# Baby First TV -- stealing candy from babies



## mistagriffit (Dec 13, 2011)

I was a fan of DirecTV until a few days ago.

Using "Public Interest Obligation" law to justify moving Baby First TV, a standard-definition channel, to a satellite location that requires HD equipment.

In other words, getting Baby First TV "free" requires upgraded equipment, payment of a monthly access fee, and signing a fresh two-year commitment. first-year costs of at least $120, $219 if one is not eligible for a free equipment upgrade. $15 per month remaining in the new contract if one needs to cancel.

leveraging a "public interest obligation" requirement into a basically coercive HD migration marketing initiative. . .ka-ching!

i already have complained, and you can too. go to fcc.gov, select "complaint" on the upper right. I used the options for "satellite provider," "marketing communication," and "false or misleading." it's hard to find the selections that applied, but since they are advertising this change on Baby First, you can basically complain that DirecTV's advertising message is false.

Seriously, there is no way they have to put this channel on an HD satellite location. it's a freaking standard definition channel.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

I'm puzzled. You're complaining that a channel that currently costs extra each month will become free in January. But it will require HD-compatible dish and equipment? Seems like after several months you would have paid off any "upgrade costs", especially since they'll install an HD dish for free when you upgrade your other equipment to HiDef.

Have you actually called them to discuss this situation? Perhaps they'll cut you a good deal?

Here's what the DirecTV site has to say about this change ....

_How do I get BabyFirstTV™?
Beginning January 16, 2012, BabyFirstTV™ will be included in all programming packages at no extra charge. You will no longer need to add it as an à la carte subscription at an additional charge. If you currently subscribe to BabyFirstTV™, the charges will stop in January.

You'll need to have an HD-capable reciever, HD dish, and HD Access ($10/month) to enjoy BabyFirstTV™. However, the content will still be broadcast in standard definition.

Below is a list of compatible DIRECTV receivers:

DIRECTV® HD Receiver: Models H20, H21, H23, H24, H25
DIRECTV® HD DVR: Models HR20, HR21, HR21P, HR22, HR23, HR24, HR34
TiVo® HD DVR from DIRECTV: Model THR22
DIRECTV® DVR: Model R22_


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

so lets see what is the current monthly price?
is it less than $10 if its 10 or more then it would mean the change would get you more for your money


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

DarkLogix said:


> so lets see what is the current monthly price?
> is it less than $10 if its 10 or more then it would mean the change would get you more for your money


And if you can swing it you might be able to save the $10 by getting free HD with auto bill pay.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I think his complaint lies in that he does not have HD service/equipment.


----------



## adidas208 (Dec 1, 2011)

"mistagriffit" said:


> I was a fan of DirecTV until a few days ago.
> 
> Using "Public Interest Obligation" law to justify moving Baby First TV, a standard-definition channel, to a satellite location that requires HD equipment.
> 
> ...


Quit youre crying and switch providers then. I am pretty sure dtv is the only provider of this channel.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

I don't mean this to sound arrogant or anything. Why would anyone pay for this channel? My son was a year old when this station came about and I would never pay extra $$ to entertain him with a tv channel when I can go buy DVDs and VHS tapes cheaper and no monthly fee. I'm just wondering what the appeal of it was.


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

maybe he doesn't have HD equipment?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

If the FCC didn't have an issue with them doing this with NASA TV in August, or God TV un January, they probably won't do much here either.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

lacubs said:


> maybe he doesn't have HD equipment?


Right. But DirecTV will provide an HD dish with free installation when HD Receivers/DVRs are added to the account. And even the $10/mo HD Package fee is waived if you sign up for paperless bill paying.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

They pulled the same thing with the NASA channel.

I don't have any young children, but I DID enjoy watching the NASA channel with my non-HD subscription to DirecTV. If this "ploy" continues with more channels, I'll probably upgrade to satellite HD-just not from DirecTV since I don't like the way it's being done.

