# Why is E* now seemingly dragging their feet on HD channels?



## crackasmile (Nov 15, 2004)

Many people said they thought D* would not surpass E* on HD channels and yet inside of a month or so, they have. What's the hold up on E*'s part??


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

A. Not enough bandwith
B. No channels out there that Charlie thinks his customers want
C. Charlie can't negotiate contracts to save his life
D. Too busy implimenting other "useless" features (such as DishOnline)
E. Charlie just doesn't care
F. All of the above


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

Indeed all of those reasons above. However, I have seen people say that E* promised some more HD before the end of the year but I can not confirm that.


----------



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

He did say there would be more hd a few months back on a Charlie Chat. He promised more hd by the end of October and even more by the end of the year. He also promised that DISH would stay the HD leader . Since Directv launched its new sat in October and went live, he now seems to be very quiet about any new hd channels. Something vague about reclaiming bandwith ( I think this means the international channels being consolidated down to the 118.5 sat and off the wing sats, and possibly using new mpeg 4 encoders to get 6 hd locals on one transponder rather than 4 today) was put out a few weeks back along with 3 new satellites promised for next year. We might see some more hd by years end but with the writers strike on there is now no real rush. It looks like we will be watching a lot of sd reality tv shows till next fall or till they settle the strike , which ever comes first. **The writers strike back in 1988 lasted 22 weeks long.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

crackasmile said:


> Many people said they thought D* would not surpass E* on HD channels and yet inside of a month or so, they have. What's the hold up on E*'s part??


Satellite launch problem. Can't find the original discussion, but see this thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=104726


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I just don't see where "dragging their feet" comes into play. By all accounts, DirecTV took a couple of years to implement their current plans. Dish has only been behind for a couple of months. If Dish does anything within the next 6 months, they would be very much ahead of the curve in terms of response time to DirecTV's 2-year plan.

Too many folks in this country/culture are "me first" and "me now"... as they (whomever they are)... patience is a virtue.

If you aren't patient, then there is a choice (DirecTV) available to you right now. Otherwise be patient.


----------



## Deke Rivers (Jan 8, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I just don't see where "dragging their feet" comes into play. By all accounts, DirecTV took a couple of years to implement their current plans. Dish has only been behind for a couple of months. If Dish does anything within the next 6 months, they would be very much ahead of the curve in terms of response time to DirecTV's 2-year plan.
> 
> Too many folks in this country/culture are "me first" and "me now"... as they (whomever they are)... patience is a virtue.
> 
> If you aren't patient, then there is a choice (DirecTV) available to you right now. Otherwise be patient.


I agree 100 %..good things come to those who wait as they say..
Its not like we dont have a good amount of HD on DIsh already. I can wait


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I just don't see where "dragging their feet" comes into play. By all accounts, DirecTV took a couple of years to implement their current plans. Dish has only been behind for a couple of months. If Dish does anything within the next 6 months, they would be very much ahead of the curve in terms of response time to DirecTV's 2-year plan.
> 
> Too many folks in this country/culture are "me first" and "me now"... as they (whomever they are)... patience is a virtue.
> 
> If you aren't patient, then there is a choice (DirecTV) available to you right now. Otherwise be patient.


Typically, when there is an aggressive ad campaign, that means the product is "ready" for the newly acquired customers and the existing base. If Dish is not ready to deliver the product (new channels), they should not be running ads to combat D*.

I think people would be pretty pissed off if Pizza Hut or Burger King were feverishly advertising new product and failed to deliver when customers lined up to get the goods. The girl behind the counter simply says, "We're working on it and we don't know when it will be ready, but you can enjoy our old products in the meantime". It would be really funny if Pizza Hut offered the NFL themed XXL pizza at the start of the MLB season.

I feel very disappointed when I see E* ads running on OTA events and then I check the HD line up, only to see that it is still the same old stuff.:nono: The stupid (_|_) tech that was out a few weeks ago tried telling me that the 9000 range of Discovery, TLC, etc actually "count" toward our total amount of channels.

Dish better have Speed when Speed goes HD on Feb. 7th. We already missed BSG "Razor" in HD the other night.


----------



## Deke Rivers (Jan 8, 2007)

davethestalker said:


> We already missed BSG "Razor" in HD the other night.


big deal..I would rather watch it on SD or HD DVD in another week uncensored and without all of the ****ing commericals and bumpers on the bottom of the screen advertising all of Sci Fi's lame programming


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

davethestalker said:


> Typically, when there is an aggressive ad campaign, that means the product is "ready" for the newly acquired customers and the existing base. If Dish is not ready to deliver the product (new channels), they should not be running ads to combat D*.


