# DIRECTV's 160 channels beats DISH's 200 channels



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Seems DISH Network has used some funky math to come up with 200 channels.

DISH Network Becomes First and Only TV Provider to Offer 200 National HD Channels


> DISH Network L.L.C., America's fastest-growing pay-TV provider, today became the first and only company to offer 200 national high definition channels. New additions to the nation's largest full-time HD line-up include EPIX HD, G4 HD, HLN HD, History International HD, Nat Geo Wild HD, ShortsHD, Style HD and Turner Classic Movies HD.


However, according to Multichannel News


> Dish Network on Monday claimed that it now offers 200 national HD "channels" -- however, 57 of those represent video-on-demand titles available only to customers who have the recently introduced ViP 922 SlingLoaded DVR.


DIRECTV has created a web page listing all 160 full time HD channels that will be available once D12 goes live .. You can find that list here:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/hd/channels

Seems to me that 57 movies do not equal 57 channels, ergo, 160 beats 200.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

If the press release stating 200 channels was worthy of news, the "facts" around them are equally worthy.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

BudShark said:


> If the press release stating 200 channels was worthy of news, the "facts" around them are equally worthy.


+1,000 (-57...so, +943 )


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

To be fair though, why is DirecTV comparing what it will have when D12 goes live. Shouldn't the comparison be what each company currently has?

- Merg


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

What's a few channels between friends right? :lol:


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

The Merg said:


> To be fair though, why is DirecTV comparing what it will have when D12 goes live. Shouldn't the comparison be what each company currently has?
> 
> - Merg


DISH says they _have_ 200 HD channels. DIRECTV says they _will have_ 160 HD channels.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

The Merg said:


> To be fair though, why is DirecTV comparing what it will have when D12 goes live. Shouldn't the comparison be what each company currently has?
> 
> - Merg


At least they separated them for all to see. I think since they have announced them and have carriage arrangements in place and are satisfied with D12 - its just timing. But you are right... they should be saying 130 today and 160 in May up front.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> DISH says they _have_ 200 HD channels. DIRECTV says they _will have_ 160 HD channels.


Making the Dish math even more the bogus.... :eek2:


----------



## George_T (Sep 19, 2002)

OK, I'm counting 150 full-time HD channels on D*s site right now, as WGN HD is listed under both categories, and there is a vague listing of upcoming cinema additions. (Not 160). Is this what everyone else is getting right now?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The Merg said:


> Shouldn't the comparison be what each company currently has?


HERECY!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV has created a web page listing all 160 full time HD channels that will be available once D12 goes live .. You can find that list here:
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/hd/channels


This link seems to be dead already.

update: its baaaack


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The Merg said:


> To be fair though, why is DirecTV comparing what it will have when D12 goes live. Shouldn't the comparison be what each company currently has?
> 
> - Merg


One company (DirecTV) is counting channels that are coming with signed agreements...while the other (Dish) is counting VOD and other imaginary channels.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

This might be of interest...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081

(has not been updated with the latest announcements)

IMO overall counts are stupid still, I look at providers that have more than DirecTV and a lot of channels I could care less about anyways. Though there are some I wish DirecTV would pickup like FUSE, IFC, BBCA, AMC, etc.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

harsh said:


> This link seems to be dead already.


Working fine here.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

I don't really care how many channels either company has .... I just like the name "DirecTV" better than "Dish". "Dish" is pretty bland. Their marketing department needs to work on a corporate name change.

Madison Avenue Jeff


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Working fine here.


I suspect there was some editing going on somewhere as there now appear to be 152 channels detailed as compared to the earlier observations of 150.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Making a new batch right now.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> DISH says they _have_ 200 HD channels. DIRECTV says they _will have_ 160 HD channels.





Hoosier205 said:


> One company (DirecTV) is counting channels that are coming with signed agreements...while the other (Dish) is counting VOD and other imaginary channels.


I realize that DirecTV is saying what they will have. My point is that someone that is signing up today wants to know what is there today (even though they may be interested in what's to come), so shouldn't comparisons be made on what is available today as well?

- Merg


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Grentz said:


> Though there are some I wish DirecTV would pickup like FUSE, IFC, BBCA, AMC, etc.


One of Sixto's most recent lists suggest that the Cablevision channels (AMC, IFC) are uplinked.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

That's very creative math, but even with the D* additions just announced, Dish will still have the following nationals that D* doesn't:

BBCA
Centric
E!
Fashion
Fox Soccer
Logo
Mav
Lifetime Movie
Sportsman
Tru
World Fishing
(several premiums)

Even though I could care less about most of those channels, the fact remains D* doesn't have them and Dish does.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mdavej said:


> That's very creative math, but even with the D* additions just announced, Dish will still have the following nationals that D* doesn't:
> 
> BBCA
> Centric
> ...


Good for them. It is amazing how many they can pack in there using HD-Lite and over compression techniques. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mdavej said:


> That's very creative math, but even with the D* additions just announced, Dish will still have the following nationals that D* doesn't:
> 
> BBCA
> Centric
> ...


There are really HD channels like that? :eek2:

Why? 

Oh yeah..you missed one...the Paint-Drying Channel HD.  :lol:


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

harsh said:


> One of Sixto's most recent lists suggest that the Cablevision channels (AMC, IFC) are uplinked.


Which is excellent news. This house watches a lot of IFC


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> I suspect there was some editing going on somewhere as there now appear to be 152 channels detailed as compared to the earlier observations of 150.


I'm sure the line "Additional DIRECTV Cinema™" in the top section includes the difference


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Grentz said:


> This might be of interest...
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081
> 
> (has not been updated with the latest announcements)
> ...


Best channel comparison and count in my book.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<Moderator note>
Name calling is bad form. Please don't.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Thanks Doug for the information and update.

Perhaps this information can be a tool when negotiating a deal.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

mdavej said:


> That's very creative math, but even with the D* additions just announced, Dish will still have the following nationals that D* doesn't:
> 
> BBCA
> Centric
> ...


And DirecTV will have these, which Dish doesn't:
Smithsonian HD
ESPNU HD
Fuel HD
MLB HD
Gol HD
The 101 HD
Altitude HD
NESN HD
MASN HD
MSG Plus HD
..many other RSN's..


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Piratefan98 said:


> I don't really care how many channels either company has .... I just like the name "DirecTV" better than "Dish". "Dish" is pretty bland. Their marketing department needs to work on a corporate name change.
> 
> Madison Avenue Jeff


I can see it now they hire the geniuses at Syfy and Comcast and come up with Dysh Xtream®. :lol:


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good for them. It is amazing how many they can pack in there using HD-Lite and over compression techniques. :lol:





hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are really HD channels like that? :eek2:
> 
> Why?
> 
> Oh yeah..you missed one...the Paint-Drying Channel HD.  :lol:


Yes, many are laughable, hence my "I could care less" comment. But are you saying nobody cares about BBCA or E! or another half dozen HBO's? I think a lot of people are disappointed about those. My point is whoever claims to have the "most" should really have the most. If they claim to have the "best" HD lineup, and not these dogs, then that's another matter.

EDIT: I actually like the Paint-Drying Channel (a.k.a. HD Theater's Sunrise Earth)


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

syphix said:


> And DirecTV will have these, which Dish doesn't:
> Smithsonian HD
> ESPNU HD
> Fuel HD
> ...


Heh... all the sports channels that are most important to me. Now I remember why I switched.

Everyone has their preference on channels. Choice is a great thing!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> <Moderator note>
> Name calling is bad form. Please don't.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


By the way, unfortunately a few bad lines caused several posts to get deleted; some of which had some good points. Feel free to repost good points without quoting the name-calling.

There was just too much to try to edit consistently in so many posts.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Yes, many are laughable, hence my "I could care less" comment. But are you saying nobody cares about BBCA or E! or another half dozen HBO's? I think a lot of people are disappointed about those. My point is whoever claims to have the "most" should really have the most. If they claim to have the "best" HD lineup, and not these dogs, then that's another matter.


Most is a count game (hence the first to 200).

DirecTV has the Most. The most however means you would have to subscribe to and want the channels. They're most tends towards Sports. If you don't watch or subscribe to sports you may not have the Most and may be better somewhere else. But, the fact remains. If I have subscription based TV, the most channels available in HD at any given time are on DirecTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Oh, yeah. I remember--I wanted to comment on the topic too. 

