# RSNs and JIP



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Would anyone in their right mind believe what I was just told in Dish Network chat that tonight's 9 PM Blackhawks game, available from the start in SD, is being JIP'd in HD at 9:30 because "the provider is not making the HD broadcast available" for that first half hour? I assume it is a Dish issue with so much HD sports programming on tonight. Just tell the truth.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

LOL it's actually true in a sense but that is for Canadaian viewers. Rogers Sports net cannot broadcast until 8:30 central time because TSN has an exclusive window agreement with the NHL. Which was 6-8:30

The real reason is Dish continues to hose us with very limited bandwidth for RSN HD channels. So likely Dish had to wait for an early game to end before they can show the late game.


----------



## slt101 (Jun 18, 2010)

John W said:


> Would anyone in their right mind believe what I was just told in Dish Network chat that tonight's 9 PM Blackhawks game, available from the start in SD, is being JIP'd in HD at 9:30 because "the provider is not making the HD broadcast available" for that first half hour? I assume it is a Dish issue with so much HD sports programming on tonight. Just tell the truth.


I used to get the same answer from Dish that it was the providers fault although when I pushed them for a better reason they actually said that they did not have the bandwidth to do all games in HD. Wait till baseball starts and they still have basketball and hockey still going on, it gets even worse. At least you get your RSN's, here in NY they took MSG off so there is no sports this winter.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

lol we got oprah in hd!!!


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

John W said:


> I assume it is a Dish issue with so much HD sports programming on tonight.


The DirecTV Guide had "Flames @ Blackhawks (JIP)" for the Calgary channel; but the Comcast Chicago channel didn't have JIP listed. First time I've ever seen "JIP" on the guide.

From NHL.com:


> CALGARY - Due to NHL broadcast exclusivities, the Rogers Sportsnet West broadcast of the Calgary Flames game vs.Chicago Blackhawks on Wednesday, March 2 will be joined in progress at 7:30 P.M. (MT),
> 
> NHL broadcast exclusivities will also delay the Wednesday, March 9th Sportsnet West broadcast of the Calgary Flames vs. the Dallas Stars until 7:30 P.M. (MT).


Must have been the Pittsburgh/Toronto game on Versus that caused this to happen.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

Good grief I guess what I explained isn't credible enough. Nothing to do with Versus.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

ehren said:


> lol we got oprah in hd!!!


What more could we ask for?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

ehren said:


> lol we got oprah in hd!!!


Well? Something is better than nothing.


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

Jhon69 said:


> Well? Something is better than nothing.


No. Not even close. :nono:


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

trh said:


> The DirecTV Guide had "Flames @ Blackhawks (JIP)" for the Calgary channel; but the Comcast Chicago channel didn't have JIP listed. First time I've ever seen "JIP" on the guide.
> 
> From NHL.com: Must have been the Pittsburgh/Toronto game on Versus that caused this to happen.


Well CSN Chicago some time does do (JIP) for some FSN stuff.

Also a game on CSN + HD will move over to the main channel (when the game on the main channel is over) with it also still being on CSN + to the end.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

ehren said:


> LOL it's actually true in a sense but that is for Canadaian viewers. Rogers Sports net cannot broadcast until 8:30 central time because TSN has an exclusive window agreement with the NHL. Which was 6-8:30


but if there is a WGN game then that exclusive does not blackout to the wgn games. Canadaian WGN is WGN 9.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

ehren said:


> The real reason is Dish continues to hose us with very limited bandwidth for RSN HD channels. So likely Dish had to wait for an early game to end before they can show the late game.


Both Dish and DirecTV have limited satellite bandwidth. DirecTV has chosen, for good or bad, to use much of their bandwidth for RSNs in HD, while Dish, for good or bad, has chosen to use a similar amount of bandwidth for national HD networks that DirecTV doesn't carry. Obviously, customers of both services would prefer to have everything, but for a number of reasons, that isn't possible, so you have to choose the service that best fits your needs.

If HD RSNs are a priority, then being a Dish subscriber doesn't make a lot of sense. If national HD networks are more important to you (BBCA, AMC, etc.), then being a DirecTV subscriber doesn't make a lot of sense.