So now E* isn't allowed to advertise what they have? Their product is ready and has been served to customers for 21 months (plus the pre-DishHD period before that). Their product has also improved over those 18 months.

D* is the one that got flashy ... 10 to "over 75" in a couple of months. And morons that believe commercials are very happy.



> I think people would be pretty pissed off if Pizza Hut or Burger King were feverishly advertising new product and failed to deliver when customers lined up to get the goods.


What new product is E* advertising? Their ads are supporting an EXISTING product. Not a bad idea to remind people that there is an existing product available when some new entrant flashes in the pan.



> Dish better have Speed when Speed goes HD on Feb. 7th. We already missed BSG "Razor" in HD the other night.


If Speed isn't HD why is it on D*? Deception?


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

James, if you watched any of Speed's NASCAR coverage in the closing weeks, you would have seen highlight packages occasionally "squished" as if recorded in HD (widescreen). Why is D* running a dedicated Speed HD channel? Why not? At least D* subscribers are guaranteed and know full well that when Speed does go fully HD, they will not miss out or wonder when or even IF their provider will be coming through.

As for E* spots not delivering what is advertised goes, we had a discussion about the TWC logo in the lower left hand corner during the ad.

Why does TBS even have an HD channel? NOTHING is EVER in HD since the MLB Playoffs. Mind you, I don't watch TBS for anything. Once in a while, there is a movie or a show that I like, so I check and see if it's in HD. Guess what.....IT'S NOT.

And no, Dish should not be running an aggressive ad campaign suggesting that they are offering "new" product as if it exists. Yes, I understand that Charlie is floundering to combat the D* ads. They (Dish) should have been pounding the airwaves for those 20 some odd months when they were way up on D*.

Look, as a Dish subscriber, it upsets me to see D* ads that indicate they are actually "doing something". Dish, on the other hand, is promoting "the same old stuff" ONLY because D* has new ads. Why do they have new ads? Because they added new channels. Dish needs to actually do something rather than talk about it.

I don't trust that Dish is feverishly working to get the new national HD channels on our line up. This is based on how they handled the TBS thing. We were late, they (E*) fudged up. Charlie knew well in advance that the TBS channel was online and the playoffs would be on TBS.

It is evident that during those 20 some odd months E* was resting on their laurels. How is it evident? How many of the "new" national HD channels do we have? I can give a rat's rear end what content is currently running on those new channels. If that channel now has a dedicated HD channel available, we should have it.

Having a surplus of toilet paper is better than discovering you're not ready for nature's call..


----------



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

I will have to agree on its: better to have a surplus of toilet paper than to discover your'e not ready for nature's call. Being in that situation a couple of times in life teaches you to stock up so this doesn't happen.


----------



## bflatmajor (Sep 8, 2006)

Two part question,

Why are there numerous NBA Ticket HD channels showing up in my menu, but when I look to watch a game, often the game is not shown on the HD channel but is on the SD channel AND when watching the game in SD, the broadcast will say something like, brought to you in HD by Comcast, so why can't I see the game in HD?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

davethestalker said:


> Why does TBS even have an HD channel? NOTHING is EVER in HD since the MLB Playoffs. Mind you, I don't watch TBS for anything. Once in a while, there is a movie or a show that I like, so I check and see if it's in HD. Guess what.....IT'S NOT.


Just an FYI, the Ellen Degeneres special that TBS had on last week was in HD. Someone also said the 1st showing of the Frank TV show was in HD but last week's was not.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> So now E* isn't allowed to advertise what they have? What new product is E* advertising? Their ads are supporting an EXISTING product. Not a bad idea to remind people that there is an existing product available when some new entrant flashes in the pan.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Weather Channel HD for one. It has been seen in E* ads, implying that it is up on E*. It isnt


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

RAD said:


> Just an FYI, the Ellen Degeneres special that TBS had on last week was in HD. Someone also said the 1st showing of the Frank TV show was in HD but last week's was not.


His stand up show was in HD, not sure about the Actual tv show though


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

RAD said:


> Just an FYI, the Ellen Degeneres special that TBS had on last week was in HD. Someone also said the 1st showing of the Frank TV show was in HD but last week's was not.


