# Mike White's DirecTV



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I was just reading thru the transcript of D*'s 4Q09 earnings call. I was surprised to see the following comment from Mike White, D*'s new CEO:

_"First, our vision at DIRECTV has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. That's still critical, but I think it's fair to say that increasingly our consumers expect us to be even more of a full video provider and they also expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to."_

This 13 year customer is not thrilled with that statement. I see White stating that the mission to provide the absolute best television experience is IN THE PAST.

He goes on to say:
_" We'll create ways for our customers to take that same programming with them on the go, including the ability to watch their favorite team live on their mobile phone.

Later this year, we'll be launching the industries first 3D channel line up offering the latest 3D movie releases and sporting events like Major League Baseball All-Star Game and help lead the development of future 3D content as well. We'll continue to connect more of our customers to the internet so that they can watch home movies, share photos with friends and even watch YouTube.

And finally, we'll introduce DIRECTV CINEMA later this Spring, an exciting new movie service where our customers will watch the latest box office hits with a simple click of their remote rather than waiting days or even weeks to get those same movies by mail.

In doing that we'll immediately expand our pay-per-view offerings to nearly 400 titles of the highest movies versus only about 15 titles today and about half of those movies will be ready to watch at the same time they become available on DVD. Simply put, overall, we intend to continue to create innovative products and services that lead our industry and create loyal customers for life."_

YouTube? 400 PPV movies?

Whatever happened to providing the best TV? If I want YouTube, I'll use my PC. If I want Netflix, I'll use my BluRay player, which provides better picture and audio.

He goes on to say:
_"I think once you've seen high-def, you'd never go back to standard def. I think the sports offerings that we have are second to none and I also think that more than anybody else we don't just aggregate content. We do what I call distinctive content with a twist."_

WOW - I'm a D* subscriber because of sports, and I think he's fooling himself here. Look at where we're at now - Today's USA/Canada hockey game is on in SD. Versus HD is gone. MSG HD is gone.

--------------------
Ok - I do love the huge capacity of my HR20 (with the attached eSATA drive). I do love NFLST. But other than that, what the heck is going on with the company I used to love?

----------------------
Lastly, here's an interesting Q&A:
_
Ben Swinburne - Morgan Stanley

And just a quick follow-up. What I heard from you earlier it sounded like if I had to pick one metric that you thought it was the most important driver value it would be churn, I guess correct me if I'm wrong and that's consistent from what we've heard from DIRECTV over the years. Is that true and if so do you think churn there's room for churn to go down from here or are you happy with the levels you're at today or do you think the competitive environment is going to push you high or any color there would be helpful, that's it.

Mike White

Sure. Sure. Look, first of all churn wasn't that much worse in the fourth quarter than third quarter only 10 basis points different. I'm not sure you can manage it any tighter than that. I think though overall, our view historically and mine still is that 1.5% churn is probably a normative level. You may find a quarter will be a little bit above that and a quarter will be a little bit below that. But to me, my point about churn is that I want to shift our mindset to looking at what do we need to do to make it. So nobody ever wants to leave the franchise? Now, that's an aspirational goal.

But as I said from a financial standpoint, I think 1.5% is probably about the sweet spot for us on churn. But I do think that the whole area of continuing to look to create even greater passion and loyalty in our customers is really got to be the area of focus as an industry matures and suffice it to say, I think this is a reasonably mature industry._
---------------------------------

OK - Mr. White hates churn. So please, Mr. White.. Do something to keep this long time customer on your subscriber list.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Some see the glass as half-empty. Others see it as half-full.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

The 400 PPV movies has to be via DoD. No way they are going to dedicate that many channels to PPV.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

And you will continue to use DirecTV until they no longer have NFLST...


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I am not entirely happy with DirecTV myself these days but reading a lot of posts these days makes me want to ask a question:

Is some other provider carrying more sports programming than DirecTV? I keep seeing their leadership in Sports questioned, but I have asked many of my friends who subscribe to DirecTV and without question they say no one has the sports that DirecTV has.

I get that there is an issue with hockey fans right now, but does that mean DirecTV no longer has more sports coverage than anyone else? It can't be the lost their leadership because of Versus, the channel was 74th on the DirecTV channel rankings.

A hockey game in SD on MSNBC? Could this one game have cost DirecTV their leadership position? 

I guess I am confused by all of this, personally I consider all sports to be a waste of bandwidth, but I realize that I am in the minority. I do however wonder what make one the leader in Sports if DirecTV isn't?


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I believe that Directv (and probably Dish) have gotten to the point that they can not pass on more of their programming costs without raising subscription prices to a point that few can afford. I do not think anyone here expects Directv to eat the additional cost of numerous new HD feeds. They will cost more than the SD feeds. Directv needs new revenue producing programming (Directv Cinema, 3D, Sports PPV etc) and services to offset the growing cost of programming. If they can not do that then watch subscription costs skyrocket. The days of TV content being a buyers market are gone. Its is a sellers market and expect to see more contract disputes and increased prices. There is nothing Directv can do about it.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

LarryFlowers said:


> I guess I am confused by all of this, personally I consider all sports to be a waste of bandwidth, but I realize that I am in the minority.


I disagree that you are in the minority. I think the vast majority of subscribers don't give a hoot about sports, they just want to watch TV. Those that do however are fanatic and give DirecTV a large influx of cash so in the end I guess it helps us. I never even heard of Versus until it was discussed here.

As long as I can watch my local professional teams when/if they make the playoffs that's all I care about and I think a lot of folks are the same way. Frankly I've had enough already with the Olympics. When they were a bunch of amateurs working their asses off to make the games that was special. Today the majority of them are a bunch of spoiled professionals wrapping themselves in the American Flag as a photo op so they can get big buck advertising deals. The fact that Yoko Ohno has more medals then anyone means as much to me as the Yankees winning 299 world series titles.

Any you wonder why they call me Grumpy Grampy.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Just because D* says they are the leader in sports, doesn't mean you carry every sports channel out there. They can have 400 PPV movies in their library for watching, its not that they will have 400 PPV *channels* when D12 goes live. I want to see D* continue to expand programming, but also at the same time not carrying at such a high cost that it isn't worth the cost of it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> [...] OK - Mr. White hates churn. So please, Mr. White.. Do something to keep this long time customer on your subscriber list.


