# HDNet Sues Directv



## shollowa74 (Jan 24, 2007)

I am not sure if this merits mention in the regular Directv forums or not but it is interesting. HDNet has filed a 26 page complaint in state district court in Texas alleging breach of contract by Directv for wanting to move HDNet and HDNet movies to the elevated tier of programming. The summary from the complaint is below:

"After using HDNet as the critical lynchpin to establish DRECTV as the industry
leader for high-definition broadcasting, DIRECTV is now embarking on an unlawful campaign to destroy HDNet and to usurp its position in the market. In gross violation of their contractual obligations, Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package - where the channels are distributed to more than 2,000,000 households - to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels well beyond the reach of the average television viewer. In its place, Defendants seek to feature their own programming and that of their favored partners, Liberty Media Corporation ("Liberty") and entities controlled by Liberty's Chairman, John C. Malone. The Court and jury should not allow such discriminatory and abusive behavior to continue. For Defendants' actions, HDNet seeks emergency injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, pre- and postjudgment interest, and costs."

I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to pass judgment on the merits of the case. I nevertheless found it interesting as it pertains to how Directv interacts with its partners. A good part of the complaint is redacted. 

The complaint was filed Friday in the 101st District Court in Dallas. The case number is 07-12962.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

ESPN has fought similar battles with the franchised cable companies over the years.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

When Bazillionaires Clash!


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

Nick said:


> When Bazillionaires Clash!


+1, but I feel for HD Net, if D* had to leave one of the HD extra pack tiered networks with the rest of the channels, HD Net would be one of those channels. We shall see what comes of this. Knowing NFL network's plight against Comcast in recent years for the same thing I doubt that HD Net will be able to win out.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

interesting... i wonder what will come of it...


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I agree with HD Net.

HD Net has always been in the basic HD package for both Dish and DirecTV. I don't like the idea of paying an additional $5.00 for something I have had for years.

If there has to be an additional "premium" HD package why not put the new content on it and not the MPEG2 networks that have been around for years.

They could always add the VOOM channels for extra if they wanted.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Phil T said:


> I agree with HD Net.


It depends on what's in the contract between the two. That will be the deciding issue.

This could be a make-or-break case for HDNet. The vast public out there still doesn't know they exist. If D* prevails, cable systems all over the country could follow their move as they add more HD channels. If HDNet becomes a premium channel, that will seriously cut into their exposure. I'd pay extra for it but then I know HDNet (and HDNet Movies). JoeNTSC doesn't. When he finally gets HDTV, he won't want to pay extra for HDNet.

Losing this case could ultimately marginalize HDNet.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Interesting in that it says that DirecTV has OVER 2 million HD subs.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

shollowa74 said:


> I am not sure if this merits mention in the regular Directv forums or not but it is interesting.


Yes... this merits metion in the DirecTV forums, and I have moved it there...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> Interesting in that it says that DirecTV has OVER 2 million HD subs.


I actually find that pretty low... as that is an outdated number... I am sure we will he an updated HD subscriber number on Wednesday during their Q3 report


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> Interesting in that it says that DirecTV has OVER 2 million HD subs.


Yep, it is only a fraction of that.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I actually find that pretty low... as that is an outdated number... I am sure we will he an updated HD subscriber number on Wednesday during their Q3 report


Good point...you must have stock.


----------



## ansky (Oct 11, 2005)

It does seem very petty of D* to charge an extra $5/mo for a handful of channels when we are already paying the additional HD cost of $10/mo.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

This segment: "DIRECTV is now embarking on an unlawful campaign to destroy HDNet and to usurp its position in the market"

Are they serious?

I would think that DirecTV stepping on the gas for HD deployment is only going to help HDNet and their veiwership numbers.....

If this suit was about "HD-Lite" I could by that a bit more.... but because they are going into another tier... unless there was something very specific in the contract, on where HDNet needed to be...

This would be something typically handled during the next re-negotiation of the contract...... 

I would think that HDNet would be happy as peach for the possible increased subscriber count (because you know for the most part a large number of the HD subscribers are going to drop the Extra $5 a month to get the extra 6 channels) and now when they transition them to MPEG-4... their PQ quality is going to be significantly better then it has been for the last 3 years.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Yep, it is only a fraction of that.


Actually I think it is a lot higher then that.

As of just a few years ago, they where already upwards of 2 million around the 1.5 million mark.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

I like this part:



> to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels _well beyond the reach of the average television viewer_


So that extra $6 is going to break the bank?

Here's my unpopular fix. Scrap the HD Extra, raise the price of HD Access to $14.99. :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Good point...you must have stock.


Nope... no stock owned by me... unless Fidelity has some of it my 401k mutual funds.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ansky said:


> It does seem very petty of D* to charge an extra $5/mo for a handful of channels when we are already paying the additional HD cost of $10/mo.


Why?

Does that extra $10 also offset the cost that the carriers want for those other 6 channels? In addition to any increases because of the other 40 so channels... that are part of their base channel contract?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

The downside to the HDNet suit is that DirecTV could simply raise their HD access fee to 15 or 20, and charge all their HD subs more.

That would appease HDNet, as the basis of their suit has nothing to do with the price, hust that they wouldn't be on the same tier as the other Hd channels.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually I think it is a lot higher then that.
> 
> As of just a few years ago, they where already upwards of 2 million around the 1.5 million mark.


ealr i dont know what the HD sub number is, so ill take your word for it, but the last part didnt read right to me. The were already upwards of 2 million at 1.5? 
I take upwards to mean over.
Nit picking i know


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

smiddy said:


> Yep, it is only a fraction of that.





Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually I think it is a lot higher then that.
> 
> As of just a few years ago, they where already upwards of 2 million around the 1.5 million mark.


Hey, 3/2 is a fraction.


----------



## packfan909 (Oct 6, 2006)

TWC requires that you pay extra for HDNet and Movies. This is just bringing things to where the market is.

Not sure if HDNet has a leg to stand on unless they have a contract stating that it is a must carry.

pf


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

ggergm said:


> It depends on what's in the contract between the two. That will be the deciding issue.
> 
> This could be a make-or-break case for HDNet. The vast public out there still doesn't know they exist. If D* prevails, cable systems all over the country could follow their move as they add more HD channels. If HDNet becomes a premium channel, that will seriously cut into their exposure. I'd pay extra for it but then I know HDNet (and HDNet Movies). JoeNTSC doesn't. When he finally gets HDTV, he won't want to pay extra for HDNet.
> 
> Losing this case could ultimately marginalize HDNet.


I can not remember where I saw it, but I seem to recall that HDNet was used to help launch HD with DirecTV. I like you would certainly pay the extra for it, since I watch and record several programs off of HDNet and I think it is a great value (to me). Your point is well taken too, that average folks won't know or care about HDNet, I know I didn't until I bought my HD setup just under 2 years ago. I think a good arguement for DirecTV will be that it is a premire channel and garners a better value than the others not on the next teir of programming. From that standpoint I'd agree, but that is just me, other opinions will certainly vary.

I can't wait to see how this works out. I want HDNet...I hope it is an amicable solution.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

RobertE said:


> I like this part:
> 
> So that extra $6 is going to break the bank?


No, but it's not worth it to me so why pay it.



RobertE said:


> Here's my unpopular fix. Scrap the HD Extra, raise the price of HD Access to $14.99. :lol:


NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> ealr i dont know what the HD sub number is, so ill take your word for it, but the last part didnt read right to me. The were already upwards of 2 million at 1.5?
> I take upwards to mean over.
> Nit picking i know


What I ment... they where "upwards" in the area of 2 Million a few years ago... when they were at 1.5 million.

So I would think it woudl be higher then 2 million today.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually I think it is a lot higher then that.
> 
> As of just a few years ago, they where already upwards of 2 million around the 1.5 million mark.


For HD subscribers? Really? WOW!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't know anything about the merits of the case, but what would be interesting is if HDNet seeks an injunction against DIRECTV to keep them from moving the channels until the suit was settled. We could all win


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> I can not remember where I saw it, but I seem to recall that HDNet was used to help launch HD with DirecTV. I like you would certainly pay the extra for it, since I watch and record several programs off of HDNet and I think it is a great value (to me). Your point is well taken too, that average folks won't know or care about HDNet, I know I didn't until I bought my HD setup just under 2 years ago. I think a good arguement for DirecTV will be that it is a premire channel and garners a better value than the others not on the next teir of programming. From that standpoint I'd agree, but that is just me, other opinions will certainly vary.
> 
> I can't wait to see how this works out. I want HDNet...I hope it is an amicable solution.


Let's put it this way...

HDNet wins... then you can count your sweet potatos... MGM, Discovery Theater, Universal, and all the others are going to demand the same thing...

What does that mean to you and me? An HD Package Fee increase to at least $14.99 if not higher....

And what does it mean to us here in the forums... More threads about Ala-Carte and selective programing selection...
"Why should I pay for something I don't want"... ect... ect...


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Let's put it this way...
> 
> HDNet wins... then you can count your sweet potatos... MGM, Discovery Theater, Universal, and all the others are going to demand the same thing...
> 
> ...


I agree, this could mean higher prices for all of us.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Hey, 3/2 is a fraction.


:lol: I can not argue with that either, you are correct sir! :lol:


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I'll gladly pay the $4.99, but I don't think it was a smart move on Directv's part. If they had waited until the next price increase period (Feb 2008) and increased the HD access fee I don't think too many people would have been surprised. If additional HD channels get started without SD counterparts they will probably also go into the Extra package.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I for one have never heard them state what their HD sub numbers were, and would appreciate any link to same.

In the past year, on their calls they combine ADVANCED product subs (DVR, HD, and HD-DVR). But this DOES include NON-HD DVR subs.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't know anything about the merits of the case, but what would be interesting is if HDNet seeks an injunction against DIRECTV to keep them from moving the channels until the suit was settled. We could all win


I like the way you think!


----------



## sawCME (Apr 21, 2007)

Hmmm...

I was wondering if the contract had already been renegotiated at a higher fee, prompting D* to move them to the Extra Pack. This suggests that it hasn't.

I won't be signing up for the Extra Pack, as a few Hockey games, sorry to the CI folks, and Torchwood in HD do not justify the cost for me. I never watch Universal HD.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> I for one have never heard them state what their HD sub numbers were, and would appreciate any link to same.
> 
> In the past year, on their calls they combine ADVANCED product subs (DVR, HD, and HD-DVR). But this DOES include NON-HD DVR subs.


I'm digging for some of the older press notes, as you are correct the last few QT updates they havn't seperated the two.

http://www.directstartv.com/direct-...595-million-subscribers-and-counting-p61.html

At least in Q4 2006, they UPGRADED 200k to HD


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

DirecTV could move one channel to a newly created tier, charge you $500 for it, and you'd still have people in this forum telling you what a great deal you're getting. Then claim no connection to DirecTV. It is really getting old.


----------



## macdawg (Mar 10, 2007)

I know I wont be signing up for the extra pack. I hardly watch those chanls anyway. What makes them so special?? Crazy. Do your thank HDnet!!!!


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Let's put it this way...
> 
> HDNet wins... then you can count your sweet potatos... MGM, Discovery Theater, Universal, and all the others are going to demand the same thing...
> 
> ...


From the discussion here, I suspect fairness for all programming to suit, but with so many opinions on fairness to their own pockets etcetera, it will be fun fielding all the comments and concerns, if you (or anyone else) desires.

This is going to be a *HOT* topic in the near term...I hope your fingers are ready to post.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jjohns said:


> DirecTV could move one channel to a newly created tier, charge you $500 for it, and you'd still have people in this forum telling you what a great deal you're getting. Then claim no connection to DirecTV. It is really getting old.


really dont understand your point. Its a low price per channel AND its optional


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I'm digging for some of the older press notes, as you are correct the last few QT updates they havn't seperated the two.
> 
> http://www.directstartv.com/direct-...595-million-subscribers-and-counting-p61.html
> 
> At least in Q4 2006, they UPGRADED 200k to HD


This is impressive! With the current launch they should have made even more progress in HD subscriptions.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

smiddy said:


> This is impressive! With the current launch they should have made even more progress in HD subscriptions.


Yeah id love to see those numbers also. I bet they went through the roof. Wonder how many were converts from E*


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I'm digging for some of the older press notes, as you are correct the last few QT updates they havn't seperated the two.
> 
> http://www.directstartv.com/direct-...595-million-subscribers-and-counting-p61.html
> 
> At least in Q4 2006, they UPGRADED 200k to HD


Here is a post from a conference call 3 years ago... that puts the number at 500,000.

http://www.highdefforum.com/archive/index.php/t-4417.html

So... I can't find where I have seen the 1.5 number, and I could be wrong as well... only so much fits into the brain.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I rarely watch HDNet and HDNet Movies unless there is an NHL game on or a specific show or movie that catches my attention. I, too, will probably add the HD special tier when/if it happens since Nat GEO HD and a few others will be there.

If the D*/HDNet contract specifically states that the two channels have to remain on a basic HD tier, then I think HDNet can win, but otherwise, I think D* has every right to move these two channels (whether we like it or not) to a higher paid HD tier if the contract does not specifically preclude D* from doing so. If HDNet wins, I see an interesting precedent for other HD networks to follow down the road.

I drive around large portsion of the day and see D* and E* dishes mounted on homes, and see D* and E* IRDs installed in people's houses (and it catches my attention), and I rarely see D* or E* HD IRDs or 5 LNB D* dishes. 

The 2 million D* HD subs number really surprises me!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> From the discussion here, I suspect fairness for all programming to suit, but with so many opinions on fairness to their own pockets etcetera, it will be fun fielding all the comments and concerns, if you (or anyone else) desires.
> 
> This is going to be a *HOT* topic in the near term...I hope your fingers are ready to post.