Why would anyone willingly watch Ellen Degenerate... :new_sleep


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Weather Channel HD for one. It has been seen in E* ads, implying that it is up on E*. It isnt


Better to have one logo flash by in error than intentionally uplink and sell SD upconvert as HD channels.

Never make a mistake?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I own a Monte Carlo and a Silverado (both Chevys). Commercials for new Chevys don't mean anything to me, as I already own what I drive... and commercials for new Fords (even if the Ford seems an improvement on my particular Chevy) don't bother me either.

I am a Dish subscriber. DirecTV commercialy mean nothing to me, BUT neither do Dish commercials. If I seriously thought about leaving Dish for DirecTV, I would research what DirecTV offers and compare to my present experience... but the TV commercials would have nothing to do with that choice at all.

Commercials are like the shiny baubles that distract and attract some birds. The lure is more attractive than what the bird actually gets (birds can't eat shiny baubles nor wear them as decoration as we humans might). Commercials have the same "value" to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> Weather Channel HD for one. It has been seen in E* ads, implying that it is up on E*. It isnt


DirecTV has lots of similarly erroneous screens in its ad as well. I remember pointing out the ABCFamilyHD screen you can see in one of the DirecTV spots.

Both companies are wrong for the implication, and I wish neither would do it... but in the scheme of things it is small potatoes.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Better to have one logo flash by in error than intentionally uplink and sell SD upconvert as HD channels.
> 
> Never make a mistake?


if it is simply an error, you would think they would correct it. Its been up long enough.

Here we go again......sd upconverts as HD?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> DirecTV has lots of similarly erroneous screens in its ad as well. I remember pointing out the ABCFamilyHD screen you can see in one of the DirecTV spots.
> 
> Both companies are wrong for the implication, and I wish neither would do it... but in the scheme of things it is small potatoes.


i dont dispute that, however i was simply replying to James asking what are they(E*) advertising that they dont deliver.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

davethestalker said:


> Why would anyone willingly watch Ellen Degenerate... :new_sleep


haha true enough, however not the point, he(and I) were just pointing out that there has been more than just the MLB playoffs shown in HD on TBS


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Better to have one logo flash by in error than intentionally uplink and sell SD upconvert as HD channels.
> 
> Never make a mistake?


When did DISH drop A&E-HD, TBS-HD, TNT-HD, NFL-HD, ESPN-HD, and ESPN2-HD? According to the EKB those channels upconvert. Does Dish Network NOT intentionaly uplink and sell those channels in THEIR ads and include in their channel count as well?

Another 'mistake'?

http://ekb.dbstalk.com/dvse-HD.htm


----------



## GrayCalx (Sep 29, 2006)

I just really don't see this as feet dragging on Dish's part. Dish made a push earlier for HD, acquired VOOM and had the most HD channels of any provider. The D* made their push with HD, and had two (I could be wrong don't follow that much) rollouts of new national HD channels. That was what? 3 weeks? A month ago?

I would bet my house Dish has plans in the works, and at some point in the future the bandwidth will be added, contracts will be signed and those channels will be released.

...and ya know what at that point some D* customer is going to be complaining that D* is dragging their feet. Its like Ford vs. Chevrolet, it all comes down to personal preference because over the long run they're all going to offer basically the same thing.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> When did DISH drop A&E-HD, TBS-HD, TNT-HD, NFL-HD, ESPN-HD, and ESPN2-HD? According to the EKB those channels upconvert. Does Dish Network NOT intentionaly uplink and sell those channels in THEIR ads and include in their channel count as well?
> 
> Another 'mistake'?
> 
> http://ekb.dbstalk.com/dvse-HD.htm


And according to that list the crop-o-vision Discovery HD suite doesn't upconvert.

If we want to play this game, we ought to be comparing the number of hours of *unique* HD content per week offered on each channel.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

GeorgeLV said:


> And according to that list the crop-o-vision Discovery HD suite doesn't upconvert.
> 
> If we want to play this game, we ought to be comparing the number of hours of *unique* HD content per week offered on each channel.


No need to play any game - I know that many of those channels upconvert and don't provide HD 24/7, and they all have varying amounts of HD.

My post was solely in response to the post that inferred that DISH doesn't intentionally uplink and sell channels that upconvert - when in fact they ALL do.

I am defending no one and no company.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

GrayCalx said:


> The D* made their push with HD, and had two (I could be wrong don't follow that much) rollouts of new national HD channels. That was what? 3 weeks? A month ago?