Like Comcast, TWC and others, DirecTV is trying to stay "relevant" in an environment where the content delivery paradigm for programming providers is beginning to shift in the same way it did for newspapers and magazines over ten years ago.

Rupert Murdoch, DirecTV's previous owner, has been watching his publishing empire struggle as it painfully transitions to the internet, and decided he didn't want to endure more of the same with his satellite and cable programming distribution businesses. Hence his decision to sell DirecTV perhaps 5-10 years early, rather than hang on until it was too late.

Murdoch knows that "content is king", and has chosen to focus on creating it rather than distributing it. I interpret Comcast's acquisition of NBC and DirecTV's new deal with the NFL as moves to hedge their bets with content as well. Just my .02.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> A hockey game in SD on MSNBC? Could this one game have cost DirecTV their leadership position?


It is all about the eyes on the channel. MSNBC does not have the numbers that would support the extra cost of the HD feed. The viewer numbers for MSNBC are in the tank. USA has 8 shows in the top 25 and they show reruns. Even Fox News has 4 in the Top 25.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/02/1...nd-burn-notice-top-weekly-cable-viewing/42241

Is it worth paying extra for some Olympic coverage every 2 years?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I was just reading thru the transcript of D*'s 4Q09 earnings call. I was surprised to see the following comment from Mike White, D*'s new CEO:
> 
> _"First, our vision at DIRECTV has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. That's still critical, but I think it's fair to say that increasingly our consumers expect us to be even more of a full video provider and they also expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to."_
> 
> ...


Direct tv has no control over the MSG HD. That is with the NHL other also don't have it as well. NBA and MLB still have it.
Versus HD blame comcast for over pricing that network and not letting sat get CSN Philly. VS needs Direct tv bad and direct wants CSN Philly and CSN NW.

MSNBC HD is NOT ON many cable systems as well and in big area like Chicago land the ONLY way to get it is uverse or dish.

any ways msnbc sucks and nbc is only doing that to boast it's ratings and who wants to see stuff like lockup in HD? over other stuff?

The thing is maybe Direct tv wanted to have msnbc HD part time and nbc said no.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

My opinion is to forget about 400 PPV titles, and give me more HD. Forget about YouTube and give me music channels that work. Forget about 3D and give me all my local channels in HD. Give me back Versus HD. Give me back MSG HD (which we used to get). Give me back halfway decent SD picture quality.

I've had a net loss in 2009, not a net gain. And I'm paying more.

By the way, whenever I call (which is usually 2-3 times per year), I get the royal treatment. I guess I'm a "highly favored and loyal customer". If I, one of their best, feels this way, what are the fence-sitters thinking.

I WANT D* to succeed. I've been a loyal fan for years. But I just see them getting lazy (example: SonicTap audio quality), losing sight of the details (example: CSR's not being properly trained), and concentrating on the wrong things (no more non-PPV HD since the D11 festivus, no more premium channels, etc). 

If only D* were run by the folks writing code for the STB's (which I really love)....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The challenge with a call like this, and a limited view discussion during a set time, is that not all the topics are covered. As has been the case with previous financial calls, this is a slice view of what is and will be happening.

The questions drive the conversation and responses.

Notice there was nothing about HD LIL expansion (which we know will be happening), the new DirecTivo (which supposedly is still a 2010 deliverable), or MRV? It doesn't mean nothing is happening, it just means it wasn't in a question or part of a pre-planned bullet list.

Has someone asked "What are your plans for new National HD channel rollouts in 2010?", perhaps more/different information would have been provided.

This is only part or the D12 and related HD use picture, based on the limited questions asked or the bullet points that were chosen to be covered at this time.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> _"First, our vision at DIRECTV has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. *That's still critical*, but I think it's fair to say that increasingly our consumers expect us to be even more of a full video provider and they also expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to."_
> 
> This 13 year customer is not thrilled with that statement. I see White stating that the mission to provide the absolute best television experience is IN THE PAST.


He says that providing the absolute best television experience to customers is CRITICAL, and yet you have issue with that?


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

^^^

You and I both know that's just meaningless management-speak. I take issue with the actual substance of his statements which are far from the "absolute best" experience. Like the OP said, the best experience will result from improved SD, more HD nationals, restoring the sports options they took away, among other things, to at least put them on par with their competitors. Tons more PPV at the expense of basic quality of service won't improve my experience one bit.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Isn't this just a rehash of what everyone was whining about the other day?

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=172995


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> My opinion is to forget about 400 PPV titles, and give me more HD. Forget about YouTube and give me music channels that work. Forget about 3D and give me all my local channels in HD. Give me back Versus HD. Give me back MSG HD (which we used to get). Give me back halfway decent SD picture quality.
> 
> I've had a net loss in 2009, not a net gain. And I'm paying more.
> 
> ...


I have one thing to say that you might want to think about... If they add 400 PPV DOD channels ( I believe this is coming sooner than people think via one of the spaceways to any HD DVR via fast dumps, but well see) then they might be able to use some of that money pulled in there to offset the ridiculous price that comcast wants for vs... And in general, that does help keep our prices low. Of course, I still wouldn't do it, you set a bad precedence.. I'd live with it for another year,because hockey won;t resign with VS unless they get back to Directv, or are given such a high fee they don't care about those customers..

And before anyone says I am nuts for saying are prices are low, they are for many people in many areas for what you get. My bill would be nearly 60 more a month for the same service from my local cable company, and Uverse wouldn't let me have the same setup at all, and I don;t think DIsh would either....


----------



## Avder (Feb 6, 2010)

LameLefty said:


> Some see the glass as half-empty. Others see it as half-full.


I'm a cynical, technical minded individual. I will have one of two viewpoints on the glass issue when faced with this situation: 1- Why did I get the wrong sized glass? or 2- Who the hell drank from my glass?

That said, the hook for me when I chose D* over Dish or the meager cable TV offerings in my area was sports. I'm not much of a regular TV fan, but I like my hockey, and I looked between dish, D* and the cable tv jerks and it looked like I would get the most hockey in HD if I went with D*.

So of course right now I'm rather peeved that tonighs game is in glorious sd, and theres the whole Versus dispute, the pissing match between D* and some channels over putting their HD feeds on Center Ice, and the whole versus "bonus" coverage thing thats coming up in march has me pretty ticked off, but I'm going to try to be patient and enjoy what I can. And if there is a game on versus that I really want to see, I'm just going to do what I did for years when there was something I wanted to see on TV: utilize the internet.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> He says that providing the absolute best television experience to customers is CRITICAL, and yet you have issue with that?


