# Any new HD channels coming to Dish anytime soon?



## lex61564 (Feb 10, 2004)

With all the new movie channels and stations that are displaying HD content was wondering if anything new was coming to our Dish Network channel line up? At one time it sounded like some Voom channels might be acquired too.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Moved to proper forum for this discussion.


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

Since Dish has made excuses for nearly ALL HD channels that they DON'T carry, I don't think they are in too much of a hurry, which is sad. I thought customers were the ones who decided what was good and what wasn't. Dish has repeatedly made excuses for channels like Trio and Ovation and even Oxygen.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

The real reason no new HD channels on E* or D* for that matter in awhile is called, lack of BANDWIDTH! Once additional bandwidth can be found I am sure their will be additional HD channels added. E* has experimented with increasing FEC and going to 3 HD channels per TP instead of the current 2, if they can do this without downgrading pq this will open space on 110 for an additional 4 HDTV channels. Once the new E10 spotbeam satellite is upp and more conus locals can be moved to a spotbeam this will open some room, their is also a possibility that E* may lease some additional DBS TP's from SES once their new DBS 105.5 satellite is launched and approved by the FCC(not to be confused with FSS at 105) for additional TP's, however all this takes time and until this additional bandwidth can be made available, their can not be any new HDTV channels added. I believe both E* and D* want to increase the number of HDTV channels in their line-ups to stay competitive with cable and also I also read somewhere that 50% of E* and D* new subs added recently have some type of HDTV equipment in their homes.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

Chris Freeland said:


> The real reason no new HD channels on E* or D* for that matter in awhile is called, lack of BANDWIDTH!


But let's not forget that Charlie will continue to tell us that the "real" reason there are no new HD channels is because there is no compelling content. It will be quite interesting to see how this non compelling content will all of a sudden become compelling once bandwidth is available.

It's really sad that Charlie feels the need to lie through his teeth on the chats with his continual "no compelling content" nonsense. A smart CEO would realize that telling the truth would be so much more beneficial to him and his company than trying to deceive his customers. I can understand the lack of bandwidth. I can't stand his lying.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Kind of like Bush and the "weapons of mass destruction " in Iraq and think he is the president of these here United States. I can't stand his lying either. OF course I didn't vote for him and I did choose Dish and old Charlie. I agree lying is never a good thing for a ceo or a president.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Kind of like Bush and the "weapons of mass destruction " in Iraq and think he is the president of these here United States. I can't stand his lying either. OF course I didn't vote for him and I did choose Dish and old Charlie. I agree lying is never a good thing for a ceo or a president.


Charlie would have never invaded Iraq. They don't have enough shopping channels.


----------



## mboy (Jan 17, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Kind of like Bush and the "weapons of mass destruction " in Iraq and think he is the president of these here United States. I can't stand his lying either. OF course I didn't vote for him and I did choose Dish and old Charlie. I agree lying is never a good thing for a ceo or a president.


Yeah, Vote for Kerry so Al-Qeada and other Islamic radical idiots can invade us.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Actually, I believe the terrorists prefer Bush, because he's a "divider, not a uniter" (in sharp contrast to what he might say on the topic). Here's your mandatory link on the subject:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/17/22593/5160

Anyhow, this is off topic. My apologies.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

mboy said:


> Yeah, Vote for Kerry so Al-Qeada and other Islamic radical idiots can invade us.


 I would vote for ANYONE ELSE except Bush. Bush was never elected by the American people anyway , he was appointed by the supreme court. I think Bush and his father attracts the hatred of every terrorist group known to man and that is why we are going through all this crap anyway. He is the great "divider" when it comes to global relationships with all the other countries. Four more years of this crap and we will all have to move to India and China to get a low paid job since he has outsourced all our white collar jobs and given all the illegal aliens from Mexico our minimum wage jobs . :eek2:


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I would vote for ANYONE ELSE except Bush. Bush was never elected by the American people anyway , he was appointed by the supreme court. I think Bush and his father attracts the hatred of every terrorist group known to man and that is why we are going through all this crap anyway. He is the great "divider" when it comes to global relationships with all the other countries. Four more years of this crap and we will all have to move to India and China to get a low paid job since he has outsourced all our white collar jobs and given all the illegal aliens from Mexico our minimum wage jobs . :eek2:


So what are the HDTV offerings in China and India (just wanna know in advance b/f we all relocate) and what kinds of deals does E* or Dtv offer over there? Would I still be able to get my speed channel?


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

Aren't we getting off topic here??? :nono2:


----------



## jerryez (Nov 15, 2002)

Slordak said:


> Actually, I believe the terrorists prefer Bush, because he's a "divider, not a uniter" (in sharp contrast to what he might say on the topic). Here's your mandatory link on the subject:
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/17/22593/5160
> 
> Anyhow, this is off topic. My apologies.


Moderator, please remove this link and close this topic.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Blah blah blah.

Back on topic, do we expect Dish to add Cinemax HD to their line up any time soon? Since their existing Cinemax channels do not carry the Dolby Digital feeds, this would be a huge boon to Cinemax subscribers.


----------



## jcrash (Jul 22, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I would vote for ANYONE ELSE except Bush. Bush was never elected by the American people anyway , he was appointed by the supreme court. I think Bush and his father attracts the hatred of every terrorist group known to man and that is why we are going through all this crap anyway. He is the great "divider" when it comes to global relationships with all the other countries. Four more years of this crap and we will all have to move to India and China to get a low paid job since he has outsourced all our white collar jobs and given all the illegal aliens from Mexico our minimum wage jobs . :eek2:


Bravo!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Slordak said:


> Blah blah blah.
> 
> Back on topic, do we expect Dish to add Cinemax HD to their line up any time soon? Since their existing Cinemax channels do not carry the Dolby Digital feeds, this would be a huge boon to Cinemax subscribers.


Also, for 10 bucks, there oughta be more than 4 channels in the HD pack, no?


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Yes, I don't think having, say, 8-10 HD channels as part of the $9.95 HD package is really that unreasonable. In fact, ESPN-HD should be completely free if you already have ESPN, since it more or less shows nothing but the standard definition feed in "stretch vision". But this is a topic I've remarked on in a number of threads before, so...


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Slordak said:


> Yes, I don't think having, say, 8-10 HD channels as part of the $9.95 HD package is really that unreasonable. In fact, ESPN-HD should be completely free if you already have ESPN, since it more or less shows nothing but the standard definition feed in "stretch vision". But this is a topic I've remarked on in a number of threads before, so...


That's right. ESPN should NOT count. It should be free with ESPN, the same as HBO-HD, SHO-HD, or CBS-HD are with their respective SD packages.

That stretched SD image is ridiculous and unwatchable. Why not just broadcast it in SD uncompressed (or less compressed), the way local OTA digital stations do. Or, why can't they "stretch" it in an equivalent manner to Sony's "wide zoom" or even the 811's "partial zoom" where the image doesn't look so misshapen and stumpy?

HDNet movies is pretty useless too. Time Warner and Viacom have the rights to most movie content, which leaves mostly crap. It's the same reason AMC no longer has any true "classics".

So, we basically get two worthwile HD channels for our $10/month: Discovery-HD and HDNet. That's it.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

garypen said:


> Also, for 10 bucks, there oughta be more than 4 channels in the HD pack, no?


It was only a short while ago that for 9.99 you got HD-Discovery and that was it. Hopefully more HD is on the way, but it sure is taking the slow road to SoCal..


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

WeeJavaDude said:


> It was only a short while ago that for 9.99 you got HD-Discovery and that was it. Hopefully more HD is on the way, but it sure is taking the slow road to SoCal..


You've got all the beautiful weather down there. You should be outside playing, not inside watching TV! :lol:


----------



## amit5roy5 (Mar 4, 2004)

I have no idea where Charlie thought that NICKTOONS TV was a waste of bandwith. It is great for kids. Anyway, I thought Dish Network wanted to add as many channels as possible. I guess that vision is gone.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

richjr said:


> So what are the HDTV offerings in China and India (just wanna know in advance b/f we all relocate) and what kinds of deals does E* or Dtv offer over there? Would I still be able to get my speed channel?


I don't know about HD, but when I lived in the UAE in 94-96 we had a satellite feed from one of Murdoch's networks with a footprint centered on India. They were advertising 16x9 TV's long before they were available over here. The middle class in India is larger than the entire population of the US. There were no monthly fees either. A guy set up a big dish on the roof of our apt. building, sold us the STB, and that was it.

At that time, there wasn't much English programming, but it was also 10 years ago, when HD didn't even exist. I did become very familiar with cricket since the World Cup was being played on the sub-continent that year. Cricket is even better to nap to than baseball.

-Chris


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

What dish could at least do is put up all the west coast feeds of the existing HD channels on 148. Yeah I realize that those in the NE would not be able to receive them and a lot of people would need a 148 dish and probably the DPP44 switch.

But, as a stopgap until another satellite is found, it would sure make the west coast people happy not to have to buy a 921 to record all the east coast feeds to time shift them 2 hours. This should not really cost Dish anything other than the up-link equipment. I bet they can put up the west coast feeds of HBO and SHO without paying more. Dish has about 12 EMPTY transponders on 148, just waiting for action.

75% of the US could probably get 148. I know the NE people would miss out on the channels, but they are already missing out since the west coast feed is not up anyways, why deny the west coast because the east coast misses out.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

garypen said:


> Also, for 10 bucks, there oughta be more than 4 channels in the HD pack, no?


