# I'm calling Time Warner tonight.....



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

This is not what you think (another I've had it with D* thread).

Yesterday (Memorial day) I saw a Time Warner add that claimed Directv does not have HD On Demand, only Time Warner does. I'm thinking about calling their 800 number tonight and asking them to confirm that, and when the rep does, just saying soemthing like, "Well, I'm watching/downloading show "xyz" from DirecTv On Demand right now." I'll give them the "Bang On You" routine before I hang up... :lol:


----------



## krock918316 (Mar 5, 2007)

Cox is running a similar ad in our area....


----------



## Mocco71 (Jan 13, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> This is not what you think (another I've had it with D* thread).
> 
> Yesterday (Memorial day) I saw a Time Warner add that claimed Directv does not have HD On Demand, only Time Warner does. I'm thinking about calling their 800 number tonight and asking them to confirm that, and when the rep does, just saying soemthing like, "Well, I'm watching/downloading show "xyz" from DirecTv On Demand right now." I'll give them the "Bang On You" routine before I hang up... :lol:


The campaign probably works well. If it wasn't for this forum, I wouldn't even know that VOD is available via D*.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> Yesterday (Memorial day) I saw a Time Warner add that claimed Directv does not have HD On Demand, only Time Warner does. I'm thinking about calling their 800 number tonight and asking them to confirm that, and when the rep does, just saying soemthing like, "Well, I'm watching/downloading show "xyz" from DirecTv On Demand right now." I'll give them the "Bang On You" routine before I hang up... :lol:


Just because D* calls it "on demand" does not mean that it is. With my broadband connection, with D*, SD DOD is truely "on demand", while HD DOD is definately not. Time Warner is highlighting an area where cable has a clear advantage.

In my mind, hitting download and waiting an hour to watch is not "on demand".


----------



## Vinny* (May 18, 2008)

I would not call what Direct TV has "On Demand". You need an internet connection in order to download. With Comcast Cable the movies were there when you wanted to watch. They also carry much more HD on demand. Without my locals in HD and the way Direct TV On Demand works, I have to say I gave up alot to switch to Direct TV. I hope this new satellite changes my mind.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

It is still "on demand" in the sense that you don't have to wait until the next time the program airs...

I can usually start playing an HD program within just a few minutes of starting the download with my 6mbps DSL... 

I'm wondering if Time Warner is claiming that because the DirecTV on Demand is still considered 'beta'... either way, the ad is misleading...


----------



## uscboy (Sep 5, 2006)

Time Warner's On Demand is much better. DirecTV is doing what they can to compete with it.

That said, On Demand is no where near worth having Time Warner service.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I'm wondering if Time Warner is claiming that because the DirecTV on Demand is still considered 'beta'... either way, the ad is misleading...


No more misleading then any other ad, especially those sleezy D* commercials. 'Yeah we have 100 HD channels, if you coun't all the PPV channels'.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> No more misleading then any other ad, especially those sleezy D* commercials. 'Yeah we have 100 HD channels, if you coun't all the PPV channels'.


Why must you insist upon turning every thread into a channel count competition? First off, I don't think they are claiming 100 channels. According to their website, it is 95. But whether or not DirecTV is counting the PPV channels is irrelevant. If they have 100 channels that show HD programming, then they have 100 HD channels. Period. So therefore, DirecTV's commercials are not misleading. However, Time Warner claiming DirecTV doesn't offer a service that they do in fact offer, that is misleading.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> It is still "on demand" in the sense that you don't have to wait until the next time the program airs...
> 
> I can usually start playing an HD program within just a few minutes of starting the download with my 6mbps DSL...
> 
> I'm wondering if Time Warner is claiming that because the DirecTV on Demand is still considered 'beta'... either way, the ad is misleading...


It is faster to drive to Blockbuster and get a DVD than it is to watch one from DoD. It's not really "On Demand". Although they are faster than Netflix. Also, as people here are so quick to state anytime there's a critique of the DoD service...it's still in beta...and thus not a released product. You either have a released product or you don't.

Remember too, DirecTV has done more than its fair share of misleading aids. How about their HD ads that have the big $29.99 price at the end? Oops...better read the tiny print about the $9.99 HD fee and the two-year commitment.

The cable/satellite industry is replete with scummy, used-car-sales marketing.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Remember too, DirecTV has done more than its fair share of misleading aids. How about their HD ads that have the big $29.99 price at the end? Oops...better read the tiny print about the $9.99 HD fee and the two-year commitment.
> 
> The cable/satellite industry is replete with scummy, used-car-sales marketing.


True. But, no worse than any Comcast ads that run in my area. Most all companies that provide a service like that have a very small fine print.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

AirRocker said:


> Why must you insist upon turning every thread into a channel count competition? First off, I don't think they are claiming 100 channels. According to their website, it is 95. But whether or not DirecTV is counting the PPV channels is irrelevant. If they have 100 channels that show HD programming, then they have 100 HD channels. Period. So therefore, DirecTV's commercials are not misleading. However, Time Warner claiming DirecTV doesn't offer a service that they do in fact offer, that is misleading.


Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


----------



## bobojay (Jan 26, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


I don't disagree with most of what he says....


----------



## bjflynn04 (Jul 27, 2004)

I am just glad where I live at I don't have to worry about any crappy cable companies espically TIME WARNER and COMCRAP.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AirRocker said:


> It is still "on demand" in the sense that you don't have to wait until the next time the program airs...
> 
> I can usually start playing an HD program within just a few minutes of starting the download with my 6mbps DSL...
> 
> ...


I'm on 10 down (which I get consistantly) and I seriously doubt you can start playing an HD DOD (and watch it all the way through without it pausing to buffer) within "just a few minutes" --- unless you consider 45 minutes "just a few minutes".


----------



## tftc22 (Mar 30, 2007)

It's highly deceptive, but the way the commercial is worded is technically true. It talks about how the phone company bundle doesn't have HD on demand via satellite. Of course Directv on demand is delivered by your internet connection and not via satellite.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


i think it is funny when people become so loyal to sat or cable provider that they get hostile about it, but that is just me . . .


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I know what you mean, AirRocker is off his rocker when it comes to D*. Drink up the Kool-Aid boys!


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AirRocker said:


> However, Time Warner claiming DirecTV doesn't offer a service that they do in fact offer, that is misleading.


Directv calling what they have "On Demand" is what is misleading to anyone with an objective definition of "On Demand".


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I know what you mean, AirRocker is off his rocker when it comes to D*. Drink up the Kool-Aid boys!


This is a DirecTV, Dish and FTA site, after all .... what kind of reception do you expect here being a cable customer? Seems odd that you're spending your time here bashing the competing companies.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I've been visiting this site every day since August 12 2001, I will spend as much time here as I please, thank you very much.

Call it bashing, I considerate it voicing a different view point.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I've been visiting this site every day since August 12 2001, I will spend as much time here as I please, thank you very much.
> 
> Call it bashing, I considerate it voicing a different view point.


Tenure makes it okay? Is that kinda like squatter's rights? 

I'm not saying you can't spend time here, just curious why, if you're not interested in the aforementioned technologies, you hang with people that are. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I know what you mean, AirRocker is off his rocker when it comes to D*. Drink up the Kool-Aid boys!


Easy turbo. I never attacked you personally. I asked a legitimate question. I can't even count how many of your posts I've seen that either bash DirecTV or sing the praises of Time Warner. Not sure how I'm the one drinking the Kool-Aid.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Tenure makes it okay? Is that kinda like squatter's rights?
> 
> I'm not saying you can't spend time here, just curious why, if you're not interested in the aforementioned technologies, you hang with people that are. That's all I'm saying.


I think his personal info says it all: cable troll


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I bash DirecTV when they deserve to be bashed, I praise TW when they deserve to be praised. Time Warner isn't perfect, but they are perfect for me, and are a hell of a lot better then my dealings with Dish, and yes even Gods gift, DirecTV.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

raoul5788 said:


> I think his personal info says it all: cable troll


And damn proud of it :righton:


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

10,463 different view points, cool 
open forum is just that, an open forum.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I bash DirecTV when they deserve to be bashed, I praise TW when they deserve to be praised. Time Warner isn't perfect, but they are perfect for me, and are a hell of a lot better then my dealings with Dish, and yes even Gods gift, DirecTV.


That's great that Time Warner is perfect for you. Doesn't mean you have to try and bring down everyone else's experience (or impression) of DirecTV.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I'm just stating the truth, that DirecTV is not the end all be all some of you like to proclaim. Bring down everyone's experience or impression? How can I do that, if someone thinks DirecTV sucks, that's their opinion, I can agree or disagree, but I can't form that opinion for them. Perhaps you should stop trying to read in between lines that aren't even there.


----------



## Mocco71 (Jan 13, 2007)

A good way to get a thread closed is to get off topic and critique one another instead of commenting on the actual question at hand. This is to all, not anyone in particular!

oh no, I sound like a mod. err, never mind, say what you want!!


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> Why must you insist upon turning every thread into a channel count competition? First off, I don't think they are claiming 100 channels. According to their website, it is 95. But whether or not DirecTV is counting the PPV channels is irrelevant. If they have 100 channels that show HD programming, then they have 100 HD channels. Period. So therefore, DirecTV's commercials are not misleading. However, Time Warner claiming DirecTV doesn't offer a service that they do in fact offer, that is misleading.


Please don't feed the troll.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Yes, please feed the troll. I'll take a pizza...