I also don't like the way DirecTV refuses to let subscribers smart enough to purchase and install their own slimline dish who posess an R22 to subscribe to their HD programming without a new commitment.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> They pulled the same thing with the NASA channel.
> 
> I don't have any young children, but I DID enjoy watching the NASA channel with my non-HD subscription to DirecTV. If this "ploy" continues with more channels, I'll probably upgrade to satellite HD-just not from DirecTV since I don't like the way it's being done.
> 
> I also don't like the way DirecTV refuses to let subscribers smart enough to purchase and install their own slimline dish who posess an R22 to subscribe to their HD programming without a new commitment.


what about people in MPEG4 only local areas?

the R22 may be more a gray area and directv seemed to back off of there plans when it was rolling out at first.


----------



## xrobmn (Oct 22, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> I don't mean this to sound arrogant or anything. Why would anyone pay for this channel? My son was a year old when this station came about and I would never pay extra $$ to entertain him with a tv channel when I can go buy DVDs and VHS tapes cheaper and no monthly fee. I'm just wondering what the appeal of it was.


We paid for it.. and still do. and glad it'll be free in January!.. The $4.99 that it costs is a fraction of the price of one Baby Einstine video.. plus, at night, when the wife is getting him to calm down for the night (he's 5 months old) she turns it on and it has baby lullibies.. (plus.. going into Toys R us/Babies R Us or any of those stores that carry that, the wife will never leave with just a video.. it's also an outfit.. toys.. and more things that I've ever seen in my life. heh)

To each their own.. I've gotten by 4.99 a month out of it.. but will never complain that it's free


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Non mainstream channels are going to be moved to make room for channels that have a wider interest. You can buy an owned HD or HD DVR on here or other sites usually pretty cheap. Now if it's just for baby first you can determine if it's worth $10 a month for that channel however even on SD TV's HD channels look much better and would be worth it just for that.


----------



## Manctech (Jul 5, 2010)

I remember when kids used to go outside and play! These babies are getting lazy!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Manctech said:


> I remember when kids used to go outside and play! These babies are getting lazy!


+1


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

For what it's worth, "current research" shows its not very helpful to plop young kids in front of a TV, anyway, actually stunting their development. My kids are loooong past the baby stage, but even to this day, I don't encourage them to vegetate in front of the TV; my kids only ever had antenna access in their rooms, and even then not until they were 13.

Anyway to be even somewhat on topic, its really getting to be past time that HD is treated as some special option and should be the basic service.


----------



## DarkLogix (Oct 21, 2011)

I agree they should just drop all the SD recivers and have only HD

easy transition
1. stop making the SD ones
2. remove the $10 fee completely
3. fix the HDgui's output to SD
then in time all the SD recivers will go away

also have you seen the crap that kids watch these days? there've been studies that most TV for really young kids makes them dumber


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Most of what is televised these days is crap, period. Hollywood is struggling, too, according to recent articles. I'll stop there before I go off on a rant that will have Stuart on me tail :lol:



DarkLogix said:


> also have you seen the crap that kids watch these days? there've been studies that most TV for really young kids makes them dumber


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

DarkLogix said:


> I agree they should just drop all the SD recivers and have only HD
> 
> easy transition
> 1. stop making the SD ones
> ...


Color TV was introduced in the U.S. in 1954. Full color broadcasting didn't occur until 1966 or 1967. The use of black and white TV sets continued years after that. It was a long, slow transition. The same applies to the transition from SD to HD. A long, slow process. Read some of Satelliteracer's posts. He's explained several times why it's not easy going from SD to HD. As for the crap kids are watching on TV you can thank their parents for allowing them to do so.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well said, oh mysterious one!


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Manctech said:


> I remember when kids used to go outside and play! These babies are getting lazy!