Yes I agree and Directv charges $10.99 for the same HD channels. Some retailers mislead you thinking for your $10 on Dish you'll get Showtime HD and HBO HD with that but that is not the case unless you are subscribing to that premium package.

I don't know why they don't add the Starz! HD channel.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

amit5roy5 said:


> I have no idea where Charlie thought that NICKTOONS TV was a waste of bandwith. It is great for kids. Anyway, I thought Dish Network wanted to add as many channels as possible. I guess that vision is gone.


I think that's Charlie's default answer to adding any new channel now-a-days.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Mike123abc said:


> What dish could at least do is put up all the west coast feeds of the existing HD channels on 148.


An excellent idea! Of course, those with an 811 and DishPro gear can't actually receive 148. But, I'm sure they'll take care of that minor bug in a couple of updates.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

garypen said:


> An excellent idea! Of course, those with an 811 and DishPro gear can't actually receive 148. But, I'm sure they'll take care of that minor bug in a couple of updates.


Fix it? No way! Just another way to torture the poor HDTV people!

It is hard to believe that they have not patched the 811 for 148 as a special hot fix...


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Yeah, I just found this out tonight.....my 921 failed so after 2 weeks, Dish shipped me a loaner 811...which doesn't get 148.....which it took 2 tech CSRs an hour to figure out.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Mike123abc said:


> It is hard to believe that they have not patched the 811 for 148 as a special hot fix...


It sure is.

To borrow the screen name of a forum member, they really ought to call it Dish NotWork.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

amit5roy5 said:


> I have no idea where Charlie thought that NICKTOONS TV was a waste of bandwith.


I have no idea where people believe they heard Charlie say that. He describes certain channels as "low interest", and he described uncarried HD channels as "not compelling". But he has not called the channels a waste of bandwidth.



Mike123abc said:


> What dish could at least do is put up all the west coast feeds of the existing HD channels on 148. Yeah I realize that those in the NE would not be able to receive them and a lot of people would need a 148 dish and probably the DPP44 switch.
> . . .
> Dish has about 12 EMPTY transponders on 148, just waiting for action.


Putting up the west coast HDs on 148 is a good idea, even better than trying to put them on a CONUS bird. And all they would have to do is replace the HBO/SHO feeds already on 148 with the west versions.

Transponder use at 148 -
TP1 Internationals - 11 Video 2 Audio
TP2 Locals / Internal - 7 Video
TP3 Misc - 12 Video
TP4 Locals - 11 Video
TP5 Testing 2 Channels
TP6 Locals - 3 Video
TP7 Internationals - 9 Video 1 Audio
TP8 Locals - 8 Video
TP9 Internationals / Misc - 8 Video 1 Audio
TP10 HD PPV - 1 Channel
TP11 Internationals - 10 Video
TP12 Locals - 4 Video
TP13 CBS HD / Hotzone - 3 Channels
TP14 Testing 4 Channels (HD?)
TP15 Internationals - 1 Video
TP16 - none listed -
TP17 HBO/SHO HD - 2 Channels
TP18 Testing 12 Channels
TP19 Internationals / Misc - 7 Video 2 Audio and Data
TP20 Testing 9 Channels
TP21 Locals - 11 Video
TP22 - none listed -
TP23 Internal - 12 Video 4 Audio and Data
TP24 - none listed -
TP25 Locals - 11 Video
TP26 - none listed -
TP27 Locals - 10 Video
TP28 - none listed -
TP29 Locals - 8 Video
TP30 - none listed -
TP31 Testing 3 Channels (HD)
TP32 - none listed -
7 vacant transponders, 5 more in use for tests.

JL


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2004)

I really think dish and direct for that matter have a real problem. In the past off air channels weren't really an option because most people couldn't get a good signal.

Now, with dtv you get a perfect signal. In Atlanta I have a choice of about 10 hd stations that I get perfectly. I honestly have found myself not watching dish much anymore because it is fuzzy compared to off air. 

I'm considering dropping dish altogether and going off air. The signal is much better. I can't stand to watch SD programming anymore. I'm wondering why I continue to pay $60 for fuzzy programming.

Dish refusal to push much hd programming on channels I used to watch (disc, tlc, mtv, tech) has resulted in shifting my viewing habit away from them.


----------



## bcadotte1 (Feb 16, 2004)

donald said:


> Dish refusal to push much hd programming on channels I used to watch (disc, tlc, mtv, tech) has resulted in shifting my viewing habit away from them.


There is no Dish refusal,those channels do not exist except for discovery,no MTV-HD,no TLC-HD and no TechTV-HD the only ones that Dish does not carry are Starz-HD(wow 2-4 new movies a month in HD)and Cinemax(a HBO stepchild,movies on HBO are shown here 1-2 months later)and Bravo the same old shows recycled every 3 hours-wow)when they are new channels on(TNT in may)maybe they will carry them but they do not create content the stations do.


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

and TMC HD


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2004)

"There is no Dish refusal,those channels do not exist except for discovery,no MTV-HD,no TLC-HD and no TechTV-HD"


I was careful to use "push". I realize they aren't there today I was suggesting that satellite providers and cable have put themselves in a competitive disadvantage by not being proactive about hd content. I think that cable and dish and direct forever has offered a better signal primarily and more channels secondarily for money. Now all of a sudden in major markets they have the worst signal. The free channels offer a much better picture and folks such as I are starting to second guess paying a premium for lower quality images.

Perhaps the MTV/TLC/TECH channels will be HD soon but by then viewing habits may have changed.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

jcrash said:


> Bravo!


Yes, this is an HD channel which should be added. Great on topic post, jcrash! :lol:


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Mike123abc said:


> Dish has about 12 EMPTY transponders on 148, just waiting for action.


Are you sure? If that's true then is the bird capable of broadcasting on those extra transponders?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

bcadotte1 said:


> There is no Dish refusal,those channels do not exist except for discovery,no MTV-HD,no TLC-HD and no TechTV-HD the only ones that Dish does not carry are Starz-HD(wow 2-4 new movies a month in HD)and Cinemax(a HBO stepchild,movies on HBO are shown here 1-2 months later)and Bravo the same old shows recycled every 3 hours-wow)when they are new channels on(TNT in may)maybe they will carry them but they do not create content the stations do.


What about the following HD channels?

HBO - East and West feed?
Cinamax - East and West Feed?
Showtime - East and West Feed?
The Movie Channel?
Encore?
Starz - East and West Feed?
Bravo HD?
Playboy Channel HD?
MTV HD - starting next month

The channels are out there. And since most of us don't want to shell out $1,000 for a PVR HD, we need the west and east feeds! Recycled shows every three hours are fine because they change every few days. Just like Discovery HD recycles their programs.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

Oh, I forgot, here are the movies for today in High Definition:

HBO -- Old School, Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, The Beautician and the Beast, Life or Something like It, Catch Me if You Can, Six Feet Under (The Eye Inside), The Sopranos (Where's Johnny?), A Mighty Wind

Showtime -- Chris Isaak (Taking Off), Flatliners, Behind the Red Door, She's Having a Baby, Serving Sara, Barbershop, Star Trek: Nemesis, The L Word (Liberally), Soul Food (We Plan)

Starz - The Emperor's Club, About Schmidt, Black Hawk Down

Cinamax - Deliver Us from Eva, Dead Presidents, Two Weeks Notice, Quiz Show, The Good Thief, Showtime, Strictly Business, Private Parts, The Relic, RoboCop, National Security

Encore HD - Sling Blade, Commando, 40 Days And 40 Nights, 

The Movie Channel HD - Taking Off, Barbershop, Flatliners, Behind The Red Door, She's Having A Baby, Serving Sara, Barbershop, Star Trek: Nemesis, Liberally, We Plan. 

And that's just today...


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

Split Decisions WIDESCREEN OAR UPCONV 

The Movie Channel HD was listed incorrectly. The correct listings for today are: Gladiator, Green Card, Die Another Day, My First Mister, An Officer And A Gentleman, Donnie Brasco, Bull Durham. 

All in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Richardson said:


> Are you sure? If that's true then is the bird capable of broadcasting on those extra transponders?


See the list above in this thread. E* has 7 unused and 5 they are using for tests.

148 is served by E*1 and E*2 ... I have seen no reports of either bird completely losing a transponder forever (such as E*3 losing TP28) so all 32 should be available.

JL


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

bcadotte1 said:


> There is no Dish refusal,those channels do not exist except for discovery,no MTV-HD,no TLC-HD and no TechTV-HD the only ones that Dish does not carry are Starz-HD(wow 2-4 new movies a month in HD)and Cinemax(a HBO stepchild,movies on HBO are shown here 1-2 months later)and Bravo the same old shows recycled every 3 hours-wow)when they are new channels on(TNT in may)maybe they will carry them but they do not create content the stations do.


Now, if Cinemax isn't good enough for you, then how in the world TNT? They have virtually no original programming, mostly reruns of prime-time shows, movies after they have done the rounds for years on all of the movie channels, about 60 NBA games, and yes about 12 Nascar races. So basically TNT would be for the 60 NBA games and 12 Nascar races. TNT is way overrated IMHO.
Bravo has ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING(as lame as and hated as it is among conservatives). ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING, IMHO is what should be prioritized above all. This is coming from a guy who watches sports and political trash 90% of the time("Hodball in HD!!").