Most of the time I just shake my head at marketing... um... stuff...  I spot the weasel clauses pretty quickly, just roll on. Sometimes a really creative piece of ... um... stuff... will give me a smile knowing how badly they are bending the spoon.

Then there are times like this where a company ... um... stuffs so badly, I can just see the lawsuits fly. No style points whatsoever. No weasel clauses. Even Com... um... stuff... can weasel better than this. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mdavej said:


> Yes, many are laughable, hence my "I could care less" comment. But *are you saying nobody cares about BBCA or E! or another half dozen HBO's?* I think a lot of people are disappointed about those. My point is whoever claims to have the "most" should really have the most. If they claim to have the "best" HD lineup, and not these dogs, then that's another matter.


Not at all...there are clearly some remaining HD channels out there.

Viewership will likely drive those decisions.

At this point...once things are live with 160 real HD channels at DirecTV and Dish has their 135 or so "real" channels....at that point...that's alot of HD - any way you cut it....more beyond that is certainly frosting on the cake.

I can see why AMC HD, BBC HD and a few others are still desired - there some good content that also will likely fuel respectiable viewership.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Calling a single movie a "channel" does seem bad form for sure .. At least Comcast shaded the picture by saying the most HD available at any time .. using the term "thousands of choices" (e.g. not "channels")


----------



## RobertSeattle (Aug 27, 2006)

Mad Men just looks awful in SD.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Calling a single move a "channel" does seem bad form for sure .. At least Comcast shaded the picture by saying the most HD available at any time .. using the term "thousands of choices" (e.g. not "channels")


It is bad form. Dish's counting of HD PPV movies on their high-end DVR is ridiculous and misleading. I would also subtract both companies PPV movie "channels". They don't really seem like a channel to me. The rest I can live with for sake of argument. So subtract 57 PPV titles and 15 PPV channels from Dish and 27+ PPV channels from DirecTV. Seems like it ends up pretty much being a wash then.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

syphix said:


> +1,000 (-57...so, +943 )


 confused on the +1,000
If you mean the Directv on demand choices, it should be closer to 3,000


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

curt8403 said:


> confused on the +1,000


It's just a common forum expression.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

anleva said:


> It is bad form. Dish's counting of HD PPV movies on their high-end DVR is ridiculous and misleading. I would also subtract both companies PPV movie "channels". They don't really seem like a channel to me. The rest I can live with for sake of argument. So subtract 57 PPV titles and 15 PPV channels from Dish and 27+ PPV channels from DirecTV. Seems like it ends up pretty much being a wash then.


Numbers certainly depend on what you want to count .. As noted earlier, DIRECTV's lineup leans a lot more towards sports with Regional Sports Networks counting for much of the HD .. PPVs can be reasonably counted because they are used by many people, but what is the right level of PPVs? I don't know .. DIRECTV utilizes some of that bandwidth for sports packages, so while it may be 27 (soon to be 35 perhaps), some of those PPV channels are converted to NFL Sunday Ticket channels on Sundays in the fall. It's all relative.

DISH's claim of 200 certainly seems to fall short by anyone's reasonable definition.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I honestly don't get the numbers game either. If I were on a different provider, or OTA, and was looking to switch to a different provider, I'd look at the *CHANNELS* they currently provide in HD (Or plan to add in the next month or 2, not "Soon"), and see who had the most of the channels I wanted/needed. Course, that wouldn't be my ONLY deciding factor, but as far as channels go, it would. But I admit, to *MOST* Americans, quantity is more important than quality.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

I wonder if the DISH marketeers, when they introduce 3D, will count each channel twice - one for each eye?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> I wonder if the DISH marketeers, when they introduce 3D, will count each channel twice - one for each eye?


3 times. one for each eye in the 3D version, and 1 for the regular HD


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> 3 times. one for each eye in the 3D version, and 1 for the regular HD


Wish I/they had thought of that!

I just got to thinking..... Why not count each dish on each property as a subscriber - better yet - count tuners! :hurah:


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

anleva said:


> It is bad form. Dish's counting of HD PPV movies on their high-end DVR is ridiculous and misleading. I would also subtract both companies PPV movie "channels". They don't really seem like a channel to me. The rest I can live with for sake of argument. So subtract 57 PPV titles and 15 PPV channels from Dish and 27+ PPV channels from DirecTV. Seems like it ends up pretty much being a wash then.


Also, Comcast's fuzzy math claim is further validated over Dish in that those 'selections' are avaliable to any Comcast-supplied HD Receiver instead of their most premium super-whamadyne HD DVR extraordinaire...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

mdavej said:


> *BBCA*
> Centric
> E!
> Fashion
> ...


From this list, I really wish DirecTV had _BBCA_, _Fox Soccer_ and _Lifetime Movie_ in HD. I wonder why not?


----------



## Tonedeaf (Jun 13, 2006)

Great, the list that DirecTV has for upcoming channels has a total of 1 channel I am interested in. :down:


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Tonedeaf said:


> Great, the list that DirecTV has for upcoming channels has a total of 1 channel I am interested in.


That list is a partial list, more to come........


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mdavej said:


> That's very creative math, but even with the D* additions just announced, Dish will still have the following nationals that D* doesn't:
> 
> BBCA
> Centric
> ...


And there are HD Channels DIRECTV has that Dish doesn't.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Tonedeaf said:


> Great, the list that DirecTV has for upcoming channels has a total of 1 channel I am interested in. :down:


I know not everyone is getting what they want in the first wave. I'd have loved AMC but one thing at a time. I promise, they're still working on things over there.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> And there are HD Channels DIRECTV has that Dish doesn't.


Boy, Satracer is starting to sound like a DirecTV fanboy... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

My gut reaction was actually of a bit of surprise...

1) Travel Channel HD was clearly the most popular one in the threads here, and in the poll, yet there was a " gray area" of certainty that it would make any initial channel list. Surprise...there it is. 

2) With the emphasis on HD LIL, as well as RSN and PPV growth - I figured 8-10 "regular" HD Channels would be big (including movie channels) for a first group. Surprise again...exponentially larger.

3) In order to publicly state these would start rolling out in May, and based on the current competitive climate out there...it iced any concerns pertaining to the timing or credibility of the new D12 sat being fine and on service as planned (I never doubted it ). Surprise to some I'm sure.

It's all good.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nope...no blast...
> 
> The 30 channels announced are the first barrage of new ones..the sat has the capacity for up to 200.
> 
> Satracer indicated there will be more....


But why aren't DirecTV saying they will have the capacity for 200? They said so before D12 was even launched did they not?

Now they are saying they will add 30 more to get to 160. Even if these 30 will be added only after D12 is in service, it still does not explain why all the sudden DirecTV has become so modest, instead of claiming 200 capacity, now 160 channels.

Of course they may add more later, but if D12 will be in service as planned, why can't DirecTV again claim 200 HD capacity? Because DISH scared them off with the use of the number "200"? The number "200" was first coined by DirecTV, reclaim it! You can then tell the world our 200 are real, their 200 are fake.

In addition to that, unless D12, unbeknown to us all, is already at 103 and the switch is ready to be flipped, IMHO it is premature to announce these 30 new HDs if they must depend on D12. While unlikely, things can still happen during the move or next testing phase. Heck even DISH is no longer so reckless, they now wait till the last minute, when they knew they could flip the switch, before making the announcement of the new HDs.

I still think when DirecTV decided to announce the 30 new HDs, they could have determined even if D12 fell out of the sky, they would still be able to add them. But of course I could be wrong, DirecTV could have become the old DISH now, making promises before they knew 100% for sure. Maybe the two companies had decided to swap policies. Anything is possible.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> But why aren't DirecTV saying they will have the capacity for 200? They said so before D12 was even launched did they not?
> 
> Now they are saying they will add 30 more to get to 160. Even if these 30 will be added only after D12 is in service, it still does not explain why all the sudden DirecTV has become so modest, instead of claiming 200 capacity, now 160 channels.
> 
> ...


This gets to the same point that the Moderators have been hitting on.

Why are you assuming that just because that press release didn't add "And we still have room for 40 more" it means they don't? They have publicly stated they have capacity for 200 HD channels. They don't need to reassert that every time they announce something new. This press release was about what they are launching in May - not what they might do in September or October or what have you...