Funny you should say that. Some of my old friends decided to get together and have a pickup ball hockey game. When we got talking, we started to ask; where are our sons and why aren't they out here playing ball hockey? When I was a kid, we used to play baseball for 6 months, put the bat down and pick up a hockey stick for 6 months. That was a pattern that went on for 20 years, for years into my marriage. Kids now just sit in front of a computer screen or walk around with ear buds on and glaring into their smart phones. Our society has turned into a wimp society, with politically correct protocol taking over.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

PrinceLH said:


> Funny you should say that. Some of my old friends decided to get together and have a pickup ball hockey game. When we got talking, we started to ask; where are our sons and why aren't they out here playing ball hockey? When I was a kid, we used to play baseball for 6 months, put the bat down and pick up a hockey stick for 6 months. That was a pattern that went on for 20 years, for years into my marriage. Kids now just sit in front of a computer screen or walk around with ear buds on and glaring into their smart phones. Our society has turned into a wimp society, with politically correct protocol taking over.


Why not bring your sons out to play?


----------



## smitbret (Mar 27, 2011)

zimm7778 said:


> I don't mean this to sound arrogant or anything. Why would anyone pay for this channel? My son was a year old when this station came about and I would never pay extra $$ to entertain him with a tv channel when I can go buy DVDs and VHS tapes cheaper and no monthly fee. I'm just wondering what the appeal of it was.


I think that's probably why its part of a package and not part of a separate subscription anymore. I often wondered why anyone would pay$4.99/month for BabyTV. Apparently, many others did, too.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Why not bring your sons out to play?


I only have a daughter, but my friends have sons and they're just not interested.


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

adidas208 said:


> Quit youre crying and switch providers then. I am pretty sure dtv is the only provider of this channel.


Dish carries it too. Free with any service (even Welcome Pack)


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> I also don't like the way DirecTV refuses to let subscribers smart enough to purchase and install their own slimline dish who posess an R22 to subscribe to their HD programming without a new commitment.


its their internal system that doesnt allow it. From another forum



> To everyone who has R22 in regards to HD and MRV: Directv TV systems Sibel's Rio and it underlying framework sees the R22 as an SD DVR Only. This is a unit that never left limited production as DTV realized what a pain it was going to be to deal with. So on an account with JUST R22s you can not add MRV or HD even though the R22 hardware and software support HD and MRV. This is not an issue of equipment but on limitations of directv own internal software systems. For MRV to be added you need to have 1 HDDVR and 1HD box at the minimum. NO ifs NO ands NO buts.


As some one with 2 R22's when I upgraded to HD I had to get a HD receiver on the account. So I got a H23 and put that on a SDTV and kept the 2 R22's on the account on HDTV's


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

mistagriffit said:


> Seriously, there is no way they have to put this channel on an HD satellite location. it's a freaking standard definition channel.


99W & 103W have SD channels too. Its more of the station being moved to MPEG4 (from MPEG2 which is what the SD channels are)

And before you say it, Dish does it too with their "Platinum Pack now called Blockbuster movie pack". They're got a few SD only channels in the bunch


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

OK, I was letting that go, but now I have to comment. I was referring to how they treated the product (not the adoption process), as something unique and special, to be charged extra for. You wait 10 yrs for something to be mainstream these days, and it's obsolete 5 years ago.

Besides, addressing the tech, times are different. 10 and 20yr adoption cycles are looooong gone, as much as the older ones among us (and yes I count myself in there) don't like it.



MysteryMan said:


> Color TV was introduced in the U.S. in 1954. Full color broadcasting didn't occur until 1966 or 1967. The use of black and white TV sets continued years after that. It was a long, slow transition. The same applies to the transition from SD to HD. A long, slow process. Read some of Satelliteracer's posts. He's explained several times why it's not easy going from SD to HD. As for the crap kids are watching on TV you can thank their parents for allowing them to do so.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

DarkLogix said:


> so lets see what is the current monthly price?
> is it less than $10 if its 10 or more then it would mean the change would get you more for your money


Sounds like this is all this is,GREED FROM DIRECTV!!!!!

They will give that FREE but they get you in FEEs for getting thier garbage! (They are trying to get of all the boxs that arent theres (As an excuse to get $$$) and its sickening!)

I have had them 12 years and if they try to make me get rid of my box I WILL CANCEL IN 2 SECONDS!!!! (My box is the best i have ever had,the speed and response cant beat)


----------



## NewForceFiveFan (Apr 23, 2010)

I never could figure out what the appeal of Baby First TV was when I saw the free previews. My 2yo niece loves Sprout on channel 295. She knows all the different shows and the schedule by heart. I think it's helped her with cognitive, verbal and social skills too.