----------



## bcadotte1 (Feb 16, 2004)

jeffwtux said:


> Now, if Cinemax isn't good enough for you, then how in the world TNT?*I did not say that,all I said was this was a new channel coming in may.* They have virtually no original programming, mostly reruns of prime-time shows, movies after they have done the rounds for years on all of the movie channels, about 60 NBA games, and yes about 12 Nascar races.*Even that I am not a nascar fan this sounds like original programming(new) to me.* So basically TNT would be for the 60 NBA games and 12 Nascar races. TNT is way overrated IMHO.
> Bravo has ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING *(what about WEST WING?)* (as lame as and hated as it is among conservatives). ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING*(WEST WING) * , IMHO is what should be prioritized above all*.(I agree) * This is coming from a guy who watches sports and political trash 90% of the time("Hodball in HD!!").


Please see above in bold.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Yes, TNT has original programming, about 72 events a year. That sounds pretty lame. Is it worth buying an HD station for 72 new events a year? Yes, Bravo has reruns, but it also has original series, Queer Eye, the Restaurant, Airline, Inside the Actors Studio, Significant Others... With TNT you will have weeks that go by without a single hour of original programming.


----------



## willy (Jan 7, 2004)

donald said:


> Dish refusal to push much hd programming on channels I used to watch (disc, tlc, mtv, tech) has resulted in shifting my viewing habit away from them.


So which provider would you switch to? Which one IS "pushing" these channels to your satisfaction? Hmm?? I dont think ANY PROVIDER is pushing hard for tech-tv to make an HD version. If thats your reason for not liking dish, i doubt you'll be happy anywhere else.


----------



## willy (Jan 7, 2004)

Mike95967 said:


> What about the following HD channels?
> 
> HBO - East and West feed?
> Cinamax - East and West Feed?
> ...


Personally, Id rather not tie up VALUABLE bandwidth by wasting FOUR HD slots on shows we are already getting 3 hours earlier. Leave the room open for new channels as they come along.

Personally, I dont see Cmax HD and StarzHD as " compelling" either IMO. To get those I have to pay MORE in addition to the $10 for the HD pack. I want more channels, and I want them included in the HD pack.


----------



## bcadotte1 (Feb 16, 2004)

jeffwtux said:


> Yes, TNT has original programming *(yes it does)* , about 72 events a year. That sounds pretty lame. Is it worth buying an HD station for 72 new events a year*?(if you like what is shown,why not,I like basketball)* Yes, Bravo has reruns *(not just reruns but it keeps recycling the same old shows 3-4 times a* *day)* , but it also has original series, Queer Eye, the Restaurant, Airline, Inside the Actors Studio, Significant Others... With TNT you will have weeks that go by without a single hour of original programming.


 *(maybe true of the SD channel but we have no idea of the HD channel.)*


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

bcadotte1 said:


> *(maybe true of the SD channel but we have no idea of the HD channel.)*


I have Bravo HD on cable. Other than HD reruns of 'West Wing,' there ain't much. LOTS of repeats, LOTS of opera and strange concerts.........repeated endlessly. No ads, just promos for CNBC and 'The More You Know.'


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

willy said:


> Personally, Id rather not tie up VALUABLE bandwidth by wasting FOUR HD slots on shows we are already getting 3 hours earlier. Leave the room open for new channels as they come along.


It would be TWO, not four. HBO-HD West and SHO-HD West are what is being discussed. (They already do CBS-HD West, so there is precedent.)

Since there are so much available bandwidth on 148, it wouldn't have any detrimental effect at all. Certainly not for the immediate future. If they need it someday, they can always remove the West feeds.

This would be an extremely valuable service to those existing subs on the West Coast, and also might help Dish marketing for new West Coast customers.

There is no downside to this. Why would there be any oppostion from forum members? I don't understand. :nono2:


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

willy said:


> So which provider would you switch to? Which one IS "pushing" these channels to your satisfaction? Hmm?? I dont think ANY PROVIDER is pushing hard for tech-tv to make an HD version. If thats your reason for not liking dish, i doubt you'll be happy anywhere else.


it's not that I don't like dish. My comment was about paying for fuzzy content when I can get a perfect HD signal off air. I'm paying for dish which has some hd content but nothing like the variety off air.

I am finding that my view habits are shifting away from fuzzy programming that I used to watch to clear programming that didn't used to be appealing to me.

Dish/direct/cable are in a position of offering a lower quality signal and are asking for a premium payment.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

FarNorth said:


> I have Bravo HD on cable. Other than HD reruns of 'West Wing,' there ain't much. LOTS of repeats, LOTS of opera and strange concerts.........repeated endlessly. No ads, just promos for CNBC and 'The More You Know.'


Bravo HD has some really great programming if you like the arts (especially music). Goo Goo Dolls was great! So was Tom Petty concert. Great Jazz also. Seeing the French Circus acts were unbelievable. Bravo HD is a wonderful station.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2004)

willy said:


> I want more channels, and I want them included in the HD pack.


Sorry, doesn't work that way. You'll have to pay...life's a b*tch


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

garypen said:


> Charlie would have never invaded Iraq. They don't have enough shopping channels.


Or enough hard core porn. Except in Uday's house.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

mboy said:


> Yeah, Vote for Kerry so Al-Qeada and other Islamic radical idiots can invade us.


The Kerry campaign motto should be "Lube up, bend over, and squeal like a pig, America!"


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I would vote for ANYONE ELSE except Bush. Bush was never elected by the American people anyway , he was appointed by the supreme court.


Uh oh. You'd better put your tin foil hat back on. Bush will be flying over any minute now in his black hellicopter to read your mind! Seriously, get off the grassy knoll and join the rest of us here in reality. The water's fine! 
:lol:


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

garypen said:


> It would be TWO, not four.


It would be four; the original message said:

HBO - East and West feed?
Cinamax - East and West Feed?
Showtime - East and West Feed?
Starz - East and West Feed?

And I agree, give us one each of those channels (yes, I know, we don't yet have Cinemax or Starz HD yet, but I expect we will eventually), not two. I'd rather save the other bandwidth for some other new HD channels.

Isn't Mark Cuban supposed to launch more new HDNET channels? I thought I read that way back when...

And you guys arguing politics, please take it to the Potpourri forum, so this thread can stay on topic.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Stosh said:


> It would be four; the original message said:
> 
> HBO - East and West feed?
> Cinamax - East and West Feed?
> ...


I guess he may have mentioned four orginally. But, since we only get HBO-HD and SHO-HD, it is actually only two more channels that we are discussing _in reality right now._

They barely have enough content for the existing HDNet channels. I wonder how they'll fill another one? I can just picture it..."The Even More Mediocre Movies From The 70's Channel".


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

garypen said:


> IThey barely have enough content for the existing HDNet channels. I wonder how they'll fill another one? I can just picture it..."The Even More Mediocre Movies From The 70's Channel".


Isn't that VOOM's motto? :lol:

Please, no flames, it's just a joke, folks!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Mike95967 said:


> Sorry, doesn't work that way. You'll have to pay...life's a b*tch


It certainly should work that way in this instance. There should be more than 4 channels for $10. It couldn't be any simpler.


----------



## willy (Jan 7, 2004)

garypen said:


> I guess he may have mentioned four orginally. But, since we only get HBO-HD and SHO-HD, it is actually only two more channels that we are discussing _in reality right now._
> 
> They barely have enough content for the existing HDNet channels. I wonder how they'll fill another one? I can just picture it..."The Even More Mediocre Movies From The 70's Channel".


All I meant was, dont tie up BW on the 110 slot with East and west feeds of the four movie channels- put either E or W on there, not both. Id prefer to have 4 OTHER channels to watch stuff that isnt already piped to my house 3 hours earlier.


----------



## willy (Jan 7, 2004)

Mike95967 said:


> Sorry, doesn't work that way. You'll have to pay...life's a b*tch


Mike,

What I meant was, Im not going to ***** and ask for new channels that will end up costing me $11 or whatever a month (to sub to the individual movie package). Put more channels in the HD pack. $2.50/channel, when one channel (ESPN) isnt even HD most of the time... is a rip off, and spending $10+/month for an added movie channel in HD is clearly not a solution.

I *think* most of us have subb'ed to the HD pack with the hope that some new channels will be added this year. Im not waiting for channels that will cost me $10/20/whatever extra to get.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

donald said:


> it's not that I don't like dish. My comment was about paying for fuzzy content when I can get a perfect HD signal off air. I'm paying for dish which has some hd content but nothing like the variety off air.
> 
> I am finding that my view habits are shifting away from fuzzy programming that I used to watch to clear programming that didn't used to be appealing to me.
> 
> Dish/direct/cable are in a position of offering a lower quality signal and are asking for a premium payment.


Well, if you're satisfied with the offerings broadcast OTA, I'd say go for it. Why pay for something you don't use? I have to say, my HD locals look awesome, and the SD digital channels look really good.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

willy said:


> All I meant was, dont tie up BW on the 110 slot with East and west feeds of the four movie channels- put either E or W on there, not both. Id prefer to have 4 OTHER channels to watch stuff that isnt already piped to my house 3 hours earlier.


I'm pretty sure the discussion was to put West Coast feeds on 148. Also, I thought we were only talking about HD, so it would have only been two channels on 148. I don't really see a bw issue in that scenerio.

