has already said they saturated the HD market.
> 
> ...





Doug Brott said:


> Well you can think that .. I'm pretty sure me saying it and satracer +1'ing it is a hint, though. What more do you want?


Its not what I believe, its just the impression I get from reading all of the public statements released by DTV and piecing together the puzzle. It matters not if they called them channels or movies or whatever, they are implying 400 channels of PPV. Its just like the we have capacity for 200 HD channels, most consumers hear that as DTV will soon have 200 HD channels, and DTV knows people will assume that even if its not true, the devil is always in the details.

I will state that I really don't believe DTV is going to eat up all the bandwidth on D12 for PPV, and my above post was directed at the notion that people are stupid and have no reason to believe the thought of D12 being used up for PPV. It was an rebuttal to that statement.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> Its not what I believe, its just the impression I get from reading all of the public statements released by DTV and piecing together the puzzle. It matters not if they called them channels or movies or whatever, they are implying 400 channels of PPV. Its just like the we have capacity for 200 HD channels, most consumers hear that as DTV will soon have 200 HD channels, and DTV knows people will assume that even if its not true, the devil is always in the details.
> 
> I will state that I really don't believe DTV is going to eat up all the bandwidth on D12 for PPV, and my above post was directed at the notion that people are stupid and have no reason to believe the thought of D12 being used up for PPV. It was an rebuttal to that statement.


They have never implied, suggested, or otherwise stated any intention to add 400 "channels" of PPV.


----------



## Garry (Jul 4, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> Its not what I believe, its just the impression I get from reading all of the public statements released by DTV and piecing together the puzzle. It matters not if they called them channels or movies or whatever, they are implying 400 channels of PPV. Its just like the we have capacity for 200 HD channels, most consumers hear that as DTV will soon have 200 HD channels, and DTV knows people will assume that even if its not true, the devil is always in the details.
> 
> I will state that I really don't believe DTV is going to eat up all the bandwidth on D12 for PPV, and my above post was directed at the notion that people are stupid and have no reason to believe the thought of D12 being used up for PPV. It was an rebuttal to that statement.


I think it's just common sense that it's not 400 PPV channels since they aren't launching any more satellites for a few more years.


----------



## tonymus (Dec 26, 2006)

RAD said:


> From the link:
> 
> _"Historically, we had a very limited offering in terms of the number of pay-per-view movies that we could offer our customers. We're about to explode the variety that we can offer our customers later on this summer by a factor of 10 or more. * We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus.* As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands. "_
> 
> Still wondering how they're going to do that. Will the mystery of why Spaceway1 has been cleaned out of LIL's be answered?


@RAD - So, the future of TV is to charge per program, first with movies, then with sporting events ($$$ per game), and finally with series. Great...


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

tonymus said:


> @RAD - So, the future of TV is to charge per program, first with movies, then with sporting events ($$$ per game), and finally with series. Great...


How did you come to that conclusion from the quote?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> Its not what I believe, its just the impression I get from reading all of the public statements released by DTV and piecing together the puzzle. It matters not if they called them channels or movies or whatever, they are implying 400 channels of PPV. Its just like the we have capacity for 200 HD channels, most consumers hear that as DTV will soon have 200 HD channels, and DTV knows people will assume that even if its not true, the devil is always in the details.
> 
> I will state that I really don't believe DTV is going to eat up all the bandwidth on D12 for PPV, and my above post was directed at the notion that people are stupid and have no reason to believe the thought of D12 being used up for PPV. It was an rebuttal to that statement.


Directv does not use cable math when stating how many ppv choices they have. They never have, they never will. And he has specifically stated they are increase the number of movies available, so it does matter that they didn't say channels.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> For the gazillionth time .. this will NOT be 400 HD PPV channels. The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


The quote says:

"We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus. As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands."

This leads me to believe that are at least two steps to get to "thousands" of movies. To get to "thousands", they look to Internet delivery. To get to 400, they look to ??? Makes me think that the 400 will come from the sky.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

keith_benedict said:


> The quote says:
> 
> "We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus. As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands."
> 
> This leads me to believe that are at least two steps to get to "thousands" of movies. To get to "thousands", they look to Internet delivery. To get to 400, they look to ??? Makes me think that the 400 will come from the sky.


Yes, they will come from the sky .. No, they will not take up 400 channels. You're welcome to think that 100% of the bandwidth on D12 will be taken up by PPVs .. But that isn't what is going to happen.

I don't know the specifics .. I do know that 400 movies doesn't equal 400 channels and that The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Pardon me for not being able to quite grasp the concept here, but how are these future some 400 to eventually 1000s of PPV movie offerings that will have to obviously come predominately by internet going to really be much different than the present system of DirecTV-on-Demand (DoD) VOD service?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

keith_benedict said:


> I sure hope they add the missing HD channels (BBCA, etc) before doing this. I've never watched a single PPV movie. The video quality doesn't compare to Blu-ray and the audio quality doesn't even compare to DVD. Until they can give me the same (or at least similar) experience, I'll stick to Netflix (even with the 30 day wait).


How do you know the quality of 1080p PPV movies if you have never watched one?

I have watched many and the picture quality is definitely better than, say, the premium movie channels. I would say DirecTV's 1080p is very, very close to Blu-ray. I can't say exactly how close because I have not done an A/B comparison, but the quality is excellent and the improvement over movie channels is easily noticed.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes, they will come from the sky .. No, they will not take up 400 channels. You're welcome to think that 100% of the bandwidth on D12 will be taken up by PPVs .. But that isn't what is going to happen.
> 
> I don't know the specifics .. I do know that 400 movies doesn't equal 400 channels and that The content will be delivered differently. There may be some additional PPV channels, but it will be small. There is plenty of capacity for missing HD channels (both present and future).


So is this new service a change in thinking at DTV that instead of having the same movie and 10 channels and playing all day straight they are going to play more variety of movies instead of scrolling the same one? Seems this would be wise with more and more people getting DVR.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

keith_benedict said:


> The quote says:
> 
> "We're going to go from less than 20 [movies] to 400-plus. As we evolve towards connecting the box to the Internet, it enables us to go to thousands and thousands."
> 
> This leads me to believe that are at least two steps to get to "thousands" of movies. To get to "thousands", they look to Internet delivery. To get to 400, they look to ??? Makes me think that the 400 will come from the sky.


400 will come from the sky. You are using the wrong terms though.
HBO shows 5+ movies a day. Those 5 movies are on 1 channel though. So... Instead of the current PPV offerings that repeat the same program on the same channel over and over and over, and on another channel offset by 30 minutes over and over... change that.

If I require you to have a DVR for "full" DirecTV cinema - and I let you "queue" a movie up for recording to watch in the next 24-48 hours (trade-off being you have to plan your watching) - now all of a sudden I can fit 10 movies on 1 channel in a 24 hour period. And I don't have to have the duplicate channel offset by 30 minutes. Channels won't be dedicated to a movie.

So - will 400 come from a satellite? Yes. Will 400 consume all the bandwidth on said satellite? No. Can we assume no more HD channels? No more than we can assume that existing PPVHD channels that have already been assigned and every *****ed about *ARE* the transponders that will be used for delivering DirecTV Cinema...  But... well that would be a good way to think about it. :grin:



 HoTat2 said:


> Pardon me for not being able to quite grasp the concept here, but how are these future some 400 to eventually 1000s of PPV movie offerings that will have to obviously come predominately by internet going to really be much different than the present system of DirecTV-on-Demand (DoD) VOD service?


Overlay it will a queueing system, put the most watched, highest rated movies on the satellite so everyone can get them without the need for broadband - and there you go. So, for the current DoD stuff? It'll be overlayed with a new GUI (as has been stated), a queue system, and supplemented with satellite delivery of the 400 most popular.



paulman182 said:


> How do you know the quality of 1080p PPV movies if you have never watched one?
> 
> I have watched many and the picture quality is definitely better than, say, the premium movie channels. I would say DirecTV's 1080p is very, very close to Blu-ray. I can't say exactly how close because I have not done an A/B comparison, but the quality is excellent and the improvement over movie channels is easily noticed.


The one major negative... DirecTV Cinema is no where NEAR Blu-Ray quality. While it is better than HBO, better than DirecTV - I would put it somewhere behind a quality 1080P upconversion and vastly behind Blu-Ray. Of course, the smaller the screen the less obvious the issue.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

ffemtreed said:


> So is this new service a change in thinking at DTV that instead of having the same movie and 10 channels and playing all day straight they are going to play more variety of movies instead of scrolling the same one? Seems this would be wise with more and more people getting DVR.


Yes.... I'm sure for a while we'll have some legacy... but as the DVR saturation and WHDVR gets traction - it seems silly to have movies running on multiple channels @ 30 minute offsets. And once you make this change in direction... it opens up a whole lot of bandwidth to get you closer to 400.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

aa9vi said:


> "MCN: So, no plans for a broadband offering?
> MW: We certainly think that providing broadband to our customers through some kind of bundle is an important strategy for us, but we've been doing it by partnering up with a number of diff erent telcos. Frankly, we have enough telco partnerships that we should be able to reach 90% of the entire U.S. with broadband bundles. And we're going to continue to look for ways to do that more smoothly and to provide even more robust bundled offerings. I see us more as the aggregator working with other partners on broadband than us literally providing the wires or the network. "
> 
> Uh.... I'm not so sure about that 90% figure, buddy. Just in Chicago alone (market #3) *there is no bundle partner* since AT&T has DSL landline/UVerse and Communinistcast has it's own services. I thought their deal with Verizon had lapsed since they have FIOS now. What about other large markets?


Not true....D* has partnerships with both Verizon and AT&T for both residential & commercial customers. Those telcos will always need another TV option for customers that don't qualify for their own video product (FiOS/Uverse)


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

BudShark said:


> Yes.... I'm sure for a while we'll have some legacy... but as the DVR saturation and WHDVR gets traction - it seems silly to have movies running on multiple channels @ 30 minute offsets. And once you make this change in direction... it opens up a whole lot of bandwidth to get you closer to 400.


So do you know this for a fact or is this your opinion on who its going to work?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

ffemtreed said:


> So do you know this for a fact or is this your opinion on who its going to work?


Depends on what part you are talking about.

The queueing and download of movies from satellite? Thats fact... its been floating around for a while now. Its just an extension of the older Movies they used to select and download for you.

Whether they start turning off some of the existing PPV and use those transponders for this purpose? Guess (note the part where I said it seems silly to keep doing this once you have DVR saturation up)

The idea that DirecTV Cinema will NOT consume all remaining available bandwidth and keep any new HD channels from launching? Fact. I suggest searching this thread for Doug and Satracers comments on that subject.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> How do you know the quality of 1080p PPV movies if you have never watched one?
> 
> I have watched many and the picture quality is definitely better than, say, the premium movie channels. I would say DirecTV's 1080p is very, very close to Blu-ray. I can't say exactly how close because I have not done an A/B comparison, but the quality is excellent and the improvement over movie channels is easily noticed.


The picture quality of DirecTV's 1080p is good. They are still nothing close to BD quality either. We also have to keep in mind that PPV audio is lossy. I agree though, the improvement over premium channel quality is noticeable.


----------



## The Fuzz 53 (Jun 27, 2007)

Any talk about why the sound on his "superior" service cuts out every 5 friggin' minutes?


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> How do you know the quality of 1080p PPV movies if you have never watched one?
> 
> I have watched many and the picture quality is definitely better than, say, the premium movie channels. I would say DirecTV's 1080p is very, very close to Blu-ray. I can't say exactly how close because I have not done an A/B comparison, but the quality is excellent and the improvement over movie channels is easily noticed.


Well, I can't watch 1080p movies from Directv because I don't have a TV that support 24p mode...which, if I remember correctly, is a requirement to watch in 1080p. The last time I tried to switch to 1080p resolution on my HR20-700, it told me my TV doesn't support it.

I can watch 1080p movies from my Blu-ray player just fine.


----------



## Derwood (Dec 19, 2006)

I don't like the planned push to so much internet based content. He talks about 90% of households being accessible through broadband partners but I would hazard a guess that the leftover 10% that live in the sticks are overwhelmingly satellite customers. Are they taking these customers for granted as they have no other choice and they are not a "growth" market? Seems likely.

Web based programming also seems to just increase their competition to me. All the telcos and cable can easily compete with ip offerings. They need to differentiate their offerings from FIOS as they can't really compete with straight bandwidth from fiber.

I don't really like the cost of Sunday ticket but it is truly the difference maker in mine and many other people's decisions. Exclusivity is what is keeping them ahead of Dish as _most_ people would be drawn to Dish's cheaper prices and oblivious to any difference in PQ.

If the NFL weren't in the picture and I had access to FIOS or perhaps even cable (yecch), then it would be a truly tougher decision to stick with DirecTV.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

keith_benedict said:


> Well, I can't watch 1080p movies from Directv because I don't have a TV that support 24p mode...which, if I remember correctly, is a requirement to watch in 1080p. The last time I tried to switch to 1080p resolution on my HR20-700, it told me my TV doesn't support it.
> 
> I can watch 1080p movies from my Blu-ray player just fine.


Getting a little OT here, but you can watch all DirecTV 1080p content on any TV. It'll just be 1080i on your set. Not a big deal.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Derwood said:


> I don't like the planned push to so much internet based content. He talks about 90% of households being accessible through broadband partners but I would hazard a guess that the leftover 10% that live in the sticks are overwhelmingly satellite customers. Are they taking these customers for granted as they have no other choice and they are not a "growth" market? Seems likely.
> 
> Web based programming also seems to just increase their competition to me. All the telcos and cable can easily compete with ip offerings. They need to differentiate their offerings from FIOS as they can't really compete with straight bandwidth from fiber.
> 
> ...


Rock meet hard place.

The 400 vs 1000s conversation is BECAUSE of the non-broadband customer. Its because they value them. If they didn't, they'd throw up a few HD PPVs, put the rest on broadband and say "Deal with it".