Why?

We have already been talking about it for a while already... I don't think it is going to be "much hotter" then it already has been.

Anyone converting post mid October 1, probably knows they are on a 3 month trial of the extra pack.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

n3ntj said:


> I drive around large portsion of the day and see D* and E* dishes mounted on homes, and see D* and E* IRDs installed in people's houses (and it catches my attention), and I rarely see D* or E* HD IRDs or 5 LNB D* dishes. The 2 million HD subs number really surprises me!


Given that today... you only need the 3LNB system to access HD uptil now (and if you want HD LiL's further back).

I am ususually more surprised now, when I see dishes that are just the round single LNB systems... then those that are at least Phase III or better.

2 Million surprises me, but on the lower side.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

jjohns said:


> DirecTV could move one channel to a newly created tier, charge you $500 for it, and you'd still have people in this forum telling you what a great deal you're getting. Then claim no connection to DirecTV. It is really getting old.


What is getting old? I know you are exagerating a bit here, but what are your expectations? I think this will get out in the open what is driving the tier and expected cost for all the HD channels. This will allow us to see what is happening instead of behind the scenes with DirecTV management dictating things so much. It is ugly, but I think it is worth it to get some fairness between everyone involved.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> We have already been talking about it for a while already... I don't think it is going to be "much hotter" then it already has been.
> 
> Anyone converting post mid October 1, probably knows they are on a 3 month trial of the extra pack.


I dont know earl, given that probably 20% still have their HD boxes hooked up through coax and think they are getting HD(exageration but you know the type) I wouldnt be suprised if this caught some of them off guard, even if they were told.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I am attaching a link to the power point they presented about a year ago (Sept 06) - take a look at slide #9.
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/12/127/127160/items/212073/MerrillLynch91206.pdf

It shows a graph that by mid-2006 25% of their installed base had EITHER a DVR or HD. It separates the two (and it does NOT separate HD-DVR from NON-HD DVR), but it appears that the light blue portion is about 1/3 of the total in the Q2 (far right) total.

I take it to mean the following:

At end Q2 2006, DirecTV had 15.5 million subs, 25% of that total is 3.875 million advanced product subs. One-third of that is about 1.3 million. The fact that they added 200k in the 4th quarter as Earl mentioned, makes a bit over 2 million a pretty close number as I see it.


----------



## themorg (Jul 13, 2005)

I have been looking on the threads, but cannot find any other discussion about a "tiered HD" program?? Can anyone provide a link to it? Thanks!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

themorg said:


> I have been looking on the threads, but cannot find any other discussion about a "tiered HD" program?? Can anyone provide a link to it? Thanks!


try Hd-extra pack


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> DirecTV could move one channel to a newly created tier, charge you $500 for it, and you'd still have people in this forum telling you what a great deal you're getting. Then claim no connection to DirecTV. It is really getting old.


Ha .. I'd be saying "Who the heck would want to pay for that?" If that's what it cost per channel to watch TV I'd most certainly be doing something else rather than watching TV.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> We have already been talking about it for a while already... I don't think it is going to be "much hotter" then it already has been.
> 
> Anyone converting post mid October 1, probably knows they are on a 3 month trial of the extra pack.


I'm guessing based on the thrust of this thread today, holy smokes it is growing! Reminds me of the HD Anticipation thread, hot suff! 

The lawsuit I think adds to the fire some of the folks here that have issues with paying more for channels they already are getting...this hammers that thought home, I think.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

I think the movie channel merits a higher price because the movies are uncut but the other channel HD net should not be included because programs like Star trek etc. are already available through other channels.
On the other hand I don't blame HD Net for the lawsuit because they stand to loose a lot of viewers. 
This usually works out best for the consumer. 
I am not getting the extra pack.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> I am attaching a link to the power point they presented about a year ago (Sept 06) - take a look at slide #9.
> http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/12/127/127160/items/212073/MerrillLynch91206.pdf
> 
> It shows a graph that by mid-2006 25% of their installed base had EITHER a DVR or HD. It separates the two (and it does NOT separate HD-DVR from NON-HD DVR), but it appears that the light blue portion is about 1/3 of the total in the Q2 (far right) total.
> ...


Good find... But I think the HD LiL expansion in 2007 and of course the national launches.... 2 Million is a conservative guess on the low side.

But then again... hopefull Wed we will get some updated numbers


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Good find... But I think the HD LiL expansion in 2007 and of course the national launches.... 2 Million is a conservative guess on the low side.
> 
> But then again... hopefull Wed we will get some updated numbers


Yep, based on these data points. I can't wait until Wednesday now (use to be I'd anticipate HD channels, now I'm hung up on the number HD subscribers, man I'm weird!). :lol:


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Based on teh numbers of the last few posts, I could easily see them over 2 milion HD subs at this point.

I would guess that HDNet also is in a position to know this and they did not make the number in their filing up.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, this issue will certainly be interesting to follow.

If I were HDNet I'd be grumping over the fact that they (along with HDNM and Universal) are still only on MPEG2 and not MPEG4. During some movies and TV shows (ST:E) with dark, murky scenes, that awful compression really smears things up.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Good for HDNet, I for one am glad they are holding D's feet to the fire, maybe now D will rethink its absurd price hike grab on channels I have been paying for since the beginning, If they want to charge more for new HD channels then do so, but don't start playing around with current older HD channels and place them in the new package....maybe the other affected channels will follow HDNets lead.....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

warriorking said:


> Good for HDNet, I for one am glad they are holding D's feet to the fire, maybe now D will rethink its absurd price hike grab on channels I have been paying for since the beginning, If they want to charge more for new HD channels then do so, but don't start playing around with current older HD channels and place them in the new package....maybe the other affected channls will follow HDNets lead.....


Carefull what you ask for....


----------



## quickfire (Nov 14, 2003)

Someone feel free to correct my thinking here but.......If HDNET and HDNET Movies were to offer a SD versionof theirs channels wouldn't it HAVE to be included in the 9.99 package??????

D* would have to offer the SD version correct?

That would be a CLEVER way to get your HD channel's out of the Xtra HD package and in to the main $9.99 package don't you think?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The point of HDNet is that it's HD only. They are not going to offer an SD version.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Carefull what you ask for....


My major concern is that this is only the Tip of the Iceberg on the new HD packages and additional fee's..I look for the Base 9.99 fee to rise regardless of the New packages whenever the new D11 Sat comes online....


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

warriorking said:


> Good for HDNet, I for one am glad they are holding D's feet to the fire, maybe now D will rethink its absurd price hike grab on channels I have been paying for since the beginning, If they want to charge more for new HD channels then do so, but don't start playing around with current older HD channels and place them in the new package....maybe the other affected channels will follow HDNets lead.....


$10 + an optional $5 is better than $15.


----------



## quickfire (Nov 14, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The point of HDNet is that it's HD only. They are not going to offer an SD version.


Your most likely correct ...I was just thinking outloud


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

smiddy said:


> Yep, based on these data points. I can't wait until Wednesday now (use to be I'd anticipate HD channels, now I'm hung up on the number HD subscribers, man I'm weird!). :lol:


You know the Pluggers comic ? Well here is one!

You know your a plugger when you are driving around and notice all the new slimline dishes that are going up.


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> This segment: "DIRECTV is now embarking on an unlawful campaign to destroy HDNet and to usurp its position in the market"
> 
> Are they serious?
> 
> ...


Being new to HD, having just gotten a 1080p display, and an HR20, i find the "old" mpeg2 HD channels channels look sharper than the mpeg4 channels. The mpeg 4 channels look like theyve been run though some kind of softening filter.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Given that today... you only need the 3LNB system to access HD uptil now (and if you want HD LiL's further back).
> 
> I am ususually more surprised now, when I see dishes that are just the round single LNB systems... then those that are at least Phase III or better.
> 
> 2 Million surprises me, but on the lower side.


My guess would be alot of those single LNB dishes are left behind from "movers connection" where they tell you to leave the dish behind, and theyll install a new one at your new house. The new residents at the house that previously had directv probably just dont bother to take the dish down, and they just subscribe to cable, or OTA. Although you can still get something like 95% of SD programming from a single LNB right? these people may just not be watching any of these channels on the other birds.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I think it really all comes down to their contract with DirecTV. Does the contract they have allow for them to be placed in a "tier". If so then Cuban is just blowing smoke. I wouldn't think DirecTV would tier them if it wasn't allowed in the contract. But then again you never know I guess. Look at what Charlie does all the time.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

ActiveHDdave said:


> You know the Pluggers comic ? Well here is one!
> 
> You know your a plugger when you are driving around and notice all the new slimline dishes that are going up.


Sorry I don't have a point of reference so I had to figure out what 'Pluggers' was/is. A weird reflective realization of how/what our world is up to. It is good stuff.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

I agree, the move sucks for HDNet. Some may say "everyone" will have the HD Extra pack, but that's not realistic. They aren't "premium" channels. They are HD only "basic" channels. Many people won't pay anything extra for them, thus HDNet will likely see a large drop in their D* audience. 

As a subscriber, I think D* is dancing around their statements of not increasing fees for HD access. While technically they are not, they are moving content out of that package into another which has an additional fee. Thus to get all of the channels you previously had, you end up paying more. Sounds like a price increase to me. Now that is of course ignoring all of the new channels which have been added.


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

This news of a lawsuit is *shocking* I tell you. Cuban is staring down the barrel of a 50% revenue decrease come 12/15, and now he wants to sue. Who saw this coming?:lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Dazed & Confused said:


> This news of a lawsuit is *shocking* I tell you. Cuban is staring down the barrel of a 50% revenue decrease come 12/15, and now he wants to sue. Who saw this coming?:lol:


There's always different ways to try and bring in revenue .. The lawsuit is just one of those ways. Perhaps DIRECTV and HDNet could negotiate a different way to utilize both of their resources in such a way that benefits both parties.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Dazed & Confused said:


> This news of a lawsuit is *shocking* I tell you. Cuban is staring down the barrel of a 50% revenue decrease come 12/15, and now he wants to sue. Who saw this coming?:lol:


Cuban didn't get the entire $9.99 HD fee...

HDNet is predicting that they will see a drop in customers and thus revenue (what ever their rate was per subscriber)... and thus have decided to go down the route of a law suit.

Rather then a re-negotiation of the contract that could get HDNet guaranteed back into the "base" package.

but then it would be some intresting wording that it would be customers that are subscribe to both a base package... and the HD Access... or then the argument from customers will come up that they are paying for HDNet but don't have access to it... ect... ect... ect.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Here's my unpopular fix. Scrap the HD Extra, raise the price of HD Access to $14.99. :lol:


That's basically what DISH Net did when they raised the price from $10 to $20 per month for their HD package. They didn't add an "EXTRAS" pack and allow people to choice if they wanted those 5 channels, they just raised the price.

I am one of the people that likes HDNet, HDNet Movies and Universal HD . . . so I'll be ponying up the extra $5 / month for the "EXTRAS".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

convem24 said:


> +1, but I feel for HD Net, if D* had to leave one of the HD extra pack tiered networks with the rest of the channels, HD Net would be one of those channels.


D* made their choice and it was Discovery HD Theater. If they had moved DHDT to the HD Extra package, I'm guessing that this suit wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps HD Net should be flattered that D* thought it their two channels could drive the HD Extra package.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Let's put it this way...
> 
> HDNet wins... then you can count your sweet potatos... MGM, Discovery Theater, Universal, and all the others are going to demand the same thing...
> 
> ...


So, by saying that including it in the package would raise prices for everyone...you're suggesting ala carte would lower them? Glad that point is settled.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> So, by saying that including it in the package would raise prices for everyone...you're suggesting ala carte would lower them? Glad that point is settled.


Nice try...


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Cuban didn't get the entire $9.99 HD fee...*
> 
> HDNet is predicting that they will see a drop in customers and thus revenue (what ever their rate was per subscriber)... and thus have decided to go down the route of a law suit.
> 
> ...


Obviously he didn't get the whole $9.99, but whatever he was getting is going to be at least halved come 12/15. The poll on the Extra pack on this site was about 50-50, and these are the hardcore subscribers. I would guess it would be worse for Cuban in the general population, but that would be speculation on my part.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Dazed & Confused said:


> Obviously he didn't get the whole $9.99, but whatever he was getting is going to be at least halved come 12/15. The poll on the Extra pack on this site was about 50-50, and these are the hardcore subscribers. I would guess it would be worse for Cuban in the general population, but that would be speculation on my part.


Actually... I don't think so..

Unless HALF of the HD viewers decide not to get the HD Extra Pack.

It's not like the rates that DirecTV charges directly correspond to the rate they have to pay to the content providers


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The point of HDNet is that it's HD only. They are not going to offer an SD version.


I was looking forward to viewing SDNet


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

I'm actually confused by this lawsuit. Time Warner customers already have to pay an extra fee just to watch HDNet as part of another pricing tier. I suspect Comcast & Cox customers also have type of pricing in place. Why cry foul with D* if other cable operators do the same thing?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Dazed & Confused said:


> Obviously he didn't get the whole $9.99, but whatever he was getting is going to be at least halved come 12/15. The poll on the Extra pack on this site was about 50-50, and these are the hardcore subscribers. I would guess it would be worse for Cuban in the general population, but that would be speculation on my part.


Because there's fewer stations taking a piece of the $4.99 pie, isn't it possible that Cuban could make more money with the tiered system?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> I'm actually confused by this lawsuit. Time Warner customers already have to pay an extra fee just to watch HDNet as part of another pricing tier. I suspect Comcast & Cox customers also have type of pricing in place. Why cry foul with D* if other cable operators do the same thing?


