# True HD channels - snakes in a barrel



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

MediaBiz and SkyReport do the research and stick a pin in those over-inflated bubbles of HD channel counts. They begin, logically, by defining what constitutes a national HD channel. Still, getting an accurate count is a challenge akin to counting snakes in a barrel.


> *SkyReport*
> 
> HD ... The REAL Numbers
> 
> At the risk of getting ourselves tarred and feathered, we're jumping yet again into the HD waters. Last week's series of stories on the DIRECTV/DISH HD counts brought in a LOT of mail ... questions, suggestions and and a certain amount of fire-breathing. ...


Full story @ http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=14049


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

Are they trying to claim that DIRECTV's RSNs are not "available nationwide" and that's why they won't count any of them? That's absurd.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)




----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

xzi said:


> Are they trying to claim that DIRECTV's RSNs are not "available nationwide" and that's why they won't count any of them? That's absurd.


It looks like to me the standard they are using are actual national HD channels. Which by definition wouldn't include a network intended for regional viewers. It seems as good as any definition to me, it at least allows an apples to apples comparison w/out hype and spin. Of course any comparison does come down to what each individual wants, after all it doesn't matter which service has more HD channels if it doesn't have the one(s) you want!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> In our definition, that means a channel that (1) labels itself an "HD" network; (2) is available nationwide; (3) is NOT a pay-per-view or VOD service; and (4) is not a broadcaster.


The article has DirecTV 68 and DISH 85 ... but they won't share their list on the web.

Add two to DirecTV for today's additions (although SkyReport does not count "broadcasters", so perhaps not). Add the 22 full time RSNs for 90 ... Still missing something. On the DISH side SkyReport is 17 channels short of my count. Snakes in a barrel indeed!

Mine:E* now has 102 Channels of HD (plus 39 RSNs/Alts, 14 PPV and "up to 59" VOD).
D* now has 95 Channels of HD (_with_ 22 full time RSN, plus 47 RSNs/Alts and 29 PPV).
D* is planning to launch 30 channels in May.
(Count includes Univision East and Telefutura West launched 4/28)
Showing my work​
I agree that RSNs are not nationwide content ... too many blackouts (yes, there are blackouts on ESPN but there are less of them as ESPN generally gets national rights minus an area instead of rights for just a small area of the nation). But they should count for something as they do add to the value of a package.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I hate Dish counting part-time RSNs... I also hate DirecTV counting ALL full-time RSNs, because they are "Regional" sports channels... Most DirecTV customers do not get all of those RSNs... but even the few who pony up for a package that has them all, pro sports are blacked out on them... which kinda makes them equivalent to part-time again!

I also don't like either company counting all their PPV and VOD as multiple channels.

There are some grey areas with channels that aren't really showing HD yet, or who go into "Paid Programming" during the overnight... but to me the most egregious is counting the RSNs, PPVs, and VODs... and BOTH companies know this which is why they are both counting them in different ways.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

But if you subscribe to MLB-EI, for example, all of a sudden you get a whole lot more HD on DIRECTV... nationwide... simply because they carry all those Full-time RSNs. They should absolutely be counted, just like premiums are counted even though not all subscribers choose to get them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

xzi said:


> But if you subscribe to MLB-EI, for example, all of a sudden you get a whole lot more HD on DIRECTV... nationwide... simply because they carry all those Full-time RSNs. They should absolutely be counted, just like premiums are counted even though not all subscribers choose to get them.


Can't get MLB-EI on Dish though 

As for premiums vs RSNs... Everyone who subscribes to HD and HBO will get all the same HBO channels in HD. But everyone who gets RSNs will not get the same programming from those RSNs, since pro sports out-of-market will be blacked out... which is why I don't think it is fair to count all of those channels.

But then I don't really pay much attention to the channel "counts".. rather I check to see if the channels I want to watch are available instead.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Can't get MLB-EI on Dish though
> 
> As for premiums vs RSNs... Everyone who subscribes to HD and HBO will get all the same HBO channels in HD. But everyone who gets RSNs will not get the same programming from those RSNs, since pro sports out-of-market will be blacked out... which is why I don't think it is fair to count all of those channels.
> 
> But then I don't really pay much attention to the channel "counts".. rather I check to see if the channels I want to watch are available instead.


So because Dish didn't get MLB-EI, DIRECTV shouldn't count all their HD RSNs, which when you buy MLB-EI and Sports Pack are ALL 24/7 HD networks, nationwide?

Nonsense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

xzi said:


> So because Dish didn't get MLB-EI, DIRECTV shouldn't count all their HD RSNs,


Sounds good to me. 



> which when you buy MLB-EI and Sports Pack are ALL 24/7 HD networks, nationwide?


24/7/365 less every professional sport outside of it's own regional coverage area. Unless you like spending hundreds of dollars for every season ticket of every sport there are going to be important holes.

There is a value to having those channels available ... but to count them the same as a 24/7 national feed? I'd rather not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SkyReport has posted a followup article.


> "Wouldn't it be great," a friend of ours asked, "if we could all agree on a definition of what constitutes an HD channel?"
> 
> No kidding. But we don't. Heck, we don't even all agree on a definition for "HD." Or, for that matter, "channel."


http://www.mediabiz.com/news/skyreport/?edit_id=14072

The discussion continues in the new thread ...
The Great HD Debate


----------