It's been more like a bit over two months since D* started their HD rollout.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And once again the trolls have invited themselves into the E* forum.
Can't get enough satisfaction out of DirectTV "HD" channels so they come here? 


The point is, E* does not list TWC HD as part of their HD offerings. If there is a mistake in one of E*'s ads don't overlook at the mistakes in D*'s advertising. Neither company is perfect, despite what the D* trolls would like you to believe. Why they spend time on the E* is beyond me ... unless they are here to insult people.

Folks who love to ignore that fact that D* uplinked and promoted AS HD channels before the channel had any HD content. Most of them actually have a few hours of HD on them now. But they were sold as HD from day one ... not as "placemarkers" but actual HD channels.

Let's compromise ... count the number of mostly upconvert channels that D* has that E* does not have vs the opposite. Deal?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> Folks who love to ignore that fact that D* uplinked and promoted AS HD channels before the channel had any HD content. Most of them actually have a few hours of HD on them now. But they were sold as HD from day one ... not as "placemarkers" but actual HD channels.


And that goes back to a question that has been made to you before but I don't recall seeing you answer. Do you know for a fact and have the proof that these channels you keep mentioning are being upconverted by D* and not delivered by the content provider in that format? I do recall you making one mention that you don't see them being delivered to D*'s uplink via satellite and the response from that poster was maybe they're delivered by fiber with no response from you on that.

The only place I know were to look for the uplink info would be on Lyngsat and I don't see many of the channels that D* shows as being in HD listed on that site. A couple examples are Fox Business New and the Big Ten Network, which we know are in HD. So do you know how these channels are getting to D*, if on satellite where else I guess we need to assume they're distributed via fiber at this time, which then says all the other channels you keep calling out as upconverts being done by D* may really not be.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> And once again the trolls have invited themselves into the E* forum.
> Can't get enough satisfaction out of DirectTV "HD" channels so they come here?
> 
> The point is, E* does not list TWC HD as part of their HD offerings. If there is a mistake in one of E*'s ads don't overlook at the mistakes in D*'s advertising. Neither company is perfect, despite what the D* trolls would like you to believe. Why they spend time on the E* is beyond me ... unless they are here to insult people.
> ...


James, i dont know who you are directing the "troll" comment towards, however some of us have both D* and E*, and have the "right" to post in either thread. Im not a banner waiving advocate of either, however i will admit to right now, preferring D*. That being said, i have had E* much much longer and have had nothing but a pleasant experience with them, and will continue to have the same for the forseeable future. 
Do I agree with some of the tactics being used on both sides? No i do not.
However i see a little more stretching the truth being done on the dish side than i do directv. Thats as unbiased as i can be.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As mentioned before, there are two proofs that a station is in HD. One is a backhaul listing (LyngSat or other) that shows that channel as being distributed in HD. The other is actual HD content on the channel. Strechovision makes the second proof harder (as one must be able to tell if it is true HD or just a decent stretch.

"Maybe" they are delivered by fiber?" Maybe they are delivered in SD and upconverted. Maybe works both ways.

That answers your old question. On the question of Speed HD ...
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1230990&postcount=71
There are also threads praising the sighting of real HD on D*'s channels.
Those threads are not needed unless HD is a rare event.

Please read my posts ... don't just keep shooting from the hip. It's boring.
And deceptive when you miss what I have actually written in your reply.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> As mentioned before, there are two proofs that a station is in HD. One is a backhaul listing (LyngSat or other) that shows that channel as being distributed in HD. The other is actual HD content on the channel. Strechovision makes the second proof harder (as one must be able to tell if it is true HD or just a decent stretch.
> 
> "Maybe" they are delivered by fiber?" Maybe they are delivered in SD and upconverted. Maybe works both ways.
> 
> ...


James, that response is no proof at all then. As I said, show me where Fox Business or BTN is on Lyngsat, I can't find them, which means then either Lyngsat is incorrect or it's being distributed some other means, like fiber.

If a content provider has given D* a seperate feed of a channel and they tell D* it's a HD channel then D* has every right to say here's XXX-HD channel, since that's what the content provider supplied to them. It's not D*'s fault/issue if that provider has supplied them nothing but SD content but don't make it sound like this is all lies being done stricktly by D*.