I think it's partly due to the way it was marketed.

i.e. "Come to D*, we'll have over 70 HD channels including HDNet".

So, in HDNet's opinion D* used them to attract more customers and then when the customers started coming they added HDNet to another tier that would reduce viewers.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Because there's fewer stations taking a piece of the $4.99 pie, isn't it possible that Cuban could make more money with the tiered system?


Again...

I don't think it has anything to do what "tier" they are in... except from the notion of subscriber counts... that they perceive will be smaller in the extra pack.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Cuban gets about $1.30/subscriber for both channels if I remember correctly. I'm going to assume that's limited to HD subs.


----------



## GutBomb (Jun 17, 2004)

I really hope this isn't the beginning of the end of HDNet on D*. If it is I'm going to have to switch to E* because HDNet is a must-have for me. (exclusive MLS games)


----------



## Racer88 (Sep 13, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Cuban gets about $1.30/subscriber for both channels if I remember correctly. I'm going to assume that's limited to HD subs.


Yep and IF moving to the extra tier were to cut their subscriber base with D* from say 2 million to 1 million (purely arbitrary numbers just for the sake of speculation) then that's a decrease of 1.3 million a month in income.

All the while D* is adding every penny of that 5.99 to their purses and not sharing any of it with HDNet?

Can't imagine why that would chap HDNet's arse? 

Somebody needs to hold D* in check....


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

It would be worth $5 IF they moved it to mpeg4 full 1080i... Charging extra for Hdnet lite is not acceptable. Come December 14th, I am going to be asking D* why I am having to pay extra for two channels I've already been getting for years, when they are still downrezzing it.

Another thing that bugs me... Total Choice, then PLUS then HD access NOW PLUS. Two PLUSSES equal ONE MINUS. If you are already paying for the PLUS package, you shouldn't be paying twice.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> It would be worth $5 IF they moved it to mpeg4 full 1080i... Charging extra for Hdnet lite is not acceptable. Come December 14th, I am going to be asking D* why I am having to pay extra for two channels I've already been getting for years, when they are still downrezzing it.
> 
> Another thing that bugs me... Total Choice, then PLUS then HD access NOW PLUS. Two PLUSSES equal ONE MINUS. If you are already paying for the PLUS package, you shouldn't be paying twice.


And for THAT you may have a point. Those need to be upgraded soon, and i am sure that they are planning on it.


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

My first thoughts when I read about them doing this was Cuban would go beserk. I guess he did.

And honestly, DirecTV is wrong here. They did climb up the HD hill on the back of HD-Net for one... and this seems like unreasonable treatment.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

marksman said:


> My first thoughts when I read about them doing this was Cuban would go beserk. I guess he did.
> 
> And honestly, DirecTV is wrong here. They did climb up the HD hill on the back of HD-Net for one... and this seems like unreasonable treatment.


I dont see it as unreasonable. It is a HD channel with NO sd counterpart. I see their point

edit: put hd counterpart, meant sd


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> I dont see it as unreasonable. It is a HD channel with NO hd counterpart. I see their point


You mean SD counterpart?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

With this and the class action lawsuit for ala-carte pricing winding its way through the courts we're going to get to learn a lot about what DirecTV and the others are paying for channels. Should be interesting.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

As I speculated in another thread last month, the reason HDNet is probably suing is because right now they are getting a small piece of a $10/month pie which may shrink to nothing, if HDNet fans fail to sign up for the new "premium" HD tier. Just my .02. /steve


Steve said:


> I suspect that many subscribers won't feel they watch any of those channels enough (or may not even know they are missing) to warrant the extra $60/year they will cost. This won't affect Smithsonian, MGM, or MHD, since they are new, but will probably represent a revenue hit to HDNET and UHD, who are now getting at least a small piece of the $120/year pie.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

beavis said:


> You mean SD counterpart?


yep:lol:


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Ken S said:


> With this and the class action lawsuit for ala-carte pricing winding its way through the courts we're going to get to learn a lot about what DirecTV and the others are paying for channels. Should be interesting.


What DirecTV pays to make a channel available to all customers has very little bearing on what each channel will cost a-la-carte. A-la-carte pricing will be significantly higher per channel as there will be fewer subscribers per channel.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

As if Cuban is worried about the money  Give me half of his income :yesman:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> With this and the class action lawsuit for ala-carte pricing winding its way through the courts we're going to get to learn a lot about what DirecTV and the others are paying for channels. Should be interesting.


I just hope... with all due respect... everyone that is pushing and wants Ala-Carte... stands up at the end of it all... and doesn't change their tune.

I honestly truely believe... if Ala-Carte does happen...
Our average bills will go no where but up, and service levels will drop.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I just hope... with all due respect... everyone that is pushing and wants Ala-Carte... stands up at the end of it all... and doesn't change their tune.
> 
> I honestly truely believe... if Ala-Carte does happen...
> Our average bills will go no where but up, and service levels will drop.


+1000. Does anyone truly believe the content distributors will not develop a new mouse trap to get even more revenue with a la carte???? Almost falling into their hands the way most providers like to setup new tiers....


----------



## narcolept (Mar 1, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I just hope... with all due respect... everyone that is pushing and wants Ala-Carte... stands up at the end of it all... and doesn't change their tune.
> 
> I honestly truely believe... if Ala-Carte does happen...
> Our average bills will go no where but up, and service levels will drop.


I can agree with that. People think that they should get this channel or that channel without having these other channels and life will be shiny and happy.

What they don't realize is that other channels in those packages that pay to be broadcast (shopping channels, etc), are providing a programming subsidy to them already, and I'd bet when they say they'd be willing to pay $x per channel, if they actually totaled up all the channels they'd want, they would probably quietly add premier to their account and give up their ala-carte crusade.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I wonder if every discussion of the HD Extra pack would be the same if the HD Extra pack had, say, twelve HD-only channels instead of just six? Or twenty?

DirecTV is adding numbers of HD channels. I know that most of these are channels that have an SD counterpart, but aside from those pegged for the HD Extra pack now, are there going to be other HD-only channels added? If the speculation is that there will be (and it's possible - especially if trends go to HD as more of a standard or if new networks start out just going HD to begin with), DirecTV at some point had to put a structure in place that allowed for fewer changes as expansion continues.

I tend to look at the HD Extra pack as not necessarily just those six channels, but those six channels with more to be added as they are available. I mean, heck, we paid $9.99 a month for a long time for a limited number of HD channels until D10 went up!

As others have mentioned, I think the HDNet case will hinge on how their contract is written. If D*s HD birth was truly on the back of HDNet, then it may be kind of a shame to see them relegated to the Extra tier. But business evolves, and if the tables were turned, would Cuban be giving D* an exception if they were not contractually obligated to keep HDNet in the 'basic' tier?


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Dolly said:


> As if Cuban is worried about the money  Give me half of his income :yesman:


No sh*t. IMO, Cuban should be more worried about increasing the quality of the offerings on HDNet than what tier it's assigned. Since the new HD channels were deployed, I find myself watching that channel less and less. Some new eps of _Bikini Destinations_ would be a real nice start.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I just hope... with all due respect... everyone that is pushing and wants Ala-Carte... stands up at the end of it all... and doesn't change their tune.
> 
> I honestly truely believe... if Ala-Carte does happen...
> Our average bills will go no where but up, and service levels will drop.


With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.

And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money. Even when channels start to fold up.

People get confused and say a la carte won't accomplish my goals. But they don't understand my goals. My goals aren't to get every channel, they're to get the channels I want at a reasonable price.

To see how a la carte will save me money, you don't have to look any further than this case right here. HDNet wants to be in the basic tier. But they don't run ads, it isn't so they get bigger clearance and can charge more for their ads. It's because if they are in the basic tier, they will get money from D* for every HD subscriber. And you know D* doesn't eat that cost, they pass it on to us. So under the current system, HDNet wants (and stands some chance of getting) money from every HD customer, whether they want to pay for HDNet or not.

Under an a la carte system, HDNet would get money from only those who want HDNet. So they would have to either drop their prices or raise their services until they get a level of revenue that matches their current revenue. This does go along with what say-what says. What will happen though is that most people will be more choosy about their channels. That will reduce revenues to channels, and the channels will be forced to close down. This will be a classic "reap what you sow" for these channels, as most of these cable channels only want to spend enough to get one or two shows a week that are worth watching. They will have to make 1 or 2 shows a night that are worth watching in order to keep their subscribers. So yes, the subscribers will be paying more per channel, but they'll be getting more worth watching on each of these channels. And this is why I feel that assertions that people should just "get premium and drop their a la carte" crusade are off base. People aren't looking at the 2nd order effects. They don't pay attention to how a change to a la carte would change programming. They just look at a la carte as a new way to pay for the same channel lineup we have today.

In the end, I'd like to have HDNet, but I don't want to pay $6/mo for these particular two channels. They're close. I'd maybe pay $3-4, but not $6.

I think D*s policy was created to split HDNet and HDNet Movies off, because D* has to pay a lot of money to carry these channels and that have a big enough customer base that D* feels they can use them to float a new HD fee. It isn't just dumb luck that HDNet got cleaved from the basic pack, it was on purpose.


----------



## PeaceOfMind (Sep 14, 2006)

Hmmmmmm.....if my wife said, I will do this for you for $10 a month....All the HDTV that you can watch, including Showtime, HBO, Cinemax, Starz and the Movie Channel.....and for an extra $5, a month, I will let you watch the 5 HD channels that you have been complaining about since they offered HDTV.......I would kiss my wife and take the $10, a month package and save the $5....since, in the end, I'm going to have to pay the total bill from my paycheck....unless you have a wife that will pay half and you pay half.......keep dreaming.......take the $10, a month package and let the Billionaires argue over the profits of the 5 HD channels, for $5 more per month.....this does not apply to families, where money is no object.....this is for us other Americans.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I think that anyone that thinks that if ala cart becomes reality that they will be able to get 2 or 3 channels for $3 to $10 are dreaming. If any are HD channels they will still have to pay the HD access. Also DVR charge and additional receiver charges. D* has to get a minumum from each sub to pay for billing, customer service, programing, etc, so ala cart on the cheap will not happen, IMHO.

Sorry. Ala Cart is another issue.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I didn't know about this extra $5 HD until after I signed a 2 year contract for HD.

Their was no mention of this on their main package web site.

I hope HD Net wins and D* quits this sly rate hike.

I feel like the HD DVR package for $70 should get you all the HD channels.

I'm not paying the extra $5. I just don't feel like calling them either. I already set all this up and if they want to be dishonest, that's their problem now.


----------



## KRBY (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm sure the number is much greater. The HD Extra package is going to be $4.99 and include HdNET, HDNET movies, MGM, MHD, Smithsonian, and Universal. They are all on a free preview until Dec. 15th when they will only be available through that pack. Basically DTV has just seperate HD channels into 2 packages. The main $9.99 includes all simulcast stations. And the $4.99 extra is for HD only exclusize networks.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

harsh said:


> D* made their choice and it was Discovery HD Theater. If they had moved DHDT to the HD Extra package, I'm guessing that this suit wouldn't have happened.
> 
> Perhaps HD Net should be flattered that D* thought it their two channels could drive the HD Extra package.


Um, harsh... D* _DID _move Discovery HD Theater to the HD Extras pack. Perhaps you missed the memo when Discover Channels announced that they changed the name of the channel from "Discovery HD Theater" to just "HD Theater"

Bad dog!

Edit: I am sorry, harsh. Like Earl, I thought HD Theater was part of the HD Extras Pack. I apologize for my comment above.

Bad Newshawk!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

flipptyfloppity said:


> With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.
> 
> .....
> 
> I think D*s policy was created to split HDNet and HDNet Movies off, because D* has to pay a lot of money to carry these channels and that have a big enough customer base that D* feels they can use them to float a new HD fee. It isn't just dumb luck that HDNet got cleaved from the basic pack, it was on purpose.


I am not expecting everyone to agree with my opinion on Ala-Carte... only time will tell on what will happen... the grass always looks greener on the other side... Maybe it is... or maybe it is the same grass, with just some fertilizer on it for a quick green....

As for the last point......
You haven't noticed the trend on what is in that HD-Extra pack?

Your right... it is not "dumb luck" that HDNet is in there... as where else should it be?

In the base packages... and then any increase for that channel should be paid for by the other non-hd subscribers?

Or should HDNet just be completely seperate as it's own "tier"


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Newshawk said:


> Um, harsh... D* _DID _move Discovery HD Theater to the HD Extras pack. Perhaps you missed the memo when Discover Channels announced that they changed the name of the channel from "Discovery HD Theater" to just "HD Theater"
> 
> Bad dog!


And Universal.... but hey who cares about the other channels that are in the HD Extra Pack...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.
> 
> And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money. Even when channels start to fold up.
> 
> ...


Economics say that if you have less viewers, you will have to increase your prices, which is what a la cart would bring. Many channels would not be able to increase production of more new programs because that would cost even more money. What I think you would see is a decrease in new programing, which would lower costs, and allow channels to charge less for their channels, making more customers want to purchase them. No CEO in America right now cares about the consumer. All they care about is their stock price, and you get their by decrease costs, not increase spending, at least according to them. Just look at any retailer in the country today, they have all cut costs everywhere. How much harder is it today to find help in a retail store today vs. ten years ago???