I'll add that people have been clamoring for DirecTV to say something. Well they said something. Now, to go back and say, "But... D12 isn't there YET" isn't fair. Do you want a statement from DirecTV saying we are still on target or not? If you do, thats what you got today - no fair nit picking them. If you don't - then just quietly wait until the channels turn on.  I'm not sure what would really satisfy you at this point.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

BudShark said:


> Boy, Satracer is starting to sound like a DirecTV fanboy... :lol: :lol: :lol:


True.  Was a subscriber in the 1990's long before I came to join the team.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Also there was a lawsuit filed by Dish claiming the capacity for 200+HD channels was deceptive/false advertising so DirecTV stopped saying it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10173538

I wouldn't be suprised if we see another lawsuit shortly over Dish's new claims to having 200HD channels (but I guess that is the topic of another thread).


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Tonedeaf said:


> Great, the list that DirecTV has for upcoming channels has a total of 1 channel I am interested in. :down:





Athlon646464 said:


> That list is a partial list, more to come........


The list on the D* website lists 22 channels. They announced 30 so it's reasonable to assume that out the 8 channels not currently listed that at least a handful will be suitable for your viewing tastes.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

SPACEMAKER said:


> The list on the D* website lists 22 channels. They announced 30 so it's reasonable to assume that out the 8 channels not currently listed that at least a handful will be suitable for your viewing tastes.


They already said those 8 are HD PPV.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> Also there was a lawsuit filed by Dish claiming the capacity for 200+HD channels was deceptive/false advertising so DirecTV stopped saying it.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10173538
> 
> I wouldn't be suprised if we see another lawsuit shortly over Dish's new claims to having 200HD channels (but I guess that is the topic of another thread).


At least that is a rational explanation. That however does not dispute my assertion that it is somewhat reckless to claim the addition of 30 more channels, when D12 is not even there to provide them yet, unless DirecTV knew the 30 could be added with or without D12.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> At least that is a rational explanation. That however does not dispute my assertion that it is somewhat reckless to claim the addition of 30 more channels, when D12 is not even there to provide them yet, unless DirecTV knew the 30 could be added with or without D12.


How do you know how reckless it is or isn't? The only safe and logical assumption that can be made is that they (who obviously know more about D12 than anyone here) are certain enough about their ability to provide these channels via D12. These additions are dependent upon D12 and only D12. I cannot stress enough how strongly I believe that they would not have made this announcement today if they were not supremely confident in D12 being capable of delivering these channels.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

How can E* count VOD HD's in their list? How many E* subs even have VOD set up?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

ndole_mbnd said:


> How can E* count VOD HD's in their list? How many E* subs even have VOD set up?


Better question is, how many E* subs have the new 922 - the only receiver capable of getting the new VOD offerings and a much smaller subset of all E* VOD customers.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are really HD channels like that? :eek2:
> 
> Why?
> 
> Oh yeah..you missed one...the Paint-Drying Channel HD.  :lol:


 Sorry, but I enjoy Centric replay of old TV series.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jacmyoung said:


> But why aren't DirecTV saying they will have the capacity for 200? They said so before D12 was even launched did they not?
> 
> Now they are saying they will add 30 more to get to 160. Even if these 30 will be added only after D12 is in service, it still does not explain why all the sudden DirecTV has become so modest, instead of claiming 200 capacity, now 160 channels.
> 
> ...


At some point Marketing gets the go ahead knowing that D12 is going to be good, in place, etc. The risk has dropped so low that the remaining "what if" scenarios start sounding extremist. 

In other words: D12 is fine and will be on service as planned.  

There is always the risk that a solar flare will take out satellites. That does happen every decade or so. There is also the risk that crossing the streams will reverse every particle known to man and dogs and cats will live together. But those risks are so unlikely, why worry about them. DIRECTV already has them in the plan. 

As for "why aren't they saying capacity for 200 HD is still part of the process, we'll get to them soon, we're still in negotiations, be patient, the channels you want are being negotiated or will be launched in a separate day of woohoo, and we're planning on launching even more satellites someday to ultimately have all channels in glorious HD even if we have to twist the networks arms to go HD..." Well because that message is why too long for most people. 

In Marketing and Communications you want to get your main point out. No need to muddy it all up with the trivial sidebars.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

What the comparison should be is national HD channels to national HD channels. While some people believe it is important to have their RSN in HD, in order to truely compare who has the largest selection of HD a national HD comparison would basically answer that.

Does anybody know what that actual number is for DirecTV and Dish right now?

You can then specify that you have so many RSN's in HD and so many PPV channels in HD, but adding those into your final number is definitely misleading.

- Merg


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.


CSN Chicago HD
CSN Mid-Atlantic HD
CSN New England HD
FSN Arizona HD
FSN Detroit HD
FSN Midwest HD
FSN North HD
FSN Northwest HD
FSN Pittsburgh HD
FSN Prime Ticket HD
FSN Rocky Mountain HD
FSN South HD
FSN Southwest HD
FSN West HD
Madison Square Garden HD
MASN HD
MSG PLUS HD
NESN HD
SportsNet New York HD
SportSouth HD
SportsTime Ohio HD
Sun Sports HD
YES HD

Plus:
27 DIRECTV Cinema™ HD channels


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I think we've all long agreed that every provider inflates their counts in some way .. "think thousands of choices from comcast."

DISH claimed 57 "choices" to be "channels" They are available in the sports pack, but they are not free. Also, there are significant blackouts on these channels which may lessen the value for some .. Still, they are channels .. They just may not be worth anything to you personally.



rkr0923 said:


> I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

I wonder if some of these channels are like the canals on Mars.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> At least that is a rational explanation. That however does not dispute my assertion that it is somewhat reckless to claim the addition of 30 more channels, when D12 is not even there to provide them yet, unless DirecTV knew the 30 could be added with or without D12.


How is it reckless?

If something happens that prevents them from providing the channels, it happens. It just is that at this point, that something would be extraordinary.

This happens all the time. A store says it will open on the corner. But then a flood comes along and wipes out the foundation. Oops. Store cannot open.

A baseball team announces a game for Thursday and sells tickets. A thunderstorm forces cancellation of the game.

A technology company announces a new device to put sold next month. Oops. An earthquake demolishes the factory that makes the chip that is essential to the device.

For that matter, even DirecTV and Dish tie people down for some period of time for services without any absolute assurance that those services will be working 100% for the time they tie down their customers. A solar flare can knock any and all of their birds out of the sky.

Point is....nothing is 100% assured. You have to assess risk. At this point, it is hardly reckless to announce the channels are coming.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rkr0923 said:


> I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.
> 
> CSN Chicago HD
> CSN Mid-Atlantic HD
> ...


Wrong. Except for some blackouts (and even those are mitigated if you buy the right packages), all these channels are available to everyone on the system. So you CAN get it. It is only a matter of price.

I can see not counting the PPV on either side, but the RSNs are available to all. I watch them all the time and I don't live where they are.

The Dish claim counts channels that not everyone can get. Some of the channels are not available to all because of satellite positioning.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

If a standard for counting was ever created, perhaps one like they label fertilizer would work. (Don't ask.)

23-10-5

The first number would be Nationals, the second Locals/RSN's, and the third everything else (channels that don't fit the first two).

Then it would be easy to see who has more choice for your viewing habits.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

The Merg said:


> What the comparison should be is national HD channels to national HD channels. While some people believe it is important to have their RSN in HD, in order to truely compare who has the largest selection of HD a national HD comparison would basically answer that.
> 
> Does anybody know what that actual number is for DirecTV and Dish right now?
> 
> ...


Define a national channel? Available nationally? If so, then the RSNs are national channels on DirecTV.

Or do you mean standard "cable" channels. Why? Because they are "important?" Well, E! is not important to me. Neither is G4. But Comcast Chicago is important to me.

When you start to slice and dice the types of channels, you start to make value judgements. And, obviously, you want YOUR value judgements to count from your post.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, I guess DirecTV can always thank Dish for making them look better in comparison. That's the gift that just keeps on giving.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> If a standard for counting was ever created, perhaps one like they label fertilizer would work. (Don't ask.)
> 
> 23-10-5
> 
> ...


I hope you are being silly. Because where to do you stop? Why RSNs? RSNs are more important to many than some of the so-called national channels. If you want to know what the channels are, look at the lists rather than try to typify the channels types.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

rkr0923 said:


> I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.