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

no pizza, but I can sell you service in a sat system AirRocker and I are starting, involves a white slimline dish with no logo 
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1618587&postcount=50


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

ah yes the old "to each his/her own"
here cable has very few HD channels, cost is way higher for 3DVR setup, and you can't get thru a vod without it pixilating... 
I'll keep my sat


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

David MacLeod said:


> no pizza, but I can sell you service in a sat system AirRocker and I are starting, involves a white slimline dish with no logo
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1618587&postcount=50


I'd rather have a pizza, then a pizza pan, but I wouldn't mind replacing my old Phase 3 with a Slimline, just for decoration. Add an 18"er for 72.5 too.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

remove the white stuff from the roof before I freak 
add 3 feet to it and it would look like my roof most of the winter, even with raking every day.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

If it were me and I found I had no use for satellite, I'd find another place to frequent. Then again, Cable-enthusiast boards...ain't a lot of them out there.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

One or two more dishes and you might have to go with a triple wide.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> One or two more dishes and you might have to go with a triple wide.


nah, you'd be surprised how many you can fit successfully on a doublewide.
primestar, D*, and dish fitted fine on mine. 
down to just 1 now though, having ******* withdrawals.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> One or two more dishes and you might have to go with a triple wide.


... priceless. :lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Uh, I live in a house not a trailer


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Mocco71 said:


> A good way to get a thread closed is to get off topic and critique one another instead of commenting on the actual question at hand. This is to all, not anyone in particular!
> 
> oh no, I sound like a mod. err, never mind, say what you want!!


The thread started out off topic with a title like that... :lol:



Steve Mehs said:


> I'm just stating the truth, that DirecTV is not the end all be all some of you like to proclaim. Bring down everyone's experience or impression? How can I do that, if someone thinks DirecTV sucks, that's their opinion, I can agree or disagree, but I can't form that opinion for them. Perhaps you should stop trying to read in between lines that aren't even there.


Again, this is a site for satellite enthusiasts, not cable apologists. Why do you feel you have to play the role of the antagonist, that's what I don't get.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


As "sleezey" and customer friendly as Dish Network lighting up 22 new HD channels on Monday, then turning around and REMOVING 15 HD channels Tuesday??...just to get the press releases rolling and people watching the right hand, while the left had releases a press release about first quarter 2008 growth loss (linky)?? They push out a press release about the 22 new channels, but not a word about the loss of 15??..meaning a net gain of only 7?

Yeah...not "sleezey" or deceptive at all.

Hey, I'm not saying DirecTV is perfect...but let's be fair: BOTH can be VERY "sleezey" or deceptive in their marketing practices.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

bidger said:


> If it were me and I found I had no use for satellite, I'd find another place to frequent. Then again, Cable-enthusiast boards...ain't a lot of them out there.


I wonder why that is? :scratch: :scratchin :shrug:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

tcusta00 said:


> The thread started out off topic with a title like that... :lol:
> 
> Again, this is a site for satellite enthusiasts, not cable apologists. Why do you feel you have to play the role of the antagonist, that's what I don't get.


Does it totally escape you that I was one a satellite enthusiast? Maybe I come here to keep tabs on what's going on in the industry so I can see what kind of impact it will have on my cable experience, and maybe I'd even think about going back to satellite if there's something compelling enough. Maybe I come here because this is my home and while many of the old timers from the DBSDish days that posted here early on, but no longer do, it feels like home. Before this site exploded into what it is today, there was a very close 'virtual family' feel to it. We had the old wise guy, Nick, the kook, Roger, the strange young one, Gummy, Bogy and RLW always dropping in offering alternative view points. This is more than just a 'site for satellite enthusiasts', it's a family. Some of us have moved on, but that doesn't mean our opinions are any less valid. Take a look at the Memberlist, sort by post, three of the top ten all time posters now have cable. I realize that since you just joined here 6 months ago, you have no idea what I'm talking about, but next time think before you go spouting off about how someone doesn't belong here.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

not to fan any flames, but from what I've seen there are many people who still post that don't have the service anymore.
fwiw, its all good to me. open forum with differing viewpoints leads to interesting discussions.
besides, dishes on snow covered roofs are good. give you something to grab when sliding by.. cable can't help there


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

What was this thread about....???


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Does it totally escape you that I was one a satellite enthusiast? Maybe I come here to keep tabs on what's going on in the industry so I can see what kind of impact it will have on my cable experience, and maybe I'd even think about going back to satellite if there's something compelling enough. Maybe I come here because this is my home and while many of the old timers from the DBSDish days that posted here early on, but no longer do, it feels like home. Before this site exploded into what it is today, there was a very close 'virtual family' feel to it. We had the old wise guy, Nick, the kook, Roger, the strange young one, Gummy, Bogy and RLW always dropping in offering alternative view points. This is more than just a 'site for satellite enthusiasts', it's a family. Some of us have moved on, but that doesn't mean our opinions are any less valid. Take a look at the Memberlist, sort by post, three of the top ten all time posters now have cable. I realize that since you just joined here 6 months ago, you have no idea what I'm talking about, but next time think before you go spouting off about how someone doesn't belong here.


The way you constantly talk down about DirecTV it would seem that you don't care to use the service again. I don't think I'm spouting off, as you say, I asked an honest question. Your opinions in this thread included a personal shot a long-time contributor ("I know what you mean, AirRocker is off his rocker when it comes to D*. Drink up the Kool-Aid boys!"). For someone who's been around as long as you, you should have a little more couth than to make personal attacks.

Again, I'm not saying (nor have I ever) that you shouldn't be here and I'm sorry if you read between the lines and saw something that wasn't there. But when you have a site for satellite enthusiasts and then a cable guy comes in and talks crap about it all the time, what do you expect will happen? I don't see Nick or any of the other top ten posters taking every opportunity to bash DirecTV. I get a real kick out of Nick's posts and like reading them. And please don't mistake my posts for spouting, I'm asking an honest question - why do you feel the need to play the role of the DirecTV antagonist? You're taking my question personally when it's not. If I went to cabletalk.com and joined early and then talked crap about it and how great DirecTV is, what do you think would happen? Does the fact that I was there from the start and I used to have the service (but now hate it and have a competing service) and have a lot of friends there mean I shouldn't be held accountable for my posts? :nono2:

Thanks for pointing out that I've only been here for 6 months. That certainly detracts from my reputation here, huh? Again, you think it's tenure and post counts that matter and I don't understand that. :nono2:


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


I take it you are then conceding your original point by switching the topic yet again while not being able to counter his point.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

raott said:


> Directv calling what they have "On Demand" is what is misleading to anyone with an objective definition of "On Demand".


Care to elaborate?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> I bash DirecTV when they deserve to be bashed, I praise TW when they deserve to be praised. Time Warner isn't perfect, but they are perfect for me, and are a hell of a lot better then my dealings with Dish, and yes even Gods gift, DirecTV.


I have TWC for internet and phone because they are better than Verizon and I have Direct for TV because they are better than TWC and Verizon. TWC calls me all of the time and ask me if I want to switch to them for TV after explaining that I have Direct and why I have it, one of their CSR's said she doesn't blame me and she has Direct as well. I will give her credit for her honesty. Besides VOD, there is nothing, not one other thing better about TWC for TV in my area than Direct


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Comparing post counts...lol. I'll take quality over quantity any day. That being said, and BOT, cable Ondemand is not going to make many people switch.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> I'm on 10 down (which I get consistantly) and I seriously doubt you can start playing an HD DOD (and watch it all the way through without it pausing to buffer) within "just a few minutes" --- unless you consider 45 minutes "just a few minutes".


I should have been more clear in my OP... The program I was referring to was approx. 30 minutes in length... Not a full length HD movie...


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Comparing post counts...lol. I'll take quality over quantity any day. That being said, and BOT, cable Ondemand is not going to make many people switch.


Those 10 quality HD TWC channels in my area are far better than the 50 HD channels I get through Direct (even though those 10 are on Direct as well). :lol:


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> Directv calling what they have "On Demand" is what is misleading to anyone with an objective definition of "On Demand".


The time between you deciding on a program, and the program becoming viewable is subjective to the speed of your internet connection. That time has absolutely nothing to do with DirecTV. The fact that the program can be viewed without having to wait on it to be broadcast over the sats is what makes the program 'on demand'. So what exactly would the time frame have to be to make it 'on demand'?

DirecTV is providing the content. How quickly you receive it is not under their control. Your argument is like blaming DirecTV for your TV being too small.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Those 10 quality HD TWC channels in my area are far better than the 50 HD channels I get through Direct (even though those 10 are on Direct as well). :lol:


Our TWC HD is horrible. !pusht!


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AirRocker said:


> The time between you deciding on a program, and the program becoming viewable is subjective to the speed of your internet connection. That time has absolutely nothing to do with DirecTV. The fact that the program can be viewed without having to wait on it to be broadcast over the sats is what makes the program 'on demand'. So what exactly would the time frame have to be to make it 'on demand'?
> 
> DirecTV is providing the content. How quickly you receive it is not under their control. Your argument is like blaming DirecTV for your TV being too small.


My guess is that 99 people out of 100, if asked what "on demand" meant to them, would say, push a button and watch at that moment. No amount of favorable D* spin on the definition will change that.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> My guess is that 99 people out of 100, if asked what "on demand" meant to them, would say, push a button and watch at that moment. No amount of favorable D* spin on the definition will change that.


So you're telling me that with Time Warner and Comcast the on demand program will start the nanosecond that you press select?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AirRocker said:


> So you're telling me that with Time Warner and Comcast the on demand program will start the nanosecond that you press select?


No, it takes about 10 seconds. Big difference between 10 seconds and 45 minutes to an hour.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AirRocker said:


> The time between you deciding on a program, and the program becoming viewable is subjective to the speed of your internet connection. That time has absolutely nothing to do with DirecTV. ........ How quickly you receive it is not under their control. Your argument is like blaming DirecTV for your TV being too small.


Wrong. I have a 10 meg down and it isn't even close to being maxed out when I download DOD yet HD DOD is still not at a one to one ratio.

D* throttles the bandwidth and is the bottleneck, not my service provider.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

This is not a comparison because I have no idea what features TWC VOD has with it since I do not have TWC for my TV provider. But, one thing I like about Direct's VOD is the correlation of the VOD channels with the channel numbers of the stations. The VOD channels are the same channel number with a 1 in front. For example, TLC is on 280 so the TLC VOD is on 1280. If I want to see what TLC VOD programs are available, all I have to do is tune to 1280.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Ok Ive tried to stay out of this but why not.......