And I think you are also missing one other key factor, the cable channel business model. Most cable channels were built on the idea that all the channels lumped together would help each other by drawing in many customers to packages, thus allowing them to show the same show many times, allowing consumers more chances to catch their shows, and using syndication to help drive revenue, in addition to ads, mixed in with a couple new shows a few times a year. (the exceptions to this are premium channels)

The business model you are wanting, a station that has to supply better and more new programing, already exists. Its called OTA. It works extremely well and it is free to you. It also shows how hard it is to create a huge amount of programing and make it viable. Look at the UPN and WB, and now the CW. There is a reason they folded into one network, too many hours of programing, and not enough good ideas. I'd say only about 10% of the channels we get right now could survive as they are today in an ala cart system, and no matter how you look at it that would decrease the overall choices to the consumer and programing that I would prefer. You would actually end up with less new programing than you get to choose from today for about the same money. TNT and USA would survive, because they work the closest to a network model, and have lots of sports to help sustain it, but as for other channels, I would expect us to go from 10 Discovery channels down to 1, and there would be significantly less new programing on the one channel than we get today with the 10.... and yet I'll bet it would cost more for that one channel than it does for all the others you pay for today, because of less people buying the channel.

I think you would end up paying a higher bill for fewer channels, and there fore fewer viewing choices in regards to actual programs. On the positive side, it would probably help rebuild network TV audiences, because that is where people would go for their programing...

As for HDNet, I would bet that you will see twice as many subscribers in a year to the HD extra pack than you have all HD subs today. I know that may seem like a high number, but TV's have finally hit a price point, and D* finally has a large enough selection of HD channels out there that you will see HD subs skyrocket as people prepare for the Digital transition. HDNet will be making more money in a year than it does today if that happens. Also lets face it, Cubans channels haven't taken off like they were originally supposed to. Not sure how many of you know this, but he had originally envisioned havening at least 6 HDNet channels, with a goal of 10 or more. His programing on the 2 channels we get are much more similar to the programing of a premium service channel anyway. He should add more channels, make it a true premium service, and run with it like an HBO or Starz package. That would make him far more money...

And as someone else said, I agree, the HD extra Package is probably a set up for additional channels that will be coming on board in the next year that will have no SD counterpart and will need a home.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

HD Theater is not simulcast...why is it not included in the new package?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

richiephx said:


> HD Theater is not simulcast...why is it not included in the new package?


HD Theater is part of the HD Extra Pack.


----------



## Bertrude (Nov 3, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> HD Theater is part of the HD Extra Pack.


http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4370078


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bertrude said:


> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4370078


See... that is funny.
I went to get the same link... and found out that I had it wrong...

 My bad...

-------

Anyway... maybe when Discovery network negotiated the contract for the new networks, they included the cost for Discovery Theater as part of the contract... and negotiated to have it part of the base package.


----------



## Bertrude (Nov 3, 2007)

:lol: 

We all make mistakes.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.
> 
> And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money. Even when channels start to fold up.
> 
> People get confused and say a la carte won't accomplish my goals. But they don't understand my goals. My goals aren't to get every channel, they're to get the channels I want at a reasonable price.


What makes you so sure that the channels that you want won't be the ones that fold up? The HD channels are the most among expensive to produce and also take up the most bandwidth, while at the same time, don't have nearly as many viewers as their SD counterparts. If the channels can't be bundled to DirecTV, then the more expensive channels will cost more to D*. Add to that, the extra bandwidth costs of HD channels, we're not looking at a happy picture.

It seems to me that viewers of HD channels will be hit the hardest should a la carte become reality. We will either have higher prices to finance those HD channels or we will lose some of those HD channels. Neither is a good result.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the content on HD theater is also broadcast on at least one of their other discovery channels correct? Then this becomes more of a catch all HD channel, so the only real cost to this channel is the amount of money they pay to distribute it and hit play on the different shows, unlike all the other channels in the extra pack that have at least some programing that is exclusive to that channel and creates an actual cost to produce as well as distribute. I'd also guess that the advertising they sell on this channel more than pays for the distribution of the channel, which leads me to believe that the contract they have had with D* for this channel has always had this channel included in with all the other Discovery channels as a lumped channel, and that there is no real cost to the SD only consumer for this channel being available. While it was HD theater and HDnet that launched the HD revolution at D* , and probably had very similar cost structures at the time, I believe that these two channels are worlds apart on their cost structures at this point in time. HD theater created the distribution paths, and was used partially to pay for upgrades to equipment, it is what allowed all the other Discovery channels to go HD without incurring a huge amount of costs. Obviously that need is no longer there. I would assume HD theater would simply go away if it didn't completely pay for itself through advertising (and make some $) at this point. The only other reason for it being around today is for all the other providers out there that can't supply all the different HD discovery feeds available to us. Until cable company's have all the other Discovery channels, Discovery is probably getting additional money from them for this channel, because for them it does offer programing that cannot be seen on the other discovery channels they are providing... And I know it is on a more expensive teir of programing than basic HD at one of my local cable companies, and I'm sure others as well.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As for the last point......
> You haven't noticed the trend on what is in that HD-Extra pack?
> 
> Your right... it is not "dumb luck" that HDNet is in there... as where else should it be?
> ...


No, I think it's about where it should be. I'd separate it even further, especially since HDNet tries to be a true premium channel (as it is not partially paid for by ads). Bundling it in with Discovery Channel or The Weather Channel which works mostly on the idea of getting good clearance instead of large fees from D* doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, I'm anti-bundling completely, so I'd like to see it further split, but this is a start.

Barring a la carte, at least if D* plays hardball with the channels (like E* has done quite effectively) it will help keep fees to the channels (and thus costs to the customer) low. Pushing HDNet out nearly into its own package is a stop in this direction.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> What makes you so sure that the channels that you want won't be the ones that fold up? The HD channels are the most among expensive to produce and also take up the most bandwidth, while at the same time, don't have nearly as many viewers as their SD counterparts. If the channels can't be bundled to DirecTV, then the more expensive channels will cost more to D*. Add to that, the extra bandwidth costs of HD channels, we're not looking at a happy picture.
> 
> It seems to me that viewers of HD channels will be hit the hardest should a la carte become reality. We will either have higher prices to finance those HD channels or we will lose some of those HD channels. Neither is a good result.


I am in no way sure that the channels I want wouldn't be the ones to fold up. That's why I said that I will stand by my position even as channels fold.

But it doesn't matter, as channels fold, the "anchor shows" for those channels will either move to other channels or will go to VOD. If these shows are strong enough to carry entire channels under the current system you can be sure they are strong enough to be part of a full-fledged channel (like the USA of olde) or to sell via VOD (at the right price).



inkahauts said:


> Economics say that if you have less viewers, you will have to increase your prices, which is what a la cart would bring. Many channels would not be able to increase production of more new programs because that would cost even more money. What I think you would see is a decrease in new programing, which would lower costs, and allow channels to charge less for their channels, making more customers want to purchase them. No CEO in America right now cares about the consumer. All they care about is their stock price, and you get their by decrease costs, not increase spending, at least according to them. Just look at any retailer in the country today, they have all cut costs everywhere. How much harder is it today to find help in a retail store today vs. ten years ago???


I don't completely agree. Another way to make more money is to increase what you offer, bringing in more customers and more revenue. It is very rare to "shrink your way to profitability", and investors favor growth policies.



> And I think you are also missing one other key factor, the cable channel business model. Most cable channels were built on the idea that all the channels lumped together would help each other by drawing in many customers to packages, thus allowing them to show the same show many times, allowing consumers more chances to catch their shows, and using syndication to help drive revenue, in addition to ads, mixed in with a couple new shows a few times a year. (the exceptions to this are premium channels)


Syndication? Syndication is when a show is placed on a patchwork of local channels. Few cable shows go into syndication. Network shows migrate to cable in reruns, although that isn't truly syndication, it's a similar model.



> The business model you are wanting, a station that has to supply better and more new programing, already exists. Its called OTA. It works extremely well and it is free to you. It also shows how hard it is to create a huge amount of programing and make it viable. Look at the UPN and WB, and now the CW. There is a reason they folded into one network, too many hours of programing, and not enough good ideas. I'd say only about 10% of the channels we get right now could survive as they are today in an ala cart system, and no matter how you look at it that would decrease the overall choices to the consumer and programing that I would prefer. You would actually end up with less new programing than you get to choose from today for about the same money. TNT and USA would survive, because they work the closest to a network model, and have lots of sports to help sustain it, but as for other channels, I would expect us to go from 10 Discovery channels down to 1, and there would be significantly less new programing on the one channel than we get today with the 10.... and yet I'll bet it would cost more for that one channel than it does for all the others you pay for today, because of less people buying the channel.


I agree on a lot of your points, including that I'm describing an OTA-type model. OTA channels must attract more viewers and thus produce more original programming. I feel as cable channels go to a la carte, yes, at least 50% of them will go away, as the rest increase their programming (largely by buying it from the same producers who used to sell to the now defunct channels) to reach a level of programming that customers find worthy of buying.

I completely agree we would lose 9 of 10 Discovery channels. We'd lose 2 of 3 Disney channels. We'd lose 2 of 3 MTVs. We'd lose 2 of 3 home improvement channels. We'd lose a Nickelodeon. This would be fantastic. I don't agree we'd have significantly less programming on the remaining channels, we'd mostly lose repeats. And I don't feel the prices would rise, because people simply won't pay a lot more for most channels.



> I think you would end up paying a higher bill for fewer channels, and there fore fewer viewing choices in regards to actual programs. On the positive side, it would probably help rebuild network TV audiences, because that is where people would go for their programing...


We'd have a lot fewer channels, with a lot more content on each one. The remaining channels could go HD with bandwidth to spare and also amortize the cost of the HD equipment (at their end, not D*s) better. It'd also move the truly narrowcasted content off to VOD. And the legitimacy this confers on VOD could easily lead to more creative programming going forward, reversing the idea that it would reduce choices.

A long time ago, Viacom's Ha! merged with HBOs "Comedy Channel" because neither was getting the clearance and viewers it needed to get by as a cable channel. Do I feel I would have been better off if HBO and Viacom (MTV) had pulled the modern Discovery-style stunt of leveraging their existing channels and kept the both of them? Do I feel that the few shows Comedy Central (a relatively successful cable channel) has are "cramped" into the current single channel they have? Nope.

Sometimes less is more, I feel if cable channels had to work harder for their money it would actually increase the overall quality of service to the customer.

I think we are thinking along the same lines though, just reaching different conclusions.


----------



## albriedis (Sep 29, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I was looking forward to viewing SDNet


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


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

What is the cut in date for the DirecTV HD Extra Pack? 3 of the 6 channels I watch all the time right now.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

shollowa74 said:


> Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package - where the channels are distributed to more than 2,000,000 households - to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels well beyond the reach of the average television viewer.


So $9.99 for 7 channels (ESPN. ESPN2, Universal, TNT, HD Theater, HDnet, and HDnet Movies) is ok, but $5.99 for 6 channels (HDnet, HDnet Movies, MGM, MHD, Smithsonian, and Universal) is "overpriced." I am sure Cuban can do the math to see customers are getting a $.45 savings per channel over the previous package. Cuban can try to play the Nadar card all he wants, but the only reason he is doing this is it affects his wallet.:nono2:


----------



## looney2ns (Sep 20, 2007)

HdNet does run ads by the way.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

*Since Liberty Media exchanged stock interests, 16.3% interest in Media Corp for 38.5% in DirecTV, did I miss something? So Malone is suing himself??*

(1) Discovery HD should be moved to the higher tier, it cost more to than any other single HD channel. Keep in mind that Discovery HD was the first HD channel available at $7.99 by itself, I remember whining, how much for one HD channel? After adding HDNet, HDNet Movies, ESPN HD, HBO HD, SHO HD, the pak went to $9.99. Less of course HBO & SHO which where added to premium programming paks. That would imply that HDNet, HDNet Movies, ESPN HD cost very little to carry. While Mark Cuban co-founder of the high-def network HDNet is buds and partners with Malone chairman of Liberty, Liberty & HDNet are two seperate companies or did I snooze through the trailers again.

(2) I noticed an extreme argument over alacarte, IPTV is going to reset alot of standards for cable, satellite, VDSL, my prediction. It is on demand, you buy what you want to watch and more and more providers are offering more content because it is becoming a world wide access point. As world wide access kicks in, I would suspect prices to level off and perhaps even drop. This is why the script writers in California are so upset. They want to guaranty themselves a piece of the pie for internet content and DVD sales. Most non network channels such as HBO, SciFi, etc have already outsourced not only writers, but the entire cast & stage. Expect more to follow. Internet speeds will eventually catch up to support it, but be prepaired for the first internet tax when it does.

(3) I see satellite in general offering feature / programming enhancements in their latest equipment to keep you warm and fuzzy. Cable seems to be laging again with their latest and brightest idea of abandoning Motorola's featureless, lifeless, bufferless (well they have buffers, Comcast, like a CD skipping), slow DVR's, for Tivo. It remains to be seen if Tivo (the company) will catch on themselves and educate their cable partners if that is possible. So far I am impressed with D*'s "on Demand" using the internet and hope to see the option grow past paying your bill on-line and into download a HD movie.

(4) I post this with amusement, but Comcast & Timewarner have claimed recently that they have the capacity to broadcast up to 400 HD channels. Ok, so what city is now receiving this number of HD channels? They claim they are deploying "Switched Digital" in many markets. If you call them, uh well... After we deliver CableCARD 2.0, it will happen. So, many revelations later, this technology is at least 5 years out, may require dual coax and most likely dark fiber to the home. So far, Comcast & Timewarner deliver 21 HD channels to most cable systems. Feel free to yell, I have 30!


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.
> 
> And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money. Even when channels start to fold up.