They could do it tomorrow, with the only result being happy customers. No downside whatsoever.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

One has to assume one of these days Dish will put up Starz/Cinemax HD east on 110 (if the 3 HD channels/transponder gets worked out in test). Then they will have 4 movie channels they could add west feeds for 148. Maybe eventually Encore HD... The problem they have atm is that 110 is full too for the east coast feeds. If they get 3/transponder working (like VOOM) then they should be able to add 4 more feeds to 110 on the 4 transponders they are already using for HDTV.

I suspect the list would be StarzHD, CinemaxHD, BravoHD, not sure what they would put on for the 4th. The two movie ones help sell profitable premiums, BravoHD for the Olympics.

I would need to get a 148 Dish!! (probably turn my 105 or 61.5 Dish that way).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is still tempting to add ONE channel to 110 if they go 3 per TP HD and use the extra transponder for QPSK channels. Perhaps (at best) an ED feed of some network and a couple of new SD channels. They are short for space for more than just HD!

I also note that there is a transponder on 148 that has *four* of the HD test channels listed as being there. I don't have a clear shot of 148 so I don't know if there are streams to match. Perhaps they are ED feeds.

JL


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Mike123abc said:


> One has to assume one of these days Dish will put up Starz/Cinemax HD east on 110 (if the 3 HD channels/transponder gets worked out in test). Then they will have 4 movie channels they could add west feeds for 148. Maybe eventually Encore HD... The problem they have atm is that 110 is full too for the east coast feeds. If they get 3/transponder working (like VOOM) then they should be able to add 4 more feeds to 110 on the 4 transponders they are already using for HDTV.
> 
> I suspect the list would be StarzHD, CinemaxHD, BravoHD, not sure what they would put on for the 4th. The two movie ones help sell profitable premiums, BravoHD for the Olympics.
> 
> I would need to get a 148 Dish!! (probably turn my 105 or 61.5 Dish that way).


I agree with your first 3 new channel additions, that 4th new channel on 110 could be TMC-HD, Encore-HD or TNT-HD or if E* opens up 1 more 110 TP they could add all three of these channels plus one more in the future. I agree 148 and 157 have room for all west feeds of the premium HD movie channels, however their would also be those people in the other time zones that would be complaining that they do not have access to these channels because it would require a 4th or 5th orbital location for some or not receivable at all for others and their is not room at this time to mirror these on 61.5.


----------



## DWS44 (Apr 15, 2004)

jeffwtux said:


> So basically TNT would be for the 60 NBA games and 12 Nascar races. TNT is way overrated IMHO.


Overrated?  Well, I guess that depends on what you want in HD, doesnt it?!?

I, personally, am a huge NASCAR fan, and one of the reasons I have spent the $$$ to get HD and big, wide TV was for the HD broadcasts of the NASCAR events this year! Since it is highly likely that the NBC telecasts during the secon half of the season will be HD, it is also likely that the TNT broadcasts would be in HD as well, since they both used the same broadcast crew!


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

I want original progamming. 72 events a year is not worth allocating an HD station for IMHO. Now if BravoHD isn't any better in that category(meaning they aren't showing their origianl shows in HD), then I guess I don't care, maybe this is why I still haven't bought an HD yet. There simply isn't enough progamming to justify it.


----------



## Killfile (Apr 15, 2004)

My understanding of the reasoning is the content of pure hd v. upconverted hd. If the content is native HD (I think the litmus was 60%??) Dish is a lot more likely to carry it. 

If it's upconverted there' not much incentive to carry it because the 811 will (for the most part) do that anyway.

The 921 is out in the cold on that one, which is the reason I'm waiting on the successor to the 921 for an upconversion/DVR capability.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2004)

jeffwtux said:


> I want original progamming. 72 events a year is not worth allocating an HD station for IMHO. Now if BravoHD isn't any better in that category(meaning they aren't showing their origianl shows in HD), then I guess I don't care, maybe this is why I still haven't bought an HD yet. There simply isn't enough progamming to justify it.


I have both Voom and Dish. Bravo HD is excellent! Especially if your into the "arts". Excellent concerts from symphony to rock to jazz. BravoHD definitely has original content in HD..in fact 90% is original and all in HD.

At first I wasn't much interested in the 10 HD Movies channels on Voom. However, I now am finding myself watching them more and more. Even though most of these movies are old (70's, 80's and 90's), I have never seen them before...and some are very good. They're like the AMC channel, except in HD. And, of course, EncoreHD on Voom is similar.

HDNews is good, too, for about 20 minutes a day. Then there's the other extreme: Playboy Hot in HD. This is not your typical "soft" core Playboy Channel. This is extremely hard core stuff in HD. It's like XTEN on Dish but in HD (too much detail?). Make sure you have the blocker on if you have kids. I really enjoy soccer, so World Sports in HD is excellent. And speaking of sports, I'll be watching the Heavy Weight Boxing Title tonight. Not on Dish, though, for $40 through HBO..but through Voom for $1.00 and in HD!! Same broadcast, but in HD on Voom for $1.00!

I don't watch all 30 plus High Definintion channels on Voom, just like I don't watch all 150+ plus channels on Dish. Some good, some moderate, some junk. But each person has their own taste. For example, my wife enjoys watching Voom's Treasure channel in HD. I don't like watching about auctions and overpaid junk. And, speaking of overpaid, we subscribe also to StarZHD, Movie Channel HD, etc.

Dish claims to be the HD leader. What a joke that is. The only HD channel that I watch in Dish now is ESPN. But Voom will be adding ESPN in the next few weeks. Why keep Dish? Because my kids like Discovery Kids. My wife likes the Food channel. I'm happy with just Voom (plus I get CBS, NBC and ABC in High Definition OTA!!).


----------



## JohnC (Jan 15, 2004)

For us in the "white areas", the New York feeds of ABC, NBC, Fox, WB, and UPN on 61.5 and the LA feeds on 148. The CBS HD feed that E* provides is great! NBC is especially needed this summer for the olympics.

New HD stations on 110 should be BravoHD, TNTHD, STARZHD, CinamaxHD, INHD1, and INHD2.

If Charlie keeps on with his attitude that there is nothing compelling in HD to offer, E* is going to loose the HD race to the cable companies or Voom. HD is so much better than SD on a big screen TV that I will watch programs on HD that I did not watch on SD. If Charlie and Dish do not wake up, they are going to loose a lot of high end subscribers that suply a lot of revenue. I have a great offer to switch to Comcast that I might bite on when their HD DVR is offered in my area. It only offers 80 GB of storage, but has the 1394 firewire port to archieve programs on a JVC digital HD VHS recorder.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnC said:


> If Charlie keeps on with his attitude that there is nothing compelling in HD to offer, E* is going to loose the HD race to the cable companies or Voom.


People don't want to be compelled, they just want HD. Unless the PQ is poor, subs will be happy for whatever they can get.

Charlie doesn't seem to mind uplinking non-compelling SD channels. 

JL


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

justalurker said:


> Charlie doesn't seem to mind uplinking non-compelling SD channels.


Amen to that.
Let's ditch the gazillion shopping channels, and the 8 million PPV channels (have some, but have them 'All Day Dish Ticket' so they don't have to start every half hour, get a PVR!) and that would free up some bandwidth.

Non-compelling SD:
Game Show TV
TBS (like a big infomercial interrupted by short periods of 'programming')
Those are two biggies, I never watch most of the crap on most of the other SD channels anyways, but I know there are those out there who unlike me, think they need more channels than TCM, Discovery, TLC, ESPN, and my moooovie channels.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

JohnC said:


> New HD stations on 110 should be BravoHD, TNTHD, STARZHD, CinamaxHD, INHD1, and INHD2.
> 
> .


I'll agree wholeheartedly on BravoHD and TNTHD. INHD1 and INHD2 are currently only available to cable broadcasters. As for StarzHD and CinemaxHD, those would be *nice* for the folks who subscribe to Starz and Cinemax, but for my money, I'd rather see something else (I'd really like to se MSGHD, but it's only available on cable,too.)


----------



## JasonX (Apr 18, 2004)

Cholly said:


> I'll agree wholeheartedly on BravoHD and TNTHD. INHD1 and INHD2 are currently only available to cable broadcasters. As for StarzHD and CinemaxHD, those would be *nice* for the folks who subscribe to Starz and Cinemax, but for my money, I'd rather see something else (I'd really like to se MSGHD, but it's only available on cable,too.)


BravoHD, Playboy Hot HD, and EncoreHD are available on Voom. TNTHD is coming soon, and ESPN HD is coming in the next 2 weeks.


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

InHD 1 and 2 are available to ALL companies that want to add them, but only cable operators have gotten deals in place with them so far. It seems like Voom is probably the closest to adding them of the 3 DBS companies.


----------



## C*Tedesco (Jan 31, 2004)

Hey quick question about HDNET Movies. Why do they really only play older movies. I mean it's great to see older movies in HD, but can't they play some of the new line ups? I'm kinda getting sick of seeing Ghost of Mississsippi.


----------



## DWS44 (Apr 15, 2004)

C*Tedesco said:


> I'm kinda getting sick of seeing Ghost of Mississsippi.


That has been playing nearly every time I have flipped over there the last week or so!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

I thought all they played was "Lone Wolf McQuade". What a POS that was.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

Hey, 3 Days of the Condor has been running a lot lately. Good stuff.