Constantly complaining about something that you know isn't going to change is just pointless.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

YAY! and I will keep annoying you until you jump off the Bay bridge.


----------



## SWTESTER (Apr 7, 2004)

BattleZone said:


> Both Dish and DirecTV have limited satellite bandwidth. DirecTV has chosen, for good or bad, to use much of their bandwidth for RSNs in HD, while Dish, for good or bad, has chosen to use a similar amount of bandwidth for national HD networks that DirecTV doesn't carry. Obviously, customers of both services would prefer to have everything, but for a number of reasons, that isn't possible, so you have to choose the service that best fits your needs.
> 
> If HD RSNs are a priority, then being a Dish subscriber doesn't make a lot of sense. If national HD networks are more important to you (BBCA, AMC, etc.), then being a DirecTV subscriber doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> Constantly complaining about something that you know isn't going to change is just pointless.


We are trying to annoy DISH. :lol:  :hurah: 
RSN's in HD DISH You are losing lots of subscribers.
I will switch to Directv for baseball as Frontier has a really good bundling deal.


----------



## ENDContra (Dec 8, 2006)

Similar issue a few weeks ago when Rod Brind'Amours jersey was retired. The ceremony was at 7pm with the game at 8...game was in HD, ceremony was only available in SD. This wasnt a matter of lack of bandwidth (because any game going on at 7pm is still going on at 8)...it was just a matter of not paying attention, as there was no reason the entire broadcast wasnt available in HD

My RSN also produces a lot of college games in widescreen (not HD)...I realize that not being HD should put them low on the totem pole, but when there are plenty of slots available, theres no excuse for not including them...and since FSN framed them for 16:9, it was awful to watch, as the ball was routinely off screen during play.

My contract is up this summer, and Im very much leaning toward switching to DirecTV. I always hear how Dish is supposed to be cheaper, and yet even after you remove the promos, DirecTV still comes out ahead (at least for what I want)...


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

None of us will ever debate that if you want full time rsns you'll prefer direct.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> None of us will ever debate that if you want full time rsns you'll prefer direct.


None of us? Speak for yourself. If you NEED RSN's right now then you need "D", but if you want "E" and RSN's in HD 24/7 then this is a good place to let Charlie know that to many, RSN's in HD 24/7 is a big deal. We know from this venue right here that a substantial number of subs have departed and the RSN issue is mentioned many many times as a primary reason. I want RSN's in HD 24/7 and I'll pay extra for it if it's at least offered. I think many would be in that boat.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Maybe I should have phrased it as "Yes, Direct has 24/7 HD RSNs and we don't, and aren't likely to for a long while"? 

Jeez, Sully, don't jump down my throat.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> Maybe I should have phrased it as "Yes, Direct has 24/7 HD RSNs and we don't, and aren't likely to for a long while"?
> 
> Jeez, Sully, don't jump down my throat.


Sorry, didn't mean to jump. I just don't understand why "D" can give us RSN's in HD 24/7 and "E" cannot. I've heard all the blah blah blah about the national HD channels that "E" offers and "D" doesn't and if you want movies you need "E" and if you want sports you need "D". After years of hearing this malarky it seems that everybody just accepts that as the status quo. Comon, what is different about the infrastructure between "E" and "D"? Does one have more sats in orbit? Why do we have JIP? How is it that when nobody else in playing during a given time period we still are watching a live broadcast in SD? I'm not asking why we don't have RSN's in HD 24/7, I'm asking why "D" does and "E" doesn't. It can't simply be that "E" has more national HD channels.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

First I don't blame anyone who has a priority for full time HD RSN's, or for the Yes and MSG networks to switch to Direct. Because of the sum of what Dish offers to me, though a huge Red Sox fan, I would put up with some games in SD. If I could not get NESN at all, that would be a different story and I would weigh my options.

Second, Yes, it can be attributed to MANY more HD channels being carried by Dish. I didn't even realize how many more till I looked at the Direct site. It is somewhere around 15 more package channels in HD, something like another 10 overall, and that's not counting the Platinum pack from dish which has more than Direct has.
I do not know how many slots Direct has compared to Dish, but that too could be a reason, it seems Dish carries more international programming.
At times during the year, Direct of course carries NFL & MLB, but not really at the same time too much also. But I do not know, does Direct carry as many locals? There is alot that goes into why.

