# DIRECTV Still Lying About HDTV according to TVPredictions.com



## Barcthespark (Dec 16, 2007)

"Washington, D.C. (November 1, 2009) -- DIRECTV, which was once the undisputed HDTV leader among U.S. TV providers, has added just a handful of new high-def channels during the past 18 months. In fact, some providers now offer more HD channels than the nation's top satellite service.

So, how does DIRECTV hide this fact in its marketing campaigns? And, how does it still claim to be the nation's HD leader?

Lie, of course."

To read the rest of the story go to http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlying110109.htm


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

huh, an article bashing directv from swanni..who would have expected that..


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Swanni must be bored, so he's:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Here we go again


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Just consider the source of the article, and you can file it under useless with all his other articles.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Swanni's still around?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Are you kidding me? When you click on the link it goes to another article thats over a year old lol. Here is how it starts.

Commentary
DIRECTV Cooks the HD Numbers 
The satcaster adopts cable TV's strategy of referring to PPV movies as channels.
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. *(August 15, 2008)*


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

joshjr said:


> Are you kidding me? When you click on the link it goes to another article thats over a year old lol. Here is how it starts.
> 
> Commentary
> DIRECTV Cooks the HD Numbers
> ...


I get the following:


> Commentary
> DIRECTV: Still Lying About HDTV
> TVPredictions.com
> 
> Washington, D.C. (November 1, 2009) -- DIRECTV, which was once the undisputed HDTV leader among U.S. TV providers, has added just a handful of new high-def channels during the past 18 months. In fact, some providers now offer more HD channels than the nation's top satellite service.


----------



## martyp (Jul 11, 2007)

But doesn't comcast count every show that's on demand as a differnt channel?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

David MacLeod said:


> I get the following:


Thats cause Im talking about the link inside that article.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this eventually ..


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

OK, so Swanni has another negative article about a multichannel video provider. And their creative arithmetic. No surprises there.

Is this a "big" deal? To me not any more than any other advertising is. Then again--I don't watch commercials or ads. 

Very soon DIRECTV will be in the lead on anyone's reasonable count. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SJSU (Oct 30, 2009)

As someone who is brand new to DirecTV (I'll have it installed tomorrow) I say who cares how many HD channels they claim. Of course they pad the numbers and belittle the competition. Everyone does. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it's advertising. Show me someone who takes advertising as the gospel truth and I'll show you a fool. Judge what each provider has and suits your needs best. Ignore the advertising. That's what I did and it's why I signed up with DirecTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Welcome to the forums, SJSU! :welcome_s

And welcome to DIRECTV. May you have many years of great viewing. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

martyp said:


> But doesn't comcast count every show that's on demand as a differnt channel?


they also count the part time RSN over flows and the part time game HD, PPV HD, and team HD as HD as well.


----------



## SJSU (Oct 30, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> Welcome to the forums, SJSU! :welcome_s
> 
> And welcome to DIRECTV. May you have many years of great viewing.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Tom. I'm betting I will.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I get mad at the E* commercials misleading that one dont need Sunday Ticket or the ones where they say why should anyone pay more for the same channels. That is the case for some but not all. I can not sign up with a company that does not offer Sunday Ticket, MLB EI, Mega March Madness, Nascar Hotpass, FSN Oklahoma, etc. One plus is they have Vs at E* but that is not even close to being worth it. They also have my locals and D* dont but its still not worth it. No way no how not now not ever!!!


----------



## cgking114 (Mar 5, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> OK, so Swanni has another negative article about a multichannel video provider. And their creative arithmetic. No surprises there.
> 
> Is this a "big" deal? To me not any more than any other advertising is. Then again--I don't watch commercials or ads.
> 
> ...


+1. They all do it, but Swanni seems to only notice when D* does it for some reason.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Don't feed the Troll!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cgking114 said:


> +1. They all do it, but Swanni seems to only notice when D* does it for some reason.


Swanni has a history with his parents and DirecTV, so he regularly likes to site any negativity or perceived negativity toward them when he gets the chance.

Not a big deal - the marketing battles go on all the time with other providers as well.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Slow news day = Swanni-bash on DirecTV. 

Surprise, surprise.

And what happened to reader comments on that site? Couldn't stand the criticism on your "journalism", Swanni, huh??


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Let's not give swan more credit than he's due: his website is as much a news outlet as the Lions are a football team. He runs an editorial blog with a chip on his shoulder. I think our new member, SJSU, put it best:

"Judge what each provider has and suits your needs best. Ignore the advertising."


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Why even post this crap here? Nobody cares what Swanni thinks. Any company can claim they are the HD leader, it all depends on what they are measuring. If its strictly measured on channel count, again who cares? PQ and the channels someone wants in HD are the only 2 factors that mean anything at all, and the sooner Swanni figures that out the sooner he wont be looked at like a complete imbecile when he posts his propaganda.


----------



## Valve1138 (Apr 26, 2008)

Why should I care even if this crap is true? I love my DirecTV service.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

I can't even read the original article, but D*'s last ad campaign was a little grating for me, too.

"Theater quality TV on every channel"

Right, tell me that when I'm forced to watch pixelated ESPNU in SD, because D* has chosen 1080p PPV, and PPV in general, over most customers.

BS.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

hancox said:


> I can't even read the original article, but D*'s last ad campaign was a little grating for me, too.
> 
> "Theater quality TV on every channel"
> 
> ...


I think your argument should be with ESPN for providing a poor source. Same complaint I have with Fox Soccer channel. Doesn't matter whether I'm watching on a friends cable system or a different att uverse system. FSC is poorly sourced and that gives a poor on screen image.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joshjr said:


> No way no how not now not ever!!!


That's cause Swann is "Captain Tying Knots".  Seahorses Forever!

Seriously, when is Swann ever positive about anything?


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> That's cause Swann is "Captain Tying Knots".  Seahorses Forever!
> 
> Seriously, when is Swann ever positive about anything?


Positive articles don't generate the web traffic required to boost ad revenue. I hope all of you that read the Swanni site enjoy increasing his traffic. Thanks to the OP for posting about that article on this site.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> That's cause Swann is "Captain Tying Knots".  Seahorses Forever!
> 
> Seriously, when is Swann ever positive about anything?


Would guess yes, but it was probably about himself and his knowledge


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mr. Swann is entitled to his opinions, of course. 

The race for HD supremacy was won by DIRECTV when they launched HD channels two years ago. In the meantime the other providers have caught up, but with the upcoming launch of DIRECTV12, DIRECTV will surge ahead. 

Sooner or later every provider will have every major HD channel anyway.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Kill the messenger (swani) if you must BUT some of DirecTv/Dish/Comcast/Time Warner/etal are extremely misleading if not dishonest. 

The greater problem is that this kind of behavior has become acceptable. Lie/massage the numbers/distort the competition........such advertising should be illegal.

I am a long time Directv customer. I love the service I have. BUT I am not such a fan boy that I refuse to see that Directv has rolled out very little HD service in the last year or so. IMO they have allowed the competition to catch up and maybe even surpass them in some cases. 