On Demand is On Demand...you want something you push a button and boom it either starts playing or buffers and then plays. YMMV or did we forget that, some are lucky enough to have the speed to have it begin immediatly and others have to wait a minute or ten who cares....you still demanded and it has been provided....you dont have to wait a week....

As for the cable vs directv vs dish vs fios vs uverse debate...cmon give it a rest.....someone will like DBS some will like cable and even some will like the phone company to provide.....its like saying I like apples and no matter what you say you are wrong....kind of dumb if you ask me. Someone's opinion is just that an OPINION, its not wrong to advise others on what that person felt was a good choice....FOR THEM. You dont agree with it fine, provide a counter point to their argument. DONT BASH THEM for it.......

And Im done.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

I just D/L Casino Royale HD on Sat. in only took about 5 mins before I was able to watch it without any problems.


----------



## BIG_RED13 (Apr 12, 2008)

jodyguercio said:


> Ok Ive tried to stay out of this but why not.......
> 
> On Demand is On Demand...you want something you push a button and boom it either starts playing or buffers and then plays. YMMV or did we forget that, some are lucky enough to have the speed to have it begin immediatly and others have to wait a minute or ten who cares....you still demanded and it has been provided....you dont have to wait a week....
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100%


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Cable is ok. I use it for all my DirecTv installs. :lol:


----------



## Mocco71 (Jan 13, 2007)

raott said:


> My guess is that 99 people out of 100, if asked what "on demand" meant to them, would say, push a button and watch at that moment. No amount of favorable D* spin on the definition will change that.


I agree, I am one of those 99. 
Since we are so far off topic, I may as well say that I saw cable on a Samsung like mine a few weeks ago and the HD was comparable, but the SD was just awful.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> The time between you deciding on a program, and the program becoming viewable is subjective to the speed of your internet connection. That time has absolutely nothing to do with DirecTV. The fact that the program can be viewed without having to wait on it to be broadcast over the sats is what makes the program 'on demand'. So what exactly would the time frame have to be to make it 'on demand'?
> 
> DirecTV is providing the content. How quickly you receive it is not under their control. Your argument is like blaming DirecTV for your TV being too small.


This is my problem with D's VOD, it is dependent on another service. Comcrap's VOD does not care if you have cable internet or even a DVR. A regular digital subcriber without a DVR can watch VOD. With D you have to have a DVR and high speed internet. So in my opinion this is not something to brag about. I am sitting in my basement right now and I can't watch DOD because I don't have an HRx there.

I shouldn't have to have to depend on two different companies to provide for me what one company is supposed to provide to me.. D should not implement a system that is dependent on another company. My uncle has a D DVR but never uses VOD because he will not network his system, he does not want to, he does not want to spend the extra money needed to do it, which may be the case for alot of people.

The long and short of what I am saying is D should provide the service from start to finish for all of their customers. I personally do not feel that this is VOD. This is really no different then sitting at my computer and downloading a movie from an internet movie site and hoping that my internet speed is up to what I need to keep the movie from buffering.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

NickD said:


> This is my problem with D's VOD, it is dependent on another service. Comcrap's VOD does not care if you have cable internet or even a DVR. A regular digital subcriber without a DVR can watch VOD. With D you have to have a DVR and high speed internet. So in my opinion this is not something to brag about. I am sitting in my basement right now and I can't watch DOD because I don't have an HRx there.
> 
> I shouldn't have to have to depend on two different companies to provide for me what one company is supposed to provide to me.. D should not implement a system that is dependent on another company. My uncle has a D DVR but never uses VOD because he will not network his system, he does not want to, he does not want to spend the extra money needed to do it, which may be the case for alot of people.
> 
> The long and short of what I am saying is D should provide the service from start to finish for all of their customers. I personally do not feel that this is VOD. This is really no different then sitting at my computer and downloading a movie from an internet movie site and hoping that my internet speed is up to what I need to keep the movie from buffering.


It's impossible for DirecTV to provide a service like cable can - they just have two different types of delivery. To ask them to do so is like asking a cat to fly - ain't gonna happen. DirecTV is trying to make the most of what they have to deal with by using broadband internet to provide the content. Once you get used to how it works (and you no longer expect the cat to fly) then it's manageable.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

NickD said:


> This is my problem with D's VOD, it is dependent on another service. Comcrap's VOD does not care if you have cable internet or even a DVR. A regular digital subcriber without a DVR can watch VOD. With D you have to have a DVR and high speed internet. So in my opinion this is not something to brag about. I am sitting in my basement right now and I can't watch DOD because I don't have an HRx there.
> 
> I shouldn't have to have to depend on two different companies to provide for me what one company is supposed to provide to me.. D should not implement a system that is dependent on another company. My uncle has a D DVR but never uses VOD because he will not network his system, he does not want to, he does not want to spend the extra money needed to do it, which may be the case for alot of people.
> 
> The long and short of what I am saying is D should provide the service from start to finish for all of their customers. I personally do not feel that this is VOD. This is really no different then sitting at my computer and downloading a movie from an internet movie site and hoping that my internet speed is up to what I need to keep the movie from buffering.


Exactly as tcusta00 said.... using broadband is their only option. The DOD service is by no means their flagship option. It's just a little something extra that is there for you if you care to use it. If you don't, then don't. And if on demand is _that_ important to you, then you may want to consider other options.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

I like the Netflix on-demand. They have a huge selection of video. I select what I want, wait a little while and watch the movie. The PQ is pretty good. And I get to view it as many times as I like. 

Some people complain about the delivery system. It has great bandwidth, but the latency sucks. But even though Netflix can't control the post office, they have distribution centers set up all over to reduce mailing time.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I've been visiting this site every day since August 12 2001, I will spend as much time here as I please, thank you very much.
> 
> Call it bashing, I considerate it voicing a different view point.


:bang :bang :bang Are you going to stop?

We need a nice "Ban" emoticon

By the way..... Cable Sucks.....


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I've been visiting this site every day since August 12 2001, I will spend as much time here as I please, thank you very much.
> 
> Call it bashing, I considerate it voicing a different view point.


This thread is just a training exercise to illustrate the need for members to make use of the "ignore list".

Why waste your time.........


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

gct said:


> This thread is just a training exercise to illustrate the need for members to make use of the "ignore list".
> 
> Why waste your time.........


While a good idea on the surface, it doesn't exactly promote healthy conversation - especially if he decides to come back to DirecTV one day, as he says he might, and constructively participate in these forums. Shouldn't have to use ignore - people that have been around for 7 years should know better than to cause trouble to the point that people need to ignore him.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> Turning every thread into a channel counting contest? Yeah whatever! Hey it's your precious DirecTV that started with the channel counting BS, spin it anyway you like. DirecTV is the sleeze pit of marketing, second only to car dealerships.


Funny, I thought it was Dish, when they snapped up the Voom channels to inflate their HD channel count... or was it Voom itself, trying to pass itself off as an all HD service?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> Easy turbo. I never attacked you personally. I asked a legitimate question. I can't even count how many of your posts I've seen that either bash DirecTV or sing the praises of Time Warner. Not sure how I'm the one drinking the Kool-Aid.


Time Warner????? I switched to Time Warner, it was the worst five days of my TV experience......


----------



## ptalbot (May 14, 2008)

Newshawk said:


> Funny, I thought it was Dish, when they snapped up the Voom channels to inflate their HD channel count... or was it Voom itself, trying to pass itself off as an all HD service?


LOL. Too true. When you put the actual channels side by side, the reality of the situation emerges. I don't much care for things like 'Galactic Fishing Network' or whatever, but I know there are those who do, not many mind you, but some...:lol:


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> It's impossible for DirecTV to provide a service like cable can - they just have two different types of delivery. To ask them to do so is like asking a cat to fly - ain't gonna happen. DirecTV is trying to make the most of what they have to deal with by using broadband internet to provide the content. Once you get used to how it works (and you no longer expect the cat to fly) then it's manageable.


I know they can not offer VOD the same way as cable. I understand their limitations. What concerns me is they will market themselves as having VOD and to the uninformed who thinks great they can switch do D and have VOD just like they had with cable will be in for a rude awakening. I am sure the average joe is not going to ask do I need broadband connection to have VOD, they are going to expect to have the feature available to them.



AirRocker said:


> Exactly as tcusta00 said.... using broadband is their only option. The DOD service is by no means their flagship option. It's just a little something extra that is there for you if you care to use it. If you don't, then don't. And if on demand is _that_ important to you, then you may want to consider other options.


You are right that it is not a flagship feature, but it is also not a feature available to all of their customers. You have to have a DVR, high speed internet and a networked system. This may be to much hassle for alot of people. For me it is no big deal as I can only imagine for most on this forum that having the all house networked is no big deal. I have it and I use it from time to time, my wife has even used it for a couple of shows. I accept it for what it is, video that you can download to your DVR.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

NickD said:


> I know they can not offer VOD the same way as cable. I understand their limitations. What concerns me is they will market themselves as having VOD and to the uninformed who thinks great they can switch do D and have VOD just like they had with cable will be in for a rude awakening. I am sure the average joe is not going to ask do I need broadband connection to have VOD, they are going to expect to have the feature available to them.
> 
> You are right that it is not a flagship feature, but it is also not a feature available to all of their customers. You have to have a DVR, high speed internet and a networked system. This may be to much hassle for alot of people. For me it is no big deal as I can only imagine for most on this forum that having the all house networked is no big deal. I have it and I use it from time to time, my wife has even used it for a couple of shows. I accept it for what it is, video that you can download to your DVR.


