# ok, how long.......



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

till we get the new channels D* got, well really they didn't get that much, new to them but not to us, I would like to see cnn, tbs ect on E* soon


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I do not expect that it will be very long.

Once the new toy smell wears off we can find out what the new channels really are (whether they are mostly HD or mostly upconvert) and E* can add the good ones.


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

James Long said:


> I do not expect that it will be very long.
> 
> Once the new toy smell wears off we can find out what the new channels really are (whether they are mostly HD or mostly upconvert) and E* can add the good ones.


Sounds good James, any new HD is always exciting and we always look forward to the good stuff!


----------



## MLock (Aug 2, 2007)

(first post in Dish forum)

I think the key here is that you Dish peeps and us Direct peeps don't need to compete, but we both want the two companies to compete. As said in another thread, Dish will have a response. That's fantastic for you, right? You'll get more. I'm pretty certain I have more HD today because of Dish pushing DirecTV.

They compete, we win, no matter who we subscribe to...


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> They compete, we win, no matter who we subscribe to...


Very well stated. Ah, competition.


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

MLock said:


> They compete, we win, no matter who we subscribe to...


Well put.

I wish Dish would let us know if they're going to counter. Also give us our HD locals! I'm on the verge of switching but I'm hoping Dish will give us some infos that might change my mind.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

Richard King said:


> Very well stated. Ah, competition.


Uh, yeah, except when DirecTV wants to play dirty pool and buy up 'exclusives'. There are millions that cannot watch a full NFL package and there will be millions that will not be able to watch a full baseball package and will even be blacked out from games because 'so and so' thinks those games are not in their market.

Competition is great, when all participants are playing on an even playing field.


----------



## MLock (Aug 2, 2007)

I can't see how it's dirty... that's how content providers always separate themselves from the competition. How about the iPhone only on AT&T? Stern only on Sirius? MLB only on XM? NFL only on Sirius? Oh, how about Monday Night Football on ESPN, so the (literally) millions without cable cannot see it?

Retailers do it too... Saks will make a deal with Louis Vuitton for a $800 handbag to be carried exclusively in their stores, locking Nordstrom (and customers who do not have the ability to get to a Saks) out. 

It's a part of capitalism. I can't see the point of anger at D* for doing something very, very standard....


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> Oh, how about Monday Night Football on ESPN, so the (literally) millions without cable cannot see it?


Off subject here but how many people is there really out there that have no cable or Satellite?
I think it's very few if you ask me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ssmith10pn said:


> Off subject here but how many people is there really out there that have no cable or Satellite?
> I think it's very few if you ask me.


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54

US Television Households (December 2006) - 111,300,000

Basic Cable Subscribers (June 2007) - 65,500,000
Cable Penetration of TV Households (June 2007) - 58.8%

Subscribers to Non-Cable Multichannel Video Program Distributors (June 2007) - 31,700,000

I don't completely trust the numbers on that page (the homes passed figures seem out of whack compared to the US Television Households figure). But it does appear that most people with TV have either cable or a non-cable system.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

The best guess is that about 85 % of US homes have DBS or cable (this excludes the few that have both - but that number is probably insignificant).


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> I don't completely trust the numbers on that page (the homes passed figures seem out of whack compared to the US Television Households figure). But it does appear that most people with TV have either cable or a non-cable system.


Thats my thoughts also.
I mean really.... Who in 2007 besides people over 70 would be satisfied with only 4 networks?


----------



## MLock (Aug 2, 2007)

ssmith10pn said:


> Thats my thoughts also.
> I mean really.... Who in 2007 besides people over 70 would be satisfied with only 4 networks?


Millions. Not a majority, of course, but millions.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

davethestalker said:


> Uh, yeah, except when DirecTV wants to play dirty pool and buy up 'exclusives'. There are millions that cannot watch a full NFL package and there will be millions that will not be able to watch a full baseball package and will even be blacked out from games because 'so and so' thinks those games are not in their market.
> 
> Competition is great, when all participants are playing on an even playing field.


And I'm sure there are millions who won't pay that price. What percentage of D* subs take those expensive sports packages>?

Sports ? Oh yes that thing you used to be able to tune in on your local tv stations and watch for free.

If it doesn't cost me extra they have a chance for me to watch it as long as it is part of a tier that I have. Paying what I consider big bucks isn't happening. I'd rather meet the payments on student loans and CC bills and utilities and so on.


----------



## BrianG (Jul 9, 2006)

It seemed like E* had a lead that they would not let anyone beat. Now I see an aggresive move on the part of D* and they already have more premium movie channels in HD and they have Sci Fi HD. I pay good money for the premium movie channels so it looks like I will be jumping ship from E* to D* unless I see an annoucement from E* really quick here.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

MLock said:


> I can't see how it's dirty... that's how content providers always separate themselves from the competition. How about the iPhone only on AT&T? Stern only on Sirius? MLB only on XM? NFL only on Sirius? Oh, how about Monday Night Football on ESPN, so the (literally) millions without cable cannot see it?
> 
> Retailers do it too... Saks will make a deal with Louis Vuitton for a $800 handbag to be carried exclusively in their stores, locking Nordstrom (and customers who do not have the ability to get to a Saks) out.
> 
> It's a part of capitalism. I can't see the point of anger at D* for doing something very, very standard....


I agree 100%. On a personal note, I would love to see D* lose it's exclusivity deal on NFLST. Maybe the price would drop. Because right now, it's just insane money.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

James Long said:


> I do not expect that it will be very long.
> 
> Once the new toy smell wears off we can find out what the new channels really are (whether they are mostly HD or mostly upconvert) and E* can add the good ones.


So you're saying that the E* approach to adding HD channels is going to be to wait until D* adds them so people can look to see which ones are "the good ones", and then add those? :eek2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No ... just that in a month (if the D* guys answer honestly) we will know just how little we will be missing by not having an upconvert channel. E* can make their own decisions on what is worthy to be carried.

How many E* folks love their A&E?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Why? Because he vast majority of TV viewers don't know what HD really is. Of the 5 other people that I know that have HD, one had it setup properly, 2 of them though it was great that they had HD programming but were hooked to the TV via S-video, the other 2 didn't even have HD programming but really enjoyed their SD programmming that was streached to 16:9 thinking all along they really were watching HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I remember when DirecTV had UniversalHD and Dish didn't. I wanted that channel... then Dish added it, but in MPEG4 and you had to upgrade. Dish had UniversalHD in "free preview" mode during the Olympics... and as a result of that, I realized I didn't need to have UniversalHD as much as I thought!

So I waited most of that year and didn't go to an MPEG4 receiver until last November. By then UniversalHD had improved a bit and I was glad to have it. But the wait didn't kill me after all.


----------



## Tibs (Jul 6, 2007)

I cant stand stretching - But at least my TV lets me make it back to pillar mode so it resembles 4x3 by hitting the wide button a few times. Its not perfect, but its better then playing "Fun House of Mirrors"

Hopefully everyone screams loud enough they can hear and react and correct this stretch junk.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Will AT&T buy dish and then get the lock on all other remaining HD programs to come??

Nah I am dreaming( fooling myself into believing that CHARLIE WILL OPEN his POCKET BOOK to get other HD programing. Charlie is hoping that the new HD receiver with Sling box included in the receiver will bring in new customers).


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

When the"price is right" you will see more HD.


----------