You get all those channels anywhere you happen to live. They are in the sports pack and the Premier package. Yes you will face blackouts on most pro sports games but you can still get the channels.

I think the fairest way to count HD channels it count exactly that. Any FULL TIME hd channel that is available to any customer with the right package. That would include full time RSNs. Excluding any channel or group of channels because they don't happen to interest you isn't something that should be done in a count of all available channels. It only makes sense to look at the channels the provider has that interest you and which packages they are available in but that shouldn't be part of a total channel count because it is an individual preference.

I wouldn't include any part time channels in the count or any channels that can't be ordered by most customer (IE distant networks).


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> I hope you are being silly. Because where to do you stop? Why RSNs? RSNs are more important to many than some of the so-called national channels. If you want to know what the channels are, look at the lists rather than try to typify the channels types.


Of course you should always check to see if they carry *your* channel.

My point was to the *counting wars*. Who has the most, and what should be counted.

I said count everything, but categorize.

I'd be curious to see what the numbers are right now.....


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Of course you should always check to see if they carry *your* channel.
> 
> My point was to the *counting wars*. Who has the most, and what should be counted.
> 
> ...


oh, are we going to have a counting war? I love to count.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Not to be picky as I am very happy with the HD announcement in all, but do we "really" need more PPV HD channels!? Seriously, I have "NEVER" ordered one and probably never will. I know thats just me but are people using PPV HD channels that frequently?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> oh, are we going to have a counting war? I love to count.


Your guy would do a much better job than the marketeers!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> Of course you should always check to see if they carry *your* channel.
> 
> My point was to the *counting wars*. Who has the most, and what should be counted.
> 
> ...


Still I ask. Why categorize? And why along the lines of RSNs? Why not on documentary channels or shopping channels or news channels?

My point is that RSNs are legitimate channels.

I personally like DirecTVs counting of full time HD channels, no matter what the content. I am not thrilled with PPV being counted but if they are 24/7 HD, they are 24/7 HD.

DirecTV could inflate their number by counting every single part time channel like Dish does or every VOD program like Comcast.

BTW, I have 203 channels in my HD favorites and that does not count D12 content, obviously, but also does not include PPV channels or VOD content. While not a perfect counting system, DirecTV is being a bit modest, actually.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

This is meant as a resource. I wanted to lay out an easy to read comparison of what you gain and lose between D* and E*. Channel Count Only. 

DirecTV has that Dish does not: 
1. Fuel HD 
2. MLB Network HD
3. Showtime Extreme HD
4. the 101 HD
5. Smithsonian HD
6. YES HD, NESN, FSN’S, CSN’S, Altitude, and other 24/7 RSN’s.
7. Most games are available nationally in HD when you subscribe to the required sports package. (No one else can claim this)

Dish has that DirecTV does not:
1. Encore HD
2. 5Star Max HD
3. Action Max HD
4. HBO 2 HD
5. HBO Comedy HD
6. HBO Zone HD
7. HBO Family HD
8. HBO Latino HD
9. HBO Signature HD
10. World Fishing Network
11. Centric HD
12. Fashion TV
13. Hallmark Movie HD 
14. Lifetime 
15. LMN
16. Logo HD
17. Mav-TV HD
18. Travel Channel HD
19. WGN
20. MSNBC HD
21. E! Entertainment HD
22. Sportsman HD 
23. Hallmark HD 
24. TruTV HD
25. Fox Soccer Channel HD
26. Retro HD
27. Indie HD
28. BBC America HD
29. EPIX HD
30. G4 HD
31. Headline News HD
32. History International HD
33. Nat Geo Wild HD
34. ShortsHD
35. Style HD
36. Turner Classic Movies HD

D* recently stated they will have the capacity for over 200 HD channels after D12 in 1st half 2010, I have listed the most likely additions. 

The 70+ most likely added channels.

1. ESPNU HD* *(MAY 2010)
2. Hallmark Movie Channel HD* (MAY 2010)
3. MSNBC HD* *(May 2010)
4. Outdoor Channel HD* 
5. WGN America HD* (MAY 2010)
6. MoreMax HD* 
7. HBO2 HD* *(MAY 2010)
8. HBO2 West HD* *In Test Stream
9. HBO Family* 
10. HBO Family West* 
11. HBO Latino HD* 
12. HBO Signature HD* 
13. Fear Net HD*
14. BBC America HD*
15. Africa HD*
16. Fox Soccer HD *
17. 24/7 RSN CSN –CA HD* (MAY 2010)
18. 24/7 RSN CSN –BA HD* (MAY 2010)
19. 24/7 RSN FSN Cincy HD* *In Test Stream 
20. 24/7 RSN FSN FL HD* * (MAY 2010)
21. 24/7 RSN FSN Ohio HD* *In Test Stream
22. ESPN 3D* (June 11 2010) part time?
23. N3D* (June 11 2010)
24. EWTN HD*
25. Travel Channel HD (MAY 2010)
26. Centric HD
27. CSPAN HD 
28. CSPAN 2 HD
29. Fox Movie Channel HD
30. Nat Geo Wild HD
31. WE tv HD 
32. Sundance HD
33. Encore HD (MAY 2010)
34. Encore West HD
35. TCM HD
36. Tru HD
37. Headline News HD
38. E! Entertainment Television HD
39. Starz in Black HD (MAY 2010)
40. Style Network HD
41. Logo HD
42. G4 HD
43. MoreMax HD west
44. QVC HD 
45. RFD HD
46. TV One HD
47. HBO Comedy HD
48. HBO Comedy West HD
49. 5StarMax HD
50. ActionMax HD
51. @Max HD
52. OuterMax HD
53. ID HD
54. Lifetime HD (MAY 2010)
55. Lifetime Movie Network HD
56. AMC HD* In Test Stream
57. IFC HD* In Test Stream
58. The Movie Channel West HD
59. HBO Zone HD
60. HBO Zone West HD
61. ThrillerMax HD
62. WMax HD
63. OWN HD (2011)
64. Flix HD
65. History I HD 
66. GolTV HD * (MAY 2010)
67. TMC Xtra HD* (May 2010)
68. 3D PPV* In Test Stream
69. Fox Soccer Plus HD
70. Telefutura HD West (MAY 2010)
71. Univision HD East (MAY 2010)
72. Starz Cinema HD (May 2010)
73. Showtime Women HD (May 2010)
74. Showtime Next HD (May 2010) 
75. Showtime Beyond HD (May 2010)
76. HBO Zone HD (May 2010)
77. Hallmark HD (MAY 2010)

* Announced either Officially or Unofficially 

These are announced or highly speculated.

If D* adds 40-70 HD channels in the next 4-12 weeks based on most likely candidates and channels already announced I believe that it is safe to say D* could add many of these channels by July 2010.


Other HD channels not likely to be added:

1. Shorts HD
2. Epix HD
3. Wealth TV
4. CSPAN 3 HD
5. FOX College Sports HD full time
6. Sportsman HD
7. Fuse HD
8. Mav-TV HD
9. HSN HD 
10. World Fishing Network HD
11. .TV HD channels
12. RetroPlex HD
13. IndiePlex HD
14. Fashion TV HD
15. MTV 2* Shown on D* scroll online 
16. Chiller* Shown on D* scroll online
17. Sleuth HD
18. NASA HD
19. ION HD


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Still I ask. Why categorize? And why along the lines of RSNs? Why not on documentary channels or shopping channels or news channels?
> 
> My point is that RSNs are legitimate channels.
> 
> ...


In my world, RSN's are like locals to answer your question. (For counting purposes you gotta put them somewhere, and IMHO they are not like Nationals.)

How many Nationals does DISH/D* have? (Self explanatory, I hope.)

How many locals/RSN's does DISH/D* have? (The winner will show their superiority by market count.)

Everything else (The winner will show technological superiority.)

You're cracking me up with the nit-picking of my categories. All I'm saying is some sort of standard would be nice.

BTW - This will never happen. :eek2:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I'd like to say, this only truly matters if your TV provider of choice somehow augments your sense of self-worth. Otherwise, who give a flying f..., um.... trapeze artist, shall we say, about channel counts and nit-picking over what to count and how.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Define a national channel? Available nationally? If so, then the RSNs are national channels on DirecTV.
> 
> Or do you mean standard "cable" channels. Why? Because they are "important?" Well, E! is not important to me. Neither is G4. But Comcast Chicago is important to me.
> 
> When you start to slice and dice the types of channels, you start to make value judgements. And, obviously, you want YOUR value judgements to count from your post.