The problem is not only would you lose tons of channels, you would lose the distribution channels.

Let's say D*, E*, Cable right now take their costs for the channels and attach a 50% markup to distribute them. For a Premier package customer they make $50 a month. Now with a la cart a customer chooses only enough channels to cost $15 a month, of which $5 would be D*'s share. This is why D* makes better equipment offers to customer's with large packages, as the avg revenue per subscriber decreases the time to recoup any costs associated with the acquisition of those customers skyrockets.

Thus:
Say goodbye to "free" equipment. Say goodbye to "free" installs. Say goodbye to 24hr customer service. Say goodbye to ever getting any new channels. Say goodbye to D*, E*, and cable.

P.S. If you really want to see what a la cart will do to costs for the consumer look at NFL ST.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Let's say I don't care about if a la carte costs me more. If the subsidies to some of the poorly produced channels are stopped, wouldn't they go off air and stop wasting bandwidth?

Sometimes, I wonder if people still believe in capitalism. If the program channel didn't do enough to deserve the money, why should they get paid? It is just unjust. I'd rather enbrace public health care than helping these channel operators that don't need and don't deserve monetary donations from us. If they get off air, maybe we will get better PQ.

If the market is working, program channels won't get to charge at their free will. We can all refuse to pay. If a la carte doesn't work, what is HBO?


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> The problem is not only would you lose tons of channels, you would lose the distribution channels.
> 
> Let's say D*, E*, Cable right now take their costs for the channels and attach a 50% markup to distribute them. For a Premier package customer they make $50 a month. Now with a la cart a customer chooses only enough channels to cost $15 a month, of which $5 would be D*'s share. This is why D* makes better equipment offers to customer's with large packages, as the avg revenue per subscriber decreases the time to recoup any costs associated with the acquisition of those customers skyrockets.
> 
> ...


I didn't ask for "free" equipment. I didn't ask for "free"installs. I ALSO didn't ask to be put under a 2 year contract to pay for either of these things.

As to new channels, we'll get as many new channels as the amount of new content justifies. So yeah, we'll get fewer new channels. A lot fewer. Starting a new channel will require coming up with a working business model, like FOX did. Basically, if a company thinks they can make a go of bundling enough content to compete with pay-per-show VOD, they'll try it. Often, they won't bother.

NFL ST is an interesting point about what a la carte will do for costs for the consumer. NFL ST costs me exactly $0. Why? Because I don't want it. So I don't pay for it. If I wanted NFL ST, it would cost a lot, but then again, not so much that people who want it don't get it! The power of market forces.

I have no doubt ESPN and ESPN2 will cost me more now than under the current system. And I'd likely continue to subscribe to them too. It depends on the price, but I expect I'd come up with the money to cover it at the price I expect they'd ask. I'd be able to save the money of mine that's going to ESPNU, ESPN Classic and ESPNEWS though, maybe that'll defray the cost a little bit.

Yeah, some channels would go up in price. A few of them would go up a lot. And a lot more would have to become really cheap, add a lot more content or just plain cease to exist.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I thought I would throw my 2 cents in there, since hearing that D* was planning on creating the new tier of HD Programming I thought it was very odd that HDNet was going to be one of the channels that was going to be included in that. I honestly don't know how anyone that has been with D* for a while and enjoyed HDNet as one of the VERY few HD Channels that we had until recently would ever stand for that. 

At the same time I thought it was a bad move for HDNet to agree to do that as well. Apparently they didn't agree to do it and honestly I can't not blame them for trying to fight this. While we do not know the language of their contract it sound like they feel like they've got a reason to fight this. 

Personally I don't believe that there should be an additional fee / level for HD Programming. We've all paid a fee for it for so long and only now it is paying off. I do understand that offering the amount of HD we now have isn't cheap but D* has been collecting out HD Fees for many, many years and I think that it is only fair that we should not be treated to all of the HD that is out there.


----------



## dmclone (Dec 8, 2006)

All the cable and satellite companies are against ala carte so that is why I support it. Prices will only go so high before consumers say "no thanks".


----------



## smolenski (Oct 25, 2006)

shollowa74 said:


> I am not sure if this merits mention in the regular Directv forums or not but it is interesting. HDNet has filed a 26 page complaint in state district court in Texas alleging breach of contract by Directv for wanting to move HDNet and HDNet movies to the elevated tier of programming. The summary from the complaint is below:
> 
> "After using HDNet as the critical lynchpin to establish DRECTV as the industry
> leader for high-definition broadcasting, DIRECTV is now embarking on an unlawful campaign to destroy HDNet and to usurp its position in the market. In gross violation of their contractual obligations, Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package - where the channels are distributed to more than 2,000,000 households - to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels well beyond the reach of the average television viewer. In its place, Defendants seek to feature their own programming and that of their favored partners, Liberty Media Corporation ("Liberty") and entities controlled by Liberty's Chairman, John C. Malone. The Court and jury should not allow such discriminatory and abusive behavior to continue. For Defendants' actions, HDNet seeks emergency injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, pre- and postjudgment interest, and costs."
> ...


Do you have a link to the complaint. Searching the 101st District Court site and Google yields nothing. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.


----------



## loganbay (Oct 15, 2006)

so what if D* keeped the old hd package, juggled a few channel's(add a couple, remove a couple) and then lowered the price from $10 to $5, then turned around and added 60+ hd channels in a new "hd extra" package and only charged $10 a mounth for it? Just asking!


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Typical of Direct TV's strong-arm tactics in bundling its services. Are those that recieved these channels being grandfathered in? I saw the Golf Channel disappear from my sports package when it moved to the plus package. At some point in time it reappeared even though I never subscibed to plus. My advice CALL AND ASK TO BE GRANDFATHERED if you had been recieving these channels before. 

When Comcast sticks it to Direct TV on its DTV on Demand by limiting bandwidth for high speed internet subscribers it will be Direct TV complaining about the same strong-arm tactics it uses on its own subscribers.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

I'd be more than willing to support Direct TV with respect to ala carte pricing on HDnet if they offered the same thing on about 100 other useless channels (that each individual customer could select).

Direct TV is not interested in ala carte pricing. And don't hold the HDnet out as an examle of them doing so. They are interested in taking just enough of the good stuff and bundling it in tiers to get you to sign on. 

My gripe is when they include a channel in a package and then move it to another package (Golf channel, locals) . Even if you get the old services on a gradfathered basis, you'll eventually lose them when you make any significant upgrade in your service.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

islander66 said:


> I didn't know about this extra $5 HD until after I signed a 2 year contract for HD.
> 
> Their was no mention of this on their main package web site.
> 
> ...


when did you sign up?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

flipptyfloppity said:


> With all due respect, I completely disagree with you.
> 
> And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money. Even when channels start to fold up.
> 
> ...


If they ever offered ala carte and it caused you to get fewer channels for the same cost how is that a reasonable price?
And the cost is $4.99 for the extra, not $6. Plus it is more than just HDnet and HD net movies.

Ala carte is a very good idea in theory, but several of your arguments are incorrect i think. A reduction in HDnet subs wouldnt make them lower the price IMO, it would do the opposite if for no other reason so they could make up the difference. And even with a rise in the cost they still wouldnt have the money to turn out these new shows that you seem to think they should. They would just be breaking even. I imagine it would be the same for the other channels that would lose subs. So in the end I could see this raising the cost per channel and losing some of the ones that we want.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Thus:
> Say goodbye to "free" equipment. Say goodbye to "free" installs. Say goodbye to 24hr customer service. Say goodbye to ever getting any new channels. Say goodbye to D*, E*, and cable.
> 
> P.S. If you really want to see what a la cart will do to costs for the consumer look at NFL ST.


Ahh..so now it comes out...ala carte pricing will be lower than the packages. Gee...that's not what the industry keeps saying.

By the way, are you really suggesting that the cable and satellite operators are going to price their product so they go out of business?

As for the NFL PPV cost that was put in place because of a court decision and priced as high as they dared without risk of ending up back in court.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Given the glut of reality shows and the other crap that winds up on TV while some other 'quality' programs get cancelled early, I would much prefer the way things are now to letting the people who have steered the networks in the direction they're going also steer ALL of television in the same direction. I HATE to think what would actually survive in that scenario.

Sports, OK, I could handle that. 'Batchelor', 'Jerry Springer', 'Maury Povich', 'Biggest Loser' etc., etc. - not so much.

*We want things the way they are. We NEED things the way they are!*


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

The economics are not that difficult. Many people are outraged at the additional charge and have said they will not pay it. This is going to produce a drop in the number of subscribers to HDNet. With this, HDNet will have significantly less capital month-to-month. This will eventually cause them to produce or acquire less programming. This reduction in programming quality or quantity will eventually lead to a decline in subscribers... and the cycle continues.

Anyone wanting HD from DirecTV is going to get the HD Access tier. Significantly fewer will subscribe to an additional service for channels they may not have watched previously (in SD versions). Mark Cuban is very justified in the suit and should be concerned that this decision presents a real threat to the well-being of his networks.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Ahh..so now it comes out...ala carte pricing will be lower than the packages. Gee...that's not what the industry keeps saying.


It may or may not be depending on the channels purchased.



Ken S said:


> By the way, are you really suggesting that the cable and satellite operators are going to price their product so they go out of business?


No, I am suggesting it is a fallacy for people to believe that any service provider would offer the a la cart channels at a cost that would be detrimental to their bottom line.



Ken S said:


> As for the NFL PPV cost that was put in place because of a court decision and priced as high as they dared without risk of ending up back in court.


HUH??? I have no idea what you are talking about here, but they price all of their programming at the point they believe it will generate the most revenue.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

funhouse69 said:


> Personally I don't believe that there should be an additional fee / level for HD Programming. We've all paid a fee for it for so long and only now it is paying off. I do understand that offering the amount of HD we now have isn't cheap but D* has been collecting out HD Fees for many, many years and I think that it is only fair that we should not be treated to all of the HD that is out there.


Since when did D* get in the business of giving out treats? No one forced you to pay the fees you have been paying, you and D* agreed to the price. Now the programming available has changed and you feel you are entitled to some sort of consideration based on a decision you made years ago, sorry but that is not how capitalism works.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And Universal.... but hey who cares about the other channels that are in the HD Extra Pack...


This channel was great before all the NBC/Universal channels went HD but now that we have The "real" channels what purpose does Universal HD serve except for repeats of what is already on the other channels? Or do they have their own original programming (I really don't recall seeing any)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Sirshagg said:


> This channel was great before all the NBC/Universal channels went HD but now that we have The "real" channels what purpose does Universal HD serve except for repeats of what is already on the other channels? Or do they have their own original programming (I really don't recall seeing any)


Right now... I don't think it has any Original Programming..

But once their other networks get into full swing... it would be neat if they change it to be like MGM


----------



## roconnell (Apr 9, 2007)

I don't watch HDnet very often and frankly lately have been boycoting the channel since it is owned by Mark Cuban, who is also the owner/producer of that very anti-military movie "Redacted" so if this causes HDnet to go belly up and Mark Cuban lose money, great.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Right now... I don't think it has any Original Programming..
> 
> But once their other networks get into full swing... it would be neat if they change it to be like MGM


They had original programming during the last Olympics but as an ongoing thing, no, it's all repeats. The best thing they've shown so far is Battlestar Galactica in HD. Up to now, Universal has been the only way to watch this show in HD. That should change now that Sci-Fi has gone to HD. I assume Sci-Fi will show the first runs of the shows it is producing like BSG and Stargate: Atlantis in full HDTV. They better.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I also have an idea for this suit. Let DirecTV suggest that instead of going to court, NBA officials could arbitrate it. That would drive Mark Cuban crazy. :grin:


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

My hope is that the channels Direct added will start producing HD programing on a regular basis, I do not a year from now want to see what we see now, 8 out of 10 programs showing nothing but upconverted SD shamelessly calling it HD...I know we will be told to be patient, but I am not going to be patient for very long if they drag their feet in this regard....


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> If they ever offered ala carte and it caused you to get fewer channels for the same cost how is that a reasonable price?
> And the cost is $4.99 for the extra, not $6. Plus it is more than just HDnet and HD net movies.


See, I think the problem here is you, like Earl and others, are measuring "service" by channel count. I'm measuring service by amount of content. Losing channels to me isn't losing service, as the remaining channels raise their level of content to keep from disappearing themselves.

Channels are an outmoded concept anyway. They're really only a method of trying to get you to migrate from one show to another. Shows can be delivered (and priced if necessary) individually.



> Ala carte is a very good idea in theory, but several of your arguments are incorrect i think. A reduction in HDnet subs wouldnt make them lower the price IMO, it would do the opposite if for no other reason so they could make up the difference. And even with a rise in the cost they still wouldnt have the money to turn out these new shows that you seem to think they should. They would just be breaking even. I imagine it would be the same for the other channels that would lose subs. So in the end I could see this raising the cost per channel and losing some of the ones that we want.


Absolutely we'll lose channels. I expect we'll lose 50% of our channels at least and won't lose 50% of our monthly bills! So we'll be paying more per channel. But again, I don't measure what I'm getting by channel. I expect I'll be able to pay less to get the same number of good shows I am now.

I agree HDNet specifically would be in a tough spot. They are trying to be a full-fledged channel, in the style of the networks of old. They're not quite making it though, as evidenced about how they're worried their subscribers will go away. If they were currently earning their subscribers by producing enough content to keep them (and perhaps already being sold unpackaged), they wouldn't have to worry about being moved to a different pack. As long as the pricing wasn't radically different, their customers would follow.