----------



## djmaxwell (Jun 24, 2010)

NewForceFiveFan said:


> I never could figure out what the appeal of Baby First TV was when I saw the free previews. My 2yo niece loves Sprout on channel 295. She knows all the different shows and the schedule by heart. I think it's helped her with cognitive, verbal and social skills too.


My daughter liked it when she was about that age, although she likes stuff on Sprout and Nick Jr as well. I will confess, though, I do have a bit of a soft spot for Tech the Tractor. I'm looking forward to being able to see it for free. :dance:


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

A) Why in the H*LL is a 5 month old in front of any kind of electronic screen.

B) If I'm correct in assuming that it has been moved to either 99 or 103, then any DirecTV system that can't get it is in the *dark ages* and it's owners _should get with the program_. I am routinely baffled as to why people who pay for TV don't have HDTV. They just don't get it.

If anything gets moved to 119, then I feel bad for people in the big DMAs, since they all seem to get installed on the Slimline-3 dishes, not the Slimline-5's that have access to 110 and 119. Here, any installation will have access to all 5, since our locals are spot'ed on 119.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Bigg said:


> B) If I'm correct in assuming that it has been moved to either 99 or 103, then any DirecTV system that can't get it is in the *dark ages* and it's owners _should get with the program_. I am routinely baffled as to why people who pay for TV don't have HDTV. They just don't get it.


1. Finances
2. Older in age
3. Not that big a deal to them
4. Other reasons.

Take your pick.

My wife does cancer research and one of her patients doesn't have HD in their apartment. Should HD be that big of a deal to them?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

1 - Baby First TV is pointless. There is simply no science behind it (or its video alternatives). Babies have no business watching TV.

2 - DirecTV is changing ONE CHANNEL and the OP (a first time poster) thinks this is so important he has to call the FCC!!!!!!!! Goodness! It goes from $6/month to "free" (included in a basic package). All you have to do is get an equipment upgrade you need anyway, which DirecTV will probably give you free, and which if not the cost of which will be far less than paying for the channel in just a few months. This makes me rethink my point #1 relative to the OP's child. Spending time with TV has to be better than the alternative.


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

"PrinceLH" said:


> Funny you should say that. Some of my old friends decided to get together and have a pickup ball hockey game. When we got talking, we started to ask; where are our sons and why aren't they out here playing ball hockey? When I was a kid, we used to play baseball for 6 months, put the bat down and pick up a hockey stick for 6 months. That was a pattern that went on for 20 years, for years into my marriage. Kids now just sit in front of a computer screen or walk around with ear buds on and glaring into their smart phones. Our society has turned into a wimp society, with politically correct protocol taking over.


Kids nowadays and their Rock and Roll music.

Complaints like this have been going on for generations and generations and it is no different now. The world isn't going to end and when our kids have their own kids they will be complaining about "kids nowadays" as well.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"SamC" said:


> 1 - Baby First TV is pointless. There is simply no science behind it (or its video alternatives). Babies have no business watching TV.
> 
> 2 - DirecTV is changing ONE CHANNEL and the OP (a first time poster) thinks this is so important he has to call the FCC!!!!!!!! Goodness! It goes from $6/month to "free" (included in a basic package). All you have to do is get an equipment upgrade you need anyway, which DirecTV will probably give you free, and which if not the cost of which will be far less than paying for the channel in just a few months. This makes me rethink my point #1 relative to the OP's child. Spending time with TV has to be better than the alternative.


But, it's not the first one they've done this to, and whole many probably can get free equipment, it wold trigger a contract. I don't see it as greed as some suggest, since many don't pay the HD fee anyway. But I do hope these are the exceptions.