I'm not talking about what is important and what is not. I was just saying it would be a way to objectively compare number of channels. And by national HD, I am referring to standard "cable" channels that everyone who subscribes would have access to (if you subscribed to everything). I think that RSN's and PPV channels should be put in their own category for this comparison.

- Merg


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> In my world, RSN's are like locals to answer your question. (For counting purposes you gotta put them somewhere, and IMHO they are not like Nationals.)
> 
> How many Nationals does DISH/D* have? (Self explanatory, I hope.)
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I was getting at when I first asked the question.

- Merg


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

evan_s said:


> I think the fairest way to count HD channels it count exactly that. Any FULL TIME hd channel that is available to any customer with the right package. That would include full time RSNs. Excluding any channel or group of channels because they don't happen to interest you isn't something that should be done in a count of all available channels. It only makes sense to look at the channels the provider has that interest you and which packages they are available in but that shouldn't be part of a total channel count because it is an individual preference.
> 
> I wouldn't include any part time channels in the count or any channels that can't be ordered by most customer (IE distant networks).


I'm of the mindset that full time 24/7 (national) HD channels should count no matter what .. The "what" is only relevant to personal preference. If there was a shared channel .. Say half Versus, half Golf then it should count as 1 full time HD channel.

If it's available to you (even at a cost, reasonable or not) and 24/7, it should count - BUT - that is my opinion.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I'd like to say, this only truly matters if your TV provider of choice somehow augments your sense of self-worth. Otherwise, who give a flying f..., um.... trapeze artist, shall we say, about channel counts and nit-picking over what to count and how.


Not at all for me. My choice to go w/D* was based on which channels they provided of the ones I watch, as well as their quality and reliability.

This thread is about how 'counts' by marketeers can be misleading. All I did was offer a possible solution - standards.

I'm sure there are many more ideas possible.

I say again - we'll never see it happen - I just thought it would be fun to speculate on how it could/would look.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

rkr0923 said:


> I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.
> 
> CSN Chicago HD
> CSN Mid-Atlantic HD
> ...


The PPV/Cinema channels I'm not a fan of counting, however, the 24x7 RSNs are very valid in the counts. The Sports Pack is a great package that gets you access to every RSN except the blacked out events. Those require the season pass package for the league. There is great programming on these channels that is not available on other RSNs, sometimes time shifted for the region. If you are a sports fan, then these channels count a lot.

They also allow DirecTV to have the best season pass sports package. If the RSN is producing it in HD, its almost certainly available in HD in the Season Pass.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Aye - I chose them on reliability, in an area where Comcast couldn't keep a reliable signal to save their lives. When I signed on, I had not a clue what channels they provided. All I knew was I was no longer tied to Comcast's unreliable wire plant, and analog fuzziness. Anything after that was gravy, and I've been there ever since.



Athlon646464 said:


> Not at all for me. My choice to go w/D* was based on which channels they provided of the ones I watch, as well as their quality and reliability.
> 
> This thread is about how 'counts' by marketeers can be misleading. All I did was offer a possible solution - standards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Aye - I chose them on reliability, in an area where Comcast couldn't keep a reliable signal to save their lives. When I signed on, I had not a clue what channels they provided. All I knew was I was no longer tied to Comcast's unreliable wire plant, and analog fuzziness. Anything after that was gravy, and I've been there ever since.


It's funny you say that, I couldn't get away from Charter fast enough - and loved it when they called to save me and I could say NO.

My only choices when I canceled them was Dish or D*, and well, you know the rest of the story.... :hurah:


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

RobertSeattle said:


> Mad Men just looks awful in SD.


 USENET and torrents easily fixes that.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Smthkd said:


> Not to be picky as I am very happy with the HD announcement in all, but do we "really" need more PPV HD channels!? Seriously, I have "NEVER" ordered one and probably never will. I know thats just me but are people using PPV HD channels that frequently?


Then it's your fault they're adding more PPV channels. :lol: They aren't selling enough movies so they're adding more opportunities for us to order them. I never watch then either.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Another thing to consider about the PPV channels is they aren't necessarily permanent. If the new PPV service where they beam the movies to your DVR works well they may start to get rid of some of the linear PPV channels to make room for new national channels.


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

The Merg said:


> I'm not talking about what is important and what is not. I was just saying it would be a way to objectively compare number of channels. *And by national HD, I am referring to standard "cable" channels that everyone who subscribes would have access to *(if you subscribed to everything). I think that *RSN's *and PPV channels should be put in their own category for this comparison.
> 
> - Merg


If a person subscribes to the top tier package at DirecTV, that person receives all of the RSNs. So, why are you excluding them from the national count?

Is it because you don't like sports? I can see no reason for your segregation other than personal preference. A displaced Red Sox fan will find NESN HD vastly more important than 8 HBO channels. And, a college football fan will find a dozen FSN channels much more important than Lifetime, Hallmark, BBC, etc. For example, the FSN channels are particularly important when perhaps you're in a city like Dallas when FSSWHD is showing a Mavs game but you want to see a particular college basketball or football game that shows up on another FSN channel.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

The various RSN's show a lot of sports that aren't blacked out. Pro sports? No. But tons of college and high school sports, all different. As well as the local sports shows and so on. The RSN's should very much be counted as a national channel available to all who subscribe. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean you can't count it.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

But really, who cares. Count the channels *you* want and nothing more. The rest don't exist if you don't watch em. So if Dish has 40 HD channels you want and DirecTV has 35 then Dish has more HD channels in your mind. Go with that.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

The Merg said:


> I'm not talking about what is important and what is not. I was just saying it would be a way to objectively compare number of channels. And by national HD, I am referring to standard "cable" channels that everyone who subscribes would have access to (if you subscribed to everything). I think that RSN's and PPV channels should be put in their own category for this comparison.
> 
> - Merg


"And by national HD, I am referring to standard "cable" channels that everyone who subscribes would have access to (if you subscribed to everything)."

That would include the RSNs as they are part of the top tier package.

I do not pay for the RSNs individually. They are no different than HBO or Showtime. You pay for them either as a group package or get them when you subscribe to "everything."

Funny, by your definition, the HD Pack is NOT a national cable package as you have to order them a la carte.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> In my world, RSN's are like locals to answer your question. (For counting purposes you gotta put them somewhere, and IMHO they are not like Nationals.)


So, your world is just denial of the real world where RSNs are available nationally available. I cannot discuss an issue with someone who just redefines reality.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> So, your world is just denial of the real world where RSNs are available nationally available. I cannot discuss an issue with someone who just redefines reality.


Holy crap dude, that was not at all the meaning of my post - it was about standards for counting. I don't care at all how you categorize the channels. You continue to pick every word - you gotta calm down.

I guess I took R in RSN too literally, on second thought maybe you are because they reach everywhere....


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

GoPokes43 said:


> If a person subscribes to the top tier package at DirecTV, that person receives all of the RSNs. So, why are you excluding them from the national count?





bonscott87 said:


> The various RSN's show a lot of sports that aren't blacked out. Pro sports? No. But tons of college and high school sports, all different. As well as the local sports shows and so on. The RSN's should very much be counted as a national channel available to all who subscribe. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean you can't count it.





bonscott87 said:


> But really, who cares. Count the channels *you* want and nothing more. The rest don't exist if you don't watch em. So if Dish has 40 HD channels you want and DirecTV has 35 then Dish has more HD channels in your mind. Go with that.





tonyd79 said:


> "And by national HD, I am referring to standard "cable" channels that everyone who subscribes would have access to (if you subscribed to everything)."
> 
> That would include the RSNs as they are part of the top tier package.
> 
> ...


Once again, missing my point. I like sports and if I could afford the sports pack, I would have it.

I was just suggesting a way to objectively compare the two companies and their HD offerings. As most people look at sports separate from a "cable" channel, I think it would be appropriate to split it out when looking at the numbers. I especially think that PPV channels should also be split out in the comparison as well. As for the HD Extra Pack, those channels would be included in the count as they are "nationally available" for any customer that orders it.