HDNet has some serious thinking to do anyway. When HD was new, an all-HD channel was a business plan. But trying to brand yourself as "that channel that's in HD" right now presents a problem. Being "that channel that's in color" hasn't been a viable business model for 30 years, and "that channel that's in HD" won't remain so for much longer.

I don't have special favor for Mark Cuban or for Sumner Redstone. I have special favor for me. If these guys have to scramble to stay in business it doesn't bother me so much. But competition improves the breed, and thus I firmly believe that creating a stronger feedback system where cable channels have to please the customer or be dropped by them instead of being able to be force-bundled into the household (and get revenues) they'll have to find better ways to serve the consumer. And it isn't like if it's all a disaster, the system couldn't be switched back later.

I do agree D* isn't interested in a la carte. It'd drop their revenues and profits, especially in the short term. It'd also open up the world of VOD rather quickly, creating a viable alternative to satellite. D* would have to be nimble to ensure they are a player in this new market or else find themselves shut out by a paradigm shift. Established companies like D* would rather the market not shift, as even if they feel they have a good chance of dominating the new market, they'd rather stick with the current sure thing.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

:joy: !Devil_lol :biggthump :jump3: :rolling: :rotfl: :thats: !rolling !rolling !rolling


ggergm said:


> I also have an idea for this suit. Let DirecTV suggest that instead of going to court, NBA officials could arbitrate it. That would drive Mark Cuban crazy. :grin:


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> See, I think the problem here is you, like Earl and others, are measuring "service" by channel count. I'm measuring service by amount of content. Losing channels to me isn't losing service, as the remaining channels raise their level of content to keep from disappearing themselves.
> Channels are an outmoded concept anyway. They're really only a method of trying to get you to migrate from one show to another. Shows can be delivered (and priced if necessary) individually.


Channels most certainly are not an outdated concept to many, many of the posters on this forum. Time and time again we see people asking when their favorite channel will be HD, or changing providers because of availability of certain HD channels. A lot of people still have loyalty to certain channels and check those channels first when watching TV.

I know DVRs and VOD are changing things, but the change is slow and gradual. The channels themselves put forth a lot of effort to encourage viewer loyalty, and they still all have their own "personality."

There is a tendency for us to imagine that most others view things as we do and those with other opinions are in the minority. Fact of the matter is, most TV viewing in this country is still of favorite programs on local "channels." I think if you really have no channel loyalty and look at TV program-by-program, you should favor a mega-channel universe in order to enable as many different choices as possible to exist. And don't forget, the types of programming you prefer now just might not be the type you will prefer in five years...

You are right, however, that the fact that a channel is HD can no longer justify its existance. HDNet's lack of "personality" and focus will hurt it now that there are so many other HD choices. I think that instead of this lawsuit, Mr. Cuban wishes he could sue D* for adding all these HD channels.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

flipptyfloppity said:


> See, I think the problem here is you, like Earl and others, are measuring "service" by channel count. I'm measuring service by amount of content. Losing channels to me isn't losing service, as the remaining channels raise their level of content to keep from disappearing themselves.
> 
> Channels are an outmoded concept anyway. They're really only a method of trying to get you to migrate from one show to another. Shows can be delivered (and priced if necessary) individually.
> 
> ...


No I dont measure service simply by channel count. Sure better content would be great and i get channels i dont ever watch but if bundled service keeps my bill down im for it. 
If the price doesnt go down considerably i fail to see the advantage of ala carte.
You yourself stated that you would probably be paying the same for less channels, where is the advantage

"And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money."


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> No I dont measure service simply by channel count. Sure better content would be great and i get channels i dont ever watch but if bundled service keeps my bill down im for it.
> If the price doesnt go down considerably i fail to see the advantage of ala carte.
> You yourself stated that you would probably be paying the same for less channels, where is the advantage
> 
> "And I will stand behind my a la carte stance. Even when I end up getting fewer channels for the same money."


I did state I probably would be paying for less channels without paying proportionally less. But each channel would have a lot more content on it, so it's quite possible I'll be getting more or the same content for less money. And there's a lot of room between not going down 50% and going down considerably. Most importantly I feel that bills will go down some, and most importantly, they will rise slower in the future. This is because channels will be unable to lever new channels into your basic package and force you to pay for them later.

I don't know why you pick out my last quote, that is, unless you measure service by channel count. If E! and InStyle folded their programming into one, would you consider your service reduced? I know I wouldn't, and yet my channel count would go down. I expect my channel count to drop disproportionately to my bill drop. I don't except the content amount to drop nearly as much.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

gregjones said:


> The economics are not that difficult. Many people are outraged at the additional charge and have said they will not pay it. This is going to produce a drop in the number of subscribers to HDNet. With this, HDNet will have significantly less capital month-to-month. This will eventually cause them to produce or acquire less programming. This reduction in programming quality or quantity will eventually lead to a decline in subscribers... and the cycle continues.
> 
> Anyone wanting HD from DirecTV is going to get the HD Access tier. Significantly fewer will subscribe to an additional service for channels they may not have watched previously (in SD versions).* Mark Cuban is very justified in the suit and should be concerned that this decision presents a real threat to the well-being of his networks*.


And just exactly why is he guaranteed to make more billions off old, tired, crap programming?

I predict his lawsuit is a ploy to gain sympathy from people who actually like his offerings, though it will be shoved out of court with a summary judgment against him if he doesn't have a contractual basis for this suit.

After Cuban loses his suit, look for HDnets to follow the same road that Voom did, selling cheaply or not at all.

I am all for ala carte programming personally, don't mind paying for ST and the sports packages, but am appalled that I have to pay to support all the religious and shopping channels, plus sports I don't care for (i.e. soccer channel is of NO interest to me, no more than a tiddly-winks channel would be.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

MIKE0616 said:


> but am appalled that I have to pay to support all the religious and shopping channels, plus sports I don't care for (i.e. soccer channel is of NO interest to me, no more than a tiddly-winks channel would be.)


The shopping channels... you don't pay for those.
They pay DirecTV to be on the network, and actually keep your overall cost down.

Which in turn may pay for those "religious" channels, soccer, ect....

And overall those balance out... by those that do want the soccer and tiddly-winks channels... but don't want to pay for the channels you enjoy.


----------



## chrisexv6 (Sep 14, 2002)

If HDNet would air more Bikini Destinations episodes, Id pay for them 

Not sure why such a huge complaint from HDNet.....First, 5.00 doesnt "put it out of reach" for many people. Second, HDNet isnt the only channel in the group......I will most likely pay for the new package, but only because I want MGM and Smithsonian. HDNet will still get $$$, so Im sure they wouldnt complain about me!

-Chris


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

chrisexv6 said:


> Not sure why such a huge complaint from HDNet.....First, 5.00 doesnt "put it out of reach" for many people.


If it does, those folks should have never gone HD in the first place.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

chrisexv6 said:


> HDNet will still get $$$, so Im sure they wouldnt complain about me!


Depends how many people sign up for the new package. If HDNet get's $1/month from the 10$ package vs. $1/month from the $5 package, you can do the math. If only 25% sign up for the $5 package, they get 1/4 of the revenue they are getting now.

E.g., I have no interest in MGM or Smithsonian, and HDNet isn't worth $5 to me, so they lost my $1. I'm sure I'm representative of some % of D* viewers. Whether or not I'm in the minority or the majority, only time will tell. Apparently, HDNet believes the majority of folks will not opt for the new package, or they wouldn't be suing. /steve


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

chrisexv6 said:


> Not sure why such a huge complaint from HDNet.....First, 5.00 doesnt "put it out of reach" for many people.
> -Chris


I think Cuban just sees this as a critical time for the development of his channels. As has been mentioned here before, being "that channel in HD" won't cut it much longer. So he's in transition to a new business model.

I think he hoped D* would introduce a lot more people to his channel in the next year as the D* HD customer ranks swell. Cuban could count on some of these customers to remain with him once he was booted out of the main package later.

But with D* putting him out in an add-on package immediately, these new customers may be introduced to HDTV without being introduced to HDNet. And then Cuban has to try to capture these customers later, which is a lot harder. Especially when people already get hockey, Smallville, etc. (often in HD!) on channels they can get without getting the extra pack.

It'll be interesting to see the agreement they reach.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

To me... it boils down to two things:

1) What does the contract say with regards to what "package" HD Net would be in... if it even states the package

2) What happened that this could not be resolved between the two companies, without a court case being filled


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Is there any credible source for this info? Doing a google search, I only find a posting on another forum.

If it is real, It seems obvious to me that D* is changing the game, not HDNet. When D picked up the HDNet channels, the HD Extra Pack had yet to be conceived. Did D* specify at some point that they'd start charging extra for the channels, above the HD access fee? If the summery provided is accurate, the folks at HDNet seem to think that D* is breaking the terms of their agreement.



> In gross violation of their contractual obligations, Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package


The HDNet channels will lose viewers, as many will not opt to pay more to get an upper echelon programming tier. I'm not sure why people think that Mark Cuban should be happy about it, or just accept an action that will hurt his company's bottom line, and what he feels goes against the agreement that D* made with HDNet.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

MIKE0616 said:


> And just exactly why is he guaranteed to make more billions off old, tired, crap programming?
> 
> I predict his lawsuit is a ploy to gain sympathy from people who actually like his offerings, though it will be shoved out of court with a summary judgment against him if he doesn't have a contractual basis for this suit.
> 
> ...


HDNet has historically been very favorably reviewed by the majority of the people that paid for HD programming. In comparison to other comparable offerings like INHD, it is a clear winner. People's interest in HDNet helped finance the availability of any HD programming for the last few years. The fact that people paid $10-11 per month for the last few years has subsidized some of the functionality you are now appreciating.

I have been with a number of HD providers and can tell you that HDNet has been one of the channels I prefer. A number of people in smaller markets like the ability to see shows that were never offered in HD in their markets: Smallville, Star Trek: Enterprise, etc. You may not like the programming, but it has been relatively popular among HD subscribers.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

flipptyfloppity said:


> I did state I probably would be paying for less channels without paying proportionally less. But each channel would have a lot more content on it, so it's quite possible I'll be getting more or the same content for less money. And there's a lot of room between not going down 50% and going down considerably. Most importantly I feel that bills will go down some, and most importantly, they will rise slower in the future. This is because channels will be unable to lever new channels into your basic package and force you to pay for them later.
> 
> I don't know why you pick out my last quote, that is, unless you measure service by channel count. If E! and InStyle folded their programming into one, would you consider your service reduced? I know I wouldn't, and yet my channel count would go down. I expect my channel count to drop disproportionately to my bill drop. I don't except the content amount to drop nearly as much.


But thats just it, chances are your content on those channels wouldnt increase.

No i picked that quote because that was the part of the argument that i didnt think made sense. 
I understand your hopes if D* went this route, but i have to disagree. No biggie


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

flipptyfloppity said:


> I think Cuban just sees this as a critical time for the development of his channels. As has been mentioned here before, being "that channel in HD" won't cut it much longer. So he's in transition to a new business model.


I agree. With the theatrical release deals that are being shown now, it seems apparent that Cuban is trying to position his channel to remain unique. From an objective point of view, it is difficult to rationalize DirecTV throwing him under the bus in this way. After all, many of the channels getting the benefit of the "main" HD package are airing stretched or cropped content.



flipptyfloppity said:


> I think he hoped D* would introduce a lot more people to his channel in the next year as the D* HD customer ranks swell. Cuban could count on some of these customers to remain with him once he was booted out of the main package later.
> 
> But with D* putting him out in an add-on package immediately, these new customers may be introduced to HDTV without being introduced to HDNet. And then Cuban has to try to capture these customers later, which is a lot harder. Especially when people already get hockey, Smallville, etc. (often in HD!) on channels they can get without getting the extra pack.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I would also like to point out that an in-depth discussion of a la carte is somewhat off-topic. I understand how we arrived in that discussion, but I would hate to kill the discussion of the stated subject for the sake of a la carte.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To me... it boils down to two things:
> 
> 1) What does the contract say with regards to what "package" HD Net would be in... if it even states the package
> 
> 2) What happened that this could not be resolved between the two companies, without a court case being filled


I'd be interesting is seeing the contract. I can't imagine it being tied to a package though, that doesn't seem feisible for a DirecTV perspective.

I tend to agree, I hope this isn't a knee-jerk reaction. Something had to precipitate the filing...but what was it?

Usurping is strong wording...

I haven't been able to find the case online.


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

Mr. Cuban is fairly wise and he may have seen this as something that should be tried in the court of public opinion. This thread is a prime example. Over 150 posts in about 24 hours.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

gregjones said:


> HDNet has historically been very favorably reviewed by the *majority *of the people that paid for HD programming. In comparison to other comparable offerings like INHD, it is a clear winner. People's interest in HDNet helped finance the availability of any HD programming for the last few years. The fact that people paid $10-11 per month for the last few years has subsidized some of the functionality you are now appreciating.
> 
> I have been with a number of HD providers and can tell you that HDNet has been one of the channels I prefer. A number of people in smaller markets like the ability to see shows that were never offered in HD in their markets: Smallville, Star Trek: Enterprise, etc. You may not like the programming, but it has been relatively popular among HD subscribers.


And I have been with several HD outlets for years (E*, cable, and D*) and while the HDNet channels were some of the few non-OTA channels available for most of that period, that makes for nice history and that is about it. As for the "majority", did you do a poll? Of the people I know, none of us watch those shows and we have had HD for years.