"Critical" is not quite the same as "critical, but". Call me paranoid, but that "but" came awfully fast. I'm afraid the "critical" part was just lip-service.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Avder said:


> I'm a cynical, technical minded individual. I will have one of two viewpoints on the glass issue when faced with this situation: 1- Why did I get the wrong sized glass? or 2- Who the hell drank from my glass?


For some drinks, red wine and brandy come to mind, the glass often starts less than half full.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

GregLee,
You hit the nail on the head for me. The omninous word "BUT" was the one that I noticed above all else.

But is "the evil conjunction". It usually means "ignore everything before me AND pay attention to the second part. For example, "You have been a great worker BUT your attention to detail has been lacking recently."

This is how I took Mr. White's statement:
"First, our vision at DIRECTV has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. However, we must now change becuase I think it's fair to say that increasingly our consumers expect us to be even more of a full video provider and they also expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to."

That may turn out to be a good business decision; only time will tell. I just don't want Mr. White to ruin D* the way Sirius harmed the XM experience. D* has been just too darn good to see it become something less.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> This is how I took Mr. White's statement:
> "First, our vision at DIRECTV has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. However, we must now change becuase I think it's fair to say that increasingly our consumers expect us to be even more of a full video provider and they also expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to."


And this is how I took it:

"First, our vision at Directv has been to provide the absolute best television experience to our customers. That's still critical, but we're going to do much more as well. We're going to continue to provide the best television experience as well as be more of a full video provider and allow for access to content from anywhere."

As someone else mentioned, some see the glass as half full and some see it as half empty. Normally, I'm a half-empty guy, but just don't see it in this case. The sky is not falling, chicken little.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> The sky is not falling, chicken little.


Ahem. It would be courteous and customary to capitalize my name.

Yours,
Chicken Little


----------



## awalt (Jul 30, 2007)

When I read this latest earnings call, I think it finally sunk in. Despite the fact that most of us here like and want HD channels and more of them, from a revenue perspective that's not where it's at in DTV's opinion.

That earnings statement about not having to wait days in the mail for your movies, was a direct jab at Netflix. Netflix is currently a $1.6 BILLION a year revenue business, and has been growing at 20% even during the recession. 400 on demand movies from DTV and more, over time, will severely bite into that business. The Netflix business could easily be $4 - $5 billion a year in revenue in 5 years, I think DTV is wondering, is it better to use our satellite capacity to go after that, or will adding 10-20 more HD channels get us more subscribers/enough subscribers to offset that kind of revenue opportunity?

They are going after the Netflix business, which will drive more revenue than extra channels will. Adding channels is maintenance business now from a revenue perspective. On demand movies is huge revenue.

Don't shoot the messenger, I am just voicing what I suspect they are thinking and why we see so little movement in channels. I hope they stay current in HD channels, but already there about 20-30 legitimate ones that should have been added, and haven't. There has to be a reason why; if D12 is used for a lot of them, well,....


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

awalt said:


> When I read this latest earnings call, I think it finally sunk in. Despite the fact that most of us here like and want HD channels and more of them, from a revenue perspective that's not where it's at in DTV's opinion.
> 
> That earnings statement about not having to wait days in the mail for your movies, was a direct jab at Netflix. Netflix is currently a $1.6 BILLION a year revenue business, and has been growing at 20% even during the recession. 400 on demand movies from DTV and more, over time, will severely bite into that business. The Netflix business could easily be $4 - $5 billion a year in revenue in 5 years, I think DTV is wondering, is it better to use our satellite capacity to go after that, or will adding 10-20 more HD channels get us more subscribers/enough subscribers to offset that kind of revenue opportunity?
> 
> ...


Good point.

With a minimum of planning, I can rent 4-5 BD movies per month from Netflix for $11 total. To get me to switch, DirecTV will need to come up with a similar offering. Maybe the first two VOD movies per billing period cost $4.99 each, the rest $1.99 each. And no up-charge for 1080p, thank you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

awalt said:


> When I read this latest earnings call, I think it finally sunk in. Despite the fact that most of us here like and want HD channels and more of them, from a revenue perspective that's not where it's at in DTV's opinion.


I guess some of us heard something totally different, not to mention alot less information than to be able to come to that conclusion - simply heard only a sliver of the total strategy.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

awalt said:


> <snip>... I think DTV is wondering, is it better to use our satellite capacity to go after that, or will adding 10-20 more HD channels get us more subscribers/enough subscribers to offset that kind of revenue opportunity?


Unless I'm missing something, or their On Demand structure will be changing significantly and I just haven't heard about it, DirecTV expanding their On Demand offerings shouldn't affect their satellite capacity at all, should it? DoD is an internet based delivery system, not satellite.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> Unless I'm missing something, or their On Demand structure will be changing significantly and I just haven't heard about it, DirecTV expanding their On Demand offerings shouldn't affect their satellite capacity at all, should it? DoD is an internet based delivery system, not satellite.


Yes, though some movies are pre-downloaded to our drives via satellite, if I'm not mistaken. So It will depend on how often they update those files, and what the capacity of the drives in the upcoming HR24's and home media server boxes will be. Even still, it shouldn't consume much more satellite capacity.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Unless I'm missing something, or their On Demand structure will be changing significantly and I just haven't heard about it, DirecTV expanding their On Demand offerings shouldn't affect their satellite capacity at all, should it? DoD is an internet based delivery system, not satellite.


Exactly, as I said in post #3, I believe that the 400 PPV titles will be mainly provided via DoD, thereby having no impact on bandwidth for more HD. I also think that ties right into their DECA launch. Getting more customers networked and connected to the internet massively expands the customer base for DoD.

There is no reason to nbelieve that we will not see a nice jump in national HD offerings when D12 lights up.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

awalt said:


> I hope they stay current in HD channels, but already there about 20-30 legitimate ones that should have been added, and haven't. There has to be a reason why;


Maybe the reason is just a bandwidth problem. Why were some Sonic Tap channels added on the 110/119 satellites? They must have realized some subscribers (like me) did not get signals from there. Besides, if the conjecture that SW1 will be used for beaming down these 400 movie titles is correct, a challenge to Netflix doesn't necessarily have to take up room on D12.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Greg and hilmar2k,
You make good points. I was concerned that the 400 D* Cinema offerings would be new channels.