Now maybe just think for a moment that D* isn't doing anything wrong and just maybe you need to stop with this gargabe.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> And once again the trolls have invited themselves into the E* forum.
> Can't get enough satisfaction out of DirectTV "HD" channels so they come here?
> 
> The point is, E* does not list TWC HD as part of their HD offerings. If there is a mistake in one of E*'s ads don't overlook at the mistakes in D*'s advertising. Neither company is perfect, despite what the D* trolls would like you to believe. Why they spend time on the E* is beyond me ... unless they are here to insult people.
> ...


Name calling won't ever make you right when you post incorrect information.

You said they dont uplink or sell upconverted channels - they DO.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

msmith198025 said:


> if it is simply an error, you would think they would correct it. Its been up long enough.


The production of those ads takes weeks and can not be fixed with the wave of the magic wand. I suspect that if someone has pointed the error to their advertising production company that a fix is in process. Don't expect to see it tomorrow though.

I heard on XM today that a recent Target ad had a toy listed that was banned about a month ago. Questions were raised as to why this is still being advertised. As in the case of the Dish ad (I am certain) the flyer was printed and distributed well before the banning of the product. It could just be that Dish expected to have the channel in question by the time the ad ran. Then again, it could simply be an error on the part of the production company. In either case, don't expect a fix tomorrow.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

No doubt about it - DirecTV is very guilty of this for sure - I don't agree with advertising in a way that makes it seem like you ALREADY offer something you don't. Some of the channels that are on the DirecTV website, and in their ads won't be lit for 4 months or so - that's too long to string people along IMHO.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> You said they dont uplink or sell upconverted channels - they DO.


If your "they" is referring to E* I said no such thing. I said "*Better to have one logo flash by in error than intentionally uplink and sell SD upconvert as HD channels.*"

Which would you prefer? An error in an advertisement (such as D* playing their "move over" ad BEFORE the channels were launched) or SD channels being sold as HD?



ScoBuck said:


> Some of the channels that are on the DirecTV website, and in their ads won't be lit for 4 months or so - that's too long to string people along IMHO.


Some? Sounds like more than TWC HD. What is the threshold for a lie? D*'s ad had an incorrect count and many unlaunched logos with the voiceover "NOW" weeks before they were available. Are short term big lies better than (what you assume will be) a long term error.

Any proof that TWC won't be up for 4 months? Complain then about "E* advertising for the past four months" instead of relying on your assumptions.

And look at the D* ad again ... "packages starting at $29.95". We're back into the debate over who the biggest liar is. D* CERTAINLY does their share and I'm glad that you recognize that.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Calling peope morons and trolls isn't very "moderator" like. But that's just me.


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

braven said:


> Calling peope morons and trolls isn't very "moderator" like. But that's just me.


I noticed this too, and wasn't going to say anything, but since you did I agree. :lol:


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Which would you prefer? An error in an advertisement (such as D* playing their "move over" ad BEFORE the channels were launched) or SD channels being sold as HD?


I don't like it either. BTW, we don't know if that was a mistake or not by DISH ( but I *assume* like you it was).


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

MikeR7 said:


> I noticed this too, and wasn't going to say anything, but since you did I agree. :lol:


DITTO!


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> If your "they" is referring to E* I said no such thing. I said "*Better to have one logo flash by in error than intentionally uplink and sell SD upconvert as HD channels.*"
> 
> Which would you prefer? An error in an advertisement (such as D* playing their "move over" ad BEFORE the channels were launched) or SD channels being sold as HD?
> 
> ...


Those were ALL mistakes (just like DISH made a mistake).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

braven said:


> Calling peope morons and trolls isn't very "moderator" like. But that's just me.


It is an honest appraisal in my humble opinion.
Not every post is "as a moderator". Most of them are not "as a moderator".
If you have questions about moderation please PM a moderator per forum rules.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Those were ALL mistakes (just like DISH made a mistake).


D* makes more mistakes than E*.  
(Lighten up! Watch some HD!)


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> And look at the D* ad again ... "packages starting at $29.95". We're back into the debate over who the biggest liar is. D* CERTAINLY does their share and I'm glad that you recognize that.


Do packages not start at $29.95?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

JL - in the DIRECTV forums (yep) you just stated:

*Trolling would be skimming all the threads in the forum looking for a place to insert my viewpoint, and trying to entice others to post in anger. I'd prefer that people not post in anger.*

Can't be me I don't skim anywhere near ALL the threads, just a couple I have interest in.