Perhaps Directv would be better served if they worked on truly being the HD leader. Then they wouldn't have to resort misleading advertising. (yes I know capacity)

Lots of companies use the same techniques as Directv. I have Vonage and I laugh every time I see their 24.99 service ad. That 24.99 costs me 31.85 (almost 30% more)

I get it..............some of you really dislike Swani. (and some of us don't care) I read his site........I have found it to be helpful at times. We are better served if we get beyond the messenger and look at the message. (yes, understanding his view is colored by his experience with Directv)

Not counting PPV (and maybe part time Sports channels) does DirecTv offer the most HD channels?


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

When I saw the title of this thread, I knew that the fanboys would be out in force to "refute" the truth. D* has done damn little about HD since it converted many HD channels to MPEG4; this was a very good thing.

AS for "what have you done for me lately?", the truth is very little. Most are catching up to D* quickly.

Now I'm sure some of you are writing rebuttals before you have even gotten this far but I love what there is of D*; my service is great, the DVR could be better but it's good. At the same time I hate their ads which distort the truth so much that even a politician could call D* a liar.

D* has done very little within the last year as far as securing more HD channels. That is the TRUTH. :nono:


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

What no love for swanni? thats the 1st website i visit every morning,I dont always agree with him,but its the fastest way i know of getting information on TV news or new HD channels.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Mr. Swann is entitled to his opinions, of course.
> 
> The race for HD supremacy was won by DIRECTV when they launched HD channels two years ago. In the meantime the other providers have caught up, but with the upcoming launch of DIRECTV12, DIRECTV will surge ahead.
> 
> Sooner or later every provider will have every major HD channel anyway.


Yep, they all will have nearly all the same channels outside of some sports channels here and there.

As to whether D* will surge ahead with D12's launch, well that is speculation and may or may not be as true as you'd like. Regardless, we as consumers win as the providers keep moving the bar up!


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, they all will have nearly all the same channels outside of some sports channels here and there.
> 
> As to whether D* will surge ahead with D12's launch, well that is speculation and may or may not be as true as you'd like. Regardless, we as consumers win as the providers keep moving the bar up!


I just hope our wallets can keep up


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Newshawk said:


> Swanni's still around?


I disappear for 6+ months, come back and see this stuff. Some things never change.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, they all will have nearly all the same channels outside of some sports channels here and there.
> 
> As to whether D* will surge ahead with D12's launch, well that is speculation and may or may not be as true as you'd like. Regardless, we as consumers win as the providers keep moving the bar up!


Why would they not? With the added bandwidth of D12 they will be able to add something like an additional 70 National HD's correct, of course granted there are actually 70 worth adding, and *can* add based on exclusive carriage agreements that others may have?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

brucegrr said:


> Kill the messenger (swani) if you must BUT some of DirecTv/Dish/Comcast/Time Warner/etal are extremely misleading if not dishonest.
> 
> The greater problem is that this kind of behavior has become acceptable. Lie/massage the numbers/distort the competition........such advertising should be illegal.


While we may disagree, if they were lying, I'm sure a lawsuit would be filed (as they have been in the past). Counting a PPV, Part time RSN, Channel you personally don't watch/like may not be popular, it is hardly illegal.



> I am a long time Directv customer. I love the service I have. BUT I am not such a fan boy that I refuse to see that Directv has rolled out very little HD service in the last year or so. IMO they have allowed the competition to catch up and maybe even surpass them in some cases.
> 
> Perhaps Directv would be better served if they worked on truly being the HD leader. Then they wouldn't have to resort misleading advertising. (yes I know capacity)


Would you prefer that DirecTV build a new satellite to expand capacity, publicize that, publish an expected launch and "go-live" date? Oh wait, they did that. What exactly should they do then to meet your needs of truly being an HD leader? Be the first provider to offer a live 1080P channel? They did that. Come up with a method to have OnDemand, including 1080P? They did that. Cover the majority of the country with HD locals? They did that. I'm not really sure what you are asking for them to do besides launch a satellite which is in the final stages.



> Lots of companies use the same techniques as Directv. I have Vonage and I laugh every time I see their 24.99 service ad. That 24.99 costs me 31.85 (almost 30% more)
> 
> I get it..............some of you really dislike Swani. (and some of us don't care) I read his site........I have found it to be helpful at times. We are better served if we get beyond the messenger and look at the message. (yes, understanding his view is colored by his experience with Directv)
> 
> Not counting PPV (and maybe part time Sports channels) does DirecTv offer the most HD channels?


Well, honestly I take offense to the exceptions and thats the problem. If they count everything, people take offense because its PPV and part time sports channels. But if they don't count everything, they aren't being truthful and their competition will. PPV is a lucrative and popular part of their offering. It should be counted because 10 HD PPV > 4 HD PPV and might matter to your neighbor. And part time RSNs are EXTREMELY important to the fans of the local team.

I'm not nitpicking you - I'm just pointing out one persons "lie" is another persons truth. DirecTV offers more channels of active HD content that are not OnDemand. Including DirecTVs online OnDemand they are most likely on par (I've never seen numbers) with most CableCos when you include OnDemand.

And DirecTV offers BY FAR the most HD Sports. Period. End of Discussion.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BudShark said:


> If they count everything, people take offense because its PPV and part time sports channels. But if they don't count everything, they aren't being truthful and their competition will.


The actual problem is that DirecTV was truthful originally, and then their land-based competition decided to distort their own offerings to compare with DirecTV's. That included the dreaded on-demand offerings that those specific cablers could offer.

I also agree that DirecTV has been slow to add much this past year on the HD front. But when some of those offerings wanted are wholly-owned by cable companies (Travel, Versus, etc.) then one can see the lines in the sand...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Why would they not? With the added bandwidth of D12 they will be able to add something like an additional 70 National HD's correct, of course granted there are actually 70 worth adding, and *can* add based on exclusive carriage agreements that others may have?


It is D* you know, they sometimes do strange things. Like add a ton of HDPPV showing the exact same movies the ones they already had.

I only believe the channels I can get, all the rest is pure speculation no matter who the provider is.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> The actual problem is that DirecTV was truthful originally, and then their land-based competition decided to distort their own offerings to compare with DirecTV's. That included the dreaded on-demand offerings that those specific cablers could offer.
> 
> I also agree that DirecTV has been slow to add much this past year on the HD front. But when some of those offerings wanted are wholly-owned by cable companies (Travel, Versus, etc.) then one can see the lines in the sand...


I am going to agree here. I would also point out that the problem with HD is that we have no hard and fast rules. Is 720p, 1080i or 1080p "HD"? If the answer is yes, all three are HD, why do we care that a TV maxes at 720p? The answer is that the definition of HD has changed and evolves. So maybe anything better than 480i is HD. Thankfully, we don't sit around and argue about HD-Lite anymore.

None of that has much to do with the idea in this thread. Except that now we can't agree about what constitutes an HD channel. If a channel shows HD movies all day, seven days a week, but happens to be PPV, is it an HD channel? Well what about a HD channel that shows maybe an hour or two of HD programming and 22-23 hours of stretchy vision SD up-converts. Is that an HD channel? How do you count a RSN that shows a small percentage of unique HD content?

The problem with advertising claims in HD is that we are in the wild west. Everyone can say what they want because they make their own rules. Like Dish and their, "why pay for direct ticket when you get the top five games each week" claim. I can see the technical claim, unless they are running it in Cleveland or St Louis. Those games are not in the top five games every week.