I think that HDNet made a deal with the Studios to get access to the film libraries. Studios looking to make $$$ likely packaged their old crap in as a condition to get access to some of the better titles. Of course the Hottest titles are already exclusive to someone like HBO or Showtime for a few years per their contracts.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

A more likely scenerio is that the major movie channels, like HBO, Showtime, etc, have the rights to big studio movies and new releases. TCM has the rights to most classic and older films worth watching. HDNet Movies is stuck in the same boat as AMC, having only a small pool (cesspool is more like it) of mostly mediocre films from the 50's-70's.

About 14 years agao, I was doing sound at a speech givem by Ted Turner. It was shortly after his purchase of MGM's library. Even back then, Turner had the rights to 50% of the "Hollywood" movies _ever made_ up to that point. That number has only increased since the TW merger.

BTW, 3 Days of the Condor does kick ass. You can almost see it's influence in Bourne Identity.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

garypen said:


> HDNet Movies is stuck in the same boat as AMC, having only a small pool (cesspool is more like it) of mostly mediocre films from the 50's-70's.


"Cesspool"? I've seen a number of older movies on HDNet Movies that I really enjoyed. I doubt they would have ever been shown in HD on HBO, etc. If it's a "cesspool", it's a pretty good one overall.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

OK. Crapshoot might be a better term. For every 3 Days of the Condor, there's a shipload of Major League II's, Raising Cain's, Lone Wolf McQuade's, Billy Jack's, Friday 13th II's, etc.

But, yes, there are some decent ones too. The Two Jakes, Bang The Drum Slowly, The Candidate, etc, come to mind.

It's easy enough to judge the wheat-to-chaf ratio by visiting http://www.hd.net/movies_schedule_by_title.html .


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

garypen said:


> OK. Crapshoot might be a better term. For every 3 Days of the Condor, there's a shipload of Major League II's, Raising Cain's, Lone Wolf McQuade's, Billy Jack's, Friday 13th II's, etc.
> 
> But, yes, there are some decent ones too. The Two Jakes, Bang The Drum Slowly, The Candidate, etc, come to mind.
> 
> It's easy enough to judge the wheat-to-chaf ratio by visiting http://www.hd.net/movies_schedule_by_title.html .


All true. But I don't think it's that much different from the more well known premium providers such as HBO or Showtime. Many repeats. And most of the movies aren't that great.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

That's why I only subscribe to one premium, HBO, for its original programming, not movies. (HBO's original programming is among the best there is. After HBO, I can barely watch b'cast drama or comedy.) I also have Cinemin as part of the AT120 VP. But, I'm cancelling at the end of the free VP promotion, since it isn't even worth the $3/mo. I'd keep it if they added Max-HD. Not compelling and unique enough for Charlie, though.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Cinemax has good programming after 11 :lol:


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Yeah? _I_ wouldn't watch it with _your_ eyes! :sure:


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

JasonX said:


> BravoHD, Playboy Hot HD, and EncoreHD are available on Voom. TNTHD is coming soon, and ESPN HD is coming in the next 2 weeks.


Ah, but you see, there's no "compelling programming" on any of those channels. At least that's what 'ol Charlie will tell us. :lol:


----------



## calikarim (Nov 11, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I would vote for ANYONE ELSE except Bush. Bush was never elected by the American people anyway , he was appointed by the supreme court. I think Bush and his father attracts the hatred of every terrorist group known to man and that is why we are going through all this crap anyway. He is the great "divider" when it comes to global relationships with all the other countries. Four more years of this crap and we will all have to move to India and China to get a low paid job since he has outsourced all our white collar jobs and given all the illegal aliens from Mexico our minimum wage jobs . :eek2:


 I own a business, reason our jobs going to India are our stupid insurance companies and workmans compensation rates, and legal bs. We can't even buy supersize fries because some fat fool is suing McDonalds for being Fat. I pay almost $81 ,000 in my Dry cleaning business because of fraudulent workmens compensation claims. I put ads for employees starting at $8.50 hr and lucky to get few responses. It is not bush's fault we have issues in this country with work ethic, laws, etc


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

Tyralak said:


> Ah, but you see, there's no "compelling programming" on any of those channels. At least that's what 'ol Charlie will tell us. :lol:


There is no compelling MONEY in any of those channels.

With limited band with, what makes more business sense? Starz, Encore, Cinamax, etc. provide their HD to subs at no additional cost. More locals means more income and perhaps more new subs. It's just business.

Charlie will not add any new HD until the competition forces it. 
:nono:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

clapple said:


> Charlie will not add any new HD until the competition forces it.
> :nono:


The problem is the compition is starting to force it. Cable is rolling out new HD channels, including your locals, which DBS isn't doing. If you were just purchasing a new HD set and wanted to get HD programming, which would look more attractive to the average consumer? Buy new a new DBS HD STB, install a new Dish (if necessary), put an antenna on the roof or in the attic and new cabling maybe or call your local cable company and say bring a new box?

DBS needs to do some value add here to get and keep the HD customer. E*'s doing it with free hardware, D* has their HD Tivo coming soon. But it will come to a point soon where that's not enough. Right now there's Starz-HD, Cinemax-HD, Encore-ED, Bravo-HD and the two InHD channels and TNT-HD coming soon. Cable systems are picking up those channels plus locals, no work from either DBS company on these. The consumers will look at what's available and say cable based on content and easy of use IMHO.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

clapple said:


> There is no compelling MONEY in any of those channels.
> 
> With limited band with, what makes more business sense? Starz, Encore, Cinamax, etc. provide their HD to subs at no additional cost. More locals means more income and perhaps more new subs. It's just business.
> 
> ...


I don't know. I think there's good business sense in providing more and better services for existing _major_ markets, instead of adding locals for East Bumf**k and every little backwater hamlet he can find.

For instance, the additional customers they will gain (and/or keep from losing) just by adding YES will be more than the entire populations of some of those one-horse towns. The same goes for HD.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

How much of the content on Starz-HD, Cinamax-HD, Encore-HD, Bravo-HD+, and the two IN-HD channels is true HDTV material? How much ot the TNT-HD content will be true HD content and not up-converted at launch? Is it not true that the 6000, 811 and 921 up-convert's all SD satellite and broadcast digital inside the box? I truly do not know how much true HD is on these channels, however from what I have read from the V* forum and elsewhere most of the programing on these channels is up-converted, why add them now until ether E* has more bandwidth or these channels have a higher % of true HD content? I think some of you guys here who are in the minority of E* subs would rather have E* add all these possible HD channels now before their is adequate bandwidth for them or enough actual true HD content on them and either eliminate SD channels that the rest of us enjoy or ruin the pq on SD channels for the majority of us that can not afford HDTV yet. :shrug:


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Chris Freeland said:


> How much of the content on Starz-HD, Cinamax-HD, Encore-HD, Bravo-HD+, and the two IN-HD channels is true HDTV material? How much ot the TNT-HD content will be true HD content and not up-converted at launch? Is it not true that the 6000, 811 and 921 up-convert's all SD satellite and broadcast digital inside the box? I truly do not know how much true HD is on these channels, however from what I have read from the V* forum and elsewhere most of the programing on these channels is up-converted, why add them now until ether E* has more bandwidth or these channels have a higher % of true HD content? I think some of you guys here who are in the minority of E* subs would rather have E* add all these possible HD channels now before their is adequate bandwidth for them or enough actual true HD content on them and either eliminate SD channels that the rest of us enjoy or ruin the pq on SD channels for the majority of us that can not afford HDTV yet. :shrug:


-From what I've read, only Starz is mostly upconverted SD. ESPN does it now. Charlie seems to find that one compelling enough.
-Yes. The 811 and others upconvert SD locally. That is not HD. 
-HD customers (and potential HD customers) from large markets undoubtedly outnumber additional subscibers gotten by adding locals for every hicktown and yokelville.
-Just getting rid of 8 of the *13 shopping channels* would provide more bandwidth. Also, do we really need half a dozen Discovery channels; Disc-Hardware, Disc-Lightbulb, Disc-Doorknob, etc.
-A lot of people can't afford DD5.1 audio. Does that mean Dish should have abandoned that technology too?


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

garypen said:


> -From what I've read, only Starz is mostly upconverted SD. ESPN does it now. Charlie seems to find that one compelling enough.
> -Yes. The 811 and others upconvert SD locally. That is not HD.
> -HD customers (and potential HD customers) from large markets undoubtedly outnumber additional subscibers gotten by adding locals for every hicktown and yokelville.
> -Just getting rid of 8 of the *13 shopping channels* would provide more bandwidth. Also, do we really need half a dozen Discovery channels; Disc-Hardware, Disc-Lightbulb, Disc-Doorknob, etc.
> -A lot of people can't afford DD5.1 audio. Does that mean Dish should have abandoned that technology too?


E* will never drop the extra shopping channels because they make too much money on them. I suspect you may be surprised at how much money these little hicktowns as you call them bring in, and besides the majority of locals are either on either spotbeams, the wings or the 105 or 121 SuperDish and do not effect the bandwidth needed for more HDTV. Once E10 is up, this new spotbam going to 110 will open up some bandwidth and once AMC14 is up, E* may go back to the 105 SuperDish plans for HDTV, some of you just need to be patient. I happen to like all those Discovery channels and any other channel that you consider a waste their are those that love to have then, and it is the Discovery channels and others that make people want to spend an extra $10/mo for AT180. 5.1 is cheap, when you can get a cheapo HT in a box now for under $100, HDTV cost $800 and up, big difference and my point is the majority of E* subs are not ready for HDTV yet and why should the majority have to give up channels for what is still a small but I agree fast growing minority..