History is nice, but if that was all that mattered, we would be watching DuMont, CBS, and NBC and thats all.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

shollowa74 said:


> I am not sure if this merits mention in the regular Directv forums or not but it is interesting. HDNet has filed a 26 page complaint in state district court in Texas alleging breach of contract by Directv for wanting to move HDNet and HDNet movies to the elevated tier of programming. The summary from the complaint is below:
> 
> "After using HDNet as the critical lynchpin to establish DRECTV as the industry
> leader for high-definition broadcasting, DIRECTV is now embarking on an unlawful campaign to destroy HDNet and to usurp its position in the market. In gross violation of their contractual obligations, Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package - where the channels are distributed to more than 2,000,000 households - to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels well beyond the reach of the average television viewer. In its place, Defendants seek to feature their own programming and that of their favored partners, Liberty Media Corporation ("Liberty") and entities controlled by Liberty's Chairman, John C. Malone. The Court and jury should not allow such discriminatory and abusive behavior to continue. For Defendants' actions, HDNet seeks emergency injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, pre- and postjudgment interest, and costs."
> ...


Any chance you can upload the complaint? I can see it on the docket...but the web-based system doesn't make the documents available...at least not yet.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The shopping channels... you don't pay for those.
> They pay DirecTV to be on the network, and actually keep your overall cost down.
> 
> Which in turn may pay for those "religious" channels, soccer, ect....
> ...


Which is EXACTLY the reason I would much prefer totally ala-carte pricing. Any time you get a package, you are paying for something you neither want nor "use."


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

D" could have avoided this whole mess had they waited till later next year before rearranging the whole HD package.. By that time more HD programing would become available on the so called HD channels.. and they could have offered more true HD channels in the new package instead of raiding the current lineup to pad the new package....This will be interesting in the months to come...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

warriorking said:


> D" could have avoided this whole mess had they waited till later next year before rearranging the whole HD package.. By that time more HD programing would become available on the so called HD channels.. and they could have offered more true HD channels in the new package instead of raiding the current lineup to pad the new package....This will be interesting in the months to come...


Wouldn't have changed any of the arguments...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

MIKE0616 said:


> And I have been with several HD outlets for years (E*, cable, and D*) and while the HDNet channels were some of the few non-OTA channels available for most of that period, that makes for nice history and that is about it. As for the "majority", did you do a poll? Of the people I know, none of us watch those shows and we have had HD for years.
> 
> History is nice, but if that was all that mattered, we would be watching DuMont, CBS, and NBC and thats all.


No, I do not have a poll. Nor would I trust in one. I have followed the comments on content on the channels for several years on a number of forum sites. The community that comments on HD has a lot to say about HDNet. Relative to other non-sports channels, there has always been a good deal more interest.

History is exactly the point here. Reading between the lines you will understand that Cuban's real problem is feeling as if he propped up DirecTV's HD offering and is now being relegated to the fringe.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

_"I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." _*Sir Arthur Conan Doyle* (1859 - 1930), The Sign of Four, A Scandal in Bohemia

Reading all the speculation in this thread (including my own), I thought it might be appropriate to post one of yesterday's "Quotes Of The Day".  /steve


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Wouldn't have changed any of the arguments...


Maybe not for some but it would have changed mine, my biggest complaint was not the New channels such as Smithsonian and MGM... their brand new...it was the the older HD channels pulled and placed in this new bracket that grabbed my attention as well as others ...For now I am going to wait till more channels if any are made available in this new package, then see what they consist of before I pay additional for more HD....


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

Pardon me if this has already been mentioned...but the last materials that I saw with Mark Cuban's channels is he gets $1.32 per subscriber per month. His rational is somewhat similar to the aforementioned ESPN and also Big Ten Network deals. Everyone wants in the lowest possible tier so they get the most subscribers, and cash. Not everyone charges as much, however.

Perhaps Mr Cuban ought to reconsider what he charges for the channels? He can either have the same price for less subs (on a percentage of all DIRECTV subscribers) or a lower price for many more subs. The HD numbers are very likely to go through the roof within the next year.

It is not like HDNet, etc. invented HD. They got a premium price when their were few providers of HD content and the landscape is changing. DIRECTV has HD carriage at no additional cost built into its agreements for quite some time now.

I side with DIRECTV on this one. The $10 fee was high for the few HD channels provided for quite some time in no small part due to the high costs of those channels (ah hem, Mr Cuban). I'd much rather have the choice of paying more if I _choose_ the high cost HD channels -- versus having their cost lumped in with every other HD channel DIRECTV is now, or will be providing in the future.

For the record, I like much of content on HDNet, etc. Still have not made up my mind if those and the couple others are worth $5 a month though.

Let's see what the lawyers make of the contract language.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

People are missing the main point of how he works...

Cuban is all about maximizing eyes for his businesses, whether that be basketball or HD or movies (he owns Landmark) or whatever. He is all about pushing HD TV to the limit too, otherwise he wouldn't have sunk the money he has into HDNet and HDNet Movies over the past few years with no profitable return - yet. Anybody that follows him in Dallas is aware of this as far back as his AudioNet.com days, before he sold to Yahoo for a gazillion.

The whole premise behind the 'day and date' movie and DVD release is the similar -- maximize the eyes and you maximize the dollars by getting both out at once so you cover both markets at the same time. Putting his channels on the upper tier will not maximize the eyes. People will not see them and they wil also see a bunch of 'HD channels" on the first tier that are NOT HD all the time. He does HD and *nothing BUT HD* and that's what he sells, and he doesn't want a carrier "watering down" the goodness of that.

Read his blog entry below and you will get an underlying idea of where he comes from with this. I hope he wins. 

_"TV Networks are misleading consumers into thinking they are getting HD versions of their networks. Which leads to a simple question. What makes a TV Network HD ?_

*If a network calls itself an HD Network, does that make it an HD Network ? Or should the network be required to actually have content that is of high definition resolution ?*_ *And if they have HD Resolution content, how much should they actually have before they can call themselves HD ? *_

_In the coming months cable, telco and satellite providers are gearing for a marketing battle over who has the most HD channels. Ads will be everywhere touting big name networks finally bringing HD versions to the masses. _

_*Unfortunately for consumers, the schedules of many, if not most of those new channels will have less than 10pct of their content actually produced using HD cameras and shown at HD resolution. Few will have more than 3 hours a day of HD resolution content. *_

_*I think a lot of consumers are going to be very, very disappointed.* _

_When you turn the channel to an HD network that you are paying for, shouldn't you have the right to expect to see content in full HD Resolution ? Of course. Unfortunately you won't. For many "HD" networks, you may go DAYS without seeing any real HD content."_

The rest is here:
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/09/20/lots-of-hdtv-channels-but-no-hd/


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Here is my 2 cents for today ....How about D* sue the pants off all the new HD channels that don't produce HD programs in full technical HD. We are talken 1080i and 720p and no upconverts unless the original was recorded in SD.:sure:


----------



## RandCfilm (Aug 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What I ment... they where "upwards" in the area of 2 Million a few years ago... when they were at 1.5 million.
> 
> So I would think it woudl be higher then 2 million today.





smiddy said:


> For HD subscribers? Really? WOW!


Apparently you have forgotten about E*'s HD numerological algorithm.   Using the applied application in this theory would net you well over the 2 million subscriber mark with ease.

E* Numerological Algorithm (ENA) could also be called wtf?, htf?, no F'ng way, you gotta be F'ng crazy... well you get the idea.

Todays class - how to boost HD sub numbers
Example:
One subscriber has 3 HD units, instead of one subscriber we have three, why, because there could potentially be three different people watching three different shows in one house. Those individual viewers are really HD subscribers. So if we have 2 million accounts with an average of 2 units per home we now have 4 million HD subscribers

Tomorrows class - how to monopolize group sporting event viewers into HD subscriber numbers.

Next week (using already published number) - how to rationalize HD channel count using local HD channels only available in that market while converting those channels to overall HD channel count.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

flippityfloppity,

I'm just curious. What happens if a la carte pricing actually wipes out all of the programming YOU prefer because those channels just don't survive? I think a lot of people that are for a la carte have the idea that what they watch will survive and those channels that do drop off for lack of paying customers are 'other people's channels'. As I had stated earlier, I prefer things the way they are now because I couldn't trust the tastes of the mainstream consumers to be in line with my own tastes - and I don't have eccentric tastes, but given what is currently "making it" on network TV, I don't necessarily like my chances in an 'a la carte world'.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> flippityfloppity,
> 
> *I'm just curious. What happens if a la carte pricing actually wipes out all of the programming YOU prefer because those channels just don't survive?* I think a lot of people that are for a la carte have the idea that what they watch will survive and those channels that do drop off for lack of paying customers are 'other people's channels'. As I had stated earlier, I prefer things the way they are now because I couldn't trust the tastes of the mainstream consumers to be in line with my own tastes - and I don't have eccentric tastes, but given what is currently "making it" on network TV, I don't necessarily like my chances in an 'a la carte world'.


Let's put it a better way...

What happens if D* puts 2 of *the ONLY 24 hour HD stations* on the extra cost tier? What happens if D* puts *1/3 of the channels they originally used to sell HD to their base *on the extra cost tier, when we first got them free and then we were charged 10 bucks a month for. for years, along with the others? Just so the other new *only-partial HD channels* can be on tier one?

And then what happens when all the new viewers go "what the heck is up with this new (tier one) HD -- it's not so good? Why all the black sidebars?"

They won't pay for the rest, which is true HD.

It's the dumbing down of HD that Cuban is trying to stop. I, for one, am with him.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I wouldn't worry about the potential for "a la carte" HD pricing unless D*'s competitors follow suit. I can't see any company taking the risk of losing customers due to this kind of pricing to a competitor who doesn't charge "a la carte" for the same channels.

And don't forget, in 3-5 years, ALL channels will probably be HD, which puts us back to the same basic model that existed when all channels were SD. The premium channels that existed 3-5 years ago will probably be the only premium channels we will pay for 3-5 years from now. Channels will be valued on their content, not on their resolution.

Unless E*, Comcast, Verizon, TWC, etc. all follow suit, this new D* "HD-tier" will be short-lived, IMHO.

/steve


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

BK EH said:


> Let's put it a better way...
> 
> What happens if D* puts 2 of *the ONLY 24 hour HD stations* on the extra cost tier? What happens if D* puts *1/3 of the channels they originally used to sell HD to their base *on the extra cost tier, when we first got them free and then we were charged 10 bucks a month for. for years, along with the others? Just so the other new *only-partial HD channels* can be on tier one?
> 
> ...


Then just like HBO, Showtime or the sports pack, people will decide if there is compelling enough content on those channels for them to pay to receive them. I've been paying $9.99 a month since June '04 or whenever they started charging that if it was later than that. That was the product D* was selling and the price they were charging and I decided it was worth it to me to pay to receive it. I sure as heck don't feel screwed/cheated/insert your own word here because they are now positioning themselves for the expansion of HD and are putting a package model in place that they feel effectively works for them. It's still up to me to decide whether it's worth it to me to pay it. If it is, it is. If it's not, it's not. I'm not getting my undies in a bundle over it. Cripe - and I realize some people don't feel this way - but IT'S JUST TV! Yes, I watch WAY toooo much of it, but I have a lot more important things in my life to sweat than this.

And I don't ascribe such benevolent motives to Mark Cuban as to be concerned with the dumbing down of HD. I just think he's looking out for his wallet, plain and simple.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

BK EH said:


> People are missing the main point of how he works...
> 
> Cuban is all about maximizing eyes for his businesses, whether that be basketball or HD or movies (he owns Landmark) or whatever. He is all about pushing HD TV to the limit too, otherwise he wouldn't have sunk the money he has into HDNet and HDNet Movies over the past few years with no profitable return - yet. Anybody that follows him in Dallas is aware of this as far back as his AudioNet.com days, before he sold to Yahoo for a gazillion.
> 
> ...


Nail meet Head


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

*Did someone fall asleep here, Malone Liberty Media and Cuban HDNet are "two" seperate companies.. Liberty filed the lawsuit?*

This cheese with the whine session is really getting boring. D's position to move HDNet & Movies to a higher tier is obvoiusly not justifiable. It costs D* $1.25 for HDNet / Movies per channel per sub over Discovery HD which is quadruple that.

I leave predictions up to realtors & brokers, Leno & Letterman, come on...
Why are we bashing Cuban for Malone's lawsuit?

Liberty is a "d i s t r i b u t o r" of Cuban's HD Network(s).

Who is at fault with this unjustifiable decision? D*!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Marcus S said:


> *It costs D* $1.25 for HDNet / Movies per channel per sub over Discovery HD which is quadruple that.*


*
You're saying HD Theater costs $5/month per sub? Where are you getting this crazy information? Nobody is going to pay that much for a single channel.*


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> You're saying HD Theater costs $5/month per sub? Where are you getting this crazy information? Nobody is going to pay that much for a single channel.


I posted earlier that the first HD channel that came up on D* was Discovery HD for $7.99 mo. That was for "o n e" HD channel years ago. Do the math against the HD channels you are receiving today. So which HD channel is pushing others into higher tiers? Discovery HD Theater is new, I am talking about Discovery HD. Sometimes I wonder if Carey is sleeping with Zaslav.

I am also dumbfounded why people through 8 pages of threads on this post think Malone and Cuban are the same evil empire. Malone Liberty Media the distributor of HD networks is suing D*, not Cuban himself, and for a justifiable reason. Why are you "D*" favoring Discovery networks at quadruple the price over ours?