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

The OP is out of line. DirecTV can change its channel lineup at anytime and require new equipment to view programming. If the OP has a problem, change providers.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Or (though this requires hardware and monthly fee, but no contracts), get a Roku.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ThomasM said:


> They pulled the same thing with the NASA channel.
> 
> I don't have any young children, but I DID enjoy watching the NASA channel with my non-HD subscription to DirecTV. If this "ploy" continues with more channels, I'll probably upgrade to satellite HD-just not from DirecTV since I don't like the way it's being done.
> 
> I also don't like the way DirecTV refuses to let subscribers smart enough to purchase and install their own slimline dish who posess an R22 to subscribe to their HD programming without a new commitment.





Dude111 said:


> Sounds like this is all this is,GREED FROM DIRECTV!!!!!
> 
> They will give that FREE but they get you in FEEs for getting thier garbage! (They are trying to get of all the boxs that arent theres (As an excuse to get $$$) and its sickening!)
> 
> I have had them 12 years and if they try to make me get rid of my box I WILL CANCEL IN 2 SECONDS!!!! (My box is the best i have ever had,the speed and response cant beat)


Maybe this is just the very beginning of DirecTV's move to all mpeg-4.

I have a feeling that they will upgrade anyone to hd equipment for free if they sub to babytv right now. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Per month, this will be cheaper if you use auto pay, so I don't see any increase in price there. The only possible increase is for those they won't offer free upgrades to, but again, if your currently a Babytv sub, then I'd ask them for free upgrade, and I bet they will accommodation no matter what.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Maybe this is just the very beginning of DirecTV's move to all mpeg-4.
> 
> I have a feeling that they will upgrade anyone to hd equipment for free if they sub to babytv right now. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
> 
> Per month, this will be cheaper if you use auto pay, so I don't see any increase in price there. The only possible increase is for those they won't offer free upgrades to, but again, if your currently a Babytv sub, then I'd ask them for free upgrade, and I bet they will accommodation no matter what.


Once the new customer offer starts only offering mpeg 4 receivers is when the transition really starts. The HR34 however was, I think, the first real step to prepare for that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I suspect that they will migrate to all mpeg-4 from several directions, and I should have said this may be the begin in terms of national broadcast channels, they have already stared that thinking with some of the LIL's. I think they will do it via hardware, and offerings both.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I suspect that they will migrate to all mpeg-4 from several directions, and I should have said this may be the begin in terms of national broadcast channels, they have already stared that thinking with some of the LIL's. I think they will do it via hardware, and offerings both.


well they need to do some thing about all the sports bar's and hotels with SD boxes and SD matrix switches / analog cox. Directv may need to keep stocks of older h23 / h24 that has more ports then what the h25 has and the older h23 / h24 works with Multi-switchs. Now HD boxes can out put SD for the older matrix switches but they don't have analog cox out.

Also I think that Commercial places own the receivers so Directv may have to offer a deal in where they give you free HD equipment upgrade (up X boxes I think most places have at least 8 boxes) + dish + Multi-switch + SWIM + dish. For signing up for HD. But any ways down the road as SD goes way they may have to do it any ways. Maybe also have some kind of kick back to help the Commercial places on the upgrade cost to the matrix switches systems.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

adkinsjm said:


> The OP is out of line. DirecTV can change its channel lineup at anytime and require new equipment to view programming. If the OP has a problem, change providers.


No he's not.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> No he's not.


While you may agree with them [which is fine], the OP looks to be a hit and run poster, since there is one post, this thread, and three minutes later was their last activity [six days ago] on this forum.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

litzdog911 said:


> Right. But DirecTV will provide an HD dish with free installation when HD Receivers/DVRs are added to the account. And even the $10/mo HD Package fee is waived if you sign up for paperless bill paying.


And you are locked in to another 2 year agreement as well, which might be something the topic starter does not want.

In my opinion, his complaint is SOMEWHAT valid. Why does DirecTV have to move the channel to a satellite that some current viewers might not be able to receive due to the lack of proper equipment? It is an SD channel, why not leave it exactly where it is?

In this situation, it seems like that if you don't currently have HD equipment (because you are happy with your current TV), the only way to continue to watch this BabyFirst channel, is to get locked in to another 2 year contract.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

maartena said:


> And you are locked in to another 2 year agreement as well, which might be something the topic starter does not want.
> 
> In this situation, it seems like that if you don't currently have HD equipment (because you are happy with your current TV), the only way to continue to watch this BabyFirst channel, is to get locked in to another 2 year contract.