But I still don't get the advantage of spending time and $$$ on enabling my HR20 to show YouTube videos while, at the same time, I still don't have Versus or music channels I can actually use.

Let me restate - I really DO want D* to do great and I want to be there with them. I just get this uneasy feeling about the way things are heading, which could obviously be a mistake on my part.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mr. The Goose...

the unfortunate thing in life is you're not always in the majority. While I haven't seen the market research, I've been led to believe that more people are interested in PPV and viral video than are interested in Versus, especially given the increased cost of Versus. 

I'm frustrated about a lot of things in life, and personally I face the fact every day that my own personal likes and dislikes are fairly meaningless compared to the whims of the millions and millions of teenagers who rule the world today.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> .......my own personal likes and dislikes are fairly meaningless compared to the whims of the millions and millions of teenagers who rule the world today.


A tragically accurate statement.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Greg and hilmar2k,
> You make good points. I was concerned that the 400 D* Cinema offerings would be new channels.
> 
> But I still don't get the advantage of spending time and $$$ on enabling my HR20 to show YouTube videos while, at the same time, I still don't have Versus or music channels I can actually use.
> ...


I understand that some people aren't happy with the current music provider, there are others who are happier. (And likely many more who listen to the music but don't really have much of an opinion.)

And I'm still thinking VS. will get worked out someday.

As Stuart says, DIRECTV has to do the best to as many customers as possible. That means it might not always be the choices you might make.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Hear, Hear


----------



## Marlbs (Feb 19, 2010)

I would have to agree with much of what is being said here. As a long time DirecTV subscriber myself, I have not been as happy as I have been in the past. I will say however, DirecTV has attempted to ease my pain and unahppiness somewhat, and that will keep me quiet for the moment.

I agree, about Versus. As a NHLCI subscriber, not having Versus is a big issue to me. (I also missed the end of the season Indy Car races on Versus last year as well) You would think that they could come to some sort of arrangement and if not, in the short term offer me the option of paying for the channel on a per month basis as an extra fee. At this point I would rather do that, then miss the programming.

Where the heck is the MPEG 4 HD Tivo that was promised? Like many others, I finally had no choice but to stop waiting and I had DirecTV move me from my SD DirecTivo into a HR-23. It has been a difficult and I miss my Tivo. Let's put this to bed and with the amount of money that was made, there is room in the budget to put a few extra people on getting this project completed and out the door. No more excuses or silence, just get it done.

What happened to Universal Sports? I liked it during the trail test and I was hopful that they would keep it and add it to the HD Extras pack. The HD Extras pack seems to be quite lacking and it could use a couple of a additional HD channels to make it worth the $5 a moth that they are charging for it.

What about all of the rate increases? It does seem like DirecTV continues to raise prices. All I know is compared to what I was paying a couple years ago, for the basically the same programming, the per month rate has gone up.

Some of the new things that they are talking about, such as multi-room, YouTube, and more PPV just are not the things that I want. I either have them already with another device or I just don't need them. Let's focus on putting your own house in order and delivering on some of the other outstanding issues, before you take on new challenges.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Is it me or is DirecTV now actively marketing itself as the Comcast of four years? Everyone here had a field day mocking Comcast when they promoted their 500 On-Demand HD choices. Now, D* acts as though when they do it four months from now it will be innovative. PPV and On-Demand have been around forever.



LarryFlowers said:


> I get that there is an issue with hockey fans right now, but does that mean DirecTV no longer has more sports coverage than anyone else? It can't be the lost their leadership because of Versus, the channel was 74th on the DirecTV channel rankings.
> 
> A hockey game in SD on MSNBC? Could this one game have cost DirecTV their leadership position?


I think the US/Canada match up not being in HD has simply been the most obvious example of what has been wrong with D* the past couple years.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Mr. The Goose...
> 
> the unfortunate thing in life is you're not always in the majority. While I haven't seen the market research, I've been led to believe that more people are interested in PPV and viral video than are interested in Versus, especially given the increased cost of Versus.
> 
> I'm frustrated about a lot of things in life, and personally I face the fact every day that my own personal likes and dislikes are fairly meaningless compared to the whims of the millions and millions of teenagers who rule the world today.


That's one of my big worries about how D* has been promoting their use of D12. They don't seem as interested in their core product (television service) as they once were and I'm not sure there is room for niche channels in HD in DirecTV's new vision of itself. There a zillion manufacturers offering things like YouTube and only slightly less ways to stream movies to your television. DirecTV seems to be chasing other markets and not focusing on their own.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Steve said:


> ...*With a minimum of planning*, I can rent 4-5 BD movies per month from Netflix for $11 total...


And that is the difference. Nobody would make the rational argument that spending more for a movie is a good idea. It isn't about it being a good idea.

It would be less expensive for people to buy ice cream at the local grocery store and eat it at home. And yet, some people still go to restaurants and ice cream shops and spend more money on it. The reason is because some people just do not plan. I know, I know. Most of us here are planners (or we would not be awaiting news on a product set that we use as consumers) but there is a vast population out there that just doesn't plan. As foreign as it sounds, this is a fact of life.

As long as PPV is profitable for DirecTV, they will continue to push it. It is extremely profitable for them, so they would be insane not to back it with technology and marketing.

By the way, there is another angle that I have not heard discussed. People often deride PPV's 24-hour rule as a reason not to keep it. When discussing the benefits of Redbox or Netflix, it is important to note that the value is in returning the movies quickly. If you don't plan with PPV, you end up watching half of a movie or paying for it twice. If you don't plan with Rebbox, you pay an extra buck or two. If you don't plan with Netflix, you end up paying about $8 per movie because you didn't mail one of them back.

For the record, I don't subscribe to premiums, don't buy PPVs and do use Netflix and occasionally Redbox.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> Is it me or is DirecTV now actively marketing itself as the Comcast of four years? Everyone here had a field day mocking Comcast when they promoted their 500 On-Demand HD choices. Now, D* acts as though when they do it four months from now it will be innovative. PPV and On-Demand have been around forever.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's one of my big worries about how D* has been promoting their use of D12. They don't seem as interested in their core product (television service) as they once were and I'm not sure there is room for niche channels in HD in DirecTV's new vision of itself. There a zillion manufacturers offering things like YouTube and only slightly less ways to stream movies to your television. DirecTV seems to be chasing other markets and not focusing on their own.