----------



## Quatre (Oct 25, 2007)

i guess D* wouldnt listen to its customers complaining that hnet and hdnet movies, being 2 channels that are free on every tv provider would suddenly be part of some extra package at an additional cost.

you can't take free chans and make them premium channels because you decide to. If a judge lets them get away with this, then soon t hey will make Discovery hd a pay channel (if that isn't one fo the ones already part of the HD extra pack that hdnet and hdnet movie is being bundled in)

then they will slowly start to charge for more and more hd chans though soon everything will be hd so they wont be able to charge for it just based on the fact its hd so then it just falls in the line of charging for free channels.

they may charge for ESPN next complaining that they have to pay espn so much to carry the channel.

a comcast financial employee told me that they pay 6 billion for programming from all channels and that 1.6 or so of that is just to ESPN and that 2.3 billion or something of the 6 billion total is sports.

but still ESPN is a channel part of free basic and standard channels but if they get away with charging for HDne and whaever else is packaged in that hd extra package they may try other stunts like that with other chans.

i know prices are going up at the end of theyear with new hd chans or begin of new year but csr told me that it woudn't go up for existing customes who would be grandfathered in with their current rate.

i wonder if that applies to the HD extra package or if suddenly they'd take away hdnet and the other chans in that and say if we want to continue to receive them we have to pay more. I see a class action in their future maybe.

I do however wish Dtv wins the fight against Comcast to allow D* to carry Comcast sportsnet Philly and other Comcast east coast rsn chans that they have managed to block D* from carrying due some legal loophole that comcast fenagled.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Keeping the higher cost Discovery HD in the lower tier and pushing other lower cost HD channels into higher programming tiers... Don't be fooled, ESPN wants to add 2 additional HD channels and make them available to lower tier customers. I am sure ESPN is watching this event closely. D* should consider how many subs they are about to alienate in this move.

Discovery HD needs to GO, to the upper tier.


----------



## Peapod (Oct 14, 2006)

morgantown said:


> DIRECTV has HD carriage at no additional cost built into its agreements for quite some time now.


Then why are they charging us $10 (HD Access) more for those channels they are not paying extra to carry?

I understand that they have spent money on new satellites, but it seems to me that Cap Ex should already be covered under the existing fees we pay them...and I expect that this $10 HD Access fee will not go away if/when they remove the corresponding SD channels (which will be a long time from now of course).

To me, this whole thing feels like a stealthy price increase. I'd be happy to continue to pay $10 for channels that have no SD counterparts, and those that do not yet have HD carriage included in the deal yet. I'm just not sure why I am paying extra now for the channels they aren't paying extra to carry.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> flippityfloppity,
> 
> I'm just curious. What happens if a la carte pricing actually wipes out all of the programming YOU prefer because those channels just don't survive? I think a lot of people that are for a la carte have the idea that what they watch will survive and those channels that do drop off for lack of paying customers are 'other people's channels'. As I had stated earlier, I prefer things the way they are now because I couldn't trust the tastes of the mainstream consumers to be in line with my own tastes - and I don't have eccentric tastes, but given what is currently "making it" on network TV, I don't necessarily like my chances in an 'a la carte world'.


I am willing to accept this risk. I don't really see it happening, as I feel quality content will find a new outlet if their current outlet goes away. That outlet may even be VOD.

But either way, I'm willing to accept the risk. As I said before, there's no reason we couldn't just change the laws back if a la carte doesn't work out.

You, like nearly everyone else uses "channels" as a proxy for content. They're just not the same thing.

Can we take this to PM or something? Others have expressed this is off topic for this thread, and I agree.


----------



## bikspk (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The shopping channels... you don't pay for those.
> They pay DirecTV to be on the network, and actually keep your overall cost down.
> 
> Which in turn may pay for those "religious" channels, soccer, ect....
> ...


FYI the shopping channels don't pay for soccer coverage, I do, and tiddly-winks?

Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV are both supported by commercials and Setanta Sports is $15/month plus the DirectKick package.

How the heck you lump soccer in with religious channels boggles my mind.

Get your head out of the sand - a soccer match last year drew a bigger audience in the US than all but one NHL game over the two previous years.

Now, the real issue is that HDNet carries MLS soccer games which, under the proposed tier change, would force me to pay yet moe to watch soccer. Maybe enough to make me look elsewhere for that content (side note: bring on the soccer package).

rant over.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

People are just bandying about numbers they claim D* is paying for this and that programming. Do any of you have anything to back up your numbers? Sorry there is just too much crap posted in forums to just take your word on it.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> when did you sign up?


I signed up a month ago. I don't think most of the people at Bell South or D* knew about this extra HD tier. It wasn't on their packages selection page.

Why?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

islander66 said:


> I signed up a month ago. I don't think most of the people at Bell South or D* knew about this extra HD tier. It wasn't on their packages selection page.
> 
> Why?


Right now it's in a "free preview". Starting Dec. 15, you'll have to pay more, or lose the channels.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Eight pages into this thread and I can hear Dire Straits in my head, singing, _"I want my HDNet."_

I doubt it will be a hit.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bikspk said:


> FYI the shopping channels don't pay for soccer coverage, I do, and tiddly-winks?
> 
> Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV are both supported by commercials and Setanta Sports is $15/month plus the DirectKick package.
> 
> ...


FYI: You quoted my reply, to someone else making those statements....
So my head isn't in the sand (especially about soccer).

As for "you" paying for shopping channels... unless you are buying stuff on them... you are not paying for them.... the Shopping channels pay the carriers to be on their systems.

And the "paying" for channels... is a NET affect.. you pay for the block that they are part of, until there is ala-carte everyone that wants 1 channels from a block, ultimately "pays" for the other channels in that block as well.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Quatre said:


> Keep HDNet Free


HDNet has never been "Free"


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> We have already been talking about it for a while already... I don't think it is going to be "much hotter" then it already has been.
> 
> Anyone converting post mid October 1, probably knows they are on a 3 month trial of the extra pack.


In all my calls to set up the new hr20 last month, not a single person ever told me about the 5 bucks in december.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Right now it's in a "free preview". Starting Dec. 15, you'll have to pay more, or lose the channels.


D* is hassle.

I hope they don't start switching other normal HD channels in to some other package, so you never know what channels your getting.

If not for this place I would have thought there was a technical problem.

Now I just know I'm getten the old shell game.

Too bad I can't recommend them to anyone. the HD is nice but who has time for the install issues, billing issues, and now this?


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

shollowa74 said:


> ...Defendants have decided to effectively kill HDNet's viewership by moving the two broadcast package - where the channels are distributed to more than 2,000,000 households - to a newly created obscure and overpriced package that puts the HDNet channels well beyond the reach of the average television viewer. In its place, Defendants seek to feature their own programming and that of their favored partners, Liberty Media Corporation ("Liberty") and entities controlled by Liberty's Chairman, John C. Malone.


Sounds about right.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> HDNet has never been "Free"


Nothing on DirecTV is free. Well, I guess the info channels may be.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> ...............
> And I don't ascribe such benevolent motives to Mark Cuban as to be concerned with the dumbing down of HD. I just think he's looking out for his wallet, plain and simple.


Where did I (or Cuban) suggest it was benevolent? Read it again. :sure:

It's all about maximizing eyes, and marketing his total HD product, to the most eyes possible, at the lowest cost to him. Which grows his business model, and thus maximizes his profits. And, at the same time continues to deliver to us, his customers, the biggest HD bang for our buck. It's smart business and it's smart marketing.

By moving his product to the upper tier, at the expense of new, partial-HD product, the carrier undercuts his past efforts and planned future efforts. Like I said before, I don't blame him one bit.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:



> Nothing on DirecTV is free. Well, I guess the info channels may be.


Channel 100 ..


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

newsposter said:


> In all my calls to set up the new hr20 last month, not a single person ever told me about the 5 bucks in december.


And thats where the problem is going accure...Lots of people are unaware other than the small hard core minority in this Forum(No disrespect intended)of the changes coming December 15th, even though they have sent Mailers and Emails , most have either never received or have thrown away the mailings without reading them or have discarded the Emails , In most of the Emails and mailers the announced changes seem to be in small print , In my case no Email or Mailing has been sent at all.... December 16th will be a busy day for the CSR's at Direct...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

newsposter said:


> In all my calls to set up the new hr20 last month, not a single person ever told me about the 5 bucks in december.


I installed a new HR20-100 yesterday and called to deactivate an SD only receiver. The CSR told me the HD Extra pack would *automagically* added to my account after December 15th, and I didn't have to do anything, *unless* I didn't want the new package. In which case, I had to call back and "opt out".

Who knows if this is correct, but AFAI can tell, it's going to be an auto add/opt out situation on HDExtra Pack.

(Since I was going to add it anyway, I have no issue, just thought I would pass it along)


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

for the fun of it i took the first google link to C band a la cart pricing and got the following

http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm

here are examples of annual rates...kinda hurts when you have to literally "decide what to pay for"

```
CNN/Hdln/Fox News Digital $	 17.15	
Comedy Central Digital $            32.68	
Discovery Theater $ (HDTV) 	   59.93
Discovery/TLC/Anim/Trav 4DTV *	 30.15	
TBS Digital $ * 	                    32.68	
Weather Channel   21.78 (pointless without local weather  in my opinion)
```


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

warriorking said:


> And thats where the problem is going accure...Lots of people are unaware other than the small hard core minority in this Forum(No disrespect intended)of the changes coming December 15th, even though they have sent Mailers and Emails , most have either never received or have thrown away the mailings without reading them or have discarded the Emails , In most of the Emails and mailers the announced changes seem to be in small print , In my case no Email or Mailing has been sent at all.... December 16th will be a busy day for the CSR's at Direct...


for whatever reason, DTV wont send me emails like this announcing the changes. I tried getting back on their list, resubbing thru the website, changing options of my interests, resaving, etc etc.

When i asked them about it a while ago, she said it looks like you are all set up just fine and the only way i can make this work would be if i canceled your account and started a new one. I dont know if she meant email or programming account but i didnt ask. I didnt want to try either. So this is pretty bad that i'm asking for their spam and they wont give it to me! I do enjoy the monthly ppv emails

One thing i have gotten is emails right after calls to them with generic "you can go to directv.com to do XYZ'.

I guess in late November I'm going to have to email and ask about the five bucks. I dont need a surprise in december or trying to get credits.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

The HDNet folks certainly aren't suing D* because HDNet is going to make "more" money with D* moving their content to a pay tier. That's a no-brainer. So obviously they feel that this will cost them money. And obviously, D* is doing it because D* thinks it will make them "more" money. 

So it comes down to how much it will cost me. (And the rest of the consumers) Pretty obvious its going to cost me five or ten more dollars. So I side with HDNet. That's pretty simple. But. . . consumers beware of the impending onslaught of DirecTV fuzzy math. Charging more for less is good for you.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> ... But. . . consumers beware of the impending onslaught of DirecTV fuzzy math. Charging more for less is good for you.


How is charging 50% more money ($10 to $15) for 700% more product (~10 channels to 70+ channels) charging more for less? Seems like good value to me. It's an even greater value percentage wise if you opt out of the new tier.

Who's employing fuzzy math?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

KurtV said:


> How is charging 50% more money ($10 to $15) for 700% more product (~10 channels to 70+ channels) charging more for less? Seems like good value to me. It's an even greater value percentage wise if you opt out of the new tier.
> 
> Who's employing fuzzy math?


If your read carefully, I referred to HDNet.

And the onslaught begins. . .


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ...and thus have decided to go down the route of a law suit.
> 
> Rather then a re-negotiation of the contract that could get HDNet guaranteed back into the "base" package.


I would not assume that no negotiations or discussions took place prior to the filing of the lawsuit.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Hansen said:


> I would not assume that no negotiations or discussions took place prior to the filing of the lawsuit.


Hence why I said I would be intrested to know on what happened BEFORE the filing of the lawsuit


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

KurtV said:


> How is charging 50% more money ($10 to $15) for 700% more product (~10 channels to 70+ channels) charging more for less? Seems like good value to me. It's an even greater value percentage wise if you opt out of the new tier.
> 
> Who's employing fuzzy math?


Do you really believe the 9.99 Base price is going to remain the same? Come March I look for it to raise as well..of course it will not be a price increase simply because Direct will say its not....


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

warriorking said:


> Do you really believe the 9.99 Base price is going to remain the same? Come March I look for it to raise as well..of course it will not be a price increase simply because Direct will say its not....


As I posted previously, in a couple of years when all channels are available in HD, it will be hard for D* to justify resolution-based pricing vs. whether or not the content is truly "premium".

When all channels are "HD", the model should be no different than a couple of years ago, when all channels were "SD". If D* needs to amortize the cost of launching the new sats, they can do so, but will still need to cap any increases based on what the cable and phone competitors are charging for the same content. If not, they risk pricing themselves out of business.

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

warriorking said:


> Do you really believe the 9.99 Base price is going to remain the same? Come March I look for it to raise as well..of course it will not be a price increase simply because Direct will say its not....


That's a different point than the one I was responding to. I have no idea whether D* will raise prices in March or any other month in the future. Prices will probably increase at some point though. When that happens I'll decide whether I want to continue service at the new price. It doesn't really matter what D* or anyone else calls it.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> If your read carefully, I referred to HDNet.
> 
> And the onslaught begins. . .


OK, I guess. You wrote of $5 and %10 increases. $5 is the price of the new tier and includes more channels than just HDNet. I don't know where your $10 figure comes from?


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

newsposter said:


> for the fun of it i took the first google link to C band a la cart pricing and got the following
> 
> http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm
> 
> ...


That would be good for me - my ANNUAL bill would be $90.08 (Discovery channels)


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

itguy05 said:


> That would be good for me - my ANNUAL bill would be $90.08 (Discovery channels)


and mine would be $900.08/month :eek2:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Well, this thread has stumbled off topic .. I've started a new thread with some up-to-date information, so I'm gonna close this thread ..

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=108494


----------