Long post summed up, "buyer beware". Know what you want to see and purchase based upon your desires. Sit back and wait. We will all have the same stuff "soon".


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I really don't understand why people care so much about this entire topic (which gets reincarnated almost every week in one form or another). What does it matter if (fill in the name) advertises they have 100 or 300 HD channels since there will only be 10 or 20 or 30 you're going to actively watch. If XYZ had 500 and 495 were of no interest would the provider be better because they have 500? 

Is this any different then political advertising .... or ANY advertising for that matter? How often does any advertising actually tell the truth? Even PSA's exaggerate or lie. 

Liars liars pants on fires. Who cares (unless you're gullible enough to think "because they say it on TV it's the truth") ??


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Liars liars pants on fires. Who cares (unless you're gullible enough to think "because they say it on TV it's the truth") ??


That's right - it's only true if you can find it on the internet!


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Bottom line is, how many national HD channels are left that are not on satellite now?

Imagine D* has capacity to add 200 more HD channels than any other provider. Remember I did say Imagine. How many HD channels would launch for only one provider?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> I really don't understand why people care so much about this entire topic (which gets reincarnated almost every week in one form or another). What does it matter if (fill in the name) advertises they have 100 or 300 HD channels since there will only be 10 or 20 or 30 you're going to actively watch. If XYZ had 500 and 495 were of no interest would the provider be better because they have 500?
> 
> Is this any different then political advertising .... or ANY advertising for that matter? How often does any advertising actually tell the truth? Even PSA's exaggerate or lie.
> 
> Liars liars pants on fires. Who cares (unless you're gullible enough to think "because they say it on TV it's the truth") ??


Unless some of the 10 or 20 or 30 you're going to want to actively watch aren't available.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

I am quite happy with Directv and I have always said so. That does not mean, however, that I give them a free pass on their advertising. Lying? Maybe, maybe not. Distortion? Manipulation? Apples and oranges? Absolutely. 

Of course this is the norm for advertising. 

For me..........I count the number of actual, full time HD channels offered. I don't listen to the ads. I count what I can see. On that basis Dish and many cable companies have caught up with Directv.

Where I live, rural NW Ohio, we have three choices. Directv, Dish, or Time Warner (formerly Adelphia) Time Warner's HD channels are far and few between. The only choice for me is Dish or DirecTv. Both seem to be on par with the other. It is SPORTS that tilts the table towards Directv for me. 

Has anyone noticed that the discussion is about Swani the person and not about what Swani has written? How about a hard look at what Dish, Directv, cable companies offer? A side by side comparison. No talk about the future which can blow up in space.........but what is actually offered now, today?

Once again....overall Directv wins the battle for my entertainment dollars. BUT they are no longer the overwhelming favorite.

Bruce


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The race for HD supremacy was won by DIRECTV when they launched HD channels two years ago.


The race was and remains far from won. 18 months of arguable leadership doesn't really constitute a dynasty; especially given the paucity of new CONUS HD channels in the last 12 months.


----------



## je4755 (Dec 11, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> In the meantime the other providers have caught up, but with the upcoming launch of DIRECTV12, DIRECTV will surge ahead.


If contracts in fact have been consummated. As noted above by Greg Bimson (and many other contributors in the past) ". . . when some of those offerings wanted are wholly-owned by cable companies (Travel, Versus, etc.) then one can see the lines in the sand . . ." I hope DirecTV soon resolves its differences with Comcast and Cox - should Travel Channel HD's absence flow from an inability to conclude a carriage agreement rather than D11 capacity limitations - but we'll see.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> The race was and remains far from won. 18 months of arguable leadership doesn't really constitute a dynasty; especially given the paucity of new CONUS HD channels in the last 12 months.


Try quoting his whole post. He said, "In the meantime the other providers have caught up..."


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Exactly! It still wouldn't matter if they had 10, 100 or 1000 if the ones you want isn't there. But this thread is about ADVERTISING. Who cares if they are lying or hyperbolizing? SURPRISE EVERYONE ..... ads always play with the truth.



TBoneit said:


> Unless some of the 10 or 20 or 30 you're going to want to actively watch aren't available.


----------



## Knowledge (Oct 30, 2009)

I miscounted on my list


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Sixto has a good count here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103232

Some of the HD channels are temporary and are used for NFLST, MLB Extra Innings, etc.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

According to this Directv page I count 94. (Doug's link to Sixto's post confirms the 94 count)

https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/hd/difference

This does not include PPV, HD locals, etc.

So...........please let me know how you come up with 165 or 188?

Here is the link for Dish's HD.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/turbohd/default.aspx

Bruce



Knowledge said:


> What are the actual #'s? D* has 165 HD channels 188 if you want to count RSNs. Not in including any HD Sports subs or HD locals DoD and Cinema and PPV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

How one counts is perhaps the most important part.

One Sundays, 15 is all I need--except during bye weeks.  (And only DIRECTV has those 15...)


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Tom,



Quite correct. As I have said before...........when it comes to Sports there is only ONE service provider.........Directv.

I enjoyed the Vikings/Packers game Sunday. Great game. Personally I am a Bengals fan  I have HOPE this year (just like every other year since 1981) Maybe this year....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Try quoting his whole post. He said, "In the meantime the other providers have caught up..."


The quote stands by itself. The fact that the rest of the post contradicts the part I quoted doesn't make it any less false.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

No one can win a race that has no finish line.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

For those not in the know, Swanni is a Directv subscriber as he said so
a few months ago in one of his articles praising DIRECTV. However, he
is just like the rest of us wanting Directv to hurry up and add more HD
channel now, not next year when the new satellite is up and going!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The quote stands by itself. The fact that the rest of the post contradicts the part I quoted doesn't make it any less false.


Yes it does .. so when you don't include the other relevant portion you've totally changed the context of what was being said. What's the point? :shrug:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cmoss5 said:


> For those not in the know, Swanni is a Directv subscriber as he said so
> a few months ago in one of his articles praising DIRECTV. However, he
> is just like the rest of us wanting Directv to hurry up and add more HD
> channel now, not next year when the new satellite is up and going!!


He is also a writer that often uses thread posts from here as the basis for his stories. He indulges in yellow journalism, often embellishing or slanting the facts for a better headline.


----------



## Techie (Sep 17, 2007)

My father in law has Dish. Went over to his house and he was watching speed in sd. That was at least 8 months ago. I was over there saturday because they had a box searching for sat. I recommended they call for a tech to come out. I happened to be there when he showed up and they don't wear uniforms, badges?? Asked about speed in HD and got a look. I LOVE my speed in HD !!! (d* has had speed HD channel BEFORE the channel was broadcast in HD)....My dad's local channels are not in HD eather. Oh by the way the box was bad. There software locked up.


----------



## pfueri (Jan 22, 2007)

Theater quality TV on every channel !This is what Joe Buck says on the World Series DirecTv adds . Well this is a lie ! In fact DirecTv don't even have Theater quality sound on all of the HD channels. Let alone all the channels like the Joe Buck says on the DirecTv adds during the World Series . And about the lack of new HD programing and the highest prices for programing !
We all know that DirecTv just don't lie on the TV adds but about having the most HD .We all also know there is a lot of HD channels we don't have yet and have been around for a while now and yet DirecTv don't have them !One big example is ESPNU HD . Look I better not say to much more because all the brown nosers on this site might start crying .Ther fact is we all pay way to much for DirecTv than we should .