But, since they value all customers, they have this hybrid idea of having the most popular choices delivered via sat, meaning 100% of customers can get them. But, that plan angers people who don't want/use PPV and/or have broadband because they don't want limited sat space used for things like PPV - they'd rather it all be on servers and we get more national HD channels. :grin:

Can't make everyone happy can you? But, characterizing them expanding their offerings beyond the non-broadband customer as "not caring" is a bit disingenuous - especially when they continue to make sacrifices to keep expanding the non-broadband customers options... 

As far as expanding into web offerings? Well, not sure they have a choice... got to grow somewhere. PPV, unique offerings (NFL, 3D, custom channels) and web seem the most likely.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

On the 400 PPV offerings, you guys need to think differently than how it's traditionally delivered and consumed. That's your hint.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> On the 400 PPV offerings, you guys need to think differently than how it's traditionally delivered and consumed. That's your hint.


Yes indeed sir.

That's what a few of us have been saying for a while now...thanks for the added reinforcement hint.

Coupled with recent Mike White comments...there have been other "hints".


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> On the 400 PPV offerings, you guys need to think differently than how it's traditionally delivered and consumed. That's your hint.


I sure hope they don't plan on filling up our harddrives with content pumped from space, or least give us a way to opt out of it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ffemtreed said:


> I sure hope they don't plan on filling up our harddrives with content pumped from space, or least give us a way to opt out of it.


Row row row your HD boat....gently down the stream....


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> I sure hope they don't plan on filling up our harddrives with content pumped from space, or least give us a way to opt out of it.


Nope. You'll still have the space you have today.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Row row row your HD boat....gently down the stream....


well the only other option I can think of is a mobile cell app that would allow access to the vids on cell phones and the POS apple pad. Maybe a TVapp to access on existing boxes.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Nope. You'll still have the space you have today.


Thanks for confirming that.

They way you said that it implies they are just going to use the existing space they have already allocated to themselves on the hard drives.

I just don't see how the math adds up if they plan on offering 1080P movies. 400 of them adds up to an awful lot of hard drive space.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BudShark said:


> The idea that DirecTV Cinema will NOT consume all remaining available bandwidth and keep any new HD channels from launching? Fact. I suggest searching this thread for Doug and Satracers comments on that subject.


Beyond trying to figure out the "how," the above comments are correct. We'll be able to figure out the technical details over time.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> I sure hope they don't plan on filling up our harddrives with content pumped from space, or least give us a way to opt out of it.


100GB of your HDD is reserved space for DIRECTV. This is used now.

Movies you request will be added to the user portion of this disk and show up in your playlist just like any other program and will be available to you for purchase. If you don't ask for it, you won't get it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> I just don't see how the math adds up if they plan on offering 1080P movies. 400 of them adds up to an awful lot of hard drive space.


You will "ask" for it to be delivered to you. If you want all 400, well, it will take up 400 shows worth of HDD. If you ask for zero, then, well, no space is taken up.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> You will "ask" for it to be delivered to you. If you want all 400, well, it will take up 400 shows worth of HDD. If you ask for zero, then, well, no space is taken up.


But the 400 show files are to reside on the 100 GB DirecTV reserved space?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I'm sure glad you posted those last two comments, Doug.

Now maybe we can get unstuck from the 400 PPV thing once and for all.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But the 400 show files are to reside on the 100 GB DirecTV reserved space?


As Doug said, you will only receive those you request.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

paulman182 said:
 

> As Doug said, you will only receive those you request.


But my question is are the entire selection of 400 shows to be automatically pushed down from the satellites onto the DirecTV HDD reserved space awaiting any purchase requests to be copied over to the user space?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But my question is are the entire selection of 400 shows to be automatically pushed down from the satellites onto the DirecTV HDD reserved space awaiting any purchase requests to be copied over to the user space?


That's the exact question which was just answered.

No. They are not pushing them to you on the HDD partition assigned for this purpose and then copying them over to the user partition once you have selected them for purchase. The only ones which will be pushed to your receiver are the ones you request and they will be pushed to the partition set aside for such purposes.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's the exact question which was just answered.
> 
> No. They are not pushing them to you on the HDD partition assigned for this purpose and then copying them over to the user partition once you have selected them for purchase. The only ones which will be pushed to your receiver are the ones you request and they will be pushed to the partition set aside for such purposes.


OK thanks;

I think I understand it now, but this is to take place starting next month? Has the DVR penetration reached such a saturation point yet?

I mean how is the new PPV guide going to be usable to STB users?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> OK thanks;
> 
> I think I understand it now, but this is to take place starting next month? Has the DVR penetration reached such a saturation point yet?
> 
> I mean how is the new PPV guide going to be usable to STB users?


It's a feature that will only be available to those with a DVR. The same situation as we have now. You can't watch a non-live PPV event/movie without somewhere to store it.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> You will "ask" for it to be delivered to you. If you want all 400, well, it will take up 400 shows worth of HDD. If you ask for zero, then, well, no space is taken up.


So this is exactly like on demand, but coming over the satellite instead of your broadband.

So why do they need the broadband connection to provide the thousands more than the 400 they are originally offering? Shouldn't they just be able to add those 1000's to the list you can d-load from the satellite???


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> It's a feature that will only be available to those with a DVR. The same situation as we have now. You can't watch a non-live PPV event/movie without somewhere to store it.


Alright I see;

Last questions; 

So this new form of DirecTV Cinema distribution will be an *additional* PPV feature for DVR users only and the current age old PPV arrangement in the CH. 100s range will still be there for STB users?

And I assume then the current DoD via internet downloads will now be relegated to less popular and largely free material?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> So this is exactly like on demand, but coming over the satellite instead of your broadband.
> 
> So why do they need the broadband connection to provide the thousands more than the 400 they are originally offering? Shouldn't they just be able to add those 1000's to the list you can d-load from the satellite???


Yeah, sure, but at some point "waiting" for a movie to be available might not fit with sound business practice. It's one thing to wait 24-48 (heck, even 72) hours, but another to wait 336 hours.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah, sure, but at some point "waiting" for a movie to be available might not fit with sound business practice. It's one thing to wait 24-48 (heck, even 72) hours, but another to way 336 hours.


My name for it is Pay Per View on a Stick. 

Me likes. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> No. They are not pushing them to you on the HDD partition assigned for this purpose and then copying them over to the user partition once you have selected them for purchase. The only ones which will be pushed to your receiver are the ones you request and they will be pushed to the partition set aside for such purposes.


very likely the most popular titles will continue to be automatically loaded just as they are doing now. This will be instantly viewable rather than waiting for the queue.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Getting off the D* Cinema topic...

Doesn't the clamor for HD seem to be at odds with watching TV on your cell phone? If I watch HD in a home theater, I sure don't want to watch TV on a screen the size of a deck of cards. 

Granted, I'm 50, so I'm probably missing something


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Getting off the D* Cinema topic...
> 
> Doesn't the clamor for HD seem to be at odds with watching TV on your cell phone? If I watch HD in a home theater, I sure don't want to watch TV on a screen the size of a deck of cards.
> 
> Granted, I'm 50, so I'm probably missing something


I'm with you on that one....the mobile device screens are often really smaller than a deck of cards, and not a viable forum for presenting any viable video, let alone HD content IMHO. The iPad may be the only exception of note.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My only point of disagreement is with his stance that there's a lot more growth to be had with 3D. Maybe the technology will rapidly mature but otherwise I see 3D as a dead end.


I hate to say it, but I agree. I really do not see 3D going mainstream, the programming selections are to few and the equipment (TV) costs are too high.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Getting off the D* Cinema topic...
> 
> Doesn't the clamor for HD seem to be at odds with watching TV on your cell phone? If I watch HD in a home theater, I sure don't want to watch TV on a screen the size of a deck of cards.
> 
> Granted, I'm 50, so I'm probably missing something


Think of it in terms of portability and not the primary viewing experience.

As an example, a few weeks back I'm in the carpool coming to work while the USA vs Algeria game is on. I watched the entire second half on the iPhone with my sling connection. It was great and the carpool loved it.

Or my kids, my daughter especially, is at my son's Little League game with us which might as well be labeled TORTURE 101 for her as she has zero interest in watching a Little League game. I hand over the iPhone, she watches SpongeBob that's already downloaded or she streams a few shows via Sling and she's a happy camper.

Part of me hates it, I'd rather she's engaged in something else. Most of the time I tell her to go play, run around, be a kid. But there are times it's been a nice thing to have.

I see TV Everywhere (or Anywhere) as an extension of what you have in the home, but not a replacement for it.

Of course the examples above are just minute. Accessing programming via your PS3 or Xbox is gaining steam, when I'm on the road in a hotel room I'd like access to my DIRECTV from home, not the limited cable offering in the room, etc, etc.

A lot of possibilities out there. It's going to be an interesting next decade


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Another idea I had mentioned a while back is they may be able to do something like load the first 5-10 minutes of all 400 movies to the reserved space on your hard drive. You could then start watching the movie with that 5-10 minute buffer and the rest of the movie would be beamed down from the satellite while you are watching. This is assuming the 5-10 minute buffer would be enough to download the entire movie before you eat through the entire buffer. If 5-10 minutes wouldn't be enough then maybe they did this for the first 20-30 minutes of the top 200 movies, etc.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> The consumer electronics folks at Costco are about as knowledgeable regarding consumer electronics as your average family pet.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are plenty of folks at DBSTalk that I'd ask about that stuff before going to a retailer for most questions. I've learned plenty from others here.





Hoosier205 said:


> Personally, I throw the Geek Squad folks in with that category as well. That's just me though.


Well, I have to agree with most of these statements. I've found the help here to be outstanding, and the help you get at retail to be "less then ideal".


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> *Earl* and *elway*, of course you are both right. This is a good way to improve DirecTV's bottom line.
> 
> I'm just saying this kind of info is more important to the bean counters than the general public.
> 
> In pure PR terms, I didn't think it was that great of an interview. *In a piece meant for the public,* if White wants to discuss nuts and bolts issues, he should talk about improved customer service, not how he can sell more ads. There was nothing in there about customer care.


This was clearly an article meant for investors. See the lead-in of the article: "DirecTV, like its distribution peers, is seeking ways to extract more revenue from existing services, add new products and form new alliances to drive growth. White spoke with Multichannel News senior finance editor Mike Farrell in mid-July about these and other issues."


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> Another idea I had mentioned a while back is they may be able to do something like load the first 5-10 minutes of all 400 movies to the reserved space on your hard drive. You could then start watching the movie with that 5-10 minute buffer and the rest of the movie would be beamed down from the satellite while you are watching. This is assuming the 5-10 minute buffer would be enough to download the entire movie before you eat through the entire buffer. If 5-10 minutes wouldn't be enough then maybe they did this for the first 20-30 minutes of the top 200 movies, etc.


You would need transponder space for 400 simultaneous broadcasts, which is just like the current PPV setup.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Doesn't the clamor for HD seem to be at odds with watching TV on your cell phone? If I watch HD in a home theater, I sure don't want to watch TV on a screen the size of a deck of cards.
> 
> Granted, I'm 50, so I'm probably missing something


Not really missing anything, I have the SlingPlayer app for my iPhone. I rarely use it. Well, maybe when I want to LISTEN (not watch) the local news when I am on the road.


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

Just wondered if anyone remembers what almost happened to another tech company... Apple when they put a guy from Pepsi in as CEO. Amazing the board would allow a person with no tech background to run Directv.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mgavs said:


> Just wondered if anyone remembers what almost happened to another tech company... Apple when they put a guy from Pepsi in as CEO. Amazing the board would allow a person with no tech background to run Directv.


It's business that matters as a CEO...not tech geekness.


----------



## Garry (Jul 4, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Think of it in terms of portability and not the primary viewing experience.
> 
> As an example, a few weeks back I'm in the carpool coming to work while the USA vs Algeria game is on. I watched the entire second half on the iPhone with my sling connection. It was great and the carpool loved it.
> 
> ...


Do you think that eventually you'll be able to sign on to Directv.com and watch programming without having to connect to your receiver?

I have a slingbox but I can not access it at work due to my work's firewall.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

GoPokes43 said:


> You would need transponder space for 400 simultaneous broadcasts, which is just like the current PPV setup.


No you wouldn't they would just need to use Spaceway 1 to beam down whatever movie you are requesting when you request it. This would come from a spotbeam transponder only covering your area. Just like how the other Spaceway satellites are used by HughesNet for their internet service (which I have).

You would need some kind of uplink to DirecTV to request the program, either landline phone or internet connection I doubt they would want to swap out all of the dishes to be 2-way like the HugheNet dishes are).

Or you could probably call in or order online just like a normal linear PPV channel. Instead of authorizing you to watch that certain channel at a certain time it would instead tell SP1 to beam the movie to the DVRs on your account.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer,
Good explanation in Post #123 - thanks...

But what would you think if you saw 15% of the fans at your beloved Ducks game watching something off their TV? 

To me, it's the same amazingly frustrating thing as going to a Sabres game and seeing people spending the entire game texting. Or - kids watching a TV show while at a movie theater.

Obviously, you can't fight paradigm shifts, but I sure wish folks would re-learn to relax and just enjoy what's around them.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Beerstalker said:


> Another idea I had mentioned a while back is they may be able to do something like load the first 5-10 minutes of all 400 movies to the reserved space on your hard drive. You could then start watching the movie with that 5-10 minute buffer and the rest of the movie would be beamed down from the satellite while you are watching.


That's a neat idea.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Satelliteracer,
> Good explanation in Post #123 - thanks...
> 
> But what would you think if you saw 15% of the fans at your beloved Ducks game watching something off their TV?
> ...


Yeah, I know. In fact, I'm guilty of it myself. I was at the Angels game Monday night and on the iPhone quite a bit (of course, the way my Halos are playing who can blame me). Baseball may not be the best example, either, because of the slow pace of the game.

At any rate, I totally understand where you are coming from but don't think it will be changing any time soon. It will probably get worse, more interactive, more crazy. We're getting old. :lol:


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> I'd believe Earl before I got overly paranoid...


I stopped believing Earl way back when he told us that based on some bit of information that he was aware of, it was extremely unlikely that the HR2xs would ever have DLB. :lol:


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I stopped believing Earl way back when he told us that based on some bit of information that he was aware of, it was extremely unlikely that the HR2xs would ever have DLB. :lol:


The key phrases here are "based on some bit of information that he was aware of" (he's not omnicient) and "extremely unlikely."