As several others have pointed out, the OnDemand choices have very little impact on satellite bandwidth. Most OnDemand content is delivered over the network with only the catalog info sent via satellite. Unless they plan to drastically change the percentage delivered by satellite, I do not see why this is a concern.

Comcast is all over DirecTV about PPV options. DirecTV has an answer for that that seems not to impact its other goals. Is this not supposed to be how business is run? Have an answer for any charge a competitor would make (even if it isn't apples to apples) and beat them at your strengths.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> I think the US/Canada match up not being in HD has simply been the most obvious example of what has been wrong with D* the past couple years.


NBC is well aware of the exceptionally low household penetration of MSNBC. NBC chose to put the game on that channel. Perhaps the complaint should be with NBC.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

QuickDrop said:


> I think the US/Canada match up not being in HD has simply been the most obvious example of what has been wrong with D* the past couple years.


Not to derail the discussion here, but aside from the hockey game last night I can find no reason to even watch MSNBC and couldn't really care less if it's ever in HD.

With the USA Women's game being on USA tonight, I can't understand why those scheduling the Olympics coverage would take one of the most anticipated events of the Games and put it on MSNBC instead of USA (or even NBC for that matter).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Not to derail the discussion here, but aside from the hockey game last night I can find no reason to even watch MSNBC and couldn't really care less if it's ever in HD.
> 
> With the USA Women's game being on USA tonight, I can't understand why those scheduling the Olympics coverage would take one of the most anticipated events of the Games and put it on MSNBC instead of USA (or even NBC for that matter).


Well, they were obviously considering one of several possible angles:

they wanted to drum up interest in MSNBC, whose ratings are horrid
they felt that the US could not compete
looking at ratings for every other (non-Olympic) hockey program, they felt more eyes would watch another event
or, they had the same folks that thought that Jay Leno in primetime was a good idea schedule the Olympics coverage


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> ...With a minimum of planning, I can rent 4-5 BD movies per month from Netflix for $11 total...





gregjones said:


> And that is the difference. Nobody would make the rational argument that spending more for a movie is a good idea. It isn't about it being a good idea [...]


I agree. That said, everyone has different needs. I don't need to see a particular movie on a particular night. I keep a queue of movies I'm interested in on Netflix, and I don't care which order they arrive in. Others' mileage may vary.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Not to derail the discussion here, but aside from the hockey game last night I can find no reason to even watch MSNBC and couldn't really care less if it's ever in HD.
> 
> With the USA Women's game being on USA tonight, I can't understand why those scheduling the Olympics coverage would take one of the most anticipated events of the Games and put it on MSNBC instead of USA (or even NBC for that matter).


As I said in another thread, it's likely that many people who are upset with D*'s Olympic HD coverage could care less about MSNBC programming. That doesn't change the fact that D* failed to secure MSNBC HD in time for the Olympics (while promoting that they did.)

The irony for people who use "MSNBC sucks anyway" as a talking point for D*'s Olympic coverage is that once D12 goes live, MSNBC HD will likely be one of the first channels added. So we will have MSNBC's regular programming in HD, we just weren't able to see the U.S. upset Canada in HD.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Marlbs said:


> ...
> Where the heck is the MPEG 4 HD Tivo that was promised? Like many others, I finally had no choice but to stop waiting and I had DirecTV move me from my SD DirecTivo into a HR-23. It has been a difficult and I miss my Tivo. Let's put this to bed and with the amount of money that was made, there is room in the budget to put a few extra people on getting this project completed and out the door. No more excuses or silence, just get it done.
> 
> ...
> ...


1) TiVo is making the DIRECTiVo and it is entirely their responsibility for delivery. As them about delays. (And they aren't talking at CES or in their conference calls, unfortunately.)

2) Everyone has rate increases. DIRECTVs seem to be inline with all the providers, tho your local rates may vary.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> As I said in another thread, it's likely that many people who are upset with D*'s Olympic HD coverage could care less about MSNBC programming. That doesn't change the fact that D* failed to secure MSNBC HD in time for the Olympics (while promoting that they did.)
> 
> The irony for people who use "MSNBC sucks anyway" as a talking point for D*'s Olympic coverage is that once D12 goes live, MSNBC HD will likely be one of the first channels added. So we will have MSNBC's regular programming in HD, we just weren't able to see the U.S. upset Canada in HD.


Yes, DirecTV failed to reach an amicable agreement to carry an extremely low-rated cable channel to accommodate the scheduling whims of NBCU. Point the anger at NBCU, who threw the hockey coverage under the bus by failing to carry it on the flagship network. The same people saw fit to run an (hour-long?) special on US Hockey the same day on NBC.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I read somewhere one excuse was by running it on MSNBC they were able to have less commercial interruptions during the game than if they had run it on NBC, USA, etc. I'm not sure I buy that though. What about CNBC, are there as many commercials on it?


----------



## Luck255 (Mar 5, 2009)

Beerstalker said:


> I read somewhere one excuse was by running it on MSNBC they were able to have less commercial interruptions during the game than if they had run it on NBC, USA, etc. I'm not sure I buy that though. What about CNBC, are there as many commercials on it?


They could run it WITHOUT commercials if they wanted on ANY network. Just coming up with lame excuses to cover up a huge mistake by programming execs. The whole Conan-Leno mess practically proves this.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Yes, DirecTV failed to reach an amicable agreement to carry an extremely low-rated cable channel to accommodate the scheduling whims of NBCU. Point the anger at NBCU, who threw the hockey coverage under the bus by failing to carry it on the flagship network. The same people saw fit to run an (hour-long?) special on US Hockey the same day on NBC.


NBC's sister channels have carried Olympic coverage before. It shouldn't have been a shock to anyone that MSNBC would carry Olympic coverage this time. D* had months, possibly years, to guarantee coverage of all the Olympics in HD.

I have no problem with NBC airing figure skating on their network channel instead of the hockey game. It was a business consideration because figure skating usually gets better ratings during the Olympics. NBC moved the hockey game to a channel that in it's sum total (SD and HD) is in most people's houses. E* carries MSNBC in HD. Fios does too. I believe every cable company has deals to carry MSNBC in HD, though it's not available in all markets. Up until the very last minute, DirecTV promoted on their website that they had the best Olympic coverage with _all_ of it being in HD.

If you want to blame the channel in HD that carried the game, that's you prerogative. I would rather blame "the HD leader" who didn't carry the game in HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> Yes, DirecTV failed to reach an amicable agreement to carry an extremely low-rated cable channel to accommodate the scheduling whims of NBCU.