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

I think avsforum has the grand list of all channels and which service providers have them or not. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081

D* is missing most of the premium HD channels, for example. And several others.

I think the fair comparison would be to compare the different packages with each other. And exclude the a la carte / PPV / VOD stuff. And that would differ from region to region.

But D* is clearly not the leader. Dish, Verizon, and AT&T are ahead. Your local cable company may be ahead as well.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think avsforum has the grand list of all channels and which service providers have them or not. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081
> 
> D* is missing most of the premium HD channels, for example. And several others.
> 
> ...


D* is significantly ahead in Full-time RSN's. Which pushes the total in favor of D*.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Once they launch 10 trillion satellites to carry 10 trillion channels--is there any chance that they might try to increase the resolution of any of them?

Is there any chance that the providers such as HBO and Showtime would ever try to increase the resolution of what they provide?

If DBS ever looked as good as Blu-Ray would the universe blow up?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Artwood said:


> Once they launch 10 trillion satellites to carry 10 trillion channels--is there any chance that they might try to increase the resolution of any of them?
> 
> Is there any chance that the providers such as HBO and Showtime would ever try to increase the resolution of what they provide?
> 
> If DBS ever looked as good as Blu-Ray would the universe blow up?


The resolution at least on the MPEG4 HD stations that are 1080 is already the SAME as blu-ray(1920x1080), maybe you are referring to amount of compression used compared to Blu-ray? Transmission telecasts will never look as good as BD disk, its just wont happen. but I'll tell you that the 1080p stuff I have seen from D* so far looks pretty close. its a trade off, do you want quality or quantity, there is not an unlimited amount of bandwidth so you can't have both. D* and the other providers have to try to create a balance they feel meets the wants of the majority of their subscribers. They will never be able to meet the wants of EVERY subscriber.


----------



## lovswr (Jan 13, 2004)

brucegrr said:


> Tom,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I grew up in Dayton. Jerry Rice pushed off! 'Nuff said.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Artwood said:


> *Once they launch 10 trillion satellites *to carry 10 trillion channels--is there any chance that they might try to increase the resolution of any of them?
> 
> Is there any chance that the providers such as HBO and Showtime would ever try to increase the resolution of what they provide?
> 
> If DBS ever looked as good as Blu-Ray would the universe blow up?





CCarncross said:


> The resolution at least on the MPEG4 HD stations that are 1080 is already the SAME as blu-ray(1920x1080), maybe you are referring to amount of compression used compared to Blu-ray? Transmission telecasts will never look as good as BD disk, its just wont happen. but I'll tell you that the 1080p stuff I have seen from D* so far looks pretty close. its a trade off, *do you want quality or quantity*, there is not an unlimited amount of bandwidth so you can't have both. D* and the other providers have to try to create a balance they feel meets the wants of the majority of their subscribers. They will never be able to meet the wants of EVERY subscriber.


I want both.  With 10 trillion satellites, I'm sure we'll get both. :lol:

Bump up the bitrate please!


----------



## scorpio110753 (Nov 3, 2009)

i am a dish, dtv & hughes net installation tech and have no complaints about my home dtv hd. i wish the owner would drop dish but he won't. like the old saying goe's.....u get what u pay for... if u don't like dtv then go to another provider.. i'm happy and because we install dish i still have to pay what everyone else doe's. best sports package and hd in the business.


----------



## sdk009 (Jan 19, 2007)

lovswr said:


> I grew up in Dayton. Jerry Rice pushed off! 'Nuff said.


I live in NorCal. Did it get called...?:lol:

Yea I had to laugh at Joe Buck's reading of the D* ad about "theater quality picture and sound on EVERY channel." I guess he's never seen CSNBA & CSNCA in standard def.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

CCarncross said:


> *The resolution at least on the MPEG4 HD stations that are 1080 is already the SAME as blu-ray(1920x1080),* maybe you are referring to amount of compression used compared to Blu-ray? Transmission telecasts will never look as good as BD disk, its just wont happen. but I'll tell you that the 1080p stuff I have seen from D* so far looks pretty close. its a trade off, do you want quality or quantity, there is not an unlimited amount of bandwidth so you can't have both. D* and the other providers have to try to create a balance they feel meets the wants of the majority of their subscribers. They will never be able to meet the wants of EVERY subscriber.


Are you referring to PPV or broadcast stations?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Movieman said:


> Are you referring to PPV or broadcast stations?


1920x1080 is 1920x1080, whether its interlaced or progressive doesnt change the *resolution*....its just the bitrates are much higher on BD disks....I've seen 30+Mb/sec on my players display.

There are really only 2 HD resolutions being shown on the MPEG4 HD stations, either 1280x720(720p), or 1920x1080(1080i)p only in special situations like PPV, and that is determined by the station(FOX, ABC, ESPN, are all 720 stations)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes it does .. so when you don't include the other relevant portion you've totally changed the context of what was being said.


Context should precede (and must not contradict) the conclusion.

The first sentence was false and the second sentence illustrated one reason why. The tertiary sentence directly contradicted the first sentence by asserting that the race must ultimately end in a draw.

DIRECTV had a lead for a time and and that time has passed. They may get it back and then again, they may not. Their competition, both terrestrial and orbital, is bulking up at a furious pace.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Curtis0620 said:


> D* is significantly ahead in Full-time RSN's. Which pushes the total in favor of D*.


No it doesn't. The link I gave above also has a link to the RSNs. All the local RSNs are available on local cable in HD. But an out-of-market RSN won't be on local cable at all, simply because there is no demand for it. Also, a lot of those channels are "game time only" on D* -- meaning that it's not in HD 24x7. But they are not "game-time only" on other providers -- it's 24x7. Likewise, I don't count the 1,000 HD PPV or VOD channels that D* doesn't have. And how do you count the optional sports packages?

I think this discussion means different things to different people. I think it is about what channels are available SD only vs. HD and SD. And D* has a lot of premium movie channels that are SD only, while FIOS has every single one in HD. This is a glaring problem that has got to be addressed.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Context should precede (and must not contradict) the conclusion.
> 
> The first sentence was false and the second sentence illustrated one reason why. The tertiary sentence directly contradicted the first sentence by asserting that the race must ultimately end in a draw.
> 
> DIRECTV had a lead for a time and and that time has passed. They may get it back and then again, they may not. Their competition, both terrestrial and orbital, is bulking up at a furious pace.


Whatever dude .. So you saying here:

"DIRECTV had a lead for a time and and that time has passed."

is something different than Stuart saying:

"The race for HD supremacy was won by DIRECTV when they launched HD channels two years ago. In the meantime the other providers have caught up, but with the upcoming launch of DIRECTV12, DIRECTV will surge ahead.?"

:shrug: I don't get it.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

It's very different, though I don't expect anyone to agree with Harsh, or anything against D*, here.

"Won" implies past-tense. It happened. It can't unhappen. That's why it's contradictory.

See - even *I* agreed with Harsh, when being objective...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hancox said:


> It's very different, though I don't expect anyone to agree with Harsh, or anything against D*, here.
> 
> "Won" implies past-tense. It happened. It can't unhappen. That's why it's contradictory.
> 
> See - even *I* agreed with Harsh, when being objective...