Even extremely unlikely things sometimes happen!


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

The interesting part of this equation is who/where the content goes...

DirecTV needs you to have the content as they are dependent on a 3rd party broadband connection and/or available sat bandwidth.
CableCos are walking both sides - exploring you having the content and at the same time, exploring cetralized distribution of ondemand.
Disney wants the keys to be centralized, and the content delivered from many sources. For example, you have DirecTV and an iPhone and the ownership key for Toy Story 3... you can play Toy Story 3 anytime you want from DirecTV, or if you are on the road, streamed from iTunes, or wherever... The source doesn't matter, the authentication and keys do.

To me, it seems the solution will be based off of 2 factors - cost/risk. Cost of bandwidth vs storage and the content providers risk comfort with decentralized content.

If we can get 10TBs of storage in a house for a low $$, DirecTVs model might work... provided... the content providers give DirecTV the same leeway of distribution (TV Everywhere) as they do to the centralized providers... It'll definitely be interesting.


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

Draconis said:


> Not really missing anything, I have the SlingPlayer app for my iPhone. I rarely use it. Well, maybe when I want to LISTEN (not watch) the local news when I am on the road.


I use my slingplayer app all the time.... while I wait for my wife while she's shopping. Makes the dull time go much faster :lol:


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

BudShark said:


> The interesting part of this equation is who/where the content goes...
> 
> DirecTV needs you to have the content as they are dependent on a 3rd party broadband connection and/or available sat bandwidth.
> CableCos are walking both sides - exploring you having the content and at the same time, exploring cetralized distribution of ondemand.
> ...


Where did the 10TB number come from??


----------



## reweiss (Jan 27, 2007)

I'd be curious if we could every log into DirecTV.com and watch our shows while travelling (obvious you'd only get access to what you pay for) how would the non-football sports packages work. DirecTV allows us to watch football games if we pay for the NFL package, but would I be able to see my Yankees games while travelling since I pay for the MLB Extra Innings package?

Would MLB allow this to happen and prevent them from double billing us (DirecTV Extra Innings and also billing us for Internet access MLB TV on MLB.com)?

I won't pay for MLB TV on principle since I have already paid for the baseball games on DirecTV.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

ATARI said:


> Where did the 10TB number come from??


My "you know what".

My point is - there are 2 ways to provide TV everywhere type services.

The locally stored server concept using a large server with enough content to satisfy the household and provide services both in house (MRV), out of house (like Sling), and remote control functions (RVU or an app). In this case, 1TB is NOT going to be enough... it would need to be something larger... How large? Depends on the family.
Plus: You have direct access to the content you want and own. Better performance. Lower bandwidth requirements.
Minus: You only have the content you own, and providers don't like you having content locally that you share.

Or...
The centrally stored server (the Comcast model) would be you streaming content from their server and not storing much locally. Requires minimal content locally, but much higher bandwidth to improve the user experience.
Plus: Less/No hardware in the home - Existing hardware is sufficient. Content Providers favor this model.
Minus: Performance based on bandwidth. Less feasible for a 3rd party (non-ISP) provider due to dependence on a competitor.

The 10TB number was just a random... some families might be fine with 1 TB, some might be good with 5 TB, richierich would need 250TB... :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> I stopped believing Earl way back when he told us that based on some bit of information that he was aware of, it was extremely unlikely that the HR2xs would ever have DLB. :lol:





paulman182 said:


> The key phrases here are "based on some bit of information that he was aware of" (he's not omnicient) and "extremely unlikely."
> 
> Even extremely unlikely things sometimes happen!


I think the key piece of catrivision's post was the :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ATARI said:


> Where did the 10TB number come from??


A sum of the parts....5 HD DVRs with 2TB each....plus....Whole Home DVR Service = 10TB perhaps?


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> No you wouldn't they would just need to use Spaceway 1 to beam down whatever movie you are requesting when you request it. This would come from a spotbeam transponder only covering your area. Just like how the other Spaceway satellites are used by HughesNet for their internet service (which I have).
> 
> You would need some kind of uplink to DirecTV to request the program, either landline phone or internet connection I doubt they would want to swap out all of the dishes to be 2-way like the HugheNet dishes are).
> 
> Or you could probably call in or order online just like a normal linear PPV channel. Instead of authorizing you to watch that certain channel at a certain time it would instead tell SP1 to beam the movie to the DVRs on your account.


With 20,000,000 subscribers, the likelihood that nearly all 400 of the programs would be in demand at the same time is pretty high, particularly in prime time hours. So, DirecTV would have to plan for the probability that nearly 400 shows would be in demand at the same time. Not only that, but with staggered start times. So, even if you have a 30 minute buffer recorded, you would have to deal with people starting a show at 8:00, 8:42, 9:07, and so on. Accordingly, one movie may need to be sent down on five different channels with varying start times for real time demand even if you do have a buffer. So, maybe you need transponder room for upwards of 2,000 channels.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GoPokes43 said:


> With 20,000,000 subscribers, the likelihood that nearly all 400 of the programs would be in demand at the same time is pretty high, particularly in prime time hours. So, DirecTV would have to plan for the probability that nearly 400 shows would be in demand at the same time. Not only that, but with staggered start times. So, even if you have a 30 minute buffer recorded, you would have to deal with people starting a show at 8:00, 8:42, 9:07, and so on. Accordingly, one movie may need to be sent down on five different channels with varying start times for real time demand even if you do have a buffer. So, maybe you need transponder room for upwards of 2,000 channels.


Yup .. That's what the broadband connection is for ..


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> It's business that matters as a CEO...not tech geekness.


It's not the geekness that's the issue, it's the culture. There are other business disasters resulting from a new CEO who were hired "out of their" elements. Mars vs Venus..... Anyway, I hope for the best but don't expect it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mgavs said:


> It's not the geekness that's the issue, it's the culture. There are other business disasters resulting from a new CEO who were hired "out of their" elements. Mars vs Venus..... Anyway, I hope for the best but don't expect it.


Hmmm .. So far things seem to be going well. I've certainly not seen any signs that Michael White has been a bad decision @ CEO.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

IMO Directv has once again completely missed the Point and just blunders ahead into whatever direction they believe is the most futuristic!

Most people don’t care about 400 channels of VOD or PPV or whatever, especially if it's tying up bandwidth on their ADSL connection. Also why does Directv think that the ISP's are going to hand them a free unlimited Directv connection. If by some miracle Directv's plan did catch on you could bet that the Per MB argument by IPS's would be given serious consideration by the Government. In other words if this works we will all start paying per MB for ISP connections.

Second why does Directv even think that I want to watch more PPV?? 
95% of us won't even buy the top rated hot movies on PPV right now, why would we want to buy older movies? At what point does Directv just become a competitor for Starz?

3D LOL:
3D is a waste of time! Everyone in Hollywood is trying desperately to shove 3D down our throats, for those of you still reading my Post let me give you some bonus info that most people don't know. The main reason they are pushing 3D into theaters is to stop piracy! Yes you heard me right, it's to stop Piracy! I heard this first hand from a theater owner. You see Cam videos (Copies of the Movie made by using a Handheld video Camera in the Theater) have been a serious problem for the motion picture industry.

In the old days people in America use to get to see the Movie first, so American pirates would make Cam copies of the movie and distribute them on the Internet, were millions of people in other countries would download it, add subtitles if needed and then resell the DVD's on the street for $1 US. By the time the real movie hit the theaters in these countries attendance was down in the gutters.

So they got smart, a few years ago they started to release the movies simultaneously all around the world, sometimes they would release them first in other countries before even the USA so that the people would pay to see the movie rather than buy a bootleg copy. Now if that sounds crazy to you, keep in mind that the main driving factor for Kids today (worldwide) is to be able to say "I Saw the Movie Already" you don't want to go to school on a Monday and hear everybody talking about how good movie "X" was and your the only one who has not seen it. This was why Bootleg copies worldwide have been such a problem, most people would rather say they saw the movie than wait a few weeks like most of us would and be able to see a proper screening.

Anyway this solution only partially worked, so they have moved onto the best solution, which is 3D. You cant Cam a 3D movie in the theaters, all you get is a blurred mess, so it has cut out all of the distributed CAM versions world wide and significantly boosted world wide box office receipts. The other benefit is that they hope they will get to a point were everyone has a 3D bluray player and TV then they will be able to release the Movies only in 3D which will be a much bigger file size than traditional BluRay H264 files and therefore be harder to share the bluray copies via the internet.

Anyway I agree with those who say 3D is dead, even though the movie industry will kick and fight till the end on this, the truth is the vast majority of the public is beginning to really hate 3D. For example I went to see "Conception" last week and I can’t tell you how many people I heard say "Thank God it's not in 3D". So Directv can keep wasting their money on 3D, I give 3D about another 9 months and 3D will be almost dead and buried. Every ten years Hollywood resurrects 3D, so I expect in 2020 the next 3D revolution will start again.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> IMO Directv has once again completely missed the Point and just blunders ahead into whatever direction they believe is the most futuristic!
> 
> Most people don't care about 400 channels of VOD or PPV or whatever, especially if it's tying up bandwidth on their ADSL connection. Also why does Directv think that the ISP's are going to hand them a free unlimited connection. If by some miracle Directv's plan did catch on you could bet that the Per MB argument by IPS's would be given serious consideration by the Government. In other words if this works we will all start paying per MB for ISP connections.


Uh, speaking of "completely missing the point" .. The "400 titles" (Not channels ) is for those WITHOUT broadband connections to their DVR. THAT is the point. This has zero to do with ADSL connections.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

First of all...wow. Let's just get that out of the way.



dreadlk said:


> IMO Directv has once again completely missed the Point and just blunders ahead into whatever direction they believe is the most futuristic!
> 
> Most people don't care about 400 channels of VOD or PPV or whatever, especially if it's tying up bandwidth on their ADSL connection. Also why does Directv think that the ISP's are going to hand them a free unlimited Directv connection. If by some miracle Directv's plan did catch on you could bet that the Per MB argument by IPS's would be given serious consideration by the Government. In other words if this works we will all start paying per MB for ISP connections.


 ...it is 400 titles, not channels. This also has nothing to do with your broadband connection.



dreadlk said:


> Second why does Directv even think that I want to watch more PPV??
> 95% of us won't even buy the top rated hot movies on PPV right now, why would we want to buy older movies? At what point does Directv just become a competitor for Starz?


Obviously, enough customers are using their PPV features as it has been very profitable for DirecTV. You've pulled your "95%" assumption right out of thin air.



dreadlk said:


> 3D LOL:
> 3D is a waste of time! Everyone in Hollywood is trying desperately to shove 3D down our throats, for those of you still reading my Post let me give you some bonus info that most people don't know. The main reason they are pushing 3D into theaters is to stop piracy! Yes you heard me right, it's to stop Piracy! I heard this first hand from a theater owner. You see Cam videos (Copies of the Movie made by using a Handheld video Camera in the Theater) have been a serious problem for the motion picture industry.
> 
> In the old days people in America use to get to see the Movie first, so American pirates would make Cam copies of the movie and distribute them on the Internet, were millions of people in other countries would download it, add subtitles if needed and then resell the DVD's on the street for $1 US. By the time the real movie hit the theaters in these countries attendance was down in the gutters.
> ...


Ummm...thank you for the wild conspiracy theory. Ready for the truth? 3D is not being heavily marketed and utilized in order to avoid pirating. The theater owner you spoke to must be ill-informed or a bit nutty...or both, since his ideas make little sense.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I hear much talk in this thread of using an internet connection to deliver content and it's not the Number that's the Issue, it's the whole idea of adding more PPV or more VOD. We don't watch the stuff to begin with so why bother. I know your trying to Scuttle my post with picking on that point, but I figure you know exactly what I mean



Doug Brott said:


> Uh, speaking of "completely missing the point" .. The "400 titles" (Not channels ) is for those WITHOUT broadband connections to their DVR. THAT is the point. This has zero to do with ADSL connections.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Ummm...thank you for the wild conspiracy theory. Ready for the truth? 3D is not being heavily marketed and utilized in order to avoid pirating. The theater owner you spoke to must be ill-informed or a bit nutty...or both, since his ideas make little sense.


....further substanitated by the fact that there will be _no less than_ *20* 3D HD movies released in 2010. Some fad huh?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I hear much talk in this thread of using an internet connection to deliver content, it's not the Number that's the Issue, it's the whole idea of adding more PPV or more VOD. We don't watch the stuff to begin with so why bother. I know your trying to Scuttle my post with picking on that point, but I figure you know exactly what I mean


You mean that *you* are not watching PPV and VOD. Don't speak for everyone. DirecTV wouldn't pay to acquire the content if enough customers were not then paying for those services as well.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> I hear much talk in this thread of using an internet connection to deliver content, it's not the Number that's the Issue, it's the whole idea of adding more PPV or more VOD. We don't watch the stuff to begin with so why bother. I know your trying to Scuttle my post with picking on that point, but I figure you know exactly what I mean


OK, so you don't watch PPV or VOD. :shrug:

Thanks for telling us. Clearly someone does or DIRECTV wouldn't be "wasting" their time one it.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ....further substanitated by the fact that there will be _no less than_ *20* 3D HD movies released in 2010. Some fad huh?


Yep. :lol: Now we have dreadlk trying to inform us of a worldwide conspiracy of epic proportions. :rolling: Wow, I needed a good laugh.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep. :lol: Now we have dreadlk trying to inform us of a worldwide conspiracy of epic proportions. :rolling: Wow, I needed a good laugh.


The 3D movement is driven by innovation, preferences, and profitabiliy...no different than any other newer technology.

As for conspiracy theory....I saw the movie already thank you.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> First of all...wow. Let's just get that out of the way.
> 
> ...it is 400 titles, not channels. This also has nothing to do with your broadband connection..


Mentioned that in the Above post.



> Obviously, enough customers are using their PPV features as it has been very profitable for DirecTV. You've pulled your "95%" assumption right out of thin air.


When ever the PPV question is asked on this Forum it is certainly numbers in that region who say they actually actively buy PPV.