Not necessarily true. You can upgrade the dish yourself to a HD-capable dish and can purchase your own HD receivers (owned ones) or at least a MPEG-4 receiver, such as the R22. I'm not absolutely positive, but if you had a R22 receiver and a HD-capable dish, you should be able to see Baby First TV. If anything, you would need to subscribe to HD service, but using AutoPay you would get that fee credited back to you (in this case you would also require an actual HD receiver or DVR and not just a R22).

And since you are activating owned receivers, there would be no new lease agreement.

- Merg


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"The Merg" said:


> Not necessarily true. You can upgrade the dish yourself to a HD-capable dish and can purchase your own HD receivers (owned ones) or at least a MPEG-4 receiver, such as the R22. I'm not absolutely positive, but if you had a R22 receiver and a HD-capable dish, you should be able to see Baby First TV. If anything, you would need to subscribe to HD service, but using AutoPay you would get that fee credited back to you (in this case you would also require an actual HD receiver or DVR and not just a R22).
> 
> And since you are activating owned receivers, there would be no new lease agreement.
> 
> - Merg


And again, if your currently a sub to baby tv, I'd call in and ask for a free upgrade with no new commitment, since they are changing how you can get it, and you are not trying to add it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"inkahauts" said:


> And again, if your currently a sub to baby tv, I'd call in and ask for a free upgrade with no new commitment, since they are changing how you can get it, and you are not trying to add it.


I'm guessing their wont be to many people that fall into this category, that sub to that and only have sd service.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And again, if your currently a sub to baby tv, I'd call in and ask for a free upgrade with no new commitment, since they are changing how you can get it, and you are not trying to add it.


There will be an agreement there isn't a special upgrade just for this just like when NASA went to MPEG-4. Pricing will be based on the account.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> There will be an agreement there isn't a special upgrade just for this just like when NASA went to MPEG-4. Pricing will be based on the account.


Possibly, but remember, NASA was always a free service. Baby wasn't, you had to pay specifically for that channel. Makes the circumstances a little different. I guess we will find out in time.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

mistagriffit said:


> I was a fan of DirecTV until a few days ago.
> 
> Using "Public Interest Obligation" law to justify moving Baby First TV, a standard-definition channel, to a satellite location that requires HD equipment.
> 
> ...


Let's insert some facts into this thread. Comments like the one above and other comments like "they pulled this same thing with NASA" is nonsense.

This is not the case at all on a number of levels. Directv is required to have a certain number of PIO channels at various orbital slots by a percentage of total channels offered. The number is 4%. They needed to add another at 99/103 slot to be in compliance with that mandate. No different than NASA and GOD TV changes. There is no "ploy". As DTV has added channels at 99 and 103, they needed to also add PIO channels at those slots per the FCC.

From what I understand, the majority of Baby First customers have at least one HD receiver and are not affected. A small minority do not have MPEG4 HD equipment, but most of them are eligible for discounted or even free HD hardware upgrades. Not all, but most.

DTV is now allowing for the channel to be free to all of its customers that have HD equipment starting in mid January. It's unfortunate that some customers will have to upgrade to continue viewing BabyFirst, but to suggest this is a way to force HD upgrades is incorrect especially when considering why the channel is moving to the PIO designation in the first place. If DTV was forcing HD upgrades on people as some kind of ploy, they sure would have been smarter to pick a service that has many more subscribers than BabyFirst does. The accusation is ridiculous on all levels.

In the end, the vast majority of customers will get a channel for free that they would have had to pay for in the past. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, a small handful of customers will have to get an HD upgrade or not get the channel. What are these customers going to do in a few years when SD is no longer offered? Complain then as well? Get over it.