I consider it more of a leap-frogging affect. If I have a sprint race with a friend of mine, I may "win" some of the time and I may "lose" some of the time, but when I go home at night It's always good to know that I was the last to "win."

Still, I know that tomorrow we'll be racing again .. In other words I definitely believe that the "win" can unhappen in the sense that there is another race yet to come. So I don't see the comments as being different in a practical sense.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I consider it more of a leap-frogging affect. If I have a sprint race with a friend of mine, I may "win" some of the time and I may "lose" some of the time, but when I go home at night It's always good to know that I was the last to "win."
> 
> Still, I know that tomorrow we'll be racing again .. In other words I definitely believe that the "win" can unhappen in the sense that there is another race yet to come. So I don't see the comments as being different in a practical sense.


 As long as you both keep getting faster the competition is good


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> I consider it more of a leap-frogging affect. If I have a sprint race with a friend of mine, I may "win" some of the time and I may "lose" some of the time, but when I go home at night It's always good to know that I was the last to "win."


You can win legs of a race, similar to stages of the Tour de France, but the Tour de France as an event has only one victor and several strong specialty competitors with odd looking jerseys.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Whatever dude .. So you saying here:
> 
> "DIRECTV had a lead for a time and and that time has passed."
> 
> ...


The statement was made that DIRECTV won the race two years ago and that wasn't and still isn't true. Then it was asserted that others simply caught up but others have actually taken the lead. It remains to be seen whether D12 will allow DIRECTV to surge ahead.

This differs from DIRECTV once lead and now they don't. No mistaken assignment of ultimate supremacy in a battle that was shortly thereafter said to not be winnable and no insistence that DIRECTV still is at the front of the pack.

It is possible, even probable, that they will lead again but it is also possible that they will not. Only time will tell what they make of their new bandwidth upon their next successful launch campaign versus how the new (or recovered, in the case of cable/fiber) bandwidth of their competitors will be utilized.

I would point out that within a month or two of D12's currently speculated launch period, E* is scheduled to have its second "big bundle of bandwidth" (E14) in less than five months lofted into orbit. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1133.msg498939#msg498939


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Whatever dude .. So you saying here:
> 
> "DIRECTV had a lead for a time and and that time has passed."
> 
> ...


He evidently thinks he is a fancy logic aficionado...

I can easily confirm though, that he is in fact, not using logic at all correctly...



Sometimes it is easier to understand that the other person will never understand at all... I have the illogical member on ignore, unfortunately, people keep quoting him, so I sometimes see his opinions... :nono2:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

According to HIS logic, there will never be a "winner". The best anyone could hope for is to be the first to carry EVERY HD channel/content available. Then another carrier could succeed in carrying everything, then a new channel launches and someone will also pick that up, etc., etc.

I still think what does it matter? There's still more out there now than I could ever watch.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

All the providers have their misleading ads. I get a kick out of our local cable company. Their ads read, "Home of Free HD". But, if you want Universal HD, MavTV HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, Smithsonian Channel HD on Demand, MGM HD and Hallmark Movie, it will cost you $6.00 a month. What is free about that? I guess it is all in the way you interpret the ad.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Back to the OP....

Yes, *all* providers "expand the truth" when it comes to using limited information, deceptive information, partial facts, and whatever else legally can be used to market their services. They all do it, and numerous examples have been given in this thread.

In terms of any "race"....those will *always* be mere snapshots in time for comparison purposes.

No doubt the competition in HD channel counts benefits *all* viewers in the end. It also drives market pricing competition.

Once we get to the point of most channels being offered in HD, which should be next year...it will matter little if a provider has 160, 170, or whatever number of HD channels. They'll be so much of it, whichever provider gets a viewer the channels they regularly desire will win their business.

I suspect that (by mid 2010) multiple providers will fall into that category, and competition will be more along the lines of price and other optional/supplemental services.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> According to HIS logic, there will never be a "winner".


The "logic" you speak of came from Stuart's last sentence in the post.


Stuart Sweet said:


> Sooner or later every provider will have every major HD channel anyway.


I happen to agree with it.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ok, all I want to know is who posted the info here first? After all, we know this board is has been the basis for many of his "stories" over the years.:lol:


----------



## redram38 (Dec 7, 2005)

brucegrr said:


> Kill the messenger (swani) if you must BUT some of DirecTv/Dish/Comcast/Time Warner/etal are extremely misleading if not dishonest.
> 
> The greater problem is that this kind of behavior has become acceptable. Lie/massage the numbers/distort the competition........such advertising should be illegal.
> 
> ...


I was fixing to post this same thing, but you said it very well. It has been some time since we have seen much movement in the HD offerings. Others are catching up and maybe even surged ahead like Uverse. I love directv, but they need to get on the ball with new HD and not more PPV and shopping channels. I want more movie channels and channels like AMC, Lifetime, WGN and such. Get those and they can claim whatever they want, it will make current subs much happier.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The "logic" you speak of came from Stuart's last sentence in the post.I happen to agree with it.


Then why the sentence parsing?


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Redram38,

Thanks. I was wondering if anyone thought like I did 

I am a diehard Directv fan. Long time subscriber in three States. 

That said........I don't use PPV ever.(we use Netflix) I don't use the on demand features.(We use Netflix on demand) I have never bought anything off a shopping channel.

So when I look at HD channel progress I look for channels that are already HD on other service providers and say "why are they not on Directv"? I read news reports of channels now broadcasting in HD and once again I ask "why are they not on Directv" (or if they are why are they still in SD)

I know there are capacity and carriage issues. I also know there is a lot of excuse making too.

Not too far in the past we were all excited when the big HD rollout (s) occurred. Not much to be excited about in the last year.

I remain committed to Directv. However.......if after the new satellite launch there remains a dearth of new channels (or the capacity is directed towards PPV, NFL, EI, etc) then I suspect I will begin to look elsewhere.

Time Warner continues to add channels in our area though they are woefully behind Directv (less than 50 channels) We do not have the option of FIOS. So the choice is between Dish and Directv. It will be interesting to see how the next year shapes up HD-wise.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Very well said. I'm in same boat as you, albeit with U Verse as my only likely other option (though Dish may be in play, too)


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

It's actually very simple: the current winner of the race is the company with the largest number of HD subscribers. That is the only relevant measurement.

Dish or DirecTV could very easily add pointless channels with little content to win any channel counting contest in the short-term (like Dish did by including Voom channels in a count and then immediately dumping them). The only objective way to crown a leader is by market response. That means people willing to pay for the product.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

brucegrr said:


> Redram38,
> 
> Thanks. I was wondering if anyone thought like I did
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more.....


----------



## tds4182 (Jul 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The statement was made that DIRECTV won the race two years ago and that wasn't and still isn't true. Then it was asserted that others simply caught up but others have actually taken the lead. It remains to be seen whether D12 will allow DIRECTV to surge ahead.
> 
> This differs from DIRECTV once lead and now they don't. No mistaken assignment of ultimate supremacy in a battle that was shortly thereafter said to not be winnable and no insistence that DIRECTV still is at the front of the pack.
> 
> ...


And your D* set up would be what?

Please elucidate as that will enable all of us to judge whether you're REALLY qualified to judge D*'s pq.