> Ummm...thank you for the wild conspiracy theory. Ready for the truth? 3D is not being heavily marketed and utilized in order to avoid pirating. The theater owner you spoke to must be ill-informed or a bit nutty...or both, since his ideas make little sense.


Look I will give you some ground on the other issues; on this one you know nothing when you speak. This is an area I am very familiar with on a personal level and have friends in very high places on this one.
* Piracy is the Major reasons for 3D*. If you think the millions of dollars spent to upgrade theaters was so that you could see that paltry little bit of 3D that is in most movies your the kind of guy who buys swamp land. This is not the first attempt by the industry to use visual effects to thwart Cam videos. In 2007 - 2009 they embedded images into movies that made Cam versions produce horrible artifacts, they then realized this was not working in 2009 when software was being used to automaticaly remove the Artifacts, something which they knew would happen so they had already started to Plan a better strategy by using 3D.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dreadlk said:


> * Piracy is the Major reasons for 3D*.


There is no firm evidence to support that claim.

One thing that anyone in the technology learns early on is that "for every lock, there is a key"...meaning....that history has shown that before any new technology becomes widespread....somebody "cracks the code" for piracy.

I personally abhor that, and think they should lock those folks up for a long, long time....but it happens over and over and over.

Yet now, people routinely replicate Blu Ray disks, which had the very same premise and claim as the 3D comment I quoted - that held up less than 30 days from technology mainstream introduction.

Any informed person who seriously believes that 3D technology will not be pirated needs to read the blogs and news in Pacific Rim nations....its already a work in progress over there. Very sad and clearly wrong, but a reality.

Fact is, the motivation for 3D contents are:

1) It's new, so people will in the least explore it an in the most adopt it.
2) It's a new new revenue stream
3) Profits
4) Profits
5) Profits

Simple as that.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Pretty much I know I am wasting my time on this whole issue, most people have no idea how Mega industries work in regards to Money, profit etc. and how that drive's decisions. Most people believed, oh yes I know their driven by profit, but in truth most people have a limited imagination to how it all works, which IMO is a good thing that most of us dont think like big companies.

Yes for those of you who want to believe, 3D is all about making your movie experience more pleasant.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> When ever the PPV question is asked on this Forum it is certainly numbers in that region who say they actually actively buy PPV.


Did a quick cursory search for a poll over the last year .. couldn't find one so started a new one ..

Here you go: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181844

Let's put that 95% number to the test ..


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dreadlk said:


> Pretty much I know I am wasting my time on this whole issue, *most people have no idea *how Mega industries work in regards to Money, profit etc. and how that drive's decisions.


While there is some truth there....

....others of us with decades of Fortune 500 corporate firsthand experience do know just how "things work" in "mega industries".


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Pretty much I know I am wasting my time on this whole issue, most people have no idea how Mega industries work in regards to Money, profit etc. and how that drive's decisions. Most people believed, oh yes I know their driven by profit, but in truth most people have a limited imagination to how it all works, which IMO is a good thing that most of us dont think like big companies.
> 
> Yes for those of you who want to believe, 3D is all about making your movie experience more pleasant.


If 3D is to stop piracy, then why are 3D films still shown in 2D? That keeps piracy as an easy option.

Also, CAM titles are not the big deal for bootleg vendors. The screener versions are what bootleggers typically sell. They have better A/V.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Gee, if someone wanted to use a camcorder to record a 3D movie for pirate purposes wouldn't all they need to do us use only one lens from the glasses and put it over the lense? You lose the 3D effect but you still get a recording of the movie.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is no firm evidence to support that claim.
> 
> One thing that anyone in the technology learns early on is that "for every lock, there is a key"...meaning....that history has shown that before any new technology becomes widespread....somebody "cracks the code" for piracy.
> 
> ...


Copying 3D BluRays, no problem, but doing it with a Hand Held Camera which is the Number one Money leecher for the Industry is a completely different thing. It's literaly impossible, since your copying a stereo scopic image in an uncontrolled environment. Also the main point is that the Audience who are paying to watch this $1 version are not watching it in 3D, they are watching it in 2D so they see all the Red and Blue Blurs, making it unwatchable. BTW if they try to watch it in 3D with Glasses they get an even worst Picture. You have no idea how many pairs of 3D glasses were stolen during Avatar, world wide. People though they could use the glasses to watch Cam versions of movies to come.

My Job requires me to Travel a lot, and I see "For Sale" in many coutries a CAM copy of a movie the day after it's released in the US Theaters, I am talking store fronts that display the Movie one day after theaters release it and people are lined up to buy these horrible copies. But what we do know is that the people will not buy 3D CAM's because the image quality is so bad that it cannot be sold, so a Win in that regard. Theaters in most countries are seeing massive gains on 3D movies versus 2D simply because the CAM versions don't exist but they also note customers are complaining and numbers are dropping on B rated movies done in 3D.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> If 3D is to stop piracy, then why are 3D films still shown in 2D? That keeps piracy as an easy option.
> 
> Also, CAM titles are not the big deal for bootleg vendors. The screener versions are what bootleggers typically sell. They have better A/V.


Just to clarify....the 3D piracy conspiracy discussion generally center around the bootlegged video camera avoidance, not the media version. As stated earlier, thinking media can be protected in this day and age is Ostrich head in the sand thinking.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> If 3D is to stop piracy, then why are 3D films still shown in 2D? That keeps piracy as an easy option.
> 
> Also, CAM titles are not the big deal for bootleg vendors. The screener versions are what bootleggers typically sell. They have better A/V.


You're not seeing that done much anymore, for that very reason. Of course nothing is written in stone, you have competing companies with different strategies etc. I am only talking about the General trend so there are always exceptions.

Screener versions only hurt DVD sales, they don't hurt theater sales, by time a screener comes out the theater sales are mostly done. DVD sales worldwide are very low in most countries, the USA is one of the few countries were people buy so many Legit Blurays and DVD's
There have been rare instances of screeners or pre production films slipping out like the Famous X-Men Origins fiasco and the LOTR debacle but over all that's a company slip up and not an overall problem.

Anyway got to run, last post for the Day,.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

RAD said:


> Gee, if someone wanted to use a camcorder to record a 3D movie for pirate purposes wouldn't all they need to do us use only one lens from the glasses and put it over the lense? You lose the 3D effect but you still get a recording of the movie.


No wont work.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Incidentally, Panasonic just introduced a 3D video camera for the general public. I don't know if 3D is here to stay or go, but I think it has some cool applications in sports especially. Way to early to tell.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> You're not seeing that done much anymore, for that very reason. Of course nothing is written in stone, you have competing companies with different strategies etc. I am only talking about the General trend so there are always exceptions.
> 
> Screener versions only hurt DVD sales, they don't hurt theater sales, by time a screener comes out the theater sales are mostly done. DVD sales worldwide are very low in most countries, the USA is one of the few countries were people buy so many Legit Blurays and DVD's
> There have been rare instances of screeners or pre production films slipping out like the Famous X-Men Origins fiasco and the LOTR debacle but over all that's a company slip up and not an overall problem.
> ...


Wow... just ummm... wow.

So, Mr. Industry insider who knows all... please tell us...

For this "vision" to be fact, and all content in theaters to move to 3D in order to avoid camcorder recordings of a movie being sold in Thailand...

Exactly what is the timetable that all theaters, movies, production work, and equipment will be moved to 3D, and no 2D movies will be shown allowing this leaching of money to continue occurring?

1 year? 3 years? 10 years? well it can't be 10 years, because we all know technology moves too fast. Can't be 5 years... because thats a stretch for both costs of conversion and it gives technology a chance to catch up... and surely, you aren't suggesting that 100% of movie theaters in the world will be converted to digital 3D ONLY within the next 3-5 years are you?

And.. by chance, you aren't suggesting its in the 5-10 year timeframe and the whole industry has conspired to accomplish, please PM me so I can give you my personal number so I can tell these insiders what idiots they are for banking their future on stopping piracy by going 3-D within 5-10 years at all movie theaters in the world... 

Wow... just wow...

3-D = money. Period. Its a way to attract people to the theaters. Its a way to get you to pay $10-$12 for a ticket instead of $8-$10. It'll be a way to have a major release on IMAX 3-D for 2 weeks before general release so they can milk more $$$. There is 0 evidence that its to stop piracy. And to even suggest it ignores the fact that if it was true, you'd have to convert 100% of movie theaters to 3-D in order to avoid the camcorder copies... AND there are still theaters in use today that don't have Dolby Digital sound and Digital video capabilities... :nono:

If you don't mind - please provide a shred of evidence showing that digital camcorder copies of 2-D movies are the #1 money leacher and problem for the movie industry please...


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Back to post #1, and Mr. White's interview....

Really, all I want from D* is quality of TV programming. Sure I want more HD, but keep up the quality, and I'll be happy.

(OK - and I'd hire a more lax legal team so they don't blackout as aggressively as they do)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BudShark said:


> 3-D = money. Period. Its a way to attract people to the theaters. Its a way to get you to pay $10-$12 for a ticket instead of $8-$10. It'll be a way to have a major release on IMAX 3-D for 2 weeks before general release so they can milk more $$$. There is 0 evidence that its to stop piracy.


Yup - and I just know I've read those very same points someplace before in this thread...hmmmm...oh yeah....now I remember.... :lol:


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yup - and I just know I've read those very same points someplace before in this thread...hmmmm...oh yeah....now I remember.... :lol:


 Some things bear repeating:

D12 will be fine lol
400 movies, NOT channels :grin:
3D = MONEY 

I'm sure there's some more...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> IMO Directv has once again completely missed the Point and just blunders ahead into whatever direction they believe is the most futuristic!
> 
> Most people don't care about 400 channels of VOD or PPV or whatever, especially if it's tying up bandwidth on their ADSL connection. Also why does Directv think that the ISP's are going to hand them a free unlimited Directv connection. If by some miracle Directv's plan did catch on you could bet that the Per MB argument by IPS's would be given serious consideration by the Government. In other words if this works we will all start paying per MB for ISP connections.
> 
> ...


Seems like a lot of ... well... passion in your post... 

You don't make it clear which part you think is blunder (or both) and which parts are just rants. 

So one bit at a time.

PPV: You might not want it but it makes a lot of money for DIRECTV and the studios. So much that DIRECTV spends its bandwidth capital on it. Very simple equation.

3D: The holy grail of the movies since... forever. Ok, maybe they wanted sound and color first--except there were those B&W 3D movies... Hmm... I don't think the drive was the anti-copy movement all those years... 

Now, I do not discount your theory that is has some benefits to slow piracy--for movies that are only shown in 3D and never in 2D... Wait... ain't none yet. 

What is known is that 3D does bring in lots of money for everyone...

Yet, I know of a brand new theatre nearby that did not purchase 3D projectors. They are only 2D. (Modern 3D projectors cost a bunch more...)

So where did DIRECTV "blunder?" PPV? Making lots of money for them. Guess not.

3D? Bit early to tell, but sports could be very interesting. Definitely we're watching early adoption. Because of some cool technology, we're finally seeing 3D being nearly as easy to produce as 2D. So now we can see if it catches on... My bet--it will. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Obviously, enough customers are using their PPV features as it has been very profitable for DirecTV. You've pulled your "95%" assumption right out of thin air.





dreadlk said:


> When ever the PPV question is asked on this Forum it is certainly numbers in that region who say they actually actively buy PPV.


Here's some real world numbers to dispute the 95% assertion.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Here's some real world numbers to dispute the 95% assertion.


I would also wager that the average joe customer is more likely to utilize PPV than our average member here.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd concur, but don't think it's close to 95%.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> I would also wager that the average joe customer is more likely to utilize PPV than our average member here.


That is very much an understatement.
PPV is still a very popular and utilized system.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> That is very much an understatement.
> PPV is still a very popular and utilized system.


Earl, 
Are there any numbers you could share with us regarding PPV?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Earl,
> Are there any numbers you could share with us regarding PPV?


Not if I want to keep my job...

All I can say, is that PPV is still used by a larger portion of the customer base, then most are theorizing that it is.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I'd concur, but don't think it's close to 95%.


The 95% was that 95% don't watch PPV .. not that 95% do watch PPV.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> The 95% was that 95% don't watch PPV .. not that 95% do watch PPV.


Ah, thank you.

(PS. not close to 95% that don't either).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not if I want to keep my job...
> 
> All I can say, is that PPV is still used by a larger portion of the customer base, then most are theorizing that it is.


Just based on the straw poll here, 25% could (IMHO) be classified as "regular" PPV users (at least 4 PPVs per year). I think "larger than we theorize" is good enough to see that it's a very valuable commodity to DIRECTV.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Do 1-3 Cinema HD per month, during slow times, or when something is interesting.

Very nice to have spontaneous access.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> I would also wager that the average joe customer is more likely to utilize PPV than our average member here.


LOL I would take that bet in a heart beat!
Most if the guys on this forum are extreme TV buffs. The Average Joe has Basic cable and PPV is not even part of his dreams.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> LOL I would take that bet in a heart beat!
> Most if the guys on this forum are extreme TV buffs. The Average Joe has Basic cable and PPV is not even part of his dreams.


Well, I think you'd be wrong.

First, the average Joe customer for the sake of this discussion doesn't have cable, he has D*.

Secon, the average Joe doesn't stream Netflix or download shows from the internet and view them on their TV, or any of the other myriad of ways that members here get their movie fix.

The average customer watches a couple of movies per month and wants easy access (so they don't spill their beer and chips), so PPV wins out much of the time.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> LOL I would take that bet in a heart beat!
> Most if the guys on this forum are extreme TV buffs. The Average Joe has Basic cable and PPV is not even part of his dreams.


You're wrong. I'd bother to tell you why, but you would probably just hit us with another conspiracy theory.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Yeah, I'd think the average customer would take the easy way out .. "oh, I can order movies on my remote? Cool!"


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah, I'd think the average customer would take the easy way out .. "oh, I can order movies on my remote? Cool!"


No late fees, no late trip to beat the late fees, no worries about what they have in stock, etc.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Did a quick cursory search for a poll over the last year .. couldn't find one so started a new one ..
> 
> Here you go: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181844
> 
> Let's put that 95% number to the test ..