That being said, I don't think (and I wouldn't) just choose a company because it has more channels than the other. As all of you have said, you chose DirecTV due to the channels it offers that meets what you want to watch.

Also, I've been a DirecTV customer for 10 years and will continue to be so even when I finally upgrade to HD as the channels I watch are all currently in HD (save 1-BBCA). I was just wondering if there was any objective comparison out there of the count of HD channels offered by Dish and DirecTV.

- Merg


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> Another thing to consider about the PPV channels is they aren't necessarily permanent. If the new PPV service where they beam the movies to your DVR works well they may start to get rid of some of the linear PPV channels to make room for new national channels.


They need some of the PPV for sports HD over flows and other stuff like NFL ST.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised to see many PPV channels added. It would make sense to use the bandwidth they have available for PPV until other channels need to come on line in the future.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

JoeTheDragon said:


> They need some of the PPV for sports HD over flows and other stuff like NFL ST.


They don't necessarily need PPV channels for that, they just need to leave that bandwidth open. Right now they use the bandwidth for PPV until they need it for sports stuff, that way they can make a bit of money off of the bandwidth instead of wasting it. But if there new beaming service works out they wouldn't really need any PPV channels at all. They could just leave that bandwidth empty when it isn't being used for Sunday Ticket, Hotpass, Extra Innings, Masters, etc.

Although I suppose they would probably want to keep a few HD PPV channels around for the customers who don't have DVRs.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> They don't necessarily need PPV channels for that, they just need to leave that bandwidth open. Right now they use the bandwidth for PPV until they need it for sports stuff, that way they can make a bit of money off of the bandwidth instead of wasting it.


Well, they could also use the PPVs as part of the channel count


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

True, I'm just saying if they fill up all the open slots on D12 with HD channels and then need more room they could easily get rid of 10-20 HD PPV channels and use those spots for new national HD channels (assuming their beaming service works out well). They could then share the other 10-20 HD spots between HD PPV and sports packages as needed.

I would think you would lose more customers because you don't have channels they want like BBCA, or E!, then you would people who use PPV (don't think I've ever heard of a person changing their provider because they weren't happy with their PPV offerings).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Well, they could also use the PPVs as part of the channel count


They do.

As far as Comcast's "HD Choices" I suppose we need to count how many unique programs are on each HD channel on DISH and DirecTV. With DVRs those choices are easy to time shift - so perhaps "xxxx HD choices each week".

Back in the day when DISH was starting the first major ramp up of HD and DirecTV was 10 channels DISH advertised based on the number of hours of HD presented ... which isn't all that different.

DISH didn't count their demo channel. I miss the fish. I have a recording of it somewhere ...


----------



## ricochet (Aug 21, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Once again, missing my point. I like sports and if I could afford the sports pack, I would have it.
> 
> I was just suggesting a way to objectively compare the two companies and their HD offerings. As most people look at sports separate from a "cable" channel, I think it would be appropriate to split it out when looking at the numbers. I especially think that PPV channels should also be split out in the comparison as well. As for the HD Extra Pack, those channels would be included in the count as they are "nationally available" for any customer that orders it.


You do realize that the RSNs are not the same as Sunday Ticket, Extra Innings, March Madness, or any of the other sports packages. Is ESPN a "cable" channel in your view? How is it fundamentally different from one of the RSNs?

In the last sentence I quoted, why does replacing "HD Extra Pack" with "Sports Pack" make it not true?

Why are you not splitting out the premium movie channels?


----------



## micky76ag (Feb 18, 2007)

Agree,

HD extra pack = HBO = Showtime = Sports Pack (RSNs) = etc.

The "Regional" in Regional Sports Pack refers to who they cover in their programming and who gets them free. It does not exclude "out of region" subscribers like the local channels do.

All are packages anyone in the nation can buy and then get all the channels in the package.

All are included if you pay for the top tier programming package.

No matter how you count them, you have to count them the same.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Once again, missing my point. I like sports and if I could afford the sports pack, I would have it.
> 
> I was just suggesting a way to objectively compare the two companies and their HD offerings. As most people look at sports separate from a "cable" channel, I think it would be appropriate to split it out when looking at the numbers. I especially think that PPV channels should also be split out in the comparison as well. As for the HD Extra Pack, those channels would be included in the count as they are "nationally available" for any customer that orders it.


The HD Extra Pack is exactly like the RSNs, except the RSNs are included in whatever they are calling the top package these days while the HD Extra Pack is still extra.

The RSNs, BTW, are not that expensive. They are something like $14 in the sports tier which includes other channels that are not RSNs. (Not sure of prices because I don't buy them a la carte.

But they are "nationally available" and 24/7 for any customer who orders them (minus pro sports blackouts).

As someone above posted, I don't think you know what the RSNs really are.

As for objective count, just count 24/7 channels. That includes all the "cable" type channels, the premiums, the RSNs, the HD Pack. Personally I would not count PPV but don't really mind that they do as they are 24/7 and available to everyone.

But how would you count Dish's channels that are NOT available to all (even if they are "standard cable" channels...Dish has satellite viewing issues at this point)?



The Merg said:


> That being said, I don't think (and I wouldn't) just choose a company because it has more channels than the other. As all of you have said, you chose DirecTV due to the channels it offers that meets what you want to watch.


Bingo! That is what is important. If Company X has 400 channels and you don't watch any but Company Y has 10 and they are the ones you watch, go with Company Y.


The Merg said:


> Also, I've been a DirecTV customer for 10 years and will continue to be so even when I finally upgrade to HD as the channels I watch are all currently in HD (save 1-BBCA). I was just wondering if there was any objective comparison out there of the count of HD channels offered by Dish and DirecTV.
> 
> - Merg


Here's another vote for BBCA-HD. With you on that one.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are really HD channels like that? :eek2:
> 
> Why?
> 
> Oh yeah..you missed one...the Paint-Drying Channel HD.  :lol:


Umm, yes there is.

And since yesterday's addition, E* has between 101 and 104 "real" HD channels if you count the regional sports networks, and excluding HD locals.

I'll run them down for you here:

USA-HD
CMDY-HD
LIFE-HD
LMN-HD
FOOD-HD
HGTV-HD
E!-HD
STYLE-HD
A&E-HD
BIO-HD
HIST-HD
HISTI-HD
SYFY-HD
BET-HD
BRAVO-HD
TCM-HD
BBCA-HD
FX-HD
TNT-HD
TBS-HD
ESPN-HD
ESNWS-HD
ESPN2-HD
FSC-HD (Fox Soccer Channel)
SPEED-HD
VS.-HD
CBS C[ollege]-HD
NFL-HD
MTV-HD
VH1-HD
CMT-HD
SPIKE-HD
NICK-HD
DISE-HD
DISXD-HD
TOON-HD
ABCFM-HD
DISC-HD
TLC-HD
APL-HD (Animal Planet)
HLMRK-HD
NTGEO-HD
HMC-HD (Hallmark Movie Channel)
NATGW-HD (NatGeo Wildlife)
G4-HD
SCI-HD
GREEN-HD
CNN-HD
HLN-HD
TRU-HD
FXNWS-HD
FOXB-HD
CNBC-HD
MSNBC-HD
TWC-HD (Weather Channel)
TRV-HD (Travel Channel)
WGN-HD
SMC-HD (Sportsman Channel)
HBO-E-HD
HBO2E-HD
HBOSG-HD
HBO-W-HD
HBOFM-HD
HBOCY-HD
HBOZ-HD
HBOLT-HD
MAX-E-HD
MAX-W-HD
ACMAX-HD
5-MAX-HD
SHO-E-HD
SHO-W-HD
SHOTO-HD
SHOCS-HD
TMC-E-HD
ENCOR-HD
STARZ-HD
STRZ-W-HD
SEDGE-HD
STZC-HD
SK&FM-HD
MAVTV-HD (Men's network as LIFE is to women)
HDNET-HD
INDIE-HD
HDTHR-HD
RETRO-HD
UNIHD-HD
PLDIA-HD
CTRC-HD
LOGO-HD
FTV-HD (Fashion TV)
SHRTS-HD (Shorts)
EPIX1-HD
HDNMV-HD
MGM-HD
CI-HD (Crime & Investigation)
WFN-HD (World Fishing Network)
TENNIS-HD
GOLF-HD
NBATV-HD
NHLN-HD
(it's 101 to this point)
and then in my region I have
FOXMW-HD (Fox Sports Net)
CSNCH-HD (Comcast Sports Net)
BIG10-HD
(which makes 104)

The rest are the VOD and MOVIE channels.