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

tds4182 said:


> And your D* set up would be what?
> 
> Please elucidate as that will enable all of us to judge whether you're REALLY qualified to judge D*'s pq.


I don't see that he was talking about PQ. Why the aggressive questioning?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tds4182 said:


> Please elucidate as that will enable all of us to judge whether you're REALLY qualified to judge D*'s pq.


Prior to your impassioned outburst, the only mention of PQ was in post #23 by CCarncross. We are engaging in a discussion of HD channel counts prompted by an article that was criticizing DIRECTV for their "cooking" of their own HD channel count as well as apparent (to the author of the article) fibbing about the counts of their competitors.

If you would like to discuss PQ, there's several threads for that.


----------



## tds4182 (Jul 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Prior to your impassioned outburst, the only mention of PQ was in post #23 by CCarncross. We are engaging in a discussion of HD channel counts prompted by an article that was criticizing DIRECTV for their "cooking" of their own HD channel count as well as apparent (to the author of the article) fibbing about the counts of their competitors.
> 
> If you would like to discuss PQ, there's several threads for that.


I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

What is YOUR D* set up?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Is this all getting a bit off track?

The OP was regarding advertising/marketing tactics used....not PQ.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

harsh said:


> Prior to your impassioned outburst, the only mention of PQ was in post #23 by CCarncross. We are engaging in a discussion of HD channel counts prompted by an article that was criticizing DIRECTV for their "cooking" of their own HD channel count as well as apparent (to the author of the article) fibbing about the counts of their competitors.
> 
> If you would like to discuss PQ, there's several threads for that.


Actually the article AND THIS THREAD is about advertising as being the HD leader, which is more than just about count or PQ, so I was trying to point that out, thanks for taking my post out of context....

Directv is adding channels in a way that is consistent with a proper sat providers model, launch a new sat which adds capacity, add new channels, a year or so later launch another sat, add more channels. When D11 went up, a substantial number of channels were added as expected. We all knew that the next possibility to add a substantial chunk of channels couldnt happen until after the next new sat launch. If people don't like the sat model, find another provider. Quit kicking a dead horse.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> Actually the article AND THIS THREAD is about advertising as being the HD leader, which is more than just about count or PQ, so I was trying to point that out, thanks for taking my post out of context....


I didn't mean to discount what you said, I was just citing it as the only place that PQ was mentioned and wanted to know why I was being "credited" for bringing it up.


> When D11 went up, a substantial number of channels were added as expected.


I don't think that this is an entirely reasonable statement. It would appear that expectations were substantially higher regarding both the quantity ("up to 150") and some of the specific channels that would be added.

The "beating a dead horse" thing is what the various DBSTalk "venting threads" are all about.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

tds4182 said:


> I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
> 
> What is YOUR D* set up?


What does it matter? You don't have to be a DirecTV subscriber to have an opinion on this topic.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

Why is it a dead horse? Why should people just accept what DirecTV does? It's not okay to critique the DirecTV's business model? 

Personally, I don't think DirecTV ever intended to go this long without new HD programming. Something happened during the production of D12 that slowed down the launch. Timing is everything, and the timing got screwed up somewhere....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

wildbill129 said:


> Why is it a dead horse? Why should people just accept what DirecTV does? It's not okay to critique the DirecTV's business model?
> 
> Personally, I don't think DirecTV ever intended to go this long without new HD programming. Something happened during the production of D12 that slowed down the launch. Timing is everything, and the timing got screwed up somewhere....


D12 was originally an on-ground SPARE for D10 & D11. Once those two made it up successfully I think plans changed, so I wouldn't exactly term it a "screw up."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wildbill129 said:


> Why is it a dead horse? Why should people just accept what DirecTV does? It's not okay to critique the DirecTV's business model?


A dead horse is something that has been discussed more or less beyond its logical conclusion and there is evidence to support the idea that it is past the point of anyone being able to do anything about it.

Understanding what happened and offering suggestions future policy/planning isn't out of the question, but it does require knowing what DIRECTV's goals are (or aren't).

I'd like to think the current slowdown is due in large part to DIRECTV seeing some benefit (either in financial terms or goodwill with ILS and/or the community of organizations who maintain satellites) in giving up their launch spot to Eutelsat and that's why significant new additions are further away than hoped.

Then again, maybe Boeing is really that far behind schedule...


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Hadn't looked in here in a while ...

Seems that for any valid debate, you first need to define what you're debating. Also, any time you're debating "best" or "leader", it's all relative to a specific individual's needs and preferences, unless you're debating a specific advertisement with specific defined criteria.

Personally, after careful analysis, for this household, DirecTV graded out as being the HD "leader". Still does. It was based on evaluating HD channel availability for the content we find important, evaluating the HD technology used to receive and view that content, and understanding each provider's desire to differentiate themselves, while also understanding their vision for the future. Price was a secondary priority.

IMHO, DirecTV provided an HD vision for the future, and then executed, pure and simple. Everyone else needed to play catch-up.

Now we just enter the next phase.

Also, "creativity" can be very important, to proving that you are a leader. DirecTV was first to provide massive out-of-market RSN's in HD, mix channels in HD, major Sports/Political events (Golf, Tennis, 2008 Election, ...) in HD with mix channels, major Sports packages (MLB EI, NFL, ...) in HD. There's a long list of DirecTV's creative use of the bandwidth, while others just seem to be playing in the old world of channel counts.

Sure, on any given day, someone else might have the lead in channel count, but I decided a few years ago, to select the provider who had a clear HD vision and was executing on that vision ... in other words, a leader.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

wildbill129 said:


> Why is it a dead horse? Why should people just accept what DirecTV does? It's not okay to critique the DirecTV's business model?


That is not tolerated very well on this forum. Agreement and support of the current business model gets you a job at DirecTV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> That is not tolerated very well on this forum. Agreement and support of the current business model gets you a job at DirecTV.


:shrug:


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

harsh said:


> A dead horse is something that has been discussed more or less beyond its logical conclusion and there is evidence to support the idea that it is past the point of anyone being able to do anything about it.
> 
> Understanding what happened and offering suggestions future policy/planning isn't out of the question, but it does require knowing what DIRECTV's goals are (or aren't).
> 
> ...


In reality, we on this forum are all beyond being able to do something about it. We can voice whatever opinions we might hold, but in the end ongoing debate such as this is rather pointless. The horse was dead before we started beating it...


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

lovswr said:


> I grew up in Dayton. Jerry Rice pushed off! 'Nuff said.


i grew up in southern california, and if it wasn't for the wicked cold . . . cincy would have never got there 

lol


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> That is not tolerated very well on this forum. Agreement and support of the current business model gets you a job at DirecTV.


Bitter much? Really, let's go a bit beyond the petty bickering.


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

aa9vi said:


> That is not tolerated very well on this forum. Agreement and support of the current business model gets you a job at DirecTV.


:lol: I got a good chuckle out of that one


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Grydlok said:


> :lol: I got a good chuckle out of that one


agreed - well done!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

You guys aren't paying attention if you think the mods (or anyone else) don't criticize DirecTV's business practices, where appropriate. Stop being petty. 