LOL I did a quick search and found several related polls to PPV, including one done by me last year that I forgot about. The Numbers seem to be about 75% of people on this Forum, and even though you say it would be more in the General public, my own experience installing dishes for a living tells me that a lot less people in the General Public have a Internet or Phone line connected to their systems than people on this forum, and most of them Never call Directv unless they have a problem. We will never be able to prove who is right or wrong.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=162926&highlight=ppv+poll


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Well, I think you'd be wrong.
> 
> First, the average Joe customer for the sake of this discussion doesn't have cable, he has D*.
> 
> ...


Were did you get that from? The Average person has some form of Cable, not Satellite TV.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/47138-cable-vs-satellite-tv-slugfest-but-watch-out-for-fiber-optic

Directv and dish probably have about 30% market share combined! I don't have recent figures but I bet it's pretty close to that.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah, I'd think the average customer would take the easy way out .. "oh, I can order movies on my remote? Cool!"


The Average Joe is not spending $4.99 to watch a Movie, the Average Joe is trying to save money not waste it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Were did you get that from? The Average person has some form of Cable, not Satellite TV.
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/47138-cable-vs-satellite-tv-slugfest-but-watch-out-for-fiber-optic
> 
> Directv and dish probably have about 30% market share combined! I don't have recent figures but I bet it's pretty close to that.


You missed his point entirely .. He was stating that the average "DIRECTV" customer has DIRECTV service .. This is a thread about DIRECTV not cable. That was the point.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> The Average Joe is not spending $4.99 to watch a Movie, the Average Joe is trying to save money not waste it.


OK .. Yes with THIS statement you are correct as I don't think that more than 50% of the customers are spending $4.99 on a movie with DIRECTV. BUT .. we are saying that an average customer is MORE LIKELY to get a PPV than the folks here who find numerous ways to get a movie.

So "more" in this case means perhaps 30% instead of 25%. Remember this all started with you pulling the number "95% of people don't get PPV" out of thin air. Even your own poll shows the number to be significantly different than your claim.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is no firm evidence to support that claim.
> 
> One thing that anyone in the technology learns early on is that "for every lock, there is a key"...meaning....that history has shown that before any new technology becomes widespread....somebody "cracks the code" for piracy.
> 
> ...


Your Wrong!
For every Lock there is NOT always a key, in most cases a Key will not be found in any reasonable length of Time!

Let me give you some examples of this.

Since we are talking Directv I will use them. The first Access Card, Cracked. The Second Access Card, Cracked. The Third Access Card, Never Cracked and people have given up trying, even though millions of dollars were spent trying.

Dish Network Cards: First and second, cracked. The third was never really cracked, and doubtful that it ever will be. Same with European Nagra 3 cards

CBand: Videocipher 2: Version 1 and 2 Cracked. Digicipher the newer version: Never Cracked and thats almost 20 years later.

PHP encryption never cracked and almost certainly never will be! Unless someone figures out how to reverse large Prime number products which even though the Israelis have made boasts "they can". They have never proved it, nor do cryptologists believe it's even remotely possible.

Lastly:
The reason for 3D is that the Motion Picture Industry realizes that foreign markets are becoming an increasing large share of their profits and unlike the US market they have little or no control over Piracy in other countries. Their own success even in the USA has been dismal so they have decided to approach this from disabling the source rather than fight the symptoms.

They have tried in the Past (in this order)

1) Prosecuting people for Downloading Material. Result, the press said they were trying to lock up little Suzie for watching movies and listening to music. Bad PR. so they stopped.

2) Going after the Source, trying to shutdown servers etc and lock up the Top people. Result: The Pirates wrote software that shares without main hubs, so there is no master source. Also off shore Hubs are near impossible to prosecute. So the movie industry basically gave up.

3) Releasing the Movie in all countries simultaneously. Result: It worked better than anything before it, they cut down on pirated movie sales, a small dent was made.

4) Adding Digital Artifacts to the Picture that would be picked up by a Handheld Camera's but not noticed by the theater viewer. Result: It worked, but they knew it could be removed frame by frame. They knew sooner or later software would come around that could automatically remove it, and that happened as predicted

5) 3D: It gets rid of Camera versions completely while paying for itself. It's unlikely to be defeated by software.

BTW you guys have no idea how many Theaters world wide have 3D do you?
Many countries, especially places that they believe are havens for Cam Pirates have been upgraded.

Lastly the reason they still do 2D versions is because not everywhere has been upgraded to the new 3D and that's going to take time. In the meantime they focus on the places where CAM copies originate and take out the sources by forcing theaters to upgrade to 3D.

Your Right that it's about Profit, your just not seeing that 3D in itself is not the Profit, the profit is getting Millions of new ticket sales in countries were sales have been killed by Piracy.

LOOK at this point I don't really care who believes, I know what I know. For those who are Skeptical, don't believe me, just believe your own eye's. How many of those 3D movies that you have seen did you come out of the theater and wonder why was it made in 3D? Ever notice how many of them use almost no 3D effects. Higher price tickets you think. Well that higher price is offset by the millions of people who just wont go to a 3D movie because it hurts their eyes, gives them headaches or is just painful to watch because they wear glasses.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is no firm evidence to support that claim.
> 
> One thing that anyone in the technology learns early on is that "for every lock, there is a key"...meaning....that history has shown that before any new technology becomes widespread....somebody "cracks the code" for piracy.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you're implying it's all about the money. 

Mike


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> OK .. Yes with THIS statement you are correct as I don't think that more than 50% of the customers are spending $4.99 on a movie with DIRECTV. BUT .. we are saying that an average customer is MORE LIKELY to get a PPV than the folks here who find numerous ways to get a movie.
> 
> So "more" in this case means perhaps 30% instead of 25%. Remember this all started with you pulling the number "95% of people don't get PPV" out of thin air. Even your own poll shows the number to be significantly different than your claim.


Doug what I am saying is that a 75% Poll on this forum is probably about a 85% in the real world. YES I did GUESS the 95% number, it's an estimate but I dont think I am all that far off, in the real world it's probably 85%. Once again a guess since I have searched and searched and found no public polls on the topic.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

cover said:


> I agree. I tend to think 3D it is just a fad. On the other hand, the industry is pushing it so hard as the Next Big Thing that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


It's amazing how hard they are pushing it, and if you look at that alone you will see what I am saying is true. Any extra profits they are making on Ticket sales is being killed by the high number of people who have an adverse reaction to 3D and the high cost associated with them off setting a large portion of the theaters upgrade expenses has killed "Extra" 3D profits for a long time to come. 
But Foreign ticket sales are going up and up.


----------



## Garry (Jul 4, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> The Average Joe is not spending $4.99 to watch a Movie, the Average Joe is trying to save money not waste it.


4.99 is cheap when compared to buying theater ticket and food at concession stands. Especially for families.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Garry said:


> 4.99 is cheap when compared to buying theater ticket and food at concession stands. Especially for families.


I had free tickets to see Toy Story 3 to cover three folks going, all we needed to buy were snacks, that came out to $21.53. I can make a lot of popcorn for $21.53.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Garry said:


> 4.99 is cheap when compared to buying theater ticket and food at concession stands. Especially for families.


Yup .. and convenient. That's why it seems crazy to me to think that folks with less "techy" options would take advantage of PPVs even less often than folks here.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

We no longer buy PPVs after the 24-hour limit, too risky. Are PPVs/VODs still limited to a 24-hour window?

Non-techies simply go to their local grocery stores get DVD for a buck from Redbox, I see people line up behind the kiosk all the time. Otherwise it is always a safe bet I can get what I want from Blockbuster at $3 for a 3-day rental.

In any case I came here to give you guys a heads-up if no one mentioned this, since this thread is about Mike White, he will be in one of the Undercover Boss shows this fall on CBS. Never watched this show before but will record this episode


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> We no longer buy PPVs after the 24-hour limit, too risky. Are PPVs/VODs still limited to a 24-hour window?
> 
> Non-techies simply go to their local grocery stores get DVD for a buck from Redbox, I see people line up behind the kiosk all the time. Otherwise it is always a safe bet I can get what I want from Blockbuster at $3 for a 3-day rental.
> 
> In any case I came here to give you guys a heads-up if no one mentioned this, since this thread is about Mike White, he will be in one of the Undercover Boss shows this fall on CBS. Never watched this show before but will record this episode


Yes, there's still a 24 hour limit from when you start to view a PPV.

I might do that if it wasn't a 16 mile round trip to nearest video rental location. Figure in the cost of gas and the rental charge PPV charge isn't looking that bad.

Undercover Boss and White being discussed http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181766, thanks anyway for mentioning it.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> ...Undercover Boss and White being discussed http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181766, thanks anyway for mentioning it.


Not surprised at all this was talked about already.

Figured there are those like me whose existence is not to watch TV, but to fix it so our loved ones can watch it, or to argue why we don't want to watch it, rather how to fix it.

But in our effort to fix things, there are people who happen to have played an important role. I could not get my slow DVR issue resolved for nearly two years until I emailed the CEO, that got some of my slow DVRs replaced right the way, I only wish he could have followed the installation crew who did my DECA install so they did not have to do it right until the 4th visit.

Naturally as much as I care little about TV programming, this upcoming show will be the closest to be face to face with the guy who helped me, for real or not, it worked

Back when I was with DISH, I must admit I watched a few episodes of the Charlie Chat, not because I cared about what he said or not said, rather got to be face to face with the guys/gals who might be instrumental in getting some of my biggest tech issues fixed.

I am sure Mike had much better makeup artist, director, producer and other treatment on the show. As for what he said or not said, such as this thing called "authentication", I don't even know what it really means I just hope he is aware that there are those who don't like the 24-hour limitation, something can be put on the "to-be-fixed" list.


----------



## scJohn (Oct 5, 2007)

I have been a subscriber to Directv since Dec. 1994. I currently pay $55.11 (includes tax) for a grandfathered package.

Until April 2003 I did one PPV per week. I switched to NetFlix's 3 out a time and currently pay $18.88 (includes tax) per month. Over a 3 month period this works out to $1.40 per movie.

Back in the old days, LIL was a separate charge. In July of 2008 I switched to digital OTA and canceled the LIL for a savings $6.36 per month. I spent a hundred bucks on a antenna and a turner card for my PC. I have never had a DVR box from Directv.

When next February's annual rate hike occurs, I figure I'll be paying around $12.00 per channel for the 5 channels that I watch 90% of the time. Right now there is a 70% chance that I will drop Directv next year. If figure that most if not all of the cable shows that I gotta watch will be available thru the internet next year.

I see nothing in the interview that says I gotta have Directv.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

A lot of people are doing OTA/Netflix now, to counter this trend DirecTV needs to provide a lot of free titles like Netflix, or cable.

I don't know if Mike's "authentication plan" has this focus.


----------



## GutBomb (Jun 17, 2004)

scJohn said:


> I have been a subscriber to Directv since Dec. 1994. I currently pay $55.11 (includes tax) for a grandfathered package.
> 
> Until April 2003 I did one PPV per week. I switched to NetFlix's 3 out a time and currently pay $18.88 (includes tax) per month. Over a 3 month period this works out to $1.40 per movie.
> 
> ...


Frankly you're probably the kind of customer DirecTV can do without. You give them as little as possible. I'm not saying my personal opinion is that that is bad, but DirecTV probably doesn't care if you go, and if you ever come back you're off the grandfathered rate and on at current full prices.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

^ More than a tad bit harsher than I would have put it, but the sentiment is correct.

*scJohn*, you've had a great run with DirecTV. If they are moving in a different direction than you, then it's time for you to move onto other ways to get your entertainment. You're not DirecTV's target customer anymore. If you want to keep giving them money for service, I'm sure they'd be glad to take it. But, as the old saying goes, everything must come to an end.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Did a quick cursory search for a poll over the last year .. couldn't find one so started a new one ..
> 
> Here you go: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181844
> 
> Let's put that 95% number to the test ..


I'd hardly call one PPV purchase in the last 90 days a good indication PPV "acceptance" or regular usage, so that poll is fairly meaningless. A more realistic poll would compare PPV usage in terms of typical watch/rental rates of people utilizing the alternatives like netflix or redbox... at a minimum, two movies per month. I'd bet with more realistic parameters like that, PPV acceptance/usage is very close to the "95% aren't interested" number that has been suggested by others here.

Another thing to consider is that people who do regularly purchase PPVs are probably more likely to click on the thread and vote. I have absolutely no interest in ever purchasing DIRECTV PPV which is probably why I never had enough interest to even click on the thread and vote in the poll.

Polls like this are a lot like the polls asking, "Would you like to see feature xxxx added to the HR2x DVR?". Everyone who wants or would use the feature votes yes, while many of the people who couldn't care less about the feature simply don't bother to read the thread or vote, so the results are severely skewed at best.

None of this is intended to argue that PPV isn't a lucrative business for DIRECTV. Obviously, they wouldn't be about to expand their offerings in this area if it wasn't a money maker for them.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> I'd hardly call one PPV purchase in the last 90 days a good indication PPV "acceptance" or regular usage, so that poll is fairly meaningless. A more realistic poll would compare PPV usage in terms of typical watch/rental rates of people utilizing the alternatives like netflix or redbox... at a minimum, two movies per month. I'd bet with more realistic parameters like that, PPV acceptance/usage is very close to the "95% aren't interested" number that has been suggested by others here.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that people who do regularly purchase PPVs are probably more likely to click on the thread and vote. I have absolutely no interest in ever purchasing DIRECTV PPV which is probably why I never had enough interest to even click on the thread and vote in the poll.
> 
> ...


Thanks for saying it, thats exactly why I find it so hard to make any contradicting points on this forum. This is mostly a Directv geared forum and when you do polls you get a whole bunch of the faithful jumping in and giving a mainly pro Directv response. In the real world most people don't even have a Phone/Ethernet Jack hooked up, and as I said before they never call Directv unless they have a problem.

IMO the reason why Directv is expanding PPV is simply because it's the only other avenue they have to increase income other than the obvious method of getting more customers! I would bet a weeks salary that PPV has always produced disapointing numbers for them, so they keep trying new things, except doing the obvious and just lowering the prices and making the terms more flexible for the users. Maybe it's a contract issue with the MPA or some other organization but as it is, it's not very attractive to buy PPV no matter how conviently it's offered.