They make it abundantly clear what you need on the website:



> To enjoy the DIRECTV on DEMAND service, you need:
> A DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR receiver (HR20 or HR21 model)
> Your receiver must be connected to the Internet
> HD Access and DVR service
> ...


Mind you, this isn't in some fine print, this is right on the front page of the DoD page. The people who are in for a rude awakening are those that didn't bother to read. Caveat emptor.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> It is still "on demand" in the sense that you don't have to wait until the next time the program airs...
> 
> I can usually start playing an HD program within just a few minutes of starting the download with my 6mbps DSL...
> 
> I'm wondering if Time Warner is claiming that because the DirecTV on Demand is still considered 'beta'... either way, the ad is misleading...


It's understandable that marketing (for Time Warner) would claim that DIRECTV doesn't have VOD .. because "officially" DIRECTV doesn't yet .. but there it is, so it's all word play .. par for the course


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

NickD said:


> I know they can not offer VOD the same way as cable. I understand their limitations. What concerns me is they will market themselves as having VOD and to the uninformed who thinks great they can switch do D and have VOD just like they had with cable will be in for a rude awakening. I am sure the average joe is not going to ask do I need broadband connection to have VOD, they are going to expect to have the feature available to them.
> 
> You are right that it is not a flagship feature, but it is also not a feature available to all of their customers. You have to have a DVR, high speed internet and a networked system. This may be to much hassle for alot of people. For me it is no big deal as I can only imagine for most on this forum that having the all house networked is no big deal. I have it and I use it from time to time, my wife has even used it for a couple of shows. I accept it for what it is, video that you can download to your DVR.


What percentage of the HD DVR market do you think lacks a broadband connection? Of the people that have an HD DVR and lack broadband, how many are expected to be users of OnDemand? 5%? 2%? That may sound like a completely acceptable figure to them.

It is made abundantly clear on the website that a broadband connection is required to utilize OnDemand. As to the networking requirement, the adapters work perfectly well in a house that is not wired for ethernet. They have made this as accessible as possible within the constraints they have.

DirecTV has stated time and again that they are shifting their focus towards better quality clients. This means clients with good credit scores paying for advanced services. Their target demographic by and large has broadband internet service.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

While DirecTv is no angle in the customer service department (or Dish for that matter), neither showed up on MSNs Top 10 Customer Service Hall of Shame.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/TheCustomerServiceHallOfShame.aspx?GT1=33010

1. AOL

2. Comcast

3. Sprint Nextel

4. Abercrombie & Fitch

5. Qwest

6. Capital One

7. Bank of America

8. Time Warner Cable

9. HSBC Finance

10. Cox Communications

So whats great about cable again? :eek2:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

RobertE said:


> While DirecTv is no angle in the customer service department (or Dish for that matter), neither showed up on MSNs Top 10 Customer Service Hall of Shame.
> 
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/TheCustomerServiceHallOfShame.aspx?GT1=33010
> 
> ...


Great article, Robert. Here's a nice excerpt:



> DirecTV scored a 21% "poor" response, while Time Warner Cable received a 31% "poor" rating and Comcast garnered 42%.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

The "On Demand" concept is the one promotional point where I must concede the cable companies' point. It can only conceivable be promoted that way if you've never had cable's On Demand and cable customers who switch to DirecTV in part because they are told they will have this feature have a right to complain. It's about as untruthful as when cable companies make it seem like they have 500 HD channels.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> The "On Demand" concept is the one promotional point where I must concede the cable companies' point. It can only conceivable be promoted that way if you've never had cable's On Demand and cable customers who switch to DirecTV in part because they are told they will have this feature have a right to complain. It's about as untruthful as when cable companies make it seem like they have 500 HD channels.


Perhaps everyone else is having a vastly different experience. When I click on a show in the OnDemand list, I am generally able to start watching it as soon as I get out of the menu. I generally pick up 2-3 shows at a time. By the time I finish clicking through, I start watching the first movie.

My only complaint with the OnDemand experience with DirecTV is that the networks are not part of the product. I would love to get the "third shows" in some timeslots for later viewing.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> The "On Demand" concept is the one promotional point where I must concede the cable companies' point. *It can only conceivable be promoted that way if you've never had cable's On Demand *and cable customers who switch to DirecTV in part because they are told they will have this feature have a right to complain. It's about as untruthful as when cable companies make it seem like they have 500 HD channels.


I understand the argument you guys are trying to make... but DirecTV has never stated that their On Demand service is simiar to and/or better than cables... It's simply an add on service for you to enjoy if you wish...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> I understand the argument you guys are trying to make... but DirecTV has never stated that their On Demand service is simiar to and/or better than cables... It's simply an add on service for you to enjoy if you wish...


And you guys are also subscribing to the "On Demand" definition that the cable companies have fed you since they were first to the market with it. Where in Merriam-Webster's does On demand appear? You can't pigeonhole it like that. You have to accept that there are now two general ways to get your VOD - cable and satellite. You either like them or not. But they are both VOD services nonetheless.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And you guys are also subscribing to the "On Demand" definition that the cable companies have fed you since they were first to the market with it. Where in Merriam-Webster's does On demand appear? You can't pigeonhole it like that. You have to accept that there are now two general ways to get your VOD - cable and satellite. You either like them or not. But they are both VOD services nonetheless.


And this is what the problem is at least for me. My experience in the past with VOD is different from what my experience with D's VOD is. Again for me this is not a reason to switch to cable, I am happy with D.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And you guys are also subscribing to the "On Demand" definition that the cable companies have fed you since they were first to the market with it. Where in Merriam-Webster's does On demand appear? You can't pigeonhole it like that. You have to accept that there are now two general ways to get your VOD - cable and satellite. You either like them or not. But they are both VOD services nonetheless.


So, if DirecTV calls a rock gold then we just have to accept that? Language is based on a common acceptance of what terms means. While you may want to accept the drivel put out by some company's marketing department as the definition of a term...don't expect others to do so.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So, if DirecTV calls a rock gold then we just have to accept that? Language is based on a common acceptance of what terms means. While you may want to accept the drivel put out by some company's marketing department as the definition of a term...don't expect others to do so.


The "drivel" was actually put out by the cable company's marketing department... satellite has put out a competing service that performs well for most people. The common acceptance that your refer to was created by cable's marketing departments.

It is what it is. Accept it or don't. Why whine about it?


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So, if DirecTV calls a rock gold then we just have to accept that? Language is based on a common acceptance of what terms means. While you may want to accept the drivel put out by some company's marketing department as the definition of a term...don't expect others to do so.


That analogy isn't really applicable here (calling a rock gold). I agree with your definition of language; however, what we're dealing with is subjective. What is 'on demand' to one person obviously isn't to the next. Just like a $20,000 car may be expensive to one person, but isn't to another. The fact of the matter is, DirecTV obviously isn't obligated to provide 'On Demand', but is making due with what they have to work with. Maybe in the future there will be alternate delivery methods, but right now, broadband is about it. I guess the real argument here is maybe they shouldn't call it 'on demand' so that it isn't associated with the Cable feature known as such.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

if you want to get technical, on demand just means you requested it


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Ken S said:


> So, if DirecTV calls a rock gold then we just have to accept that? Language is based on a common acceptance of what terms means. While you may want to accept the drivel put out by some company's marketing department as the definition of a term...don't expect others to do so.


Your analogy is bad because Direct isn't referring to any rock as being gold, they are calling a rock that contains gold, a gold rock. It may not be the same karats of gold as cable nor the same size of nugget, but it is still gold none the less.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

The rock/gold analogy was about allowing marketing departments to change language on a whim...not about the respective services.

DirecTV will actually have an On-Demand service at some time in the future. If I recall they are going to start streaming content to the DVRs from a satellite.

The current solution when it comes to HD content is on par with the interactive services that are offered on the DirecTV receivers. You know the painful mistake we all make every so often when we hit the Active button and get the 45 second wait to see the weather for El Segundo.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

bjflynn04 said:


> I am just glad where I live at I don't have to worry about any crappy cable companies espically TIME WARNER and COMCRAP.


So, how would you know they were crappy?


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

heisman said:


> So, how would you know they were crappy?


Anyone who is semi-literate would know that TWC and Comcast suck.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> The rock/gold analogy was about allowing marketing departments to change language on a whim...not about the respective services.
> 
> *DirecTV will actually have an On-Demand service at some time in the future. If I recall they are going to start streaming content to the DVRs from a satellite.*
> 
> The current solution when it comes to HD content is on par with the interactive services that are offered on the DirecTV receivers. You know the painful mistake we all make every so often when we hit the Active button and get the 45 second wait to see the weather for El Segundo.


That's going to be better than what we have now? As I understand it, this will limit you as to when you are able to watch the content (i.e., when the show you want to watch is playing, just like PPV currently is) or it will take up space on the private part of the hard drive, which, at best, is a few hours of space.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> That's going to be better than what we have now? As I understand it, this will limit you as to when you are able to watch the content (i.e., when the show you want to watch is playing, just like PPV currently is) or it will take up space on the private part of the hard drive, which, at best, is a few hours of space.


It will take up space on the HD. How much? Rumor has it they have reserved 100GB...but you can't be sure because it's not a separate partition.

They may also only stream the first 30 minutes or hour of each program like Vudu does with their system.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> That's going to be better than what we have now? As I understand it, this will limit you as to when you are able to watch the content (i.e., when the show you want to watch is playing, just like PPV currently is) or it will take up space on the private part of the hard drive, which, at best, is a few hours of space.


I think he means it will be downloaded to the hard drive like the Showcases... then it will show up in the DOD Menu, only after it is on the DVR allowing immediate viewing.

I want D* to launch a specific satellite just for me, that a click of the remote uplinks whatever I select directly to my receiver.... :lol: (Big joke don't take it serious)


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> I think he means it will be downloaded to the hard drive like the Showcases... then it will show up in the DOD Menu, only after it is on the DVR allowing immediate viewing.