But I'm betting that E* will get ESPNU-HD whenever D* gets it, because I don't think it even has a HD feed yet.

Actually, the channel that I'm surprised isn't HD yet is MIL. IMO that should have gone HD along with the HIST package of channels.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Actually, the channel that I'm surprised isn't HD yet is MIL.


There's a channel dedicated to mother in law's?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> But I'm betting that E* will get ESPNU-HD whenever D* gets it, because I don't think it even has a HD feed yet.


Don't bet on that. Supposedly, Dish and ESPN are not on friendly terms right now and ESPNU has been in HD for several months. It is on Fios that I know of.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Umm, yes there is.
> 
> And since yesterday's addition, E* has between 101 and 104 "real" HD channels if you count the regional sports networks, and excluding HD locals.
> 
> ...


ESPNU has been HD a while.
hdtvfan's post was sarcasm.
Thanks for tro...errr...sharing Dish's lower resolution HD-Lite, as it further shows *they don't have 200 HD channels.*


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DirecTV transmits all channels in their native resolution...Dish does not. DirecTV gives HD channels more room to breath than Dish...less compression/higher bit rate.

DirecTV HD picture quality > Dish picture quality

DirecTV sports offerings > Dish sports offerings 

DirecTV customer satisfaction > Dish customer satisfaction

Dish runs a distant second behind DirecTV for a reason.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

I like Directv...

And Turtles...

Actually I like Turtles on DirecTV...

Where is TurtleHD Channel????


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

James Long said:


> They do.


That was my point


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> There's a channel dedicated to mother in law's?


I'll never watch it... :lol:


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

I know what the RSN's are that they are available nationwide. My thinking was just to enable people to be able to see an objective breakdown of the HD offerings of each company.

I don't think anything is wrong with saying that DirecTV has 100 HD channels, 40 RSN's in HD and 50 HD-PPV channels and then comparing that to Dish's 110 HD channels, 20 RSN's, and 30 PPV channels. It just makes it that much easier to compare. If the RSN's are lumped into the overall total, then it is. I was just trying to make the comparison easier to see.

- Merg


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Back in April of 1998 DISH had a package called "AT60" which was their second tier ... the lowest tier was "AT40" at the time. The package included (but did not count) 32 CD quality audio channels.

Then DirecTV started a marketing push that claimed a number of channels in their package. Their channel count claim included their audio channels. In response DISH changed the name of "AT60" to "AT100CD" and followed suit in counting audio channels.

The inflation has continued ever since. Just now the concentration is on HD channels.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Groundhog45 said:


> Then it's your fault they're adding more PPV channels. :lol: They aren't selling enough movies so they're adding more opportunities for us to order them. I never watch then either.


Well dang, that sucks, reverse psychology hurts! :lol:


----------



## micky76ag (Feb 18, 2007)

The Merg said:


> I know what the RSN's are that they are available nationwide. My thinking was just to enable people to be able to see an objective breakdown of the HD offerings of each company.
> 
> I don't think anything is wrong with saying that DirecTV has 100 HD channels, 40 RSN's in HD and 50 HD-PPV channels and then comparing that to Dish's 110 HD channels, 20 RSN's, and 30 PPV channels. It just makes it that much easier to compare. If the RSN's are lumped into the overall total, then it is. I was just trying to make the comparison easier to see.
> 
> - Merg


That's a good goal and would be fine if your logic made sense.

But, sorry, it doesn't.

One viewer may really crave those additional movies in HD on the off HBO channels. He/she can get that on dish but not DirecTV. Those HBO channels should count because everyone who really wants it on Dish can get it -- DirecTV customers can't. Valid comparison.

One viewer may really crave those Boston area college sports in HD but lives in Texas and can't get them on Dish, but they can on DirecTV. That RSN should count because everyone who really wants it on DirecTV can get it -- Dish customers can't. Valid comparison.

There is nothing about the RSN channels that makes them inherently different than any other national channel that is available in a tier via either provider.

It is not logical to separate them.

PPV and on-demand, I agree -- those should not count.


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

The Merg said:


> I know what the RSN's are that they are available nationwide. My thinking was just to enable people to be able to see an objective breakdown of the HD offerings of each company.
> 
> I don't think anything is wrong with saying that DirecTV has 100 HD channels, 40 RSN's in HD and 50 HD-PPV channels and then comparing that to Dish's 110 HD channels, 20 RSN's, and 30 PPV channels. It just makes it that much easier to compare. If the RSN's are lumped into the overall total, then it is. I was just trying to make the comparison easier to see.
> 
> - Merg


That's not a worthwhile comparison though. It should be (in round numbers):
DirecTV has 80 HD channels, 20 HD premium movie channels, 40 artsy fartsy HD channels and 50 PPV HD channels; Dish has 50 HD channels, 30 HD premium movie channels, 50 artsy fartsy HD channels and 30 PPV HD channels. It's much easier to compare that way since you're not lumping in channels targeted to stay-at-home moms or retirees as well as segregating out the high dollar "movie" channels. ("Movie" is in quotes because as anyone who has had a free trial of Showtime or HBO recently knows, there's about two new movies a week on either.)

[Perhaps you'll catch on that was partly in jest to reinforce that your suggestion for segregating RSNs is simply your personal preference. The only legitimate comparison that does not involve considering someone's personal preferences would be to compare the number of full time HD channels available to subscribers of the top tier package without paying extra amounts on a per-view basis. An separate count of PPV HD channels makes sense also because, while they are available on a full time basis, they do require an extra charge on a per-view basis.]


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV transmits all channels in their native resolution...Dish does not. DirecTV gives HD channels more room to breath than Dish...less compression/higher bit rate.
> 
> DirecTV HD picture quality > Dish picture quality
> 
> ...


also

Directv BOX RENT fees are lower then dish and they real MRV not the SD only tied to tuner 2 stuff that dish has. Other then that new box that has Slingbox but they don't have dvr to dvr MRV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Umm, yes there is.
> 
> (it's 101 to this point)
> and then in my region I have
> ...


FOXMW-HD (Fox Sports Net)
CSNCH-HD (Comcast Sports Net)
NOT full time on DISH and does dish pick up all CSN CHI + HD games?

directv has picked all CSN CHI + HD games for the past 1.5 - 2 years. had CSN + 2 in the guide for about 1.5 years.
also I have read that they been better at getting CSN + HD feed then comcast Chicago land has as there has been reports of them being slow to pick it up.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18508610


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GoPokes43 said:


> The only legitimate comparison that does not involve considering someone's personal preferences would be to compare the number of full time HD channels available to subscribers of the top tier package without paying extra amounts on a per-view basis.


Eliminating the "pay per view" pay extra channels is fair.

But in a comparison keep the price points in mind.
DirecTV's Premier package that includes all RSNs is $124.99 (regular price w/HD).
DISH's Everything package doesn't include RSNs and is $109.99 (regular price w/HD). Pay $5.99 extra for the sports package and you're at $115.98.
Both have an HD Extras package for $10 - although DISH is including it at the base level so if you count the HD Extra channels make the price point $134.99 for DirecTV.

For $19.01 more every month DirecTV customers should get more channels than DISH.

Of course temporary discounts such as DirecTV offers (nice discounts for the first year of a two year commitment) confuse price issues. If you want more than one receiver comparisons get more complicated. :grin:


----------



## zenpig (Apr 21, 2010)

James Long said:


> Eliminating the "pay per view" pay extra channels is fair.
> 
> But in a comparison keep the price points in mind.
> DirecTV's Premier package that includes all RSNs is $124.99 (regular price w/HD).
> ...


Just a small correction that I'm aware of. DTV's hd extra pack is $5/mo so the price point is a bit off. btw....free preview of it for those who don't have it already starting today through the 28th


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zenpig said:


> Just a small correction that I'm aware of. DTV's hd extra pack is $5/mo so the price point is a bit off. btw....free preview of it for those who don't have it already starting today through the 28th


Thanks for the correction ...
and :welcome_s


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> Eliminating the "pay per view" pay extra channels is fair.
> 
> But in a comparison keep the price points in mind.
> DirecTV's Premier package that includes all RSNs is $124.99 (regular price w/HD).
> ...