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Chris Freeland said:


> why should the majority have to give up channels for what is still a small but I agree fast growing minority..


Because we're better.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> -From what I've read, only Starz is mostly upconverted SD. ESPN does it now. Charlie seems to find that one compelling enough.


People will pay for sports. Money is very compelling. 



garypen said:


> -HD customers (and potential HD customers) from large markets undoubtedly outnumber additional subscibers gotten by adding locals for every hicktown and yokelville.


We're already past the halfway point of getting all 210 local markets on E*. (D* is stalled at 64 until possibly June when they may have 105.) HDs consume way too much space, and unless there are new HD only satellites, it just isn't going to happen. One HD market is 6 SD markets. Are the HD markets going to pay $30 just for their locals? Once again the almighty dollar becomes compelling.

Unless, of course, you are just saying ignore the podunk locals to make ALL HD subscribers across the nation happy. Throw away potential subs in small markets to serve the potential subs in large markets? Not good.



garypen said:


> -Just getting rid of 8 of the *13 shopping channels* would provide more bandwidth. Also, do we really need half a dozen Discovery channels; Disc-Hardware, Disc-Lightbulb, Disc-Doorknob, etc.


Shopping channels are annoying, but they pay. And I like the DISC-Doorknob channel!!! :lol: (OK, I don't get the extra DISC channels - I'm at AT120.) It is very compelling when you have providers paying you for access, and people across the country PAYING for the channels. Cut the DISC channels, drop the price of AT180/AEP to compensate, and figure out the price you would have to charge for HDs to get back to even dollars.



garypen said:


> -A lot of people can't afford DD5.1 audio. Does that mean Dish should have abandoned that technology too?


DD5.1 is cheap. It takes up about the same bandwidth on the satellite as one of the CD channels. It does not wipe 6 full SDs off of a transponder to add one DD5.1 feed (as it does with HD feeds).

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> We're already past the halfway point of getting all 210 local markets on E*. (D* is stalled at 64 until possibly June when they may have 105.) HDs consume way too much space, and unless there are new HD only satellites, it just isn't going to happen. One HD market is 6 SD markets. Are the HD markets going to pay $30 just for their locals? Once again the almighty dollar becomes compelling.


Who said anything about HD locals? We're talking about maybe 4-6 channels TOTAL, _nationwide_.



> Shopping channels are annoying, but they pay. And I like the DISC-Doorknob channel!!! :lol: (OK, I don't get the extra DISC channels - I'm at AT120.) It is very compelling when you have providers paying you for access, and people across the country PAYING for the channels. Cut the DISC channels, drop the price of AT180/AEP to compensate, and figure out the price you would have to charge for HDs to get back to even dollars.


It's the movie channels that are the big draw for AT180.


> DD5.1 is cheap. It takes up about the same bandwidth on the satellite as one of the CD channels. It does not wipe 6 full SDs off of a transponder to add one DD5.1 feed (as it does with HD feeds).
> 
> JL


I was talking about the end user, not Dish cost or implimentation.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Chris Freeland said:


> How much of the content on Starz-HD, Cinamax-HD, Encore-HD, Bravo-HD+, and the two IN-HD channels is true HDTV material? How much ot the TNT-HD content will be true HD content and not up-converted at launch?


Yea know, I'd be more then happy to get all the upconvert I can get on these channels, along with whatever HD they happen to throw into the mix. With all the overcompression that goes on in the SD I'll take what I can get, upconvert or not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> Who said anything about HD locals? We're talking about maybe 4-6 channels TOTAL, _nationwide_.


You said: _HD customers (and potential HD customers) from large markets_ Why exclude HD customers from smaller market? Or (as I said in my paragraph 2):
_Throw away potential subs in small markets to serve the potential subs in large markets?_
Limiting your HD customers to "large markets" is odd unless you are including HD locals, or believe that smaller market customers won't subscribe at all without locals.



garypen said:


> It's the movie channels that are the big draw for AT180.


Starz! and the TMC West feeds? I disagree. AEP is the one for movie lovers. The extra "new" channels which seem to be added only to AT150 now AT180 are the leading reasons to pay the extra $$.



garypen said:


> I was talking about the end user, not Dish cost or implimentation.


Dish doesn't care about your costs, and DD5.1 can be in your home on 5 speakers plus a floor woofer for $60. Not a bad end user cost. Dish's cost to serve the minority that could use DD5.1 was small enough that it was worth the hassle. And people PAYING DISH for PPV and movie channels more than made up for any expense involved.

HD viewers are not paying their own way. They consume way too much prime satellite space and are only paying $9.99 per month (plus PPVs). The only reason to keep HD is for bragging rights. "Yeah, we've got HD." Perhaps at the end of the year SuperDish HD will be out and you'll have more channels. Right now there just isn't the dollars in it.

Dollars: The only thing that compels business to action. 

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> Limiting your HD customers to "large markets" is odd unless you are including HD locals, or believe that smaller market customers won't subscribe at all without locals.


?? I was comparing adding national HD vs. small market locals, since the issue was bandwidth. Pretty self-evident, I would think.



> Starz! and the TMC West feeds? I disagree. AEP is the one for movie lovers. The extra "new" channels which seem to be added only to AT150 now AT180 are the leading reasons to pay the extra $$.


Encore, TMC West, and Fox Movies are the biggest reason to choose AT180 over 120. It certainly ain't the Discovery-Knuckle Hair channel and History International.



> Dish doesn't care about your costs, and DD5.1 can be in your home on 5 speakers plus a floor woofer for $60. Not a bad end user cost. Dish's cost to serve the minority that could use DD5.1 was small enough that it was worth the hassle. And people PAYING DISH for PPV and movie channels more than made up for any expense involved.


Again, you completely misinterpreted my comment, which was in response to another that said Dish shouldn't invest in more HD programming because most customers can't afford HD HW.


> HD viewers are not paying their own way. They consume way too much prime satellite space and are only paying $9.99 per month (plus PPVs). The only reason to keep HD is for bragging rights. "Yeah, we've got HD." Perhaps at the end of the year SuperDish HD will be out and you'll have more channels. Right now there just isn't the dollars in it.


$10 for 4 channels is plenty. How many SD channels that that equal? I wish somebody had hard numbers as to how many peopel sub to HD, AT60, 120, 180, AEP, and the various premiums and innternational packs. It would be interesting.


> Dollars: The only thing that compels business to action.
> JL


Successful businesses look to future dollars. Mismanaged ones only think of immediate ones.


----------



## snathanb (Feb 27, 2004)

garypen said:


> $10 for 4 channels is plenty. How many SD channels that that equal? I wish somebody had hard numbers as to how many peopel sub to HD, AT60, 120, 180, AEP, and the various premiums and innternational packs. It would be interesting.


I would find it interesting, as well. If I were running the place and had the choice of adding a single HD channel, which may or may not bring in any additional revenue, or adding 2-3 more (guessing on bandwidth) international channels at $15 a pop, I'd probably go with the international.

Especially if I am currently offering the same number of HD channels as my primary competitor and charging $1 less per month for it.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Ity depends on how you define revenue. If those channels were gettingt $15 each, then it _may_ be a better financial decision to go with them. If, OTOH, the providers' fees were eating up a huge chunk of that, and/or not that many people would subscribe compared to the number of HD subs that might move over from Cable, I might choose to add the HD. Plus, what if the average HD sub also subs to a higher basic pkg, like AT180 or AEP, but the average international subscriber went with AT60 or even just the $5 monthly connection fee? These are things to consider.

One thing I do know. I wouldn't outright lie about being the "HD Leader". That title belongs to Cable, or Voom if he's only referring to Satellite. The slogan "tied for 2nd or 3rd place with DirecTV in HD programming" just doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> ?? I was comparing adding national HD vs. small market locals, since the issue was bandwidth. Pretty self-evident, I would think.


Oh: So you think it is better to offer one channel, which undoubtedly you will want offered with no increase in the HD package price, to a few customers. than to offer an entire market full of locals for which E* can charge an extra $5 per month. Even one subscriber in podunk brings E* more money than your plan.

Never forget: Money is the most compelling issue. :lol:



garypen said:


> Encore, TMC West, and Fox Movies are the biggest reason to choose AT180 over 120. It certainly ain't the Discovery-Knuckle Hair channel and History International.


There are 35 channels added when one upgrades to AT180 (plus 19 mono Muzak channels). Guess there are 25 reasons there that you don't count.

The 10 movie channels are cool, but there is more to AT180 than movies. AT180 would *evaporate* if it were not for the other 25 channels.

Channel counts are important. Do you REALLY want E*'s top package to be 200 channels (including over 50 music channels and 40 movie channels)? If so, you're not a stockholder. 



garypen said:


> $10 for 4 channels is plenty. How many SD channels that that equal?