Right, that's what I said in the second part of my statement.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Right, that's what I said in the second part of my statement.


Oh sorry I'm not fully awake yet.... :lol:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Yes, and they will probably have enough room to have the top 10 - 15 requested movies/programs. More if they only put the first part of each show on the HD initially.
The HDs will be getting bigger in the series so the room for this type of delivery will probably grow as well.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> It will take up space on the HD. How much? Rumor has it they have reserved 100GB...but you can't be sure because it's not a separate partition.
> 
> They may also only stream the first 30 minutes or hour of each program like Vudu does with their system.


So even at 100GB it's still only going to be, what three dozen 30 minute shows? I still fail to see how you think this is better than DoD being delivered terrestrially now and _then _ you're saying it would be "worthy" of the On Demand moniker?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Ken S said:


> The rock/gold analogy was about allowing marketing departments to change language on a whim...not about the respective services.
> 
> DirecTV will actually have an On-Demand service at some time in the future. If I recall they are going to start streaming content to the DVRs from a satellite.
> 
> The current solution when it comes to HD content is on par with the interactive services that are offered on the DirecTV receivers. You know the painful mistake we all make every so often when we hit the Active button and get the 45 second wait to see the weather for El Segundo.


And it was a very poor analogy...Sorry!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> So even at 100GB it's still only going to be, what three dozen 30 minute shows? I still fail to see how you think this is better than DoD being delivered terrestrially now and _then _ you're saying it would be "worthy" of the On Demand moniker?


Because it will available On Demand not after a wait. It is the only way that DirecTV can realistically provide HD content through DoD. So, when I say "better" I mean better in terms of what "On Demand" technology should be.

I'm not saying they should stop the internet delivered content, but it's not going to compare well to their cable/phone competitors options and leave them open to the same type of advertising that the dial-up ISPs faced from DSL/Cable ISPs.

They have already announced bigger drives so you may see that reserved space hit 200GB before long.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> And it was a very poor analogy...Sorry!


But not nearly as poor as calling what DirecTV offers now an "On Demand" technology.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> So even at 100GB it's still only going to be, what three dozen 30 minute shows? I still fail to see how you think this is better than DoD being delivered terrestrially now and _then _ you're saying it would be "worthy" of the On Demand moniker?


It would be better for me as I live in a remote area where cable or DSL is not available I am restricted to dial-up or Sat delivered internet and they just do not cut it.
So yes this option of DOD delivery via satellite would benefit some of us.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Because it will available On Demand not after a wait. It is the only way that DirecTV can realistically provide HD content through DoD. So, when I say "better" I mean better in terms of what "On Demand" technology should be.
> 
> I'm not saying they should stop the internet delivered content, but it's not going to compare well to their cable/phone competitors options and leave them open to the same type of advertising that the dial-up ISPs faced from DSL/Cable ISPs.
> 
> They have already announced bigger drives so you may see that reserved space hit 200GB before long.


I think we have to disagree on the definition of On Demand then. As far as comparing well to cable-driven on-demand, a la, DSL vs. dialup... I think that's stretching it. I don't think they're trying to compare it. They're just offering it as an additional feature. It's different from what you're familiar with and you've got a picture in your mind as to what it "should" be, but there's no law that says that if you're offering an "On Demand" video service it needs to instantly appear on your TV in its entirety.

Bottom line is that it's called "On Demand" and you can interpret it however you care to. Personally, I think it's fine to call it On Demand. If the FCC or whomever governs false advertising claims deems it false or misleading I will be shocked.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think what was discussed at one time was, that if you give permission for DIRECTV to track viewing patterns on your DVR, they will cache the first couple of minutes of On Demand programs that match your viewing patterns, so they become viewable faster. I don't know if or when that will be implemented but I know it was bantered around here at one point as being "probable."


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I think we have to disagree on the definition of On Demand then.


My guess is the only people that would agree with your broad definition of "On Demand" would be about a dozen people that frequent this site.

This thread started with someone yucking it up at Time Warner's claim that D* didn't have On Demand. Time Warner's definition of "On Demand" is much more consistant with probably 99% of people's definition of "On Demand".

D* is doing the best they can do with their technology. I am fine with that. But with any objective view of "on demand", cable has the advantage.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> I think we have to disagree on the definition of On Demand then. As far as comparing well to cable-driven on-demand, a la, DSL vs. dialup... I think that's stretching it. I don't think they're trying to compare it. They're just offering it as an additional feature. It's different from what you're familiar with and you've got a picture in your mind as to what it "should" be, but there's no law that says that if you're offering an "On Demand" video service it needs to instantly appear on your TV in its entirety.
> 
> Bottom line is that it's called "On Demand" and you can interpret it however you care to. Personally, I think it's fine to call it On Demand. If the FCC or whomever governs false advertising claims deems it false or misleading I will be shocked.


HD movie on cable/phone system available for viewing in a few seconds and it doesn't require an additional service (ISP).

HD movie on DirecTV requires an additional cost ISP service and getting that service to the DVR. It then can take up 50% or more of that available bandwidth for hours. Movie is available to watch in 20+ minutes or more on basic 3mbps< connections.

If you believe that the cable/phone TV providers won't do that comparison than you need to read the first post of this thread again.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think what was discussed at one time was, that if you give permission for DIRECTV to track viewing patterns on your DVR, they will cache the first couple of minutes of On Demand programs that match your viewing patterns, so they become viewable faster. I don't know if or when that will be implemented but I know it was bantered around here at one point as being "probable."


How would directv do that? I mean I know how but I thought Tivo had the patent on suggestions? If directv is going to buffer things into the DVR+ wouldnt that eat up bandwith from the sattelites or is it not enough to notice? I dont pretend to understand sat uplinks and downlinks.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think what was discussed at one time was, that if you give permission for DIRECTV to track viewing patterns on your DVR, they will cache the first couple of minutes of On Demand programs that match your viewing patterns, so they become viewable faster. I don't know if or when that will be implemented but I know it was bantered around here at one point as being "probable."


Stuart,

I seem to recall in one of the recent investor meetings they spoke of doing it with the activation of D11. We'll see.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> If you believe that the cable/phone TV providers won't do that comparison than you need to read the first post of this thread again.


But the key here is that *DirecTV *isn't trying to make the comparison. Who cares if cable is doing it? DirecTV isn't claiming to be something it's not. They're calling it On Demand, and, technically-speaking, it is. You're free to agree or disagree with the choice of title.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> My guess is the only people that would agree with your broad definition of "On Demand" would be about a dozen people that frequent this site.
> 
> This thread started with someone yucking it up at Time Warner's claim that D* didn't have On Demand. Time Warner's definition of "On Demand" is much more consistant with probably 99% of people's definition of "On Demand".
> 
> D* is doing the best they can do with their technology. I am fine with that. But with any objective view of "on demand", cable has the advantage.


Which goes back to what I said yesterday... Maybe DirecTV should consider renaming the service?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jodyguercio said:


> How would directv do that? I mean I know how but I thought Tivo had the patent on suggestions? If directv is going to buffer things into the DVR+ wouldnt that eat up bandwith from the sattelites or is it not enough to notice? I dont pretend to understand sat uplinks and downlinks.


Yes, it would use bandwidth but they have one satellite close to going live and another sitting on the ground that it appears they intend to make active. If they did it late at night/early morning they could potentially shut down some of their PPV channels without anyone noticing or caring.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Ken S said:


> HD movie on cable/phone system available for viewing in a few seconds and it doesn't require an additional service (ISP).


But the cable/phone companies in this case are more times than not the ISPs correct?

Directv doesnt offer an ISP service that can compare speed wise. I know that HughesNet is technically an ISP but the speed is horrible compared.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> But the key here is that *DirecTV *isn't trying to make the comparison. Who cares if cable is doing it? DirecTV isn't claiming to be something it's not. They're calling it On Demand, and, technically-speaking, it is. You're free to agree or disagree with the choice of title.


They are calling in On Demand so that they can say they have the same feature their competitors have. Technically speaking it is NOT an On-Demand service anymore than NetFlix' mail program is. it is a content download and play service. The difference between the two is huge when it comes to HD content.

Thank you for allowing me to agree or disagree...although I didn't know I need your approval to do so. You are welcome to consider Netflix' disc mailing program On Demand too if you wish.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jodyguercio said:


> But the cable/phone companies in this case are more times than not the ISPs correct?
> 
> Directv doesnt offer an ISP service that can compare speed wise. I know that HughesNet is technically an ISP but the speed is horrible compared.


They are in many cases, but you don't have to subscribe to Comcast's ISP service to get On Demand services.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

tomato and tom-aa-to
its all semantics and pointless.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> They are calling in On Demand so that they can say they have the same feature their competitors have. Technically speaking it is NOT an On-Demand service anymore than NetFlix' mail program is. it is a content download and play service. The difference between the two is huge when it comes to HD content.
> 
> Thank you for allowing me to agree or disagree...although I didn't know I need your approval to do so. You are welcome to consider Netflix' disc mailing program On Demand too if you wish.


I wasn't "allowing you to agree or disagree" I used the word "you" in the general sense to refer to the general populace. No need to inject sarcasm into an otherwise healthy debate.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Ken S said:


> They are in many cases, but you don't have to subscribe to Comcast's ISP service to get On Demand services.


True, but as they are already offering the ISP service to some of their subs then its simply a matter of limiting someone's access at that point is it not?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> Which goes back to what I said yesterday... Maybe DirecTV should consider renaming the service?


Or maybe folks should stop getting their panties in a bunch and stop making mountains out of mole hills.


----------



## ercjncprdtv (Feb 11, 2008)

krock918316 said:


> Cox is running a similar ad in our area....


Last year, Cox ran an ad in southern CA that said that you cannot get local channels with DirecTV. They did not qualify it with "in some areas" or "without extra charge", you understand. They just flat out said "you *cannot* get local channels with DirecTV"

The cable cos are increasingly desperate and will do anything, including lying, to stop the exit of customers to other services.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Or maybe folks should stop getting their panties in a bunch and stop making mountains out of mole hills.