Well, in MY humble opinion, disagreeing with you about whether E* has intentionally uplinked and sold upconverted channels is more than fair for discussion. wiping it away with your I'm right- you're wrong stuff won't let people make their own decision and reach their own conclusion IMHO.

Just like your 'anti' DirecTV comments are NOT supposed to entice others to post in anger. Wanna buy a bridge?


----------



## bflatmajor (Sep 8, 2006)

all I want is more NBA games in Hi-def.

On the channels that claim to be HD:lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Can't be me I don't skim anywhere near ALL the threads, just a couple I have interest in.


Did I say it was you or are you just feeling a little guilty? 

I responded to your question in a thread in the D* forum that I have participated in for nearly two months. Don't act like you found hidden treasure (unless you were trolling by making the comment I replied to ).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Did I say it was you or are you just feeling a little guilty?
> 
> I responded to your question in a thread in the D* forum that I have participated in for nearly two months. Don't act like you found hidden treasure (unless you were trolling by making the comment I replied to ).


i will back james up on that one, we have been arguing about channel counts in that thread for some time now, and the only thing james needs to do is admit that I am right and he is wrong!


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Did I say it was you or are you just feeling a little guilty?


Not guilty at all - JUST LIKE YOU. :lol:

:backtotop


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> Some of the channels that are on the DirecTV website, and in their ads won't be lit for 4 months or so - that's too long to string people along IMHO.


I don't have a big problem with showing the logos as long as they are presented as "coming" (soon as a concept of time has completely lost any value or credibility) and the completed carriage agreements are executed.

I'm concerned about channels that are claimed to be HD that don't show more than a few hours per week of programming. This was allowable when HD was new a few years ago, but now that anyone with the money can purchase a pretty decent HD camera for around $1,000, I can no longer cut these channels slack.

Obviously, I'm edging towards a discussion of whether a channel that shows 0-6 hours per week of programming can be considered anything more than an improved SD channel.

To top it off, we have the new Comcast commercial that claims they 240 HD "programs" available at any one time which includes their entire VOD HD library. Where does it stop?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm concerned about channels that are claimed to be HD that don't show more than a few hours per week of programming. This was allowable when HD was new a few years ago, but now that anyone with the money can purchase a pretty decent HD camera for around $1,000, I can no longer cut these channels slack.
> 
> Obviously, I'm edging towards a discussion of whether a channel that shows 0-6 hours per week of programming can be considered anything more than an improved SD channel.
> 
> To top it off, we have the new Comcast commercial that claims they 240 HD "programs" available at any one time which includes their entire VOD HD library. Where does it stop?


It may be just me, but i see a huge difference in a channel showing a few hours a week of HD being called an HD channel, and the total bs marketing push that comcast is involved in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just for the record, I don't like upconverts on A&E, History, ESPN/ESPN2, TBS, TNT and other channels that I can watch. But I appreciate the many hours of HD on the channels (ESPN/ESPN2 included) that do more than a token HD present - or are 100% HD.

I wish more HD channels were like Food and HGTV ... be HD all the time, even if you are airing a different schedule. My only complaint about that is that IF an episode airing on the SD channel is available in HD it should simulcast on the HD channel. It seems odd to make people tune in some other time for a better picture.

So in my world if a network was "prime time HD only" when the network went back to SD instead of doing stretchovision they would loop more HD ... perhaps even a replay.

Of course, the channel provider's contracts with the content owners may not allow this or charge more for it (as a second airing). We are likely seeing a lot of SD upconvert because the networks just don't have the rights to HD - or don't feel that it is worth paying for HD for a limited audience. That must change.

And yes, in the grand contest of who is lying the most about HD Comcast wins for their "twice the content of DirecTV" ads. I don't like attack ads anyways - it seems that is all that Comcast is capable of ... SD or HD.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Just for the record, I don't like upconverts on A&E, History, ESPN/ESPN2, TBS, TNT and other channels that I can watch. But I appreciate the many hours of HD on the channels (ESPN/ESPN2 included) that do more than a token HD present - or are 100% HD.
> 
> I wish more HD channels were like Food and HGTV ... be HD all the time, even if you are airing a different schedule. My only complaint about that is that IF an episode airing on the SD channel is available in HD it should simulcast on the HD channel. It seems odd to make people tune in some other time for a better picture.


I 100% agree!