I guess my point is, what is YOUR reason why Dish would not offer full time RSN HD?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

inazsully said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to jump. I just don't understand why "D" can give us RSN's in HD 24/7 and "E" cannot. I've heard all the blah blah blah about the national HD channels that "E" offers and "D" doesn't and if you want movies you need "E" and if you want sports you need "D". After years of hearing this malarky it seems that everybody just accepts that as the status quo. Comon, what is different about the infrastructure between "E" and "D"? Does one have more sats in orbit? Why do we have JIP? How is it that when nobody else in playing during a given time period we still are watching a live broadcast in SD? I'm not asking why we don't have RSN's in HD 24/7, I'm asking why "D" does and "E" doesn't. It can't simply be that "E" has more national HD channels.


Not only CAN it be, but in fact, it IS the reason, or at least, the primary reason.

Dish has many more sats than DirecTV, but much of Dish's available bandwidth is lost to duplication, as Dish has two "Arcs" of satellites where all of the national channels are duplicated. DirecTV, being first to the DBS game, got the rights to the prime location at 101W (center of CONUS), and so they only have a single group of sats with no duplication.

But, both companies have a limited amount of bandwidth, and both are using nearly all of what they have. Dish would need something like 5-6 entire transponders, on BOTH Arcs, to add full-time RSNs. That much transponder space simply isn't available, as it's currently being used by other national HD channels. Dish carries something like 29 HD channels that DirecTV doesn't carry, and there are something like 31 HD RSNs that DirecTV carries that Dish doesn't. Both services have 1 or 2 transponders worth of available space, but nothing like the space that would allow either service to add everything the other has.

Then, of course, there is the money issue. RSNs are expensive, and Charlie simply doesn't want to pay for them, because he thinks that the majority of Dish subscribers don't want to pay for them. DirecTV carries them because sports is DirecTV's primary specialty, enough to sacrifice other national HD channels that some of their subscribers really want.

You can choose to believe what you want, but the facts in the matter are well known and not at all in question. You can verify them from a number of sources, including press releases and investor meeting transcripts from the last 10 years from both companies. It isn't a secret.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

BattleZone said:


> Not only CAN it be, but in fact, it IS the reason, or at least, the primary reason.
> 
> Dish has many more sats than DirecTV, but much of Dish's available bandwidth is lost to duplication, as Dish has two "Arcs" of satellites where all of the national channels are duplicated. DirecTV, being first to the DBS game, got the rights to the prime location at 101W (center of CONUS), and so they only have a single group of sats with no duplication.
> 
> ...


D* also uses it PPV HD channels for the RSN HD over flow.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> Dish has many more sats than DirecTV, but much of Dish's available bandwidth is lost to duplication, as Dish has two "Arcs" of satellites where all of the national channels are duplicated. DirecTV, being first to the DBS game, got the rights to the prime location at 101W (center of CONUS), and so they only have a single group of sats with no duplication.


110 and 119 are not that far off ... and DISH ended up with more transponder space at 110 and 119 than DirecTV has across all three DBS locations (50 instead of 46 - before adding 129). What makes a difference (for HD) is DirecTV's use of Ka satellites at 99, 101 and 103.



> Dish carries something like 29 HD channels that DirecTV doesn't carry, and there are something like 31 HD RSNs that DirecTV carries that Dish doesn't. Both services have 1 or 2 transponders worth of available space, but nothing like the space that would allow either service to add everything the other has.


DISH has 34 HD channels that DirecTV doesn't (including 11 that DirecTV does not carry in SD). DirecTV has 17 HD channels DISH doesn't (including 6 that DISH does not carry in SD). RSNs add to this figure (see next paragraph). As far as available space ... DISH has room on Western Arc for 8 channels - 1 transponder's worth - unless they give up hope of offering HD distants and use that space. (so your 1-2 is correct). DirecTV's available space works out to be closer to 30 channels. About 6 Ka transponders.