I don't think it should be assumed that DIRECTV couldn't negotiate carriage. I suspect that it was more of an issue of DIRECTV not having the dedicated bandwidth to carry MSNBC.

I fully expect that DIRECTV will add MSNBC as soon as they have the long-term capacity. NBCU seems to be a big proponent of bundling.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> I don't think it should be assumed that DIRECTV couldn't negotiate carriage. I suspect that it was more of an issue of DIRECTV not having the dedicated bandwidth to carry MSNBC.


Completely and utterly wrong. They are no longer carrying Versus and, as Sixto's analysis has shown, they COULD squeeze in some others if they were willing to risk having egg on their faces if D12 fails to go into service as scheduled.

More to the point, I believe, as with Versus, Directv chose NOT to negotiate carriage for a low-rated channel at this time, especially in light of the anticipated purchase of NBCU by Comcast.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

harsh said:


> I don't think it should be assumed that DIRECTV couldn't negotiate carriage. * I suspect that it was more of an issue of DIRECTV not having the dedicated bandwidth to carry MSNBC.*
> 
> I fully expect that DIRECTV will add MSNBC as soon as they have the long-term capacity. NBCU seems to be a big proponent of bundling.


Wrong. Flat out wrong.:nono2:


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> As Stuart says, DIRECTV has to do the best to as many customers as possible.


Well, that is not a pure capitalist formulation. DirecTV has to maximize its profits, and we customers have to guide it in the best directions to satisfy our needs. The market is not a perfectly efficient means for DirecTV to pursue its best interests, and we may need to provide some special guidance from time to time, to help it understand what we really want, as we are doing in this thread.


----------



## Garry (Jul 4, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Yes, DirecTV failed to reach an amicable agreement to carry an extremely low-rated cable channel to accommodate the scheduling whims of NBCU. Point the anger at NBCU, who threw the hockey coverage under the bus by failing to carry it on the flagship network. The same people saw fit to run an (hour-long?) special on US Hockey the same day on NBC.


So. it's NBC's fault that it decided to show programming that draws more viewers instead of hockey?

It wouldn't serve NBC well to program that way.


----------



## Garry (Jul 4, 2006)

Luck255 said:


> They could run it WITHOUT commercials if they wanted on ANY network. Just coming up with lame excuses to cover up a huge mistake by programming execs. The whole Conan-Leno mess practically proves this.


But it's not a big mistake. They aren't going to show hockey on the flagship network (NBC) without commercials. They aren't going to show hockey on the flagship network (NBC) in place of other competition that would draw more viewers. There's a reason why the NHL has a poor tv contract.

Maybe the IOC is at fault for not having the USA-Canada game in the afternoon. NBC would have shown it then.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> Completely and utterly wrong. They are no longer carrying Versus and, as Sixto's analysis has shown, they COULD squeeze in some others if they were willing to risk having egg on their faces if D12 fails to go into service as scheduled.


You'll notice that I used the term "dedicated bandwidth" as opposed to bandwidth that could be borrowed in anticipation of D12. Sixto's informed speculation aside, it would seem that Satelliteracer implied that there would be new HD channels only _after_ D12 completed testing (and moving to 102.8W).

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2367721&postcount=14

Sixto's HD list shows that BET HD was the last HD non-RSN, non-Cinema channel added and it ranked #26 in the prime time slot among cable networks last month. MSNBC ranked #29 in prime time (24 hour ratings are about 4 spots lower). To my way of thinking, each represents the completion of a "set" of channels: BET completing the MTV HD set and MSNBC completing the NBCU HD set.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26284127/Cable-Network-Rankings-1-10-Live-SD

It seems to have been established that if any channel were to go live pre-D12, it would be the press-release-promised ESPNU HD which could be considered as rounding out the ESPN HD set but from an extremely low network ranking.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

harsh said:


> You'll notice that I used the term "dedicated bandwidth" as opposed to bandwidth that could be borrowed in anticipation of D12. Sixto's informed speculation aside, it would seem that Satelliteracer implied that there would be new HD channels only _after_ D12 completed testing (and moving to 102.8W).
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2367721&postcount=14
> 
> ...


CSN Philly / Other RSN's may go live as soon as a deal can go though even if D-12 is not done testing yet.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Joe - What makes you say that?


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> More to the point, I believe, as with Versus, Directv chose NOT to negotiate carriage for a low-rated channel at this time, especially in light of the anticipated purchase of NBCU by Comcast.


This is what scares me about the new Sat, what is going to change in the next month that is all of a sudden going to make D want to negotiate for these additional HD channels. The absolute best time they could have added MSNBC-HD was right before the Olympics.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Could have DIRECTV added MSNBC-HD before now? Yes.

At what cost? Ah... Rub #1
Even if the MSNBC-HD to DIRECTV wasn't ready technically? Potential Rub #2
What internal rules of operation would DIRECTV have to break? Potential Rub 3 (or 1b?)
What upcoming events would DIRECTV need that bandwidth for? Possibly biggest Rub...

So what is coming up:
March Madness
Golf
Tennis
Baseball

If MSNBC-HD goes up for the Olympics, it really can't come down again. Harsh quite possibly has hit upon the big problem.

It ain't pretty, the Olympics coverage has to suffer greatly. Yet it makes sense. Sadly.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> If MSNBC-HD goes up for the Olympics, it really can't come down again. Harsh quite possibly has hit upon the big problem.


Sure it could have come back down, they've done stuff like that many times. They did it for the Summer Olympics. They could have easily said they are giving us MSNBC in HD for a limited time to cover the Olympics and then taken it back down afterward.

The question is would NBC have allowed this?

I really do feel like D* has slacked off on the Winter Olypics coverage. The Summer Olympics had it's own dedicated mix channel, 2 channels were added to cover soccer and basketball I believe. I think they added in a couple other channels we normally didn't get maybe Universal Sports? And they re-mapped all the channels to a nice block all together in the 700s.

They didn't do anything for the Winter Olympics except the Red button score guide type thing.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> Sure it could have come back down, they've done stuff like that many times. They did it for the Summer Olympics. They could have easily said they are giving us MSNBC in HD for a limited time to cover the Olympics and then taken it back down afterward.
> 
> The question is would NBC have allowed this?
> *
> ...


