# HD channel ripped off?



## drmckenzie (Aug 28, 2007)

Sorry, I just have to vent. 

A few months ago, I converted to all HD by going over to HD Gold only. I decided to hold off on Platinum until Dish added a few more channels. 

I was led to believe (by the CSR, and by common sense), that by going "All-HD", that I would be able to get all the HD channels available, once I added Platinum to my subscription. After all, Gold was described as all-the-HD-you-could-get-except-for-Platinum.

Now it appears that Dish is holding back new HD channels, which are only available by getting non-HD-only packages. I'm afraid I can't understand this, other than as a blatant ripoff, designed to get HD-only subscribers to purchase channel packages they don't want, in order to get those extra HD channels.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is ticking me off big time.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=157762


----------



## johnteeee (Apr 3, 2005)

I totally understand where you're coming from!
I crossed over from D* after 5 years so I could have the option of choosing an only HD package but later found out that HD only packages do not offer all
available HD channels and consequently I surrendered ! and changed to the
" Classic 250 plus HD Gold which is only few dollars more since I dropped the
Platinum and I have to say no regrets in my part. I've been really happy with
Dish since I came over from the other side.
I guess what I'm trying to say is no one package is perfect and you have to
compromise.


----------



## drmckenzie (Aug 28, 2007)

I understand that you can get the channels by adding the 250 package. I had that package, and I canceled it and went with the HD Gold for two reasons: 1) I wasn't watching any of the non-HD channels 2) To save money.

It's not just a few dollars more. The base rate (not including add-ons) for HDGold is $44.99, vs $77.99 for 250+HDGold. That's $539 per year, instead of $935. I realized I didn't feel comfortable paying over $1000 per year for TV.

Dish should still offer all the HD shows in HD-only packages; to do otherwise is a cynical rip-off and a big strike against the company, in my view.


----------



## snowcat (May 29, 2007)

drmckenzie said:


> Dish should still offer all the HD shows in HD-only packages; to do otherwise is a cynical rip-off and a big strike against the company, in my view.


They are at the mercy of the content providers and their contracts. Dish is still better off getting a channel like Nick HD for the standard SD/HD packages than not having it at all.


----------



## drmckenzie (Aug 28, 2007)

Do you have any information that this is a contractual issue?


----------



## snowcat (May 29, 2007)

drmckenzie said:


> Do you have any information that this is a contractual issue?


This thread is one that explains it. Now Dish probably won't ever "officialy" say that is the issue, but it makes the most sense.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=156407&highlight=turbo+contract


----------



## drmckenzie (Aug 28, 2007)

Thanks for the information, but after looking at the link, I am not convinced.

There's merely speculation that it might be a contractual issue -- that it "makes the most sense", but with no substantiation. 

I disagree with that conclusion. Dish originally created the HD packages (spinning off all the HD channels) and evidently didn't have a problem with contracts. Why do they suddenly have this problem with the new channels?

No, I think that what "makes the most sense" is that a lot of Dish customers (like me), jumped at the HD packages, resulting in a loss of income for Dish. The new strategy is to try to get that money back, any way they can.


----------



## AED55 (Oct 2, 2008)

drmckenzie said:


> Thanks for the information, but after looking at the link, I am not convinced.
> 
> There's merely speculation that it might be a contractual issue -- that it "makes the most sense", but with no substantiation.
> 
> ...


I believe you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. All the providers seem to have their own unique ways of parting us from our money while making us think we are getting a better deal than the competition.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

drmckenzie said:


> Sorry, I just have to vent.
> 
> A few months ago, I converted to all HD by going over to HD Gold only. I decided to hold off on Platinum until Dish added a few more channels.
> 
> ...


You're right Platinum HD is a ripoff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I cancelled the junk.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

But, being an HD Absolute sub, it's nice that we get new channels (serendipity) when they put something in Platinum.


----------



## snowcat (May 29, 2007)

drmckenzie said:


> I disagree with that conclusion. Dish originally created the HD packages (spinning off all the HD channels) and evidently didn't have a problem with contracts. Why do they suddenly have this problem with the new channels?


Because when they launched Dish Absolute and later Turbo HD, Dish made sure they had all the contractual permissions to use the existing HD channels in those packages. As newer channels were added, some were allowed to be part of the Turbo packages and some were not.

You can believe what you want to believe. To me, it makes a whole more sense that Dish could only get contractual permission to show some of the new HD stations rather than a deliberate attempt to withhold HD channels from Turbo owners.


----------



## drmckenzie (Aug 28, 2007)

So your position is that Dish had no problem getting permissions to use their first 10 dozen (plus) channels in HD packages, but now they are experiencing permission problems for 50% of the new HD channels they have added recently?

Something doesn't compute....


----------



## frodob9 (Sep 5, 2008)

drmckenzie said:


> Sorry, I just have to vent.
> 
> A few months ago, I converted to all HD by going over to HD Gold only. I decided to hold off on Platinum until Dish added a few more channels.
> 
> ...


TurboHD is HD only, not "All-HD". There is a difference.

Charlie said in a recent Charlie Chat that some of the new HD channels were only available if you also had the comparable Classic package, due to contractual obligations.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

What about the premiums? If you had HD Gold did that include the HD content from all 4 Premium providers?


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Michael P said:


> What about the premiums? If you had HD Gold did that include the HD content from all 4 Premium providers?


If you subscribed to the SD premium package, yes.


----------