DirecTV also has 29 24/7 HD RSNs ... no fooling around wondering if something in HD on your RSN will be on the "game only" channel. No "partial contracts" to carry x number of an RSN's HD games. No JIP unless the RSN itself is joining a game in progress. Pure RSNs. And when more than one HD game is available in an area they also have alternate feeds. Carrying up to 60 HD RSNs at a time instead of a maximum of 12 games.



> RSNs are expensive, and Charlie simply doesn't want to pay for them, because he thinks that the majority of Dish subscribers don't want to pay for them.


I believe that decision is beginning to hurt. While most DISH subscribers probably don't care about the expensive national single sport packages that DirecTV carries, missing their own RSN is noticeable. Two years ago getting a "game only" feed worked as not many games were in HD. But now there is a lot of HD content that DISH subscribers are missing.

Getting DISH's 29 RSNs in HD 24/7 would be a start. One that would require either four more transponders and the use of all the current temporary RSNs or cramming more HDs on a transponder. I believe DISH is beyond the point where they can just say "it is not important" or "it is too expensive". They may have already reached that point in negotiations with FoxSports. At some point providers are going to charge for HD whether the carrier uses the feeds or not ... or charge more for not carrying the HD feed. RSNs cannot be ignored forever.



JoeTheDragon said:


> D* also uses it PPV HD channels for the RSN HD over flow.


Fortunately DirecTV has the space to have ~41 temporary channels that can be used for PPVs or sports. That is not counting their vacant transponders. While the 34 24/7 non-sports channels they are missing are noticeable, they have managed to turn the expensive RSNs into a profit center - not a burden. It is time for DISH to do the same.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

tampa8 said:


> First I don't blame anyone who has a priority for full time HD RSN's, or for the Yes and MSG networks to switch to Direct. Because of the sum of what Dish offers to me, though a huge Red Sox fan, I would put up with some games in SD. If I could not get NESN at all, that would be a different story and I would weigh my options.
> 
> Second, Yes, it can be attributed to MANY more HD channels being carried by Dish. I didn't even realize how many more till I looked at the Direct site. It is somewhere around 15 more package channels in HD, something like another 10 overall, and that's not counting the Platinum pack from dish which has more than Direct has.
> I do not know how many slots Direct has compared to Dish, but that too could be a reason, it seems Dish carries more international programming.
> ...


DirecTVs lack of national HD has little to do with bandwidth and more to do with contracts. Whereas Dish's lack of HD RSNs (full time) is about bandwidth allocation.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

James, have you heard from any reliable source as to the future of RSN's at "E"?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inazsully said:


> James, have you heard from any reliable source as to the future of RSN's at "E"?


Nope. Charlie Ergen mentioned them on a Charlie Chat last year but I have no (other) reliable source on the matter.


----------



## azjimbo (Jun 4, 2010)

Would that be from this Charlie Chat?

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=179352

Bob in Chicago (skype): Full time RSNs?
A: We carry all the games. As we launch new satellites we'll have space for more.

if I remember correctly, at the time the "space for more" comment was in regards to the extra programming on the RSNs, i.e. the studio shows.

But his comment specifically said that they "carry all the games." I remember because a few nights later the baseball game came on in SD only, so I called tech support to let them know how unhappy I was (again). "Charlie promised they were all going to be in HD."

It got me nowhere.

As everyone else is, I'm just sitting here frustrated and waiting.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sounds about right. I thought it was fishy at the time because the new satellite launches scheduled are NOT adding bandwidth to Western Arc - so they won't help.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Is the old hunk-o-junk 129 satellilte completely dead? I know it wobbled but if they could change the footprint so it would COVER the western US it could add capacity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

levibluewa said:


> Is the old hunk-o-junk 129 satellilte completely dead? I know it wobbled but if they could change the footprint so it would COVER the western US it could add capacity.


One couldn't place it at 129 as Ciel-2 is there and using all the transponders.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Hmmm, how does Directv get away with 2 sats at 99 and 2 sats at 103 ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

levibluewa said:


> Hmmm, how does Directv get away with 2 sats at 99 and 2 sats at 103 ?


They are not using the same frequencies on both satellites at each location.

All the frequencies (transponders) that DISH can legally transmit on at 129 are covered by the current satellite and are in use.


----------