24 SD channels would fit in the space four HDs fill. Movie channels typically get 25% more space than normal SDs.
Starz! Super Pak - 8 channels ~ 1 transponder - $11.99
Showtime - 10 channels ~ 1 transponder - $11.99 (also 1 HD)
Cinemax - 5 channels ~ 1/2 transponder - $11.99
HBO - 10 channels ~ 1 transponder - $13.99 (also 1 HD)
Good content served up at $12+ per transponder, not the $5 per transponder that E* gets for HD.
AT180 - 25 regular channels + 10 movie ~ 3 transponders - $10
AT120 - 30 regular channels ~ 3 transponders - $10
Plus your regional Sports channels - 27 nationwide ~ 2 transponders
AT60 - 38 non-PI/shopping channels (74 total) ~ 3 (6) transponders- $20
Base receiver fee - $5 (included in AT60's $25 price)

Obviously E* isn't charging based on bandwidth consumed, but it is obvious that they are getting a reasonable return for offering those SD channels.



garypen said:


> I wish somebody had hard numbers as to how many peopel sub to HD, AT60, 120, 180, AEP, and the various premiums and innternational packs. It would be interesting.


It would be. It would take the assumptions out of the picture. Internationals are off the main birds, in 121 or wings. Most locals are on space unusable for HD - spotbeams. Many new markets are being placed on the lower powered FSS spectrum, where space remains available for HD if they go that way.



garypen said:


> Successful businesses look to future dollars. Mismanaged ones only think of immediate ones.


Many businessess that looked for their future dollars without minding the current situation are out of business. dot com !!!!

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> Oh: So you think it is better to offer one channel, which undoubtedly you will want offered with no increase in the HD package price, to a few customers. than to offer an entire market full of locals for which E* can charge an extra $5 per month. Even one subscriber in podunk brings E* more money than your plan.


Well..no. Again, you're not looking at the big picture. One podunk sub paying $5 for locals is more revenue than one HD sub paying nothing extra for an additional channel added to his HD Pack. But...think of all the new HD subscribers from all the markets at $10 a pop, which will outnumber the locals subs from Podunk.



> There are 35 channels added when one upgrades to AT180 (plus 19 mono Muzak channels). Guess there are 25 reasons there that you don't count.


Where do you get 25 from? Biography, Reality, Soapnet, Style, Bloomberg, CNBC World, Hallmark, Nicktoons, GAS, OLN, VH1 Classic, GAC, the Discovery Hangnail channels ain't 25. And, no, they don't count that much for me. (I subscribe to AT120). BTW, for the same price as AT120 w/locals, DirecTV gives you Hallmark, Bloomberg, CNBC World, OLN, as well as Trio, Oxygen, FitTV, and the Fox Movie Channel.

The Muzak doesn't count, either. There are more than enough music channels already. And, personally, I don't use TV to listen to the radio.


> The 10 movie channels are cool, but there is more to AT180 than movies. AT180 would *evaporate* if it were not for the other 25 channels.


 I thought it was only 9 movie channels. Even then, they count for more than the above. (Soapnet, Reality, and Style? C'mon!)


> Channel counts are important. Do you REALLY want E*'s top package to be 200 channels (including over 50 music channels and 40 movie channels)? If so, you're not a stockholder.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is it that a high channel count is good? Or, is a low one good?



> Obviously E* isn't charging based on bandwidth consumed, but it is obvious that they are getting a reasonable return for offering those SD channels.
> 
> JL


Dish's HD programming and pricing will follow the laws of the market. As more and more OTA digital signals are available _for free_, which will include more HD and higher quality SD than Dish, plus the continued presence of Voom (the TRUE satellite HD leader), we should see more HD programming with little or no increase in price. Or, Dish may choose to concentrate on locals and internationals, while continuing to call themselves the HD leader. Of course, the public will eventually see through the that bs, as we already do.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

The best hope for more HD on Dish right now is DIRECTV's successful launch of D-7s. It is now obvious that Dish is not going to add more HDTV until DIRECTV does. So, we need 7s in place to give DIRECTV more capacity to add a ton of HD, forcing Dish to follow.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

garypen said:


> Well..no. Again, you're not looking at the big picture. One podunk sub paying $5 for locals is more revenue than one HD sub paying nothing extra for an additional channel added to his HD Pack. But...think of all the new HD subscribers from all the markets at $10 a pop, which will outnumber the locals subs from Podunk.
> The Muzak doesn't count, either. There are more than enough music channels already. And, personally, I don't use TV to listen to the radio.
> 
> Dish's HD programming and pricing will follow the laws of the market. As more and more OTA digital signals are available _for free_, which will include more HD and higher quality SD than Dish, plus the continued presence of Voom (the TRUE satellite HD leader), we should see more HD programming with little or no increase in price. Or, Dish may choose to concentrate on locals and internationals, while continuing to call themselves the HD leader. Of course, the public will eventually see through the that bs, as we already do.


Regarding locals -- Dish is not so foolish as to arbitrarily provide locals to markets that don't provide a good ROI. They are being very selective, only providing locals where they have a sufficiently large subscriber count. Thus, some large markets are bypassed in favor of smaller markets with greater revenue potential. That potential exists because of difficulty in receiving local OTA signals and/or crappy or nonexistent cable. Lots of people in my area would jump to Satellite TV in a heartbeat because they can't get one or more of the local channels off the air, and are not served by cable.

I could do without the Muzak, too. In my area, if yousubscribe to digital cable, you also get the Muzak. On the other hand, the addition of Sirius by Dish may be a worthwhile thing.

If you take a *really* close look at Voom's HD programming, there's a lot that can be dismissed as being garbage. (Garbage in HD is still Garbage, perhaps a bit more ugly  ) With Voom being spun off by Cablevision, one wonders how long they can survive their huge losses. 
I, for one, wish we could get all the networks in HD. TV stations in smaller markets aren't hurrying to go full power on digital, let alone provide HD feeds.


----------



## thevoice (Sep 24, 2002)

mboy said:


> Yeah, Vote for Kerry so Al-Qeada and other Islamic radical idiots can invade us.


Didn't Kerry actually go to war instead of running from it?

E* does have the bandwidth, everything is close to 8PSK only as we speak.

I just think Charlie has a good point - why pay for something that has such a small % in true HD, wait for more content! This is why I like HDNET so much, Cuban did a wonderful job with the old titles (and some new). 
This is the reason it took so long to get ESPNHD for E*! Why pay those high fees for a low amount of content that is already in SD? Look at the playoffs, they can't even show every game in HD during them - that is sad!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Cholly said:


> Regarding locals -- Dish is not so foolish as to arbitrarily provide locals to markets that don't provide a good ROI. They are being very selective, only providing locals where they have a sufficiently large subscriber count. Thus, some large markets are bypassed in favor of smaller markets with greater revenue potential. That potential exists because of difficulty in receiving local OTA signals and/or crappy or nonexistent cable. Lots of people in my area would jump to Satellite TV in a heartbeat because they can't get one or more of the local channels off the air, and are not served by cable.


You may be right. However, Dish does _many_ foolish things. 


> I, for one, wish we could get all the networks in HD. TV stations in smaller markets aren't hurrying to go full power on digital, let alone provide HD feeds.


Luckily, all my local stations broadcast OTA digital, so I get all the Nets in HD (Fox is only ED right now.)
I'm actually thinking of removing the HD Pack, and saving the $10/month. I use my 510 for most TV viewing, just for the live buffer. Discovery is cool, and I occasionally watch HDNet. But, I never watch ESPN-HD or HDNet Movies. (I may go back after ESPN increases their HD content, or if Charles ever adds more HD.)


----------



## snathanb (Feb 27, 2004)

Mike123abc said:


> The best hope for more HD on Dish right now is DIRECTV's successful launch of D-7s. It is now obvious that Dish is not going to add more HDTV until DIRECTV does. So, we need 7s in place to give DIRECTV more capacity to add a ton of HD, forcing Dish to follow.


I couldn't agree more... this is what will finally compel dish to add more HD.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

You are probably right. So much for being the "HD Leader". It's more like "HD Follower".


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah I was hoping that dish would continue to roll out the HD first, they rolled out ESPN and CBS before D* did, but I guess that's going to change. If TNT goes up and it passes by dish that's going to suck


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

Mike123abc said:


> The best hope for more HD on Dish right now is DIRECTV's successful launch of D-7s. It is now obvious that Dish is not going to add more HDTV until DIRECTV does. So, we need 7s in place to give DIRECTV more capacity to add a ton of HD, forcing Dish to follow.


I agree that this could motivate Dish to add more HD. But what. Charlie has already said that there are no channels with "compelling content", otherwise they would have added them now. We, of course, know this is pure BS from the same person who spent a year boasting of "50 channel capacity". So if he adds channels, will there suddenly be more "compelling content"?

Seriously though, doesn't Dish have a severe shortage of transponder space for more HD. Dish put their eggs in the 105 basket and blew it badly, so I don't think they can add more without trying to squeeze more HD per transponder and then they'll be in the same boat that DirecTV was with everyone complaining about an obvious decrease in picture quality.

No, I think Dish is really cooked as far as new HD goes until 2005 when they have new birds up and they've satiated their appetite for the money making locals that Charlie just has to add. Dish's 105 disaster and their 921 Firewire disaster clearly demonstrates that Dish can't be trusted with new technology. I'm stuck with Dish until Voom adds an HD PVR or DirecTV adds more HD. Then Charlie can take his HD and shove it and I'll have a 921 and two 811s for sale for someone who is satisfied with Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> Well..no. Again, you're not looking at the big picture. One podunk sub paying $5 for locals is more revenue than one HD sub paying nothing extra for an additional channel added to his HD Pack. But...think of all the new HD subscribers from all the markets at $10 a pop, which will outnumber the locals subs from Podunk.