Just a thought here for the Directv employees who read these threads. Why not do a 2 month $2 per movie promotion? You will get millions of new people hooking up their ethernet jacks and getting a whole new group of customers use to buying PPV! Then Milk them later when they are hooked.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> ...None of this is intended to argue that PPV isn't a lucrative business for DIRECTV. Obviously, they wouldn't be about to expand their offerings in this area if it wasn't a money maker for them.


Or expanding the authentication content is a way to reduce churn? Some of the posters were harsh on the guy who is using OTA and Netflix, but this is a real trend DirecTV might want to reverse. Of course to do so DirecTV needs to provide a lot more free titles, including free HD titles. Mike did talk about competition and the reduced growth.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Or expanding the authentication content is a way to reduce churn? Some of the posters were harsh on the guy who is using OTA and Netflix, but this is a real trend DirecTV might want to reverse. Of course to do so DirecTV needs to provide a lot more free titles, including free HD titles. Mike did talk about competition and the reduced growth.


They really need to start with unlocking the customer's recorded DVR content from a specific DVR and and only locking it to the customer's account.

The fact that a customer's ESATA disk full of content that has been paid for can be completely lost if the DVR that it was recorded with fails and has to be replaced is completely unacceptable.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I'd hardly call one PPV purchase in the last 90 days a good indication PPV "acceptance" or regular usage, so that poll is fairly meaningless. A more realistic poll would compare PPV usage in terms of typical watch/rental rates of people utilizing the alternatives like netflix or redbox... at a minimum, two movies per month. I'd bet with more realistic parameters like that, PPV acceptance/usage is very close to the "95% aren't interested" number that has been suggested by others here.


Let's revisit the assertion that started it all ...



dreadlk said:


> Second why does Directv even think that I want to watch more PPV??
> 95% of us won't even buy the top rated hot movies on PPV right now, why would we want to buy older movies? At what point does Directv just become a competitor for Starz?


So, cartrivision, you are now saying "95% aren't interested" is the same thing as "95% of us won't even buy." You go on to say that "Another thing to consider is that people who do regularly purchase PPVs are probably more likely to click on the thread and vote" yet 75% of the people who DID vote voted "no" .. There are over 500 votes in that thread. I'd assert that there are so many people that hate PPVs so adamantly that those "no" folks are way more likely to vote than a "yes" person, but the fact that there are 500 votes pretty much tells us that we've got enough votes to make a pretty darn good guess as to the "take" rate of PPVs.

Say what you will, but I simply will not believe that that only 5% of DIRECTV customers use PPV. The evidence shows that the number is closer to 25%. The poll running now and the poll dreadlk ran last year show nearly identical results: That 1/4 people use PPV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> They really need to start with unlocking the customer's recorded DVR content from a specific DVR and and only locking it to the customer's account.


perhaps, down the road.



> The fact that a customer's ESATA disk full of content that has been paid for can be completely lost if the DVR that it was recorded with fails and has to be replaced is completely unacceptable.


Compare this to other vendors .. what are those options? I think "completely unacceptable" is a bit strong as your archive options are very limited across the industry, not just DIRECTV. "Completely unacceptable" implies going elsewhere to get the "acceptable" solution (there are some options out there). Perhaps "highly undesirable" is what you really mean.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> In the real world most people don't even have a Phone/Ethernet Jack hooked up, and as I said before they never call Directv unless they have a problem.


Yup .. which is EXACTLY why DIRECTV is expanding the PPV options via Satellite.



> IMO the reason why Directv is expanding PPV is simply because it's the only other avenue they have to increase income other than the obvious method of getting more customers!


Hmmm .. let me state what you just said in another way. _the reason why Grocery Boy is adding more bread to their bread aisle is simply because it's the only avenue they have to increase income [since no one is buying them]_

You've routine state that "no one" is buying them .. how will it increase their revenues if people aren't taking them. Won't it cost DIRECTV more money to provide this service (license fees, equipment, facilities, etc.)



> I would bet a weeks salary that PPV has always produced disapointing numbers for them, so they keep trying new things, except doing the obvious and just lowering the prices and making the terms more flexible for the users. Maybe it's a contract issue with the MPA or some other organization but as it is, it's not very attractive to buy PPV no matter how conviently it's offered.


Boy, I wish we knew the exact numbers and could make this bet as I'd take it in a heartbeat. Empirically speaking .. If PPVs were "disappointing" to DIRECTV, don't you think that they would be phasing it out rather than expanding it? Your comment seem contrary to sound business sense.



> Just a thought here for the Directv employees who read these threads. Why not do a 2 month $2 per movie promotion? You will get millions of new people hooking up their ethernet jacks and getting a whole new group of customers use to buying PPV! Then Milk them later when they are hooked.


I've gotten a buy one, get one free movie coupon every couple of months for the last 6 months or so. Not quite the same, but it does look as if DIRECTV is already doing something like that in some situations.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah, I'd think the average customer would take the easy way out .. "oh, I can order movies on my remote? Cool!"


Ding ding ding...give the man a cigar.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

What do I get?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> What do I get?


A free PPV movie? :lol:


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. which is EXACTLY why DIRECTV is expanding the PPV options via Satellite.


How is PPV via satellite going to fix the problem that the owners dont have an Ethernet/Phone connection to order the PPV? It's not the content delivery thats the problem it's the fact that people Cannot bother to call Directv to buy a PPV and they don't have any of the connections hooked up to do it via remote. Nor do most people want a connection for fear their kids might do something expensive! And yes I know you can lock it but most people find no connection the Best and most secure kind of lock.



> Hmmm .. let me state what you just said in another way. _the reason why Grocery Boy is adding more bread to their bread aisle is simply because it's the only avenue they have to increase income [since no one is buying them]_
> 
> You've routine state that "no one" is buying them .. how will it increase their revenues if people aren't taking them. Won't it cost DIRECTV more money to provide this service (license fees, equipment, facilities, etc.)


No Doug you miss the point! It's the Grocery boy who keeps thinking that if he reorganises the Bread, pretty's up the packages or put's the shelves right up in your face that you might finaly decide to buy some Bread. Always ignoring the fact that Bread sales are down because the prices are just too high and customers hate the fact that this expensive Bread goes bad if you don't eat it in 24 hours 

How many businesses have you seen, that followed a bad plan until it crashes and burns, even though everyone is telling them what's wrong. They insist that one more tweak will turn things around.
Look at what just about happened with the US Auto industry. Don't you thnk GM knew why the Cars were not selling? Yet they tried just about everything else other than to fix the real problem.



> Boy, I wish we knew the exact numbers and could make this bet as I'd take it in a heartbeat. Empirically speaking .. If PPVs were "disappointing" to DIRECTV, don't you think that they would be phasing it out rather than expanding it? Your comment seem contrary to sound business sense.


Ok let me put this another way, other than getting more customers, how else can Directv increase Income? They have already cut expenses and they probably can't haggle for lower prices from the networks and even if they did the Networks would expect the savings to be passed onto the customers not pocketed by Directv! PPV is the only source of income that they have right now at their disposal, of course they are going to try and make it work! When footbal time comes around again they will have another source.



> I've gotten a buy one, get one free movie coupon every couple of months for the last 6 months or so. Not quite the same, but it does look as if DIRECTV is already doing something like that in some situations.


The rest of us are not so lucky


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> How is PPV via satellite going to fix the problem that the owners dont have an Ethernet/Phone connection to order the PPV?


...because it is PPV via satellite, not PPV via Ethernet. I've lost track of how many times you've missed that point. Also, you've been told by at least one DirecTV employee, with knowledge on the issue, that there are more than enough customers utilizing PPV to make it worth it to the company.



Earl Bonovich said:


> That is very much an understatement.
> PPV is still a very popular and utilized system.





Earl Bonovich said:


> Not if I want to keep my job...
> 
> All I can say, is that PPV is still used by a larger portion of the customer base, then most are theorizing that it is.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Say what you will, but I simply will not believe that that only 5% of DIRECTV customers use PPV. The evidence shows that the number is closer to 25%. The poll running now and the poll dreadlk ran last year show nearly identical results: That 1/4 people use PPV.


Doug do you really believe that a DBSTALK POLL can be used to reflect real world views about Directv?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

May CEO Analyst Call: First, in terms of revenues. I was very pleased with our 11% growth. We did see some very encouraging trends in the quarter, particularly related to sales of premium movie channels, pay per view movies and events, as well as higher advertising revenues. Now I'd attribute much of that improvement to better execution. But as the economy also continues to improve, customers do appear more willing to purchase additional content and premium services.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/203565-directv-q1-2010-earnings-call-transcript​Investing in growth areas, simple as that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...because it is PPV via satellite, not PPV via Ethernet. I've lost track of how many times you've missed that point. Also, you've been told by at least one DirecTV employee, with knowledge on the issue, that there are more than enough customers utilizing PPV to make it worth it to the company.





dreadlk said:


> Doug do you really believe that a DBSTALK POLL can be used to reflect real world views about Directv?


Perhaps more predictive than repeated erroneously statements.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> Doug do you really believe that a DBSTALK POLL can be used to reflect real world views about Directv?


I think it's probably more accurate than the numbers you pull out of your ass.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...because it is PPV via satellite, not PPV via Ethernet. I've lost track of how many times you've missed that point.


And how do you order the Show, so that Directv can Bill you?
Am I missing something, is the satellite connection now two way 
If I buy a Show the order is sent Via Phone Line or Ethernet to Directv, thats why you need a connection. The only other method is to call them Directly and order it over the Phone. Most people hate that because it's time consuming and they charge like $1 extra.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...because it is PPV via satellite, not PPV via Ethernet. I've lost track of how many times you've missed that point.


The only issue I see with not having the STB not connected for outbound communications is that the PPV would need to be ordered via the DirecTV web site or paying the phone in surcharge.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> And how do you order the Show, so that Directv can Bill you?
> Am I missing something, is the satellite connection now two way
> If I buy a Show the order is sent Via Phone Line or Ethernet to Directv, thats why you need a connection. The only other method is to call them Directly and order it over the Phone. Most people hate that because it's time consuming and they charge like $1 extra.


"Many people" get Directv installed by installers who hook up a phone line because they're required to.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...because it is PPV via satellite, not PPV via Ethernet. I've lost track of how many times you've missed that point. Also, you've been told by at least one DirecTV employee, with knowledge on the issue, that there are more than enough customers utilizing PPV to make it worth it to the company.





> Originally Posted by Earl Bonovich
> That is very much an understatement.
> PPV is still a very popular and utilized system..


Hmmm Popular and Utilized system.....

So is my Toilet, but it's not making me any profit :lol:


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> "Many people" get Directv installed by installers who hook up a phone line because they're required to.


!rolling!rolling!rolling You must have never met an Installer.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

RAD said:


> The only issue I see with not having the STB not connected for outbound communications is that the PPV would need to be ordered via the DirecTV web site or paying the phone in surcharge.


Thanks at least some people are paying attention.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk,

If PPV is as unpopular as you claim, then why does EVERY TV provider use it to push it's product/service?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> "Many people" get Directv installed by installers who hook up a phone line because they're required to.





dreadlk said:


> !rolling!rolling!rolling You must have never met an Installer.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1541043#post1541043

Topic: HSP Wants Phones Hooked Up


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Hmmm Popular and Utilized system.....
> 
> So is my Toilet, but it's not making me any profit :lol:


Do you actually have any proof of your claims? Otherwise, we're just dealing with your half-cocked assumptions which obviously are not based on reality. PPV has been a valuable revenue stream for DirecTV. Enough of your nonsense. Common sense is a very popular and utilized tool around here. Feel free to get on board.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Doug do you really believe that a DBSTALK POLL can be used to reflect real world views about Directv?


I believe it's better than just spouting numbers out, yes. Plus based on what little I do know from the inside, I think our numbers are dramatically lower (the 25%) than reality.

Where are you getting your 95%? From a few friends? It may be an Internet poll, but over 500 people have weighed in. That's still a lot of people responding no matter how you look at it.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Every time I've had a box installed the tech ran a phone line to it.

I have some receivers that I've moved or self-installed that are not connected, but the techs have always connected phone lines.

I don't think the satellite and cable services would keep PPV going if it was not a money-maker, and I don't think they would expand it and add features (like 1080p) if they did not see it as a source of increased future revenue.

Are we really to believe that DirecTV, Dish Network, and the cable companies have been desperately grasping at straws all these years, trying to make a dime from a constant loser? Why exactly would they do that?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RAD said:


> The only issue I see with not having the STB not connected for outbound communications is that the PPV would need to be ordered via the DirecTV web site or paying the phone in surcharge.


iPhone App


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Regarding phone lines .. Only one system has to be connected via phone lines. SWiM based systems have some mechanism to communicate so that PPV purchase information gets sent to DIRECTV via that one DVR that is connected.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug, Iphone Directv App is something only a very very tiny amount of people have and even less of them used it past the first few weeks of owning it.

The problem with SWM is that you still need a line hooked up to at least one unit!
Most people I know dont even have Landlines anymore and many others do not have an Ethernet connection in their living rooms. Others yet have said to me that they are not interested in PPV because they get their Movies from XYZ and it's cheaper.
You are basicaly proving my point, your sheer belief that things like SWM and Ethernet connections near TV's is common is because your surrounded by Techies. Most of my Customer of which I had 400 at one point (These are High end HT people) did not even consider hooking up Ethernet or phone lines unless I suggested it and if it was even going to be the slightest inconvience in terms of Dust, unsightly wires etc. they would just say "Is it needed for me to watch TV, NO... Well Don't bother". My own friends just have no interest at all in PPV, most of them use Netflix etc.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Do you actually have any proof of your claims? Otherwise, we're just dealing with your half-cocked assumptions which obviously are not based on reality. PPV has been a valuable revenue stream for DirecTV. Enough of your nonsense. Common sense is a very popular and utilized tool around here. Feel free to get on board.