Yes, we should limit all discussion here to what you believe to be an approved topic.

DirecTV offers a very good service. It's a shame they resort to the same market deception and drivel as all of their competitors. Maybe it's a statement about their views of the intended audience.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

ercjncprdtv said:


> The cable cos are increasingly desperate and will do anything, including lying, to stop the exit of customers to other services.


Indeed


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yes, we should limit all discussion here to what you believe to be an approved topic.
> 
> DirecTV offers a very good service. It's a shame they resort to the same market deception and drivel as all of their competitors. Maybe it's a statement about their views of the intended audience.


But you make it sound like they are totally deceitful when the cable industry has had a much bigger sense of deceit.

Your total claim of deceit is that DirecTV put a big number on the least expensive package and put the HD fee in smaller print. Gee, they DID have it on the screen at the same time and it was nowhere near the teeny-tiny print you get with car advertising or just about any other advertising.

Comparing that to the outright LIES the cable industry has foisted on the public. Let's see, dishes constantly go out of alignment and every rain means you lose your satellite signal, for example. Or how about Cox cable claiming you cannot get Padres games in HD except on Cox (that would be ads I am watching on DirecTV during the game).

You paint advertising and spin the same way as outright lies. All because you are disgruntled against DirecTV (or are just an unhappy person).

I *do* consider DOD as ON Demand. I get to watch programs within a few minutes of ordering. It compares favorably to the Comcast On Demand I had that often didn't connect at all or took a few minutes to start or lagged when I controlled it. I do *not* consider Netflix snail mail offerings as On Demand but as mail order. I also consider Amazon Unbox as On Demand and it takes longer than DirecTV's offerings. There is no definition of On Demand other than it is programming that is delivered upon your initiation rather than it being cast into your home via OTA or cable channels.

As to whether you need another service or not, that has nothing to do with whether something is On Demand or not. You can debate the effectiveness or the simplicity of the Comcast or Time Warner offerings versus the DirecTV technology but to say they are being sleezy by calling it On Demand is actually offensive.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Nothing like throwing in some personal attacks and half-baked psychological analysis to strengthen your argument. If you want to start name-calling and the like go find someone else to play with...I'm not interested.

You say there is no definition for On Demand at the same time as you label what is and isn't. Reread your own basic definition...as long as its ordered and received and whether or not an additional service is necessary doesn't matter. Speed doesn't matter. Netflix fits that definition, quite easily...I guess just about anything delivered rather than broadcast could be by your terms...unless, of course you determine that it isn't. That makes the term just about useless.

I consider DirecTV no better or worse than their competitors. It's a sleazy marketing driven industry. They hide actual pricing, commitments, add-on fees and make disparaging and false remarks about each other's services...that's what I find offensive. Oh, and yes...Lying and calling it "spin" or "advertising" still makes it a lie. Why do they all do it? I guess because it's working...and that's the sad part.

My total claim of deceit? I just listed one example. There are others. Go back and look at DirecTV's long and ugly history of FTC, and state Attorney Generals actions for starters.

If you don't care for my opinions...that's certainly your right. If you find them so offensive I'd suggest you report me to the forum hosts and just ignore my posts.



tonyd79 said:


> But you make it sound like they are totally deceitful when the cable industry has had a much bigger sense of deceit.
> 
> Your total claim of deceit is that DirecTV put a big number on the least expensive package and put the HD fee in smaller print. Gee, they DID have it on the screen at the same time and it was nowhere near the teeny-tiny print you get with car advertising or just about any other advertising.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Ken S said:


> Nothing like throwing in some personal attacks and half-baked psychological analysis to strengthen your argument. If you want to start name-calling and the like go find someone else to play with...I'm not interested.
> 
> You say there is no definition for On Demand at the same time as you label what is and isn't. Reread your own basic definition...as long as its ordered and received and whether or not an additional service is necessary doesn't matter. Speed doesn't matter. Netflix fits that definition, quite easily...I guess just about anything delivered rather than broadcast could be by your terms...unless, of course you determine that it isn't. That makes the term just about useless.
> 
> ...


That right there is the only post in this thread that makes any sort of sense, and is truly unbiased. Great post Ken! A real voice of reason.

And just to nudge it along, not to disappoint Rocker, I have to mention counts, HD channels #41 and #42 were added yesterday (ESPNews HD and Bio HD) for me, #43 (Disney HD) comes on June 1st. Real channels, not PPV, part time RSNs and events channels. As the weeks go by DirecTVs lead is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

Next year this time, Time Warner Cable of Rochester NY, the real HD leader.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> That right there is the only post in this thread that makes any sort of sense, and is truly unbiased. Great post Ken! A real voice of reason.
> 
> And just to nudge it along, not to disappoint Rocker, I have to mention counts, HD channels #41 and #42 were added yesterday (ESPNews HD and Bio HD) for me, #43 (Disney HD) comes on June 1st. Real channels, not PPV, part time RSNs and events channels. As the weeks go by DirecTVs lead is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
> 
> Next year this time, Time Warner Cable of Rochester NY, the real HD leader.


I'm sorry, but this post makes no sense to me. You accuse DirecTV of counting "non-real" channels as part of their HD count and brag about Time Warner adding real HD channels. DirecTV has had these "real channels" for months and in the case of Bio HD, probably around eight months.

I don't get this whole obsession with numbers either way. I've never wasted my time counting the number of HD channels DirecTV has based on my own personal qualification as to what a "real channel" is. In truth, I suspect it would be less than the official count, just as I'm sure if I counted the number of HD channels my local cable company provides the figure would come out to somewhat less than the 500 or so their commercials imply. What matters to me is whether my television provider is offering all the HD channels that are available, no matter what the actual channel count is.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

So what. And a year ago, DirecTV added a bunch of channels that I had on cable. I don't care if D* had the chanel first, or TW had the channel first, fact is DirecTV is slowly losing ground, the cockyness of 'nearly 100 HD channels' go to wear down, Dish Network is stepping up and Time Warner has steped in the markets they have SDV in. I have the print out of HD channels offered from DirecTV's web site, 62 total national channels under Now Available, of those 62 channels, the only ones I don't have are west cost feeds, which I don't want, and HD channels owned by Viacom which show very little HD, and a few other channels.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> So what. And a year ago, DirecTV added a bunch of channels that I had on cable. I don't care if D* had the chanel first, or TW had the channel first, fact is DirecTV is slowly losing ground, the cockyness of 'nearly 100 HD channels' go to wear down, Dish Network is stepping up and Time Warner has steped in the markets they have SDV in. I have the print out of HD channels offered from DirecTV's web site, 62 total national channels under Now Available, of those 62 channels, the only ones I don't have are west cost feeds, which I don't want, and HD channels owned by Viacom which show very little HD, and a few other channels.


Gotta love "and a few other channels." Also, if you haven't heard, D11 is in testing phase, so DirecTV is stepping up too.

Honestly, when did flame baiting become an acceptable practice on these forums?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Wow, the DirecTV blinders are really on tight today.

Yes I know D11 is testing. Flame baiting yeah whatever, it's an opposing view point that you don't agree with, that's all it is. What part of the quoted post was a flame, please show me, every word was a direct response to what you posted. 

BTW a few other channels is 8 channels to be exact.

I find this all so hilarious that you all are ganging up on me because I don't believe D* is the best company on the planet, when you all bash cable to the Nth degree more then I speak negatively about D* and I'm the bad guy. Keep it comin ladies!


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Wow, the DirecTV blinders are really on tight today.
> 
> Yes I know D11 is testing. Flame baiting yeah whatever, it's an opposing view point that you don't agree with, that's all it is. What part of the quoted post was a flame, please show me, every word was a direct response to what you posted.
> 
> ...


Not to let the facts get in the way of your posts, but if you read my first post in this thread I criticize DirecTV's "On Demand" service compared to cable's. I'm not irrationally pro DirecTV or irrationally against cable or Dish Network. Different television providers are better for different people. I am against irrational "you suck we rule" arguments whether they come from DirecTV subscribers or cable subscribers.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Show me where I ever said DirecTV sucked? I hate their marketing and retention, I had no problem with the actual service.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Show me where I ever said DirecTV sucked? I hate their marketing and retention, I had no problem with the actual service.


You're right. No DirecTV or cable subscriber that I know of literally said "You suck! We Rule!" in this thread. You got me there.


----------



## rustynails (Apr 24, 2008)

I can't believe that you guys weren't sanctioned or edited for your attitudes. In a previous post under another nickname my comments were edited and it was not a venomous post at all. I like this kind of back and forth action but I don't dare do it because I would be kicked off this forum! Monitors, where are you? Of course that was when I was on the E side before I switched to D. Maybe the moderators are more tolerant over here!


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> ... and maybe I'd even think about going back to satellite if there's something compelling enough.


Being able to watch every game of a real NFL team isn't enough????


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

rustynails said:


> I can't believe that you guys weren't sanctioned or edited for your attitudes. In a previous post under another nickname my comments were edited and it was not a venomous post at all. I like this kind of back and forth action but I don't dare do it because I would be kicked off this forum! Monitors, where are you? Of course that was when I was on the E side before I switched to D. Maybe the moderators are more tolerant over here!


No you're right, a few of my posts should have been removed or edited. Quite honestly, if I was still an Administrator here and someone posted what I did it would be gone, but ya know what, it's to the point where I just don't care anymore. I have issues with DirecTV (again the company, not the service), my cable service has been nothing short of excellent after over 7 years with satellite and I will speak up for the cable industry when I feel it's unjustly getting bashed here.

I'll be the first one to admit, I should get warned, not sure why I'm tolerated, but like I said, it's to that point.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

raott said:


> Wrong. I have a 10 meg down and it isn't even close to being maxed out when I download DOD yet HD DOD is still not at a one to one ratio.
> 
> D* throttles the bandwidth and is the bottleneck, not my service provider.