That's because more channels covered the Summer games. What's the point to re-map 3 channels? You can't remap NBC & Universal is not showing events, so we're stuck watching MSNBC, CNBC, & USA...2 of which are already mapped together.


----------



## beer_geek (Jun 14, 2007)

> ...expect to access that content whenever and wherever they want to.


I just want to be able to watch it at the time I select it from the list; at home; using my television. I don't want to wait hours for the bar to turn green on a movie.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

beer_geek,
You've hit on my #1 concern for D*'s business model (as I see it). I have great internet service - 20 up - 20 down. But that's unusual.

I was amazed to find out how many folks still have DSL or dial-up when doing business continuity planning for my company. Why? Because many of these people have no other choice. 

Depending on internet connectivity is risky. Even if you have decent internet service, it can be tricky to hook up. 

An example. I use VZ FIOS for internet at home. Very good service. But I simply can't get their Actiontec router to play nice with my HR20 boxes. And I've been in IT since 1983 (BS Cum Laude in Computer Science). Fortunately, my D-Link router works fine. 
How the heck is "John Q Public" supposed to connect his DirecTV STB's successfully if I can't do it?

To me, it's a risky business model.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

ffemtreed said:


> This is what scares me about the new Sat, what is going to change in the next month that is all of a sudden going to make D want to negotiate for these additional HD channels. The absolute best time they could have added MSNBC-HD was right before the Olympics.


How do you know that DirecTV hasn't completed negotiations already but that they are all predicated on the successful start up of D12?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> To me, it's a risky business model.


I see *0* risk in their anticipated offering of more PPV and DOD services - unlike NFL Sunday Ticket (which cost them hundreds of millions to procure), the investment is comparatively small - it becomes a take it or leave it service, and if it does not gain acceptance, they simply divert the bandwidth to other revenue options. Risky? Hardly.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Newshawk said:


> How do you know that DirecTV hasn't completed negotiations already but that they are all predicated on the successful start up of D12?


they very well might have, but in my opinion if they did have agreements, I think they would/should have given us at least a hint of some of the channels they are going to offer on the new sat.

Their whole attitude for the past year has given me lots of doubts about what the future holds. It seems the customers have been really getting crapped upon lately.


----------



## beer_geek (Jun 14, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I see *0* risk in their anticipated offering of more PPV and DOD services - unlike NFL Sunday Ticket (which cost them hundreds of millions to procure), the investment is comparatively small - it becomes a take it or leave it service, and if it does not gain acceptance, they simply divert the bandwidth to other revenue options. Risky? Hardly.


There's way more than zero (0) risk. What good comes from touting service that some people can't use the way they expect? The menu option is "On Demand". To me, that means "Right Now". I click on the movie and I get to watch it now; not 2 hours from now.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

beer_geek said:


> There's way more than zero (0) risk. What good comes from touting service that some people can't use the way they expect? The menu option is "On Demand". To me, that means "Right Now". I click on the movie and I get to watch it now; not 2 hours from now.


No doubt it works differently, and the delay in download is a factor.

But that is still waaaaaay different that a "risky business model". It's only a fraction of their overall service, and people can take it or not.

With all the growth in the number of HD DVRs out there....many folks (including me) simply schedule any DOD download anyway, and watch it when they want it.

PPV is instantly available....so no risk there either.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> they very well might have, but in my opinion if they did have agreements, I think they would/should have given us at least a hint of some of the channels they are going to offer on the new sat.
> 
> Their whole attitude for the past year has given me lots of doubts about what the future holds. It seems the customers have been really getting crapped upon lately.


For all we know, keeping that information private until the actual live date could be a requirement of the agreements. For all we know, the party wanting to keep that information from going public could be the company which owns/runs the channel....rather than DirecTV.

There just seem to be a lot of assumptions about how this process works. I would imagine that a company which thrives on both new and existing customers would be chomping at the bit over a chance to tell those customers about something which will surely make them happy and more willing to spend money in the future. Therefore, I must assume that there are very good reasons why announcements like this are not made public until a particular time.

Regardless, Satelliteracer has given us many hints, not only about what types of additions we can expect, but also that a great festivus is coming in the very near future.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Regardless, Satelliteracer has given us many hints, not only about what types of additions we can expect, but also that a great festivus is coming in the very near future.


We're likely inside of 75 days of the first group of new HD channels....we'll live. 

P.S.....love your Avatar!


----------



## beer_geek (Jun 14, 2007)

> ...and people can take it or not.


I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous comment. It's part of what we all pay for. It's the direction they are taking. I want to take advantage of it. I can't.

Nevermind. I forgot who I was talking to.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> For all we know, keeping that information private until the actual live date could be a requirement of the agreements. For all we know, the party wanting to keep that information from going public could be the company which owns/runs the channel....rather than DirecTV.
> 
> There just seem to be a lot of assumptions about how this process works. I would imagine that a company which thrives on both new and existing customers would be chomping at the bit over a chance to tell those customers about something which will surely make them happy and more willing to spend money in the future. Therefore, I must assume that there are very good reasons why announcements like this are not made public until a particular time.
> 
> Regardless, Satelliteracer has given us many hints, not only about what types of additions we can expect, but also that a great festivus is coming in the very near future.


Just sayin, in the past they sent out press releases of the new channels well before they were launched. And SatRacer, gave us NO specifics, only vauge hints like many will be happy and the "festivus" that really doesn't mean anything either. I am grateful that he has shared with us that more HD is coming, it has eased my recent frustration with D a tad, but at this point the proof will be in the pudding.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ffemtreed said:


> Just sayin, *in the past they sent out press releases of the new channels well before they were launched*.


Generally...they don't do that. Very rare to see an "advance" announcement of new HD channels. In fact, most of the new HD channel startups were "announced" here at DBSTalk before almost anywhere else.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> We're likely inside of 75 days of the first group of new HD channels....we'll live.
> 
> P.S.....love your Avatar!


Thank you!


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Generally...they don't do that. Very rare to see an "advance" announcement of new HD channels. In fact, most of the new HD channel startups were "announced" here at DBSTalk before almost anywhere else.


I am just going off when I remember D10 went live. I tend to block D11 out of my memory banks. I distinctly remember them press releases from D. We may have speculated correctly on this site before D issued the press release, but even then the press releases were announced well before the channels went live.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> I am just going off when I remember D10 went live. I tend to block D11 out of my memory banks. I distinctly remember them press releases from D. We may have speculated correctly on this site before D issued the press release, but even then the press releases were announced well before the channels went live.