Do you have any proof of your claims that PPV is a Valuable Revenue stream for Direct and by that I mean profitable. Not someone's opinion but some printed facts that state how much Directv makes from PPV? If not your opinion is worth about the same as mine and just get over it that I am on the opposite side.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Got it...dreadlk's friends and customers don't do/have/use XYZ, therefor XYZ is not important and perfect representative of whatever he sees fit.

Noted.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Do you have any proof of your claims that PPV is a Valuable Revenue stream for Direct and by that I mean profitable. Not someone's opinion but some printed facts that state how much Directv makes from PPV? If not your opinion is worth about the same as mine and just get over it that I am on the opposite side.


Hmmm..."very encouraging trends in the quarter, particularly related to sales of premium movie channels, *pay per view movies* and events, as well as higher advertising revenues."



Sixto said:


> May CEO Analyst Call: First, in terms of revenues. I was very pleased with our 11% growth. We did see some very encouraging trends in the quarter, particularly related to sales of premium movie channels, pay per view movies and events, as well as higher advertising revenues. Now I'd attribute much of that improvement to better execution. But as the economy also continues to improve, customers do appear more willing to purchase additional content and premium services.
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/203565-directv-q1-2010-earnings-call-transcript​Investing in growth areas, simple as that.


This guy knows a lot about it and his info carries A LOT of weight...which outweighs your non sources:


Earl Bonovich said:


> All I can say, is that PPV is still used by a larger portion of the customer base, then most are theorizing that it is.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Every time I've had a box installed the tech ran a phone line to it.


Thats rare, most times they want to get out of your house as soon as a picture comes up on the screen. Leaving bad installs, sloppy wiring, poorly aligned dish etc. Not many people just happen to have an Ethernet connection by their TV stand and the Installer sure as hell is not going to run Ethernet for you. (unless that has changed recently)



> I don't think the satellite and cable services would keep PPV going if it was not a money-maker, and I don't think they would expand it and add features (like 1080p) if they did not see it as a source of increased future revenue
> Are we really to believe that DirecTV, Dish Network, and the cable companies have been desperately grasping at straws all these years, trying to make a dime from a constant loser? Why exactly would they do that..


I have said that I think the numbers are dissapointing, I believe it does make money but not on a Grand scale. They all keep trying things because it's another money stream that they feel could always get bigger.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> ...
> Are we really to believe that DirecTV, Dish Network, and the cable companies have been desperately grasping at straws all these years, trying to make a dime from a constant loser? *Why exactly would they do that*


You tell us, you seem to know everything else.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Hmmm..."very encouraging trends in the quarter, particularly related to sales of premium movie channels, *pay per view movies* and events, as well as higher advertising revenues."


Give me some hard numbers as it relates to PPV, not some company Spin!

Even Polls done on this forum from one year ago show 25% and same Poll done Today still shows only 25% of people interested in PPV not 36% like you believe. So where's the increase even by this forums Poll standards?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Give me some hard numbers as it relates to PPV, not some company Spin!
> 
> Even Polls done on this forum from one year ago show 25% and same Poll done Today still shows only 25% of people interested in PPV not 36% like you believe. So where's the increase even by this forums Poll standards?


Where's 36% come from? Are you still making up numbers? Like your 95%?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Where's 36% come from? Are you still making up numbers? Like your 95%?


Jesus Sigma read, please READ your own posts. 25% from a year ago Plus the 11% increase = 36%


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Give me some hard numbers as it relates to PPV, not some company Spin!
> 
> Even Polls done on this forum from one year ago show 25% and same Poll done Today still shows only 25% of people interested in PPV not 36% like you believe. So where's the increase even by this forums Poll standards?


The burden of proof lies on you and your false assumptions. You made these claims. Back them up. Still waiting...

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2544966#post2544966


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> You tell us, you seem to know everything else.


Sigma your making a fool of yourself, now your using other peoples Quotes and putting them to me. Read, please Read before posting


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

So if no one (or very few) are actually buying PPVs, then why did they add all those Cinema HD channel?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Jesus Sigma read, please READ your own posts. 25% from a year ago Plus the 11% increase = 36%


How about you read? You're so clueless. The 11% in the quote is regarding the revenue growth. 
25% is the number of respondents to the poles.
There's no 36% mentioned by anyone, except you! :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Sigma your making a fool of yourself, now your using other peoples Quotes and putting them to me. *Read, please Read before posting*


I'm the one making a fool of myself? Priceless!


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> The burden of proof lies on you and your false assumptions. You made these claims. Back them up. Still waiting...
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2544966#post2544966


LOL sounds kind of Kid like, "You go first, no you go first" I said already that 95% is an assumption, this Forum of Directv Diehards shows 75%, with no change in one year! So in the real world I know that people are not going to be as Techie and into Directv as people who spend time on this Forum, So I will assume that the Number is Higher than 75%, probably 85%. Now if you have hard numbers that say 85% is wrong, please show me.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> I'm the one making a fool of myself? Priceless!


Hmmm lets see, not being able to do basic Math! Using other peoples Quotes then attributing them to me! No let me correct myself, you look like Einstein :lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster/blockbuster-directv-plug-window-advantage-20081

_"In addition, satellite provider DirecTV this week joined cable operators such as Time Warner Cable underscoring its first-mover advantage on new releases by offering consumers a free ($4.99 value) transactional video-on-demand (VOD) rental of titles not available at kiosk vendor Redbox or by-mail distributor Netflix.

Transactional VOD generated an estimated $865 million in the first-half of 2010, up 19.1% over the same period last year, according to DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group."_

So if that rate continues for the rest of 2010 that's $1,730,000,000 in VOD revenue, so someone is out there buying this stuff. No company/companies is going to leave close to $2 billion laying on the table.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Hmmm lets see, not being able to do basic Math! Using other peoples Quotes then attributing them to me! No let me correct myself, you look like Einstein :lol:


Start over, read the stats. YOU added 11% to 25% when the 11% had zero to do with the 25%. YOU made up a 36% stat.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

There's some priceless crap in this thread the last few days. Just when you think someone can't get any more obtuse, they prove you wrong.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster/blockbuster-directv-plug-window-advantage-20081
> 
> _"In addition, satellite provider DirecTV this week joined cable operators such as Time Warner Cable underscoring its first-mover advantage on new releases by offering consumers a free ($4.99 value) transactional video-on-demand (VOD) rental of titles not available at kiosk vendor Redbox or by-mail distributor Netflix.
> 
> ...


How dare you interupt the random rants of wild guesses with facts. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> LOL sounds kind of Kid like, "You go first, no you go first" I said already that 95% is an assumption, this Forum of Directv Diehards shows 75%, with no change in one year! So in the real world I know that people are not going to be as Techie and into Directv as people who spend time on this Forum, So I will assume that the Number is Higher than 75%, probably 85%. Now if you have hard numbers that say 85% is wrong, please show me.


Let's recap for everyone trying to following your nonsense:


You thought DirecTV was rolling out 400 PPV channels, rather than titles
You believed that the additional PPV options would be delivered via an ADSL connection
You claimed that 95% of DirecTV customers do not use or want PPV options
You offered up a vast worldwide conspiracy theory behind 3D technology
You have routinely deflected from your false statements and ridiculous assumptions

You're the one who started spewing this nonsense. So yes, feel free to go first. It's as if you claimed bigfoot is real and then expected everyone else to prove you wrong. No, you made these silly statements. Back them up. If you cannot, which we all know to be the case, move on.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

RAD said:


> From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster/blockbuster-directv-plug-window-advantage-20081
> 
> _"In addition, satellite provider DirecTV this week joined cable operators such as Time Warner Cable underscoring its first-mover advantage on new releases by offering consumers a free ($4.99 value) transactional video-on-demand (VOD) rental of titles not available at kiosk vendor Redbox or by-mail distributor Netflix.
> 
> ...


Thats $865 million across all the Players, both Satellite and Cable right?
And thats during a Promotional period, so I dont think I would project those numbers just so quickly into a full year. But lets say we did, I see Revenues in 2009 for Directv that are in excess of 20 billion, so lets see if I use some rough Math, it would look like across all the companies it maybe about 100 billion in revenue. So VOD may acount for somewhere around 2% of revenue.

Not sure if I am right, I got to rush out of office soon but it seems like that is what I am seeing but I am open to correction if someone want to do proper research.

If it is 2% it just proves what i am saying.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RobertE said:


> So if no one (or very few) are actually buying PPVs, then why did they add all those Cinema HD channel?


"Clash Of The Titans" from DirecTV Cinema (and several other titles) have made the Top 5 "hottest" programs on DirecTV...

~Alan


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Let's recap for everyone trying to following your nonsense:
> 
> 
> You thought DirecTV was rolling out 400 PPV channels, rather than titles
> ...


Gotta run.. But nope your just trying to Slant things.

My main claim is most people are not Interested in More PPV if it's 400 channels or 400 shows.

I said 95% was an estimate, and it's not that Far off. If you can show me real numers I would Gladly believe them.

Yes I thought the PPV were going Via Ethernet like in the Past. Still does not matter because you still need a connection to make a reasonable purchase.

The 3D stuff as I said at the Start is what I know for sure! If you don't want to believe feel free, I have said too much on that already.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> "Clash Of The Titans" from DirecTV Cinema (and several other titles) have made the Top 5 "hottest" programs on DirecTV...
> 
> ~Alan


No accounting for taste.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Gotta run.. But nope your just trying to Slant things.
> 
> My main claim is most people are not Interested in More PPV if it's 400 channels or 400 shows.
> 
> ...


:lol::lol:



Hoosier205 said:


> You have routinely deflected from your false statements and ridiculous assumptions


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> How dare you interupt the random rants of wild guesses with facts. :lol::lol::lol:


Facts that most likely prove me right :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

ATARI said:


> No accounting for taste.


The movie could suck lemons, but I'm still happy with my $12.99 Blu-ray purchase just to see Liam Neeson as Zeus.

That being said... I did say there were other DirecTV Cinema titles that popped up as well.

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dreadlk said:


> Facts that most likely prove me right :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Hardly.

In looking at the industry volumes and project adoption rates in earlier posts, it would seem quite obvious that failing to seize the opportunity for this kind of on-demand video service revenue would be short-sighted business judgment.

To further segregate myself from any interest or emotional equity on the subject....please note that you can count my PPV orders over the past 3 years on your hands...and have a couple of fingers left - not exactly a huge adopter.

Yes I am not so blind as not to see that there is indeed a tangible market, a growing market, and much more than chump change at stake to seize for those offering such a service. Over a Billion in revenue and only a few to cash in on it - seems like a bandwagon most smart providers would jump upon.

It won't make me rush out to order Cinema movies left and right, but many others will likely enjoy the freedom and ease to order many more flicks with just a remote in hand. No one at DBSTalk represents the viewer population, certainly not me. On the other hand, there are plenty of stats already posted in the last 24 hours in this thread to substantiate its much more than a 5% adoption rate.

Perhaps the exact % or $$$ is not really all that important - just that its coming, will likely bring in more revenue than most of us know, and simply *compliment* the other choices we have in viewing.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> Hardly.
> 
> In looking at the industry volumes and project adoption rates in earlier posts, it would seem quite obvious that failing to seize the opportunity for this kind of on-demand video service revenue would be short-sighted business judgment.
> 
> ...


If you charge $4.99 for a 24-hr window it better be a 1st run for people to order, else they will do Netflix or Redbox.

The above article contains a few other points:

1) It was about VOD not PPV.
2) It was about the 1st run titles.
3) Netflix' response, we have tons of titles, for free.

Mike was talking about adding a lot more titles, i.e. not 1st run titles. There are not so many 1st runs at any one time. Which was why I said earlier hopefully it meant DirecTV is trying to compete with Netflix by adding a lot more titles.

PPV is clearly a good thing for DirecTV, but this plan Mike was talking about appeared a different concept. Let's make no mistake about it a lot of people are moving to OTA/Netflix, DirecTV needs to do something, I hope what Mike talked about in that interview has to do with that, more titles, better yet, more free titles.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> PPV is clearly a good thing for DirecTV, but this plan Mike was talking about appeared a different concept. Let's make no mistake about it a lot of people are moving to OTA/Netflix, DirecTV needs to do something, I hope what Mike talked about in that interview has to do with that, more titles, better yet, more free titles.


Call it whatever you will - ordering a movie with your remote when you want is Video on Demand.

More titles, yes. That is what was in the interview.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Jesus Sigma read, please READ your own posts. 25% from a year ago Plus the 11% increase = 36%


Revenues grew by 11% .. That doesn't mean the number of customers that used PPV grew by 11% ..  :scratchin


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> LOL sounds kind of Kid like, "You go first, no you go first" I said already that 95% is an assumption, this Forum of Directv Diehards shows 75%, with no change in one year! So in the real world I know that people are not going to be as Techie and into Directv as people who spend time on this Forum, So I will assume that the Number is Higher than 75%, probably 85%. Now if you have hard numbers that say 85% is wrong, please show me.


This is definitely where we differ "being techie" doesn't mean we like movies more than everyone else. What is means is that us "techie" people find other less costly ways to do it more frequently because that's what we do. That is why I would argue that "being techie" means spending less (overall) on PPV not more.

The general non-techie population would take the easy way out and user the remote control to order a movie. Bam, done! easy, just like that and your watching a movie. Doesn't require a PC, doesn't require anything other than (as you say) a phone line to send the billing back to DIRECTV. Heck, you can even order movies without the phone line attached for a short while, and then it tells you that you need a phone line attached. I don't buy the argument that being techie makes you more likely to use PPV than a non-techie viewer.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> If it is 2% it just proves what i am saying.


Even if your numbers are right (and I'm not going back to look at them), it does not prove your point.

2% of revenue does not equal 2% of customers.

What's the average monthly bill? Lets just use $100, for even numbers. That means every customer is spending $2 per month on PPV (2% of $100), or roughly one movie per quarter ($2 X 3 = $6).

Every customer would be watching 1 PPV per quarter to hit 2% in revenue.

I think we can agree that every customer doesn't watch PPV, right?

So, if every customer isn't, then 25% are probably watching close to 5 per quarter.

If only 5% were buying PPV, like you claim, they'd have to each be watching 25 movies per quarter to hit 2% revenue.

Do you really think that 5% are ALL watching 2 movies per week?