Hmmm...I can watch DoD 1:1 HD on my Cox ISP service....


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

bluemoon737 said:


> Being able to watch every game of a real NFL team isn't enough????


For upwards of $400 for NFL Sunday Ticket and Super Fan, DirecTV can keep it. I get my Bills in HD, plus whatever else CBS and FOX have. No way would I spend that amount of money to see a bunch of teams I don't care about. If Sunday Ticket was avalable though InDemand and about $150 cheaper, I'd consider it.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

ercjncprdtv said:


> Last year, Cox ran an ad in southern CA that said that you cannot get local channels with DirecTV. They did not qualify it with "in some areas" or "without extra charge", you understand. They just flat out said "you *cannot* get local channels with DirecTV"
> 
> The cable cos are increasingly desperate and will do anything, including lying, to stop the exit of customers to other services.


And Comcast in most areas are looking into capping "unlimited" broadband access. I'm sure this is a direct assault on the feasability of D* DoD service. I'm sure a very high percentage of D* customers get their broadband from a CableCo and therefore the CableCo's have a direct means of limiting the effectiveness (cost) of DoD.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> That right there is the only post in this thread that makes any sort of sense, and is truly unbiased. Great post Ken! A real voice of reason.
> 
> And just to nudge it along, not to disappoint Rocker, I have to mention counts, HD channels #41 and #42 were added yesterday (ESPNews HD and Bio HD) for me, #43 (Disney HD) comes on June 1st. Real channels, not PPV, part time RSNs and events channels. As the weeks go by DirecTVs lead is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
> 
> Next year this time, Time Warner Cable of Rochester NY, the real HD leader.


Until of course D11 goes live in about a month and adds another 100 or so to D* line-up (of course there aren't another 100 national HD providers yet available...but there will be). Oh and D12 goes live next year to add another 100 more...


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

bluemoon737 said:


> And Comcast in most areas are looking into capping "unlimited" broadband access. I'm sure this is a direct assault on the feasability of D* DoD service. I'm sure a very high percentage of D* customers get their broadband from a CableCo and therefore the CableCo's have a direct means of limiting the effectiveness (cost) of DoD.


This is what concerns me. Between what I download now on my PC then in throw in what I can potentially download for my DVR, I could see hitting the cap pretty quickly with HD content.I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is why Comcast is doing this, not just for those of us using Bittorrent. What a way to market their DOD later on when D's is official. Even though it would slapping themselves they could tout it as DOD without fears of capping out your internet access.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

I was actually having trouble accessing the DOD the other day when I was downloading something on the net. I don't know if it was a fluke or what but it was taking so long that it kicked back to the program that was on, no DOD movie list came up. When I tried it later, after my download was finished it was working fine. Again, I do not know if this was a fluke or what, I will have to try again on Sunday when I am off from work.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

I played around with VOD last night and I can tell you that at least from last nights experience, this service is lacking, at least with HD material. Around ten last night I figured let me try it and see what happens since alot of you guys say that you can watch it without any problems. I qued up a HD program, that gaming championship show to see how well it worked. I let it download for maybe a total of 5 minutes. After five minutes of downloading, only about 2 minutes of show was available to be watched, it kept coming up with basically a buffering notice when I tried to watch it. Is this common for everyone? Is this just with HD material or is SD almost as bad but a little better? If this is the case then how can you say this On Demand? If I can't hit a show to watch when I want to watch it then it is not on demand, this is nothing more then a video library that you can download from.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

NickD said:


> I played around with VOD last night and I can tell you that at least from last nights experience, this service is lacking, at least with HD material. Around ten last night I figured let me try it and see what happens since alot of you guys say that you can watch it without any problems. I qued up a HD program, that gaming championship show to see how well it worked. I let it download for maybe a total of 5 minutes. After five minutes of downloading, only about 2 minutes of show was available to be watched, it kept coming up with basically a buffering notice when I tried to watch it. Is this common for everyone? Is this just with HD material or is SD almost as bad but a little better? If this is the case then how can you say this On Demand? If I can't hit a show to watch when I want to watch it then it is not on demand, this is nothing more then a video library that you can download from.


Without searching back through the thread, I think there was one guy who claimed that he could watch HD VOD on a one to one basis. I'm not buying into that claim and I've never seen anyone else claim they can do that.

The other guy claimed he could watch HD VOD "within a few minutes" but then admitted it was only a 30 minute show he was talking about.

For me, on a true 10 down connection, the SD comes to me at about 1.5x's watching speed (this is consistant with what others report), meaning its truely VOD. My connection does not come even close to getting maxed out, meaning its being throttled on D*'s end.

For the one HD movie I watched, I didn't start watching until 45 minutes into the download, and even then, with a few minutes left in the movie it had caught up and I had to wait while it rebuffered.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

raott said:


> Without searching back through the thread, I think there was one guy who claimed that he could watch HD VOD on a one to one basis. I'm not buying into that claim and I've never seen anyone else claim they can do that.
> 
> The other guy claimed he could watch HD VOD "within a few minutes" but then admitted it was only a 30 minute show he was talking about.
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with Raott although there are times when the DirecTV server appears to be bogged down and even SD can take a bit. For SD It's pretty close to On Demand as long as you don't require the ability to skip way ahead...for HD drive to the store and get the disc...it's quicker.

I also believe that most customers are using internet connections in a 1.5mbps - 3mbps range AND may have other internet activities going on at the same time...especially if they have children.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> So what. And a year ago, DirecTV added a bunch of channels that I had on cable. I don't care if D* had the chanel first, or TW had the channel first, fact is DirecTV is slowly losing ground, the cockyness of 'nearly 100 HD channels' go to wear down, Dish Network is stepping up and Time Warner has steped in the markets they have SDV in. I have the print out of HD channels offered from DirecTV's web site, *62 total national channels under Now Available, of those 62 channels, the only ones I don't have are west cost feeds, which I don't want, and HD channels owned by Viacom which show very little HD, and a few other channels.*


That seems like more than a few if you ask me?

Let me ask you this. Why would anyone living outside of Rochester (which is most of us on this forum) care about how many HD channels TWC offers anyway? I now in my area TWC offers almost nothing in HD.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> Wow, the DirecTV blinders are really on tight today.
> 
> Yes I know D11 is testing. Flame baiting yeah whatever, it's an opposing view point that you don't agree with, that's all it is. What part of the quoted post was a flame, please show me, every word was a direct response to what you posted.
> *
> ...


I want to see a list of HD channels in your area via TWC?


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

Here's a good site to use for that:

www.WhereIsHD.com

J


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Justin23 said:


> Here's a good site to use for that:
> 
> www.WhereIsHD.com
> 
> J


Thanks. That is not much help for me as I don't know his zip code...