If you don't want to pay for the HD Access fee, go to auto bill pay and get it waived.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Yes, at the point that SD is no longer offered I would have to complain and/or drop DTV entirely. Due to line of sight issues I can see none of the HD satellites. I see the SD satellite through a notch between two trees. The trees blocking LOS are all on my neighbors property so removing them is not an option.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

What are "PIO" channels?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> What are "PIO" channels?


http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/1998/nrin8038.html

Mentions the 4% allocation already discussed earlier in this thread.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"crkeehn" said:


> Yes, at the point that SD is no longer offered I would have to complain and/or drop DTV entirely. Due to line of sight issues I can see none of the HD satellites. I see the SD satellite through a notch between two trees. The trees blocking LOS are all on my neighbors property so removing them is not an option.


Are you sure about that? 99 and 103 spots are very close to 101 and usually if you can see 101 you can see the other two. Now it used to be all the hd came from 110 and. 119 and those two locations had all kinds of Los issues because they where so much further away, but that's changed, so if you haven't had that checked since then, I'd check again. I'd be amazed if your window is that small, That's an extremely rare situation.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

ChicagoBlue said:


> DTV is now allowing for the channel to be free to all of its customers that have HD equipment starting in mid January.


Right now there is a monthly charge for BFTV a la carte. Starting mid-January they are making it available for free to all customers. But I am sure they will have to pay a monthly carriage fee to whomever owns BFTV. Pretty sure moving to this "free" channel is going to cost *D more in carriage fees...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Justin23" said:


> Right now there is a monthly charge for BFTV a la carte. Starting mid-January they are making it available for free to all customers. But I am sure they will have to pay a monthly carriage fee to whomever owns BFTV. Pretty sure moving to this "free" channel is going to cost *D more in carriage fees...


I wouldn't bet on that, it's possible they redid the entire contract so the payment comes out the same, but the channel will still win by being able to get more from advertising dollars by having a higher customer base.


----------



## ladannen (Oct 27, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> ...but the channel will still win by being able to get more from advertising dollars by having a higher customer base.


Does this channel even show advertising?


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

So now I can get Baby First TV, that`s put on HD transponder space that could have been used to carry Fox Sports Ohio/Cinci HD.

Great, Ohio sports fans lose out again.

Betting babies can really tell the difference. 
Thanks Direct TV


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Bigg said:


> A) Why in the H*LL is a 5 month old in front of any kind of electronic screen.
> 
> B) If I'm correct in assuming that it has been moved to either 99 or 103, then any DirecTV system that can't get it is in the *dark ages* and it's owners _should get with the program_. I am routinely baffled as to why people who pay for TV don't have HDTV. They just don't get it.
> 
> If anything gets moved to 119, then I feel bad for people in the big DMAs, since they all seem to get installed on the Slimline-3 dishes, not the Slimline-5's that have access to 110 and 119. Here, any installation will have access to all 5, since our locals are spot'ed on 119.


Why would you pay for HDTV if all you have is SD TV Sets. Many people out there are quite happy with SD on a SD Set. I have two in my family that way. If that TV set breaks they may change at that point only because they can not buy a SD TV anymore.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

crkeehn said:


> Yes, at the point that SD is no longer offered I would have to complain and/or drop DTV entirely.


They would be totally stupid to do this!


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Technology changes, and unfortunately customers will have to change with it. Over time everyone will be on MPEG-4 with HD equipment. If you want to complain, drop DirecTV, or whatever then move to Dish or cable where the same thing is happening. Many cable systems are all-digital now, which is an even bigger paradigm shift for their customers than this is for DirecTV.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

twiseguy said:


> So now I can get Baby First TV, that`s put on HD transponder space that could have been used to carry Fox Sports Ohio/Cinci HD.
> 
> Great, Ohio sports fans lose out again.
> 
> ...


Baby First will be at that slot in SD, not HD. It takes about 5 or 6 SD channels worth of capacity for a HD channel. So Baby First being on that bird in no way prevents Fox Sports Ohio from being in HD.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Satelliteracer said:


> Baby First will be at that slot in SD, not HD. It takes about 5 or 6 SD channels worth of capacity for a HD channel. So Baby First being on that bird in no way prevents Fox Sports Ohio from being in HD.


Not to mention they are required to put a PI channel on that bird by the FCC AND it frees up space wherever Baby First was previously


----------