YOU are not seing the big picture when you realize that having those $5 locals available will get Mr podunk to subscribe to AEP and not having podunk's locals will abandon those viewers to cable. If your big picture can assume one possibly lousy HD channel will be the tipping point between subscribe/not subscribe then having locals can be a tipping point as well.



garypen said:


> Where do you get 25 from? Biography, Reality, Soapnet, Style, Bloomberg, CNBC World, Hallmark, Nicktoons, GAS, OLN, VH1 Classic, GAC, the Discovery Hangnail channels ain't 25. And, no, they don't count that much for me. (I subscribe to AT120). . . . The Muzak doesn't count, either.


If you are going to conveniently ignore facts I suppose there is no reason to discuss them. This isn't 'Gary's DBS system'  this is E*'s. Channels you don't personally like are important to others.
111 Do It Yourself Network
115 Style
119 A&E Biography
121 History International
133 Fox Movies
149 Fox Sports World
151 Outdoor Life
153 The Outdoor Channel
163 VH-1 Classic
167 Great American Country
175 Boomerang
177 Nick Games and Sports
178 NickToons
179 Discovery Kids
185 Hallmark Channel
186 National Geographic Channel
188 Soap Net
190 Reality TV
192 Discovery Times
193 The Science Channel
194 Discovery Home & Leisure
195 Discovery Wings Channel
203 Bloomberg TV
207 CNBC World
264 Wisdom TV
329 The Movie Channel (West)
330 The Movie Channel Xtra (West)
341 Encore (West)
342 Encore Westerns
343 Encore Action!
344 Encore Mystery
345 Encore True Stories
346 Encore Love Stories
347 Encore WAM
401 The Golf Channel
407 Gol TV



garypen said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is it that a high channel count is good? Or, is a low one good?


A HIGH one. Your plan would reduce E*'s AEP to under 200 channels with over 50 of those being music (and since you hate music, let's pull that and have under 150 channels of narrow content (call it: 'content Gary likes') instead of diverse channels.



garypen said:


> BTW, for the same price as AT120 w/locals, DirecTV gives you Hallmark, Bloomberg, CNBC World, OLN, as well as Trio, Oxygen, FitTV, and the Fox Movie Channel.


Ah yes, DTVs Minimum Package. "130 channels" allegedly. Really 92, plus 31 music channels, plus RSN, and locals (if available).

You like D*? I guess that's why you are trying to turn E* into D* - cutting the depth from the service. (AEP=222+locals+RSN, TCP=175+locals+RSN - and AEP is cheaper).

Yeah Gary, turn E* into D*. No thanks.

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

thevoice said:


> Didn't Kerry actually go to war instead of running from it?


When he returned he spoke out against the war. I guess he waffled back then too. Seems strange to try to claim points for patriotism for an action he spoke out against.

JL


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> When he returned he spoke out against the war. I guess he waffled back then too. Seems strange to try to claim points for patriotism for an action he spoke out against.
> 
> JL


A lot of people came back against it. Can't blame them. One man's "waffle" is another man's change of mind. I call those who refuse to change their minds, despite overwhelming evidence, to be stubborn mules...or just plain stupid.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> YOU are not seing the big picture when you realize that having those $5 locals available will get Mr podunk to subscribe to AEP and not having podunk's locals will abandon those viewers to cable. If your big picture can assume one possibly lousy HD channel will be the tipping point between subscribe/not subscribe then having locals can be a tipping point as well.


I think the chances of an HD home theater owner springing for AEP is more likely than Clem and his wife/sister in the double-wide coughing up the dough.



> If you are going to conveniently ignore facts I suppose there is no reason to discuss them. This isn't 'Gary's DBS system'  this is E*'s. Channels you don't personally like are important to others.


Ignore what facts? I mentioned those channels. Ooh. I left out a couple-three. 


> A HIGH one. Your plan would reduce E*'s AEP to under 200 channels with over 50 of those being music (and since you hate music, let's pull that and have under 150 channels of narrow content (call it: 'content Gary likes') instead of diverse channels.


I love music bro. I was a soundman for 20 years. I just don't use the TV to listen to the radio. It's a stupid concept.



> Ah yes, DTVs Minimum Package. "130 channels" allegedly. Really 92, plus 31 music channels, plus RSN, and locals (if available).
> 
> You like D*? I guess that's why you are trying to turn E* into D* - cutting the depth from the service. (AEP=222+locals+RSN, TCP=175+locals+RSN - and AEP is cheaper).


The fact is that for the $40 of AT120 w/locals, TC w/locals gives you about a dozen more content channels, with less shopping and public interest, including a number of the channels that E* puts in their higher priced AT180, or doesn't have at all like NFL, Trio, and Oxygen.


> Yeah Gary, turn E* into D*. No thanks.
> 
> JL


I know. Who the hell would want proper HW, a single dish antenna, and knowledgable friendly CSR's? That would suck.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garypen said:


> I think the chances of an HD home theater owner springing for AEP is more likely than Clem and his wife/sister in the double-wide coughing up the dough.


I disagree. I believe there are more Clem's buying $90 worth of E* than can afford HD equipment. But then, this is America and you have the right to be wrong.



garypen said:


> Ignore what facts? I mentioned those channels. Ooh. I left out a couple-three.


Or a dozen. As long as they are channels you don't want, they don't count? 



garypen said:


> I love music bro. I was a soundman for 20 years. I just don't use the TV to listen to the radio. It's a stupid concept.


That's what they said about listening to radio over the Internet, and downloading songs. Who would want compressed music when you can buy uncompressed WAVs on CDs? :lol: 
It's a delivery device, and when you and I get Serius Radio via E* as part of AT120 starting on May 20th it sure will be a lot better way than buying an expensive receiver and paying $10 per month to listen at home. Can't listen to good music and the TV at the same time anyhow ... unless you're ADHD. :grin:



garypen said:


> Who the hell would want proper HW, a single dish antenna, and knowledgable friendly CSR's? That would suck.


Careful. You might get the troll label slapped on for such heresey in this forum.

"Proper HW" in my book follows a standard ... E* follows MPEG-2, an international standard. D* took MPEG-1 and added their own propriatary twist for what they do. Not an international standard. SuperDish is a single dish ... and all I need in my market to get everything but 5 freebee channels. And E* has shown recently that they are moving away from the wings. 12 LA channels moved from 148 to a 119 spotbeam today (amongst other changes). E* is striving to be a 1 dish offering, wherever possible.

D*? Their last local market was added last JULY ... their 64th. What happened to their promised "50 new locals by the end of 2003"? 41 of them are in limbo because they can't get D7S into orbit. And even WITH D7S they will be 20 markets behind E*! :lol: I guess D* put their tech into their receivers instead of the spectrum that feeds it! 

But enough D* vs E*. That isn't what this thread is about ... unless you expect D* to add a bunch of HD. 

JL


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

garypen said:


> I love music bro. I was a soundman for 20 years. I just don't use the TV to listen to the radio. It's a stupid concept.


Not if you're in an area that's served only by Country music, top 40 and album music stations, plus PBS outlets that may or may not broadcast all the NPR national feed. Then the music channels start to sound good :grin:


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

justalurker said:


> But then, this is America and you have the right to be wrong.
> JL


Damn straight!


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Cholly said:


> Not if you're in an area that's served only by Country music, top 40 and album music stations, plus PBS outlets that may or may not broadcast all the NPR national feed. Then the music channels start to sound good :grin:


Did they outlaw CD's there too?


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

garypen said:


> Did they outlaw CD's there too?


Last time I looked, CD's cost *MONEY* :lol: 
BTW, if the free Sirius channels replace some of the crappy mono music channels, that will be a good thing, no? :hurah:

On a serious note: I live in fervent hope that Charlie & Co. will bring more HD content to Dish, as well as a few SD nets that cable and D* offer (Oxygen and WB, for example: there are a few shows on these nets that I'd like to see). As for HD, I wish they'd offer Bravo and INHD as part of the HD package.

In my DMA (Binghamton, NY), requests for waivers for distant networks are denied, even though there is no NBC OTA available (well, actually, there's a transponder that puts out somewhere around 20 watts, allowing them to claim that an OTA signal exists  ). If all the locals were assigned UHF channels for their digital OTA, I'd probably be getting good reception with a good indoor UHF antenna. As it is, they are all broadcasting on low power, and with PBS on UHF, ABC on low band VHF and the others on high band VHF, a good outdoor antenna installation is almost a must. Not a viable solution in my case :crying:


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

garypen said:


> I love music bro. I was a soundman for 20 years. I just don't use the TV to listen to the radio. It's a stupid concept.


My CD and FM signals go through the same sound system as my home theater. I do occasionally listen to the Alternative or Blues or some other music channel that Dish provides. The TV itself stays off when I do this. I will likely do the same when they bring Sirius online. There is nothing stupid about that at all. If you choose not to do so, fine, but please don't paint it as "stupid" when it clearly isn't.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

I too have my Dish receiver hooked up to a toslink input on my audio receiver. However, the novelty of the Dish music channels wore off very quickly. Perhaps Sirius will change my mind about music from my TV provider.


----------