:backtotop


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Barcthespark said:


> "Washington, D.C. (November 1, 2009) -- DIRECTV, which was once the undisputed HDTV leader among U.S. TV providers, has added just a handful of new high-def channels during the past 18 months. In fact, some providers now offer more HD channels than the nation's top satellite service.
> 
> So, how does DIRECTV hide this fact in its marketing campaigns? And, how does it still claim to be the nation's HD leader?
> 
> ...


Swammi streches the truth..............


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> Swammi streches the truth..............


This would imply that he handles the truth at some point.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL...the new commercials say that _soon _ (not now, and assumes launch goes well) they'll have the _capability _ (but maybe no deals in place) to have over 200 HD channels. He says it really fast. I only paid attention to his exact words because of this thread.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Here's one for the record books:

During the showing of WWII in HD this evening on The History Channel, a featured sponsor ad claimed that DIRECTV delivered "theater quality picture and sound on all channels". They said it twice or I would have thought I was hearing things.

OOF.


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

Sixto said:


> Hadn't looked in here in a while ...
> 
> Seems that for any valid debate, you first need to define what you're debating. Also, any time you're debating "best" or "leader", it's all relative to a specific individual's needs and preferences, unless you're debating a specific advertisement with specific defined criteria.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HerntDawg said:


> Well said.


Even if it is just more ad copy.

It doesn't sound like there was much of a critical comparison made. Just hit some sports-centric high points and hope nobody notices the absence of actual comparisons to the alternatives.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Even if it is just more ad copy.
> 
> It doesn't sound like there was much of a critical comparison made. Just hit some sports-centric high points and hope nobody notices the absence of actual comparisons to the alternatives.


...or as Dish people call it....an unnecessary truth....


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

harsh said:


> Even if it is just more ad copy.
> 
> It doesn't sound like there was much of a critical comparison made. Just hit some sports-centric high points and hope nobody notices the absence of actual comparisons to the alternatives.


Bring it on.


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

Well, all I know is I just called both of DirecTV's competitors in my area, Dishnetwork and Cablevision. Of the two, cablevisions offer would save me the most money(for the first two years anyway) and then blow past that, all for less channels(although I would get on-demand FWIW). The deal from Dish was lousy, I said that I am curently a DirecTV subscriber looking to switch, the best I got was $40 off for three months, some different channels here and there but not compelling(no YES network, I forgot they still hold out on that, that's a dealbreaker).

For me in my little town DirecTV is still the best.


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> During the showing of WWII in HD this evening on The History Channel, a featured sponsor ad claimed that DIRECTV delivered "theater quality picture and sound on all channels". They said it twice or I would have thought I was hearing things.


Well, I did go see a movie not too long ago and it was out of focus and a little dim, so maybe that's what he was referring to.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> :shrug:


Was that an 'I dont know what he's talking about' shrug?
or an 'That just about sums it up (jokingly)' shrug?


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

hancox said:


> I can't even read the original article, but D*'s last ad campaign was a little grating for me, too.
> 
> "Theater quality TV on every channel"
> 
> ...


There is no question that D* has been very dishonest lately about a lot of things, don't even bother calling customer NO service if you are inquiring about technical issues that are OBVIOUSLY at THEIR end. They will blame it on your equipment or environment EVERYTIME to avoid having to take responsibility for headend issues!

I've been there. I had complained about video levels (birghtness, contrast, color saturation) on various SD channels and they steadfastly refused to confirm it and make the necessary adjustments even though I have enough technical background to know the source of the problem.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> There is no question that D* has been very dishonest lately about a lot of things, don't even bother calling customer NO service if you are inquiring about technical issues that are OBVIOUSLY at THEIR end. They will blame it on your equipment or environment EVERYTIME to avoid having to take responsibility for headend issues!
> 
> I've been there. I had complained about video levels (birghtness, contrast, color saturation) on various SD channels and they steadfastly refused to confirm it and make the necessary adjustments even though I have enough technical background to know the source of the problem.


you don't get it, you do not work for them so anything you tell them will (rightly so) be treated as the letters from the crazy consumer.
I can write to them and pretend to be anything I want to be and with minimal research make it seem extremely plausible.
and if I did they would ignore me too, can you blame them? no, you would blame them but thats just you I guess.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Dave,

That may well be true......... but it is quite frustrating and irritating to have a just over minimum wage employee reading to you off a screen with no option for you to actually talk to someone that knows anything, all the while you are being treated like an idiot.

I have yet to talk to someone at Directv support that knows much more than I did when 10 plus years ago when I first installed my own dish. Since that first install I have worked very hard to learn about satellite TV, equipment, etc. While my learning has increased it seems that every time I call Directv technical support my call is answered by someone with little technical skill and quite frankly often not with good screen reading skills either. (IF I can even understand them)

My solution?

Lie.

Just tell them the DVR is dead, you have no signal, etc, etc. Saves a lot of hassles.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

brucegrr said:


> Dave,
> 
> That may well be true......... but it is quite frustrating and irritating to have a just over minimum wage employee reading to you off a screen with no option for you to actually talk to someone that knows anything, all the while you are being treated like an idiot.
> 
> ...


You're talking about something completely different. Every company has decided what steps it takes to resolve a problem with them. With DirecTV it ends in one of three outcomes, resolved on the phone, send out a truck, or replace the piece of equipment. If you want to talk to engineers when you call in for technical problems you could expect your bill to tripple. It doesn't take an engineer to go through the steps the engineers have determined are the fix for the issue. So if you know more than the engineers who make the system then more power to you.

It's no different with me when I call my ISP with issues. I can guarantee I know more about networking than the first 2 if not 3 people I speak with however that's not their fault. They got hired to do a job to have me do 10 steps. They're going to get paid because they have me do those 10 steps. I know they won't work but why fight the issue. Go through the motions in all of 3 minutes and then go from there. Once those steps fail then they start doing the process to get it resolved. I have found that 3 minutes of my life and making them think that I listen to their instructions and follow them saves me more hassle than trying to prove that I know more than they do.

What the OP is wanting is a phone number to an engineer who will not tell him anything because they couldn't if they wanted to. He has no real data to suggest where his supposed problem is but he is positive it's in DirecTV's broadcast stream.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> you don't get it, you do not work for them so anything you tell them will (rightly so) be treated as the letters from the crazy consumer.
> I can write to them and pretend to be anything I want to be and with minimal research make it seem extremely plausible.
> and if I did they would ignore me too, can you blame them? no, you would blame them but thats just you I guess.


This nonsensical response doesn't explain WHY, when I contact my local OTA broadcast outlet's engineers about a similar problem:

The engineer (yes the actual engineer... their name can be confirmed as the station engineer !!) sends me a reply concerning the issue, is professional enough to either confirm or deny the issue or problem, and if the concern is at their end give a brief explanation of how they will solve it or at least work on it. The most amazing thing is that I DON'T EVEN DIRECTLY PAY FOR THAT OTA SERVICE (I have a seperate antenna for HD ).

When my contract is up I am done with D*, unless there are significant changes in their attitude towards the customer.

I can live with OTA just fine. At least THEIR engineers actually care about legit concerns of the viewers!!!!!!!


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> Yo
> 
> What the OP is wanting is a phone number to an engineer who will not tell him anything because they couldn't if they wanted to.


A brief e mail reply is all I would need. That is very reasonable!



> He has no real data to suggest where his supposed problem is but he is positive it's in DirecTV's broadcast stream.