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

TWC Channels in Rochester. The 43 include HD Ready, PPV, and locals. Remove them and the actual National count is in the low 30's.

```
213  	SNYHD  	Sportsnet NY HD  	
  		433 	WXXIDT3 	PBS 	
  		524 	WXXIDT2 	PBS 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		842 	HDPPV 	In Demand HDPV (HD Events) 	
  		922 	5MAX 	5 StarMAX 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		1007 	WUHFDT 	FOX 	
  		1008 	WROCDT 	CBS 	
  		1010 	WHECDT 	NBC 	
  		1011 	WXXIDT 	PBS 	
  		1012 	LMNHD 	Lifetime Movie Network HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		1013 	WHAMDT 	ABC 	
  		1014 	MOJOHD 	MOJO HD 	
  		1015 	MHDTV 	MHD - Music: High Definition 	
  		1020 	CNNHD 	CNN HD 	
  		1023 	TLCHD 	The Learning Channel HD 	
  		1024 	SCIHD 	Science Channel HD 	
  		1030 	HDT 	HD Theater 	
  		1033 	TNTHD 	TNT HD 	
  		1036 	DSCHD 	The Discovery Channel HD 	
  		1037 	AETVHD 	A&E HD East 	
  		1040 	TRAVHD 	The Travel Channel HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		1042 	OUTHD2 	Outdoor Channel HD 2 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		1043 	MSGHD 	Madison Square Garden High Definition 	
  		1044 	NHLHD 	NHL Network HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		1045 	FOODHD 	Food HD 	
  		1047 	YESHDNY 	Yes Network HD (24/7 feed) 	
  		1048 	GOLFVS 	Golf Channel/Versus HD 	
  		1049 	TBSHD 	TBS HD 	
  		1050 	HDNET 	HDNet 	
  		1051 	HDNETMV 	HDNet Movies 	
  		1052 	ESPNHD 	ESPN HD 	
  		1053 	ESPN2HD 	ESPN2 HD 	
  		1054 	UHD 	Universal HD 	
  		1055 	NGCHD 	National Geographic HD 	
  		1056 	HGTVD 	HGTV HD 	
  		1060 	HBOHD 	Home Box Office Digital 	
  		1061 	SHOWHD 	Showtime Digital 	
  		1062 	STARZHD 	Starz High Definition 	
  		1063 	HSTRYHD 	History HD 	
  		1064 	MAXHD 	CineMAX High Definition 	
  		1068 	APLHD 	Animal Planet HD 	
  		1115 	GAMEHD 	Game HD
```
DircTv Rochester. 89 HD channels. Remove locals, DNS locals, and HD Ready (most of which are those Viacom channels and out of market RSN's you don't count anywa), the National total is 64. Remove out of market RSN's (although they should count as national since you can pay to receive them 24/7) and you get 52. That is still quite a bit more than TWC.


```
70  	HBOHD  	Home Box Office Digital  	
  		71 	SHOWHD 	Showtime Digital 	
  		72 	ESPN2HD 	ESPN2 HD 	
  		73 	ESPNHD 	ESPN HD 	
  		74 	UHD 	Universal HD 	
  		75 	TNTHD 	TNT HD 	
  		76 	HDT 	HD Theater 	
  		78 	HDNETMV 	HDNet Movies 	
  		79 	HDNET 	HDNet 	
  		80 	WCBSDT 	CBS 	
  		81 	KCBSDT 	CBS 	
  		82 	WNBCDT 	NBC 	
  		83 	KNBCDT 	NBC 	
  		86 	WABCDT 	ABC 	
  		87 	KABCDT 	ABC 	
  		88 	WNYWDT 	FOX 	
  		89 	KTTVDT 	FOX 	
  		94 	HDTVSE 	HDTV Special Events 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		101 	101HD 	101 HD 	
  		202 	CNNHD 	CNN HD 	
  		207 	ESPNWHD 	ESPNEWS HD 	
  		212 	NFLHD 	NFL Network HD 	
  		215 	NHLHD 	NHL Network HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		217 	TENISHD 	The Tennis Channel HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		220 	BIG10HD 	Big Ten Network HD 	
  		229 	HGTVD 	HGTV HD 	
  		231 	FOODHD 	Food HD 	
  		241 	SPIKEHD 	Spike TV HD 	
  		242 	USAHD 	USA Network HD 	
  		244 	SCIFIHD 	Sci-Fi Channel HD 	
  		247 	TBSHD 	TBS HD 	
  		248 	FXHD 	FX Networks HD 
  		255 	MGMHD 	MGM HD Movie Net 	
  		265 	AETVHD 	A&E HD East 	
  		266 	BIOHD 	The Biography Channel HD 	
  		267 	SMTHHD 	Smithsonian HD Network 	
  		269 	HSTRYHD 	History HD 	
  		273 	BRAVOHD 	Bravo HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		276 	NGCHD 	National Geographic HD 	
  		278 	DSCHD 	The Discovery Channel HD 	
  		280 	TLCHD 	The Learning Channel HD 	
  		282 	APLHD 	Animal Planet HD 	
  		284 	SCIHD 	Science Channel HD 	
  		290 	DISNHD 	Disney Channel HD 	
  		292 	TOONDHD 	Toon Disney HD 	
  		296 	TOONHD 	Cartoon Network HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		299 	NIKHD 	Nickelodeon HD (DirecTV Only) 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		327 	CMTVHD 	Country Music Television HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		332 	MHDTV 	MHD - Music: High Definition 	
  		335 	VH1HD 	VH1 HD 	HD ready
  		355 	CNBCHD 	CNBC HD 	
  		359 	FBNHD 	Fox Business Network HD 	
  		362 	TWCHD 	The Weather Channel HD 	
  		504 	HBOHDP 	Home Box Office Digital (Pacific) 	
  		512 	MAXHD 	CineMAX High Definition 	
  		514 	MAXHDP 	CineMAX High Definition (Pacific) 	
  		518 	STARZK 	Starz Kids & Family HD 	
  		519 	STARZC 	Starz Comedy HD 	
  		520 	STARZHD 	Starz High Definition 	
  		521 	STRZHDP 	Starz High Definition (Pacific) 	
  		522 	STARZE 	Starz Edge HD 	
  		538 	SHO2HD 	Showtime 2 HD 	
  		540 	SHOWHDP 	Showtime Digital Pacific 	
  		544 	TMCHD 	The Movie Channel (Digital) 	
  		604 	GOLFVS 	Golf Channel/Versus HD 	
  		607 	SPEEDHD 	Speed HD 	
  		610 	CBSCSHD 	CBS College Sports Network HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		612 	FUELHD 	Fuel TV HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		620 	CSNNEHD 	Comcast Sportsnet New England HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		621 	MSGHD 	Madison Square Garden High Definition 	
  		622 	YESHDNY 	Yes Network HD (24/7 feed) 	
  		623 	NESNHD 	New England Sports Network (Digital) 	
  		624 	MSGPLHD 	MSG PLUS HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		625 	SNYHD 	Sportsnet NY HD 	
  		628 	FSPHD 	Fox Sports Pittsburgh HD 	
  		629 	CSNDCHD 	Comcast Sportnet HD 	
  		630 	FOXHD3 	Fox HD South/INHD 	
  		632 	SUNNHD 	Sun Sports North Florida HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		634 	FSNFLHD 	Fox Sports Florida HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		636 	FSDTHD 	DirecTV Fox Sports Detroit HD 	
  		637 	FSOHHD 	Fox Sports Net Ohio HD 	
  		640 	CSNCHD 	Comcast Sportsnet Chicago HD 	
  		643 	FSSHD 	DirecTV Fox Sports Southwest HD 	
  		644 	ALTHD 	Altitude Sports HD 	HD ready
  		647 	FSNHDMW 	Fox Sports Midwest HD 	
  		649 	FOXHDAZ 	Fox Sports Net Arizona HD 	[B]HD ready[/B]
  		652 	FSWHD 	DirecTV Fox Sports West HD 	
  		653 	PRIMHD 	DirecTV Fox Sports Prime Ticket HD 	
  		654 	CSNHD 	Comcast SportsNet Bay Area W/ Sign Offs
```


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Dodger -- you really should count local stations, since most people watch them. But you should exlude DNS locals, as most people don't qualify for them.

Aside from pure count, did you compare which HD channels are available on each service which are not available on the other? (You've already identified that DirecTV offers non-local RSNs.)


----------



## Bronco70 (May 14, 2008)

Gee advertising = deceitful propaganda, what a novel idea. Whatever deceit is involved in ads by D* or cable is about to pale in comparison to political advertising as the spinners ramp up for the National election.

I looked up the HD list for my area on TWC. 32 total including locals.

NFL Sunday Ticket, yea kind of expensive, but my theater with it's 133" screen is pretty popular during the season  .

Joe


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Upstream said:


> Dodger -- you really should count local stations, since most people watch them. But you should exlude DNS locals, as most people don't qualify for them.
> 
> Aside from pure count, did you compare which HD channels are available on each service which are not available on the other? (You've already identified that DirecTV offers non-local RSNs.)


What ever someone wants to count or not count, that is up to them. I just created the list based on "National HD" in the Rochester area in response to Steve's post.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Here is the TWC and Direct HD channel comparison for my area (LA County). Blue font indicates channels the other does not have. I can see why cable is better.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

About how long would it take to download a movie on demand with D* if your internet is 6Mbps downstream/256Kbps upstream?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

coolman302003 said:


> About how long would it take to download a movie on demand with D* if your internet is 6Mbps downstream/256Kbps upstream?


It really depends if you are getting 6MB down. You can use a speed test site like speedtest.net to check.

Normally 3MB or 4MB will let you watch SD live. Anything more than that will download faster than you can watch it.

HD is a different story. I am about 10MB down on average and I have to let HD programs download some first. I haven't done a lot of HD testing yet because there is not a lot yet but for an hour I would probably have to let it download about 15 to 20 minutes before I can start watching it.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

coolman302003 said:


> About how long would it take to download a movie on demand with D* if your internet is 6Mbps downstream/256Kbps upstream?


It really depends on the type of connection - 6mbps on cable (which I will assume is what you have) will fully download an average HD movie in about 2 hours. You can begin watching after starting the download, however, after about 45 minutes, in my experience. SD movies you can start watching immediately after you start the download. YMMV.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

raott said:


> Just because D* calls it "on demand" does not mean that it is. With my broadband connection, with D*, SD DOD is truely "on demand", while HD DOD is definately not. Time Warner is highlighting an area where cable has a clear advantage.
> 
> In my mind, hitting download and waiting an hour to watch is not "on demand".


I'll add, having to connect your DVR to your network to get "on-demand" content isn't nearly as convenient as getting it over the coax from the provider.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> It really depends on the type of connection - 6mbps on cable (which I will assume is what you have) will fully download an average HD movie in about 2 hours. You can begin watching after starting the download, however, after about 45 minutes, in my experience. SD movies you can start watching immediately after you start the download. YMMV.


Two hours to download an HD movie...then why do you have to wait 45 minutes? The few times I've tried to download HD movies (I haven't tried in awhile) it took a LOT longer than two hours. The first one they made live when the testing began (The Guardian) took 10 hours.

I have two net connections one at 8mbps (Comcast) and a 6mbps DSL (AT&T). Both stay pretty true to their stated speeds when doing long downloads.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Two hours to download an HD movie...then why do you have to wait 45 minutes?


Because the movie is 75 minutes long. If it takes 120 minutes to download a 75 minute movie, then if you start watching the movie 45 minutes after you start the download, then you will finish the movie just as the download completes.

Now if it took you 10 hours (600 minutes) to download The Guardian (139 minutes), you could have started watching after 461 minutes elapsed on your download.


----------



## jessemac (May 6, 2007)

Cable companies provide true on immediate on demand for HD programming from their premium and local channels. DTV does not.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Two hours to download an HD movie...then why do you have to wait 45 minutes? The few times I've tried to download HD movies (I haven't tried in awhile) it took a LOT longer than two hours. The first one they made live when the testing began (The Guardian) took 10 hours.
> 
> I have two net connections one at 8mbps (Comcast) and a 6mbps DSL (AT&T). Both stay pretty true to their stated speeds when doing long downloads.


Like I said, YMMV.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Like I said, YMMV.


Your post was confusing. If you can't start watching for 45 minutes, then the average HD movie doesn't download in two hours.

But I think you are about right in your 45 minute assessment. for an hour and a half movie, I began watching about 45 minutes after the download started and almost got to the end before it had to rebuffer.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> It really depends on the type of connection - 6mbps on cable (which I will assume is what you have) will fully download an average HD movie in about 2 hours. You can begin watching after starting the download, however, after about 45 minutes, in my experience. SD movies you can start watching immediately after you start the download. YMMV.


If I have to wait 45 minutes before I can start watching a movie then it is not On Demand IMO. On Demand IMO means I want to watch something now, not 45 minutes from now.


----------