There may be a reason why they or the folks behind the channels themselves have changed the way those announcement are handled. I have no idea. I still think that the safer bet is to assume that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation behind why the announcements are not made sooner. We know something is coming. Specifics will have to wait I suppose. We are drawing closer day by day.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, at the very least, they have previously issued a press release stating that the ESPNU-HD deal was done and was to go live in 2010. This was all part of the deal to move ESPNU to the lower tier and Classic to the higher tier. I suppose it should be one of the first to light up.

THey are also running special HD episodes of Top Gear on the 101 network with BBC HD tagged onto them. Seems unlikely they would do that without a deal in place as the 101 is totally controilled by DirecTV so it seems like BBCA HD should be up pretty early as well.

As for the rest, it would be nice if they would make an announcement, but it is perfectly understandable why they have not as I am sure they want to make sure the sat is totally operation and in its final place before announcing as giving a date means you can miss a date. Something more general stating soon we will have additional HD channels rather than bragging about empty capacity would be nice though.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I can, in fact, tell everyone that the sky is definitely falling!--here, at least this morning. 

Major snow, sleet, rainfall right now. Severe weather alert for today...

Now, as far as DIRECTV goes, the sky is not falling. D12 is looking very good, the channels are likely in various states of readiness, some might even already be testing in the broadcast center. 

Will people be happy with the next rounds of HD delivery. YOU BET! 

And will some continue to be... well not so happy and gloomy? Unfortunately, also yes.

I'm expecting to be happy. Unfortunately, Encore isn't all HD yet. And I know that isn't DIRECTV's fault. 

So I'll be very happy with ######-HD, ####-HD, all the ###-HD and ####-HD, and don't forget ****-HD.   

And even though I personally don't follow ZZZZ-HD, I'm happy all you ZZZZ-HD fans will be very happy. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I can, in fact, tell everyone that the sky is definitely falling!--here, at least this morning.
> 
> Major snow, sleet, rainfall right now. Severe weather alert for today...
> 
> ...


bingo. It started falling here about 8:45 AM


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> So I'll be very happy with XXXXXX-HD, XXXX-HD, all the XXX-HD and XXXX-HD, and don't forget XXXX-HD.


OF COURSE you want XXX-HD. Who wouldn't?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CorpITGuy said:


> OF COURSE you want XXX-HD. Who wouldn't?


:lol: Hoisted by my own humor.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  It's the total lack of self-control.....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

CorpITGuy said:


> OF COURSE you want XXX-HD. Who wouldn't?


You mean you don't get that one...I've had it for months now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You mean you don't get that one...I've had it for months now.


Is that the Vin Diesel action channel? 8}


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Is that the Vin Diesel action channel? 8}


Nope.

It's the "Drop Dish HD Lite" channel.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nope.
> 
> It's the "Drop Dish HD Lite" channel.


+1


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Lee L said:


> THey are also running special HD episodes of Top Gear on the 101 network with BBC HD tagged onto them. Seems unlikely they would do that without a deal in place as the 101 is totally controilled by DirecTV so it seems like BBCA HD should be up pretty early as well.


Be careful when making assumptions regarding BBCA HD. Remember, BBCA HD kept pushing promos out about their launch for weeks and later admitted that they had no carriage deals when they approved those promos. So for weeks they were promoting a launch that nobody was likely to see.

They have since been more careful about communications (and probably have different staff communicating) but they have shown themselves to be fairly inept at setting viewer expectation.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

gregjones said:


> Be careful when making assumptions regarding BBCA HD. Remember, BBCA HD kept pushing promos out about their launch for weeks and later admitted that they had no carriage deals when they approved those promos. So for weeks they were promoting a launch that nobody was likely to see.
> 
> They have since been more careful about communications (and probably have different staff communicating) but they have shown themselves to be fairly inept at setting viewer expectation.


I agree, BBC America was trying a massive marketing paper launch of their channel and it got tons of peoples hopes up before they had one single deal.

I just figure since DirecTV soley owns the 101 and does all the programming, that running HD episodes of one of the most wanted in HD shows that BBCA has with the BBCA HD logo on it had to mean something. Either that or DirecTV is about as dumb as the people who approved New Coke.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Good point.
> 
> With a minimum of planning, I can rent 4-5 BD movies per month from Netflix for $11 total. To get me to switch, DirecTV will need to come up with a similar offering. Maybe the first two VOD movies per billing period cost $4.99 each, the rest $1.99 each. And no up-charge for 1080p, thank you.


Regardless of price or wait times, I would never ditch Netflix BD movies for DirecTV's VOD or PPV. The quality simply does not hold up in both the video and sound aspects. DirecTV VOD and PPV don't even sound as good as SD DVDs.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

keith_benedict said:


> Regardless of price or wait times, I would never ditch Netflix BD movies for DirecTV's VOD or PPV. *The quality simply does not hold up in both the video and sound aspects. * DirecTV VOD and PPV don't even sound as good as SD DVDs.


+1 I will go out of my way to watch any film on BD for that very reason. Superior audio and video quality.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

PPV & DVD blows.

Bluray Rules !! Real 1080p & lossless aud.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

keith_benedict said:


> Regardless of price or wait times, I would never ditch Netflix BD movies for DirecTV's VOD or PPV. The quality simply does not hold up in both the video and sound aspects. DirecTV VOD and PPV don't even sound as good as SD DVDs.


Agreed. DirecTVs value proposition is just not compelling enough for me to overcome the better audio and video quality I receive and prefer from Blu-Ray or DVDs. It is very convenient for me to rent DVDs as I subscribe to Blockbuster online and have two stores within 1 mile of my house. For folks without that convenience and not having something they want to watch in the mail I can see PPV becoming a more attractive option. However for me after investing a lot of money in a home theater system I just can't get interested in DTVs PPV option.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

anleva,
You're SO right. The BluRay lossless audio codecs provide significantly better sound than DD 5.1. Given the choice between a BD and D* DOD, I'll chose BD 95% of the time.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> anleva,
> You're SO right. The BluRay lossless audio codecs provide significantly better sound than DD 5.1. Given the choice between a BD and D* DOD, I'll chose BD 95% of the time.


When I first started watching Blu-ray movies I expected to be impressed by the picture, and was. But the thing that blew me away more was the sound. Wow. What a difference.


----------