All it would take is a few minutes to at least eyeball the downlink or uplink signals to confirm or deny an issue on their end. If the customer is paying and has made a reasonable explanation there is NO reason NOT to at least do a brief investigation.

I think that is the problem at D*, probably the secretaries/interns are intercepting any customer communications and trashing them whether they may be legit concerns or not.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> This nonsensical response doesn't explain WHY, when I contact my local OTA broadcast outlet's engineers about a similar problem:
> 
> The engineer (yes the actual engineer... their name can be confirmed as the station engineer !!) sends me a reply concerning the issue, is professional enough to either confirm or deny the issue or problem, and if the concern is at their end give a brief explanation of how they will solved it or at least work on it. The most amazing thing is that I DON'T EVEN DIRECTLY PAY FOR THAT OTA SERVICE (I have a seperate antenna for HD ).


why does what your local broadcast entity do in response to a letter have anything to do with what DirecTv does?
you are the epitome of nonsensical.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> A brief e mail reply is all I would need. That is very reasonable!
> 
> All it would take is a few minutes to at least eyeball the downlink or uplink signals to confirm or deny an issue on their end. If the customer is paying and has made a reasonable explanation there is NO reason NOT to at least do a brief investigation.
> 
> I think that is the problem at D*, probably the secretaries/interns are intercepting any customer communications and trashing them whether they may be legit concerns or not.


Seriously you don't think that they monitor this at all?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Seriously you don't think that they monitor this at all?


Maybe between games of solitaire and minesweeper. :lol:


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> why does what your local broadcast entity do in response to a letter have anything to do with what DirecTv does?
> you are the epitome of nonsensical.


Please....the OTA engineer is hearing about a problem at their end, investigating for a possible issue and if needed working to resolve the issue AND letting the customer/viewer know about the resolution.

Now I know WHY D* isn't worth having if they would ask such a question!

It is about providing the best quality service possible for the customer/viewer.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> You're talking about something completely different.


When I read the OP I didn't see the word engineer mentioned.

My response was based on the notion of him going through regular support channels.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

RobertE said:


> Maybe between games of solitaire and minesweeper. :lol:


Exactly while the OTA guys in my area are off their asses and actually getting some work done!!!!!


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> Exactly while the OTA guys in my area are off their asses and actually getting some work done!!!!!


It appears that your sarcasim detector needs some calibration. Better get someone to look at it.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Also.............I can say in Directv's defense.........

There is a pervasive problem some of are having with audio dropouts. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=167900

I sent an email to the Presidents office and got a prompt phone call response about the issue. The lady told me she would speak directly with the engineers and forward the info I gave her AND alert them to the thread about it on this forum.

The problem with system wide problems, or pervasive problems that affect a number of subscribers the fix is often not easy (or maybe even possible at the time). The only irritation I have is when such problems are reduced to being a end-user problem based on NO empirical information. This makes Directv look like many companies.......if all else fails blame your customers. I have this problem with Time Warner. The problem is almost always on their end. Call them? The answer will always be: your computer, your browser, your AV, or you have a virus.  They NEVER accept culpability for service issues.

This infuriates people (like myself) who work in the tech world and who have a good handle on technology, troubleshooting, etc. I also realize we can be an arrogant lot thinking we know everything.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

That's the thing Bruce!


I don't have ANY problem with various technical issues that crop up from time to time at the headend/BC site as long as the outfit is honorable enough to confirm issues if a customer has a concern and reqeusts infomation. 

They don't have to give out propritary info either, just acknowledge it and say you are working on it (If you really are).

I ALWAYS do everything possible to be as polite, considerate, business-like, and informative without being long winded when I communicate with a contact at whatever organization it might be.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

dubber deux said:


> Exactly while the OTA guys in my area are off their asses and actually getting some work done!!!!!


how big is your local station area? Compared to how large the D* customer base is, and you may be the only one in your area that still cares about SD quality....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I now witnessed a misleading new Dish commercial, a Comcast commercial, and a Charter cable commercial all this past weekend - each with obvious "bending of the truth" contained in their content.

As many others have already stated - all providers seem to be on the "bend the truth as much as possible" bandwagon these days prior to the holidays.

I don't condone nor like ANY of them.

One of DirecTV's commercials certainly states "DirecTV will soon have the capacity for over 200 HD channels" in one of those. I don't see that one as misleading, as its actually true....but clearly its about marketing spin - no guarantees there will *actually BE *200 HD channels anytime soon.

*All the providers needs to knock it off.*


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

How long before Swanni changes the name of his site from tvpredictions to HD Hotties. He spends more time updating that stupid feature than anything else, and doesn't even bother editing the date. Just the other day he featured "today's" hottie for August 3rd, 2009. The only reason I even go to that site is, if Directv actually does add a new HD channel it'll be right there on the homepage, then I'll come here to read more.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mystic7 said:


> The only reason I even go to that site is, if Directv actually does add a new HD channel it'll be right there on the homepage, then I'll come here to read more.


It will be on the homepage here also. Probably a lot quicker too as this is where he finds out about it.:lol:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

dubber deux said:


> There is no question that D* has been very dishonest lately about a lot of things, don't even bother calling customer NO service if you are inquiring about technical issues that are OBVIOUSLY at THEIR end. They will blame it on your equipment or environment EVERYTIME to avoid having to take responsibility for headend issues!
> 
> I've been there. I had complained about video levels (birghtness, contrast, color saturation) on various SD channels and they steadfastly refused to confirm it and make the necessary adjustments even though I have enough technical background to know the source of the problem.


I think both SAT providers do not have room for more HD.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

mystic7 said:


> How long before Swanni changes the name of his site from tvpredictions to HD Hotties. He spends more time updating that stupid feature than anything else, and doesn't even bother editing the date. Just the other day he featured "today's" hottie for August 3rd, 2009. The only reason I even go to that site is, if Directv actually does add a new HD channel it'll be right there on the homepage, then I'll come here to read more.


I deleted his site from my bookmarks.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

dubber deux said:


> Please....the OTA engineer is hearing about a problem at their end, investigating for a possible issue and if needed working to resolve the issue AND letting the customer/viewer know about the resolution.
> 
> Now I know WHY D* isn't worth having if they would ask such a question!
> 
> It is about providing the best quality service possible for the customer/viewer.


Your local broadcast engineer is supporting a customer base that is a small fraction of what DirecTV engineers support. That is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of viewers get their programming...including local channels...from a provider, be it Cable, Satellite or Fiber Optic. When the viewer has a problem to call about, the majority of the time they call their provider, not the local affiliate

The result is that your local broadcast engineer is only going to receive a handful of calls while DirecTV is receiving literally a thousandfold as many calls in the same period of time.

Were DirecTV to employ a thousand times as many engineers as your local broadcast affiliate they would be able to put you on the line with an engineer when you call.

The monthly subscription fees would be through the roof though, and anyone with that much money isn't calling engineers themselves when there is a problem. Television is a commodity and associated issues aren't worth their time. They 'have people for that'.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> It will be on the homepage here also. Probably a lot quicker too as this is where he finds out about it.:lol:


Well, see now I didn't know that because I discovered this site AFTER the last time Directv added a national HD channel *hint...hint...ya bastards...*


----------