Any way you slice it, your arguments hold no logic.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> Call it whatever you will - ordering a movie with your remote when you want is Video on Demand.
> 
> More titles, yes. That is what was in the interview.


If we can agree this plan Mike talked about is about adding a lot more titles, then it has little to do with that article which was about the advantage of showing 1st run titles sooner than Netflix or Redbox, because there are not that many 1st run titles at any one time.

So what was he saying about adding a lot more titles? I speculate it has to do with competing with those who have a lot of titles in their libraries. Since they are not going to be new releases, hopefully it means more low cost/free titles coming to DirecTV.

If so, all the arguments here about whether people order the $4.99 1st run PPV so often or not might be missing the point here, if Mike was talking about something else.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

RAD said:


> From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster/blockbuster-directv-plug-window-advantage-20081
> 
> _"In addition, satellite provider DirecTV this week joined cable operators such as Time Warner Cable underscoring its first-mover advantage on new releases by offering consumers a free ($4.99 value) transactional video-on-demand (VOD) rental of titles not available at kiosk vendor Redbox or by-mail distributor Netflix.
> 
> ...


Interesting data point.

So not sure if my numbers or assumptions are accurate, but here is one way to cut through and possibly back into DirecTV's numbers from this data and other assumptions. Just rough numbers, my assumptions could be way off.

Transaction VOD for entire market = $1.73B per year
DirecTV marketshare = 15% (not sure how close this is)
18.5M DTV customers
$21.5B in DTV annual revenue

$1.73B x 15% = ~$260M transactional VOD for DirecTV in 2010 (forecast)

$260M/18.5M customers = $14 per customer in average PPV revenue per year. If 50% adoption then $28/customer. If 25% adoption then $56/customer.

$260M/21.5B = 1.2% of revenue


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

anleva said:


> Interesting data point.
> 
> So not sure if my numbers or assumptions are accurate, but here is one way to cut through and possibly back into DirecTV's numbers from this data and other assumptions. Just rough numbers, my assumptions could be way off.
> 
> ...


Yeah you're probably close on that number, I figured it was between 1% and 2% but knowing the Hell I would get using 1% I decided to pick the higher number.
If one factors in how much satellite Bandwidth and R&D money they have spent on VOD/PPV you realize it's not really a big money maker on the bottom line.

What I find fascinating with so many Forum people is that on Forums life is either Black or it's white, they cannot fathom an answer that is in-between. If I say it's not a big money maker and "Disappointing". People have to interrupt that as it Loses Money and then go and try to prove that it is a Money maker.

If


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Yeah you're probably close on that number, I figured it was between 1% and 2% but knowing the Hell I would get using 1% I decided to pick the higher number.
> If one factors in how much satellite Bandwidth and R&D money they have spent on VOD/PPV you realize it's not really a big money maker on the bottom line.
> 
> What I find fascinating with so many Forum people is that on Forums life is either Black or it's white, they cannot fathom an answer that is in-between. If I say it's not a big money maker and "Disappointing". People have to interrupt that as it Loses Money and then go and try to prove that it is a Money maker.
> ...


Have you not had enough? Go hatch another conspiracy theory...


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> This is definitely where we differ "being techie" doesn't mean we like movies more than everyone else. What is means is that us "techie" people find other less costly ways to do it more frequently because that's what we do. That is why I would argue that "being techie" means spending less (overall) on PPV not more.
> 
> The general non-techie population would take the easy way out and user the remote control to order a movie. Bam, done! easy, just like that and your watching a movie. Doesn't require a PC, doesn't require anything other than (as you say) a phone line to send the billing back to DIRECTV. Heck, you can even order movies without the phone line attached for a short while, and then it tells you that you need a phone line attached. I don't buy the argument that being techie makes you more likely to use PPV than a non-techie viewer.


Doug I have spent more years than I wish to say installing High end AV systems and you know that Question that the Telephone Techs ask first?
"Is it Plugged In?" That's been my experience with most non tech people.

Yes they would watch PPV but they dont even go into the Menu's to see that it's even there! They don't understand how the Billing will be done and in most cases they don't have a nearby phone line or even own a home Land Line anymore! So they will rent movies from Netflix because it's not technical, it's easy and cheap. Why do you think Directv has Dumbed down PPV ordering so much? The Pictures in the Guide, the Adverts in the Guide etc. all to try and reach those who dont ever go into Menus.

What we find to be so easy and straight forward most people find to be intimidating and potentially expensive. I cant tell you how many people have said to me "I don't touch that because I might mess it up" They are literally traumatized by technology and the fear of getting into areas that they cant get out of so they just avoid them.

My wife is a perfect example, the first time she saw the "1 hour missing guide data" box she just left it up and kept pressing the Up arrow to remove the screen saver. I got home about 2 hours later and I said why she didn't just press the Enter Button. 
She said she was afraid the receiver would reset and she knew it was recording my 8pm shows, so she just left it till I got home.

Most people are just like that, when in doubt they don't mess with it.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Have you not had enough? Go hatch another conspiracy theory...


No no, keep going, so far your looking like a Rocket Scientist! Your own posts are proving me right. Just wish we had the exact figures because I would bet with those we would find PPV to be less than 1% of revenue for Directv.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> No no, keep going, so far your looking like a Rocket Scientist! Your own posts are proving me right. Just wish we had the exact figures because I would bet with those we would find PPV to be less than 1% of revenue for Directv.


:lol: You just keep telling your delusional self that.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Even if your numbers are right (and I'm not going back to look at them), it does not prove your point.
> 
> 2% of revenue does not equal 2% of customers.
> 
> ...


And if you change that to 15% ???
That Means 2 movies every 3 weeks. Sounds more plausible to you? Sounds about right to me for a family that into ordering PPV movies.

I did say I agreed it was more like 15% on several posts, but hey you need to stick to something that you can use to prove your point so go ahead.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> :lol: You just keep telling your delusional self that.


Yeah thats why I think your smart.:lol:


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hardly.
> 
> In looking at the industry volumes and project adoption rates in earlier posts, it would seem quite obvious that failing to seize the opportunity for this kind of on-demand video service revenue would be short-sighted business judgment.
> 
> ...


Agree... It's all about the possible revenue but the current numbers that I said are still probably right and very close to 1%

I still think that the reason You, Me and the other 75% of people on this forum don't purchase movies is simply price and as long as they dont address that issue it's probably never going to grow by much.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Yeah *that's* why I think *you're* smart.:lol:


I must be.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

"dreadlk" said:


> No no, keep going, so far your looking like a Rocket Scientist! Your own posts are proving me right. Just wish we had the exact figures because I would bet with those we would find PPV to be less than 1% of revenue for Directv.


If the 2% is true then the 50+ PPVs may not be the best use of the BW. But PPVs should have much higher % of profit.

However I like to point out again, Mike did not appear to talk about the kind of PPV you guys are debating about. I am hoping he is about low/no cost titles to counter Netflix and the like.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> I must be.


Keep saying it, "I am Smart",, "I Am Smart" soon you'll be replacing "I must be" with "I AM !!!!"


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> If the 2% is true then the 50+ PPVs may not be the best use of the BW. But PPVs should have much higher % of profit.
> 
> However I like to point out again, Mike did not appear to talk about the kind of PPV you guys are debating about. I am hoping he is about low/no cost titles to counter Netflix and the like.


It's not the Best use of BW but as others have pointed out it's all about Potential Revenue. I have no idea what kind of profit they make, I have good info on Theaters but nothing on Cable or Satellite.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Yes they would watch PPV but they dont even go into the Menu's to see that it's even there! They don't understand how the Billing will be done and in most cases they don't have a nearby phone line or even own a home Land Line anymore! So they will rent movies from Netflix because it's not technical, it's easy and cheap. Why do you think Directv has Dumbed down PPV ordering so much? The Pictures in the Guide, the Adverts in the Guide etc. all to try and reach those who dont ever go into Menus.


OK, so people are too stupid to use their remote to order movies but smart enough to use their computer to order movies from Netflix. Got it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Don't forget Doug, that these same people are so non-tech, that they don't have a landline either.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> It's not the Best use of BW but as others have pointed out it's all about Potential Revenue. I have no idea what kind of profit they make, I have good info on Theaters but nothing on Cable or Satellite.


The potential revenue provided by the $4.99/$5.99 PPVs has been reached. Even though the revenue increased from last year, everyone else's revenue has also increased, reflecting the economy in which most families are forced to stay home and order movies, instead of going on vacations.

The 400 additional titles (hopefully many more than that) Mike talked about, they will not get $4.99/$5.99 a pop, only the first run titles can get such a premium, and only when DirecTV can provide them 28 days sooner than Netflix or Redbox.

But if those 400 or more additional titles can be ordered at a very low cost, or some of them even for free, I can see myself quiting Netflix, ordering from DirecTV too. Some others may just decide not to go the OTA/Netflix route and stay with DirecTV.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Don't forget Doug, that these same people are so non-tech, that they don't have a landline either.


LOL your such a Joke. Why don't you read up on things before posting:nono: Do you know that many many people have gotten rid of their Landlines in the last 5 years. People are ditching Landlines and just using Cell phones, so that they have one number that you can reach them at 24/7 and save about $30 a month in the process. Not saying I agree with their choice but Duh if you kept up with Tech News you would know that's been the Trend for a long time now.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> The potential revenue provided by the $4.99/$5.99 PPVs has been reached. Even though the revenue increased from last year, everyone else's revenue has also increased, reflecting the economy in which most families are forced to stay home and order movies, instead of going on vacations.
> 
> The 400 additional titles (hopefully many more than that) Mike talked about, they will not get $4.99/$5.99 a pop, only the first run titles can get such a premium, and only when DirecTV can provide them 28 days sooner than Netflix or Redbox.
> 
> But if those 400 or more additional titles can be ordered at a very low cost, or some of them even for free, I can see myself quiting Netflix, ordering from DirecTV too. Some others may just decide not to go the OTA/Netflix route and stay with DirecTV.


I see what your saying, about the economy etc. if it has hit a low then the stay at home situation might change soon but then again the economy could get worst and more people might stay home, but if the economy is worst they may not even have money for Directv Sub to begin with  LOL who knows, I guess Directv just wants to posistion themselves as a big player should PPV ever really take off.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> LOL your such a Joke. Why don't you read up on things before posting:nono: Do you know that many many people have gotten rid of their Landlines in the last 5 years. People are ditching Landlines and just using Cell phones, so that they have one number that you can reach them at 24/7 and save about $30 a month in the process. Not saying I agree with their choice but Duh if you kept up with *Tech News* you would know that's been the Trend for a long time now.


Duh, but the vast majority of those folks are on the tech side of the equation. JSP, that you keep talking about, isn't dumping his land line. You can't have it both ways. You can't say people are so non-tech that they can't figure out VOD, but at the same time they don't have a phone line either.

Go ahead, tell us about all your non-tech customers that don't have land lines as your proof.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> OK, so people are too stupid to use their remote to order movies but smart enough to use their computer to order movies from Netflix. Got it.


Yep a lot of people can Navigate Websites because they do it all day but hand them a remote and ask them to figure out something and you get a whole different story. I would say that most of the problem is still lack of connectivity and not lack of Brains but it all plays a part in these low numbers.

Am I the only one on this Forum who's wife can Navigate Websites, order stuff from Amazon.com etc. but at home if she wants to record a series that is not showing right now, she asks you to go into the search, find the show and setup the series link?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Duh, but the vast majority of those folks are on the tech side of the equation. JSP, that you keep talking about, isn't dumping his land line. You can't have it both ways. You can't say people are so non-tech that they can't figure out VOD, but at the same time they don't have a phone line either.
> 
> Go ahead, tell us about all your non-tech customers that don't have land lines as your proof.


Spartanstew what I love about this is how the First Sentence Sums you up Perfectly.:lol::lol:

http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/05/12/land-lines-becoming-extinct-25-of-americans-think-so/


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> What I love about this is how the First Sentence Sums you up Perfectly.:lol::lol:
> 
> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/05/12/land-lines-becoming-extinct-25-of-americans-think-so/


25% isn't most. Most would be 51%


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> What I love about this is how the First Sentence Sums you up Perfectly.:lol::lol:
> 
> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/05/12/land-lines-becoming-extinct-25-of-americans-think-so/


_redacted_ Is there nothing that you understand? People keep pointing out the flaws in everything you say and you just change course. All my statements are accurate. Just like your link alludes to:

*The only people I know of that still have landlines either need them for a fax machine or are of a certain generation.*

Who do you think is in that generation of people holding on to their land lines? Tech savy 30 year olds?

You have got to be the most obtuse individual to ever grace this forum. _redacted_ you keep going thinking that everyone else must be wrong.

Guess what? They're not.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> 25% isn't most. Most would be 51%


If you read my Posts I did not say most people don't have a Landline, what I said was they dont have connectivity to the Receiver, IOW I said most people dont have a landline near the Receiver nor do they have an ADSL line near it!

The People not Having Landlines is because my Smart friend does not realize that putting aside the Fact that Most people do not have a Phone near their receivers, many do not even have a Landline and that's been a Growing Trend for Years.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> _redacted_ Is there nothing that you understand? People keep pointing out the flaws in everything you say and you just change course. All my statements are accurate. Just like your link alludes to:
> 
> *The only people I know of that still have landlines either need them for a fax machine or are of a certain generation.*
> 
> ...


Einstein, I said in my original Post, the one that got you so worked up that most people are not interested in Buying PPV, What has changed about that? The Posts on this thread show that less than 2% of Directv's Revenue is from PPV and 75% of people on this Forum are not that interested in it. So my assertion that 400 more shows or Channels is not going to be important nor does it make a difference seem to be proven fairly well.

Secondly, you obviously had no clue that Landlines were going extinct, and you still believe that most people just happen to have a Phone Jack/Ethernet jack right behind their TV.

At this point you seem to be the person who keeps this going, I really don't care what you think, because from your past posts it's obvious that you don't read Posts nor do you know what is going on in the the real world.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

At this point we've gone from a somewhat productive conversation into a place that best be avoided .. I think everything has been said that needs to be said. Let's all move along and play nice.

Thanks.

This thread has been closed.


----------