I do ask that we all remember the launch of ESPN-HD - it was mostly SD then - and I think it shows the progression we can expect from these other new HD channels. ESPN didn't even have SportsCenter in HD for over a year from when it launched.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/1076825-post1.html


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yep.... ESPN was definitely mainly HD at launch. I remember all the threads asking where is the HD on ESPN-HD when it launched. Other channels have followed in the same pattern and hopefully as time goes on more and more will appear. 

In fact, reading these threads reminded me of when of when ESPN-HD was released and the negative posting that followed shortly after.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

can we all hug now?


----------



## coldmiser (Mar 10, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> can we all hug now?


Only if it's in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> (edited quote)
> Yep.... ESPN was definitely mainly SD at launch. I remember all the threads asking where is the HD on ESPN-HD when it launched. Other channels have followed in the same pattern and hopefully as time goes on more and more will appear.
> 
> In fact, reading these threads reminded me of when of when ESPN-HD was released and the negative posting that followed shortly after.


Probably the worst noise was made over A&E HD ... begging begging begging for it to be added then very loud disappointment. (Disappointment that continues to today.)

ESPN was an early convert ... which earns it a partial "pass" in my book. With SportsCenter in HD (mostly) and plenty of HD sports (now on ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC) they are doing pretty good. Considering the nature of their content (sports) and the considerable expense in creating such content in HD (multiple live cameras plus a live backhaul) sports networks have the biggest challenge.

I wish that TNT and TBS (among others) could at least be counted on for HD hours. It seems to be random whether tonight's movie is going to be in HD or not.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Also contributing to the fact that there was relatively little 'noise' when ESPN-HD launched is that there were relatively few HD subs in 2003. 

But as Ron noted, the negative posts were certainly there.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

coldmiser said:


> Only if it's in HD.


well of course!


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Hey look: it's the thread that gets started over and over every other day.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Presence said:


> Hey look: it's the thread that gets started over and over every other day.


and look! its "the" guy that makes that comment on all of them


----------



## jimb (Feb 13, 2006)

I would be happy if E* would just give us NTGEO and SCIEN as part of the top 200package. 2 more quality HD channels to this package would be a good selling point.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

msmith198025 said:


> and look! its "the" guy that makes that comment on all of them


The fact it is that obvious only proves my point.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

With all of this yammering, the crux of this thread has been swept under the rug (again). Dish Network IS dragging their (_|_) to give/assure/suggest we will get the "new" HD channels. 

If Speed is feeding D* their SpeedHD channel, then by all means, D* should put it up. For cyrin' out loud we have a silly amount of Big Ten/NHL/NBA channels that go unused daily. Even we (Dish subscribers) get the lame TBS-HD channel and (again) there is NEVER anything on that channel since the MLB Playoffs (in my opinion). Same with Sci-Fi-HD and FX, if they are being fed to the providers (cable, D*, and Dish), then it would be in the provider's best interest to give us those channels.

One thing that ticks me off about channels like Discovery or TLC, for example, one week a show (Dirty Jobs) is in glorious HD. Then two weeks later (a new episode) is zoomed up to semi fill the screen. I was really surprised to see an episode of Mythbuster (Deadly Brace Position in plane crashes) was in full HD and a recent newish episode was in quasi-zoom.

Food Network needs to get their act together on the HD channel.

We have seen this counter attack on Dish's part, but it's all talk. If they would step up and add those channels NOW, at least we do have them. When something is aired in HD, we, and every other carrier, will air it. But, NOOOOOO, Charlie is dragging his feet and we miss out when/if something is aired.

What the frack is wrong with A&E!!!!??? Even stuff that is supposed to be in HD is not. Same with History Channel's "Modern Marvels". I've stopped watching that show because of the Stretch-o-Vision. If it's not in HD, just leave in in 4:3!!!!


----------



## mscroggi (Jan 22, 2006)

I find your post cynical and most likely ignorant. If you make statements like this you should back it up with more than cynical speculation.



bruin95 said:


> A. Not enough bandwith
> B. No channels out there that Charlie thinks his customers want
> C. Charlie can't negotiate contracts to save his life
> D. Too busy implimenting other "useless" features (such as DishOnline)
> ...


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Boy. does this get old... Its only TV, do any of you have a life outside of your satellite receivers??

Its only a matter of time before the playing field of channels is leveled, then the discussion will be is why x doesn't have y's channel because its to spendy, or its content is the pits or its exclusive, or whatever other excuse we've all heard a zillion times, at least in forums..

It took D* nearly two years to catch up to E* in anything HD, and now everyone expects that E* should respond to this in weeks.. somehow that doesn't seem realistic to me.. 

You can debate this till the cows come home, or whatever other analogy works, channels will appear when E* has what it needs to do it, whether that be bandwidth, contracts to deliver, or whatever else is needed, all of which takes time..

While it would be nice if that were sooner rather than later, it will come when it comes and all the text and pontificating in the world isn't really going to make it come any faster...


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Presence said:


> The fact it is that obvious only proves my point.


It's Obvious Man just like in my Sunday comics.:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Presence said:


> Hey look: it's the thread that gets started over and over every other day.


Expect it to be everyday if this trend continues. I'm giving E* the benefit of doubt for this last month...they have finally said more WILL be added by years end...so now it's put up or shut up time for Charlie...Dec. 10th(i think) should tell us more...i think there is too much heat right now for Charlie not to address on his chat....but who knows...he could continue the silent treatment, and not add anymore by years end.....then we will REALLY see the threads flying!


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

mscroggi said:


> I find your post cynical and most likely ignorant. If you make statements like this you should back it up with more than cynical speculation.


I was meant to be a joke. Lighten up, dude.


----------



## mister_jerry (Oct 16, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> Expect it to be everyday if this trend continues. I'm giving E* the benefit of doubt for this last month...they have finally said more WILL be added by years end...so now it's put up or shut up time for Charlie...Dec. 10th(i think) should tell us more...i think there is too much heat right now for Charlie not to address on his chat....but who knows...he could continue the silent treatment, and not add anymore by years end.....then we will REALLY see the threads flying!


To be honest, D* is starting to look pretty good to me. Since I am near the end of my 18 month commitment, I have no problem changing over unless Charlie pulls one BIG rabbit out of his hat.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The thing about all this complaining...

One day, maybe 6 months or maybe a year... Dish will be "caught up" and both DirecTV and Dish will have pretty much the same channel lineups again...

And there will still be many of the same folk complaining about something.

After a while, companies learn what to weed out and which complaints to listen to... People that "cry wolf" or run when the "sky is falling" tend to be ignored even if they have a valid complaint.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> The thing about all this complaining...
> 
> One day, maybe 6 months or maybe a year... Dish will be "caught up" and both DirecTV and Dish will have pretty much the same channel lineups again...
> 
> ...


yeah, once (if) they are even again, they will do that, but as soon as one makes a jump ahead of the other, the herd will follow, and the behind company will have to make some kind of move to catch up...this wont stop until a majority of channels are in HD...until then those not under contract will have the freedom to jump back and forth.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> yeah, once (if) they are even again, they will do that, but as soon as one makes a jump ahead of the other, the herd will follow, and the behind company will have to make some kind of move to catch up...this wont stop until a majority of channels are in HD...until then those not under contract will have the freedom to jump back and forth.


Once we are back even again as far as "national" channels goes, we will be back in the lead, because we have the Voom channels. As long as we are even on the national stage, we will always be ahead overall because of those Voom channels. That is, unless D* adopts Voom into it's line up.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

davethestalker said:


> Once we are back even again as far as "national" channels goes, we will be back in the lead, because we have the Voom channels. As long as we are even on the national stage, we will always be ahead overall because of those Voom channels. That is, unless D* adopts Voom into it's line up.


yeah i think last count that i had seen..they had 16 more than us (not counting voom)..i dont see us adding that many, to soon...there are 5-6 that would keep me plenty happy until they added the rest...i think D* is going to be adding more soon too....so it may be the catch up game for E* for awhile.


----------



## OinkinOregon (Feb 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> D* is the one that got flashy ... 10 to "over 75" in a couple of months. And *morons* that believe commercials are very happy.


Wow James! I have never seen you so animated as calling people MORONS!:lol:

Someday Dish will catch up, people who want to switch to D* go ahead, you will see that the addition of a few new channels does not outway the inferior receivers that D* has.:nono2:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

OinkinOregon said:


> people who want to switch to D* go ahead, you will see that the addition of a few new channels does not outway the inferior receivers that D* has.:nono2:


very very subjective


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

OinkinOregon said:


> Wow James! I have never seen you so animated as calling people MORONS!:lol:


Chalk it up to a bad day at the office (uncooperative machines and people where I'm paid to be). BTW: I intended that as morons in society who simply read advertising and believe it ... not any of the educated folks who frequent this fine website. People here know that it is hard to find a 100% honest advert.


----------