Comparing price points is next to impossible as the packages do not really align. it is difficult to even compare prices per channel within a single provider, Dish, DirecTV, Fios, Comcast, whatever.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Comparing price points is next to impossible as the packages do not really align. it is difficult to even compare prices per channel within a single provider, Dish, DirecTV, Fios, Comcast, whatever.


(tony, this is not aimed at you, just as a funny)--You'd almost think they planned it that way.  

Some of that is innocent--the providers slice the market into slightly different segments and targets. DIRECTV aims for higher end customers, cable often for "anyone who can make a few payments."

Yet, I bet most of it is intentional. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV transmits all channels in their native resolution...Dish does not. DirecTV gives HD channels more room to breath than Dish...less compression/higher bit rate.
> 
> DirecTV HD picture quality > Dish picture quality
> 
> ...


I recently switched from Directv to Dish. I have found no difference in the HD quality

Yes, Directv has more sports offerings. I will miss that. That's the reason I stayed with Directv. However once I was no longer willing to pay the exorbitant prices for Extra Innings and Sunday ticket.....the reason to stay or go came down to money.

Dish is cheaper. Especially when you are a new customer. Cheaper first year. Guaranteed second year. Free install and receivers. And the stuff both companies give. Bottom line....over two years Dish was cheaper for me. Directv was not overtly interested in keeping me. (perfect on time payments)

Customer service? You are kidding right? You actually believe those surveys?

Customer service is a subjective experience and is as variable as dialing the customer service number. (if this is not so why do so many people suggest calling numerous times until you get the desired response?) I have had good and bad service with Directv. It will be the same with Dish.

I will say this....the installer for Dish was 100 times better than the one Directv sent out. Got it right the first time. Directv? 4 trips. (and ultimately had to send different installer) Once again a variable, subjective experience. Perhaps I should categorically state Dish Install > Directv install 

I am not trying to start a Dish vs. Directv war. After all just becuase I changed religions shouldn't mean I can not make some observations about my former religion.  (and it is a religion for us on this forum. We argue about channels like Baptists and Catholics argue over doctrine) 

One technical matter I have observed in my change. The audio dropouts? Gone with Dish. SO much for it being MY problem.

As far as the number of channels each company has. I don't believe either company. Both companies LIE. I would like to see FTC action to make them stop. (along with cable, phone companies, and all companies that distort the facts)

Both companies will continue to add channels. Both will work to add customers and keep them happy.

And sure as the sun rises.....these forums will carry the debate.

Bruce


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Looks like DISH has finally posted a list of their HD channels ..
http://www.dishnetwork.com/hdchannels

This goes along with DIRECTV list:
http://www.directv.com/hdchannels


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Looks like DISH has finally posted a list of their HD channels ..
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/hdchannels
> 
> This goes along with DIRECTV list:
> http://www.directv.com/hdchannels


:lol::lol: "Plus 74 DISH Cinema HD channels" :lol::lol:

:lol::lol: "27 DIRECTV Cinema™ HD channels" :lol::lol:


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Looks like DISH has finally posted a list of their HD channels ..
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/hdchannels
> 
> This goes along with DIRECTV list:
> http://www.directv.com/hdchannels


*74* PPV movie "channels" (still using that term loosely, as 57 of those 74 are actually single movie titles pre-loaded onto ViP922 SlingLoaded DVR's).

So...

DishNetwork (now): 205 HD "channels" (-74 PPV movie "channels" = 131 actual HD channels, though not all 24/7. Let's say 15 RSN's aren't...so now 116 actual HD channels)

DirecTV (soon): 160 HD "channels" (-35 PPV movie channels = 125 actual HD channels)


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Looks like DISH has finally posted a list of their HD channels ..
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/hdchannels
> 
> This goes along with DIRECTV list:
> http://www.directv.com/hdchannels


Are all of them 24/7 channels?


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

GoPokes43 said:


> Are all of them 24/7 channels?


Ahh...correct! So Dish's count is even LOWER since D* only counts 24/7 channels!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

GoPokes43 said:


> Are all of them 24/7 channels?


Nope...many RSNs on Dish's list are part time, like SNY. All of SNY's Mets games are HD, yet Dish only turns it's HD feed 1-2x a week.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Calling a single movie a "channel" does seem bad form for sure ... (e.g. not "channels")


How about a single movie replayed 12 times a day for a few weeks? That's essestially what a PPV channel is.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

brucegrr said:


> I recently switched from Directv to Dish. I have found no difference in the HD quality


Most people will not see a difference because the average person sits too far away from their display (or their display is too small for their room). From an average viewing distance of 10', you need at least a 50" display to see differences in 720p (or 1080i), and a 60" display to notice the differences in Blu Ray (assuming the displays are properly calibrated, of course).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

pfp said:


> How about a single movie replayed 12 times a day for a few weeks? That's essestially what a PPV channel is.


This is a reasonable question to ask .. Quite frankly I though someone would have asked it before now. I suspect this is EXACTLY why DISH is claiming 200 channels. At least with PPV (DISH or DIRECTV), the channels can quickly be converted to another movie or other content. The Movie titles are "forever" .. DIRECTV's downloaded movies (400 this summer?) could could count in that total making DIRECTV the first to reach 500 HD channels (yeah, that's stupid, too).

I've said previously, I'm happy with counting all 24/7 channels .. This can include PPV from any provider. Others want to take PPV out so there is no standard that everyone can agree to.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Looks like DISH has finally posted a list of their HD channels ..
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/hdchannels
> 
> This goes along with DIRECTV list:
> http://www.directv.com/hdchannels


I'd love to see Dish list which are 24x7 and which are part time


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Here are the raw numbers from the two web sites (without factoring 24/7 channels in or out).

Non RSN & Non PPV / RSN / PPV

DISH: 105 / 26 / 74
D*: 78 / 23 / 27

D* after announced roll out completed: 97 / 26 / 35

Very unscientific - :grin:


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> This is a reasonable question to ask .. Quite frankly I though someone would have asked it before now. I suspect this is EXACTLY why DISH is claiming 200 channels. At least with PPV (DISH or DIRECTV), the channels can quickly be converted to another movie or other content. The Movie titles are "forever" .. DIRECTV's downloaded movies (400 this summer?) could could count in that total making DIRECTV the first to reach 500 HD channels (yeah, that's stupid, too).
> 
> I've said previously, I'm happy with counting all 24/7 channels .. This can include PPV from any provider. Others want to take PPV out so there is no standard that everyone can agree to.


Since you asked... :grin:
My personal opinion is PPV is a separate service and should NOT be included. I can't subscribe to it, I don't get free previews of it, its not reflected in my bill... It exists as a separate business service that rides on top of the equipment I have from DirecTV. I could go an entire lifetime and not once use/see/watch/touch PPV. There would be no cost for this, and DirecTV would have no loss and/or gain. Its a separate business.

An RSN, Premium, etc. should count. In my opinion, a part time HD channel should count as well provided an agreed upon "Truth in advertising" standard is announced (the channel must be lit 50.1% of the time for example).

Content doesn't matter. Premium or specialty package doesn't matter. Whether certain programs are blocked doesn't matter. (You count an RSN as a channel for SD purposes... and the same programs are blocked)

So - for purposes of my calculations (and again, channels counts don't matter to me personally)

May counts:
Dish: 131
D*: 123

No asterisks, no anything. Those are the counts.  We can close the thread now. :lol:


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Athlon646464 said:


> Here are the raw numbers from the two web sites (without factoring 24/7 channels in or out).
> 
> Non RSN & Non PPV / RSN / PPV
> 
> ...


I do like this breakdown. It would be even more interesting if it could be broken down further to show the differences in Full time RSN and part time RSN.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> I do like this breakdown. It would be even more interesting if it could be broken down further to show the differences in Full time RSN and part time RSN.


Happy to do that, but I'm having a tough time finding the info.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Athlon646464 said:


> Happy to do that, but I'm having a tough time finding the info.


Yeah, that's why I didn't go do it on my own  DirecTVs should be fairly easy to figure out if you have access to an HD receiver (I'm at work so I don't). They obviously have 23 full time now, and will have 26 soon (they only count their full time RSNs). You chould be able to go through the guide and count all the -1 channels to figure out the part time ones I think.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Good idea - but without DISH's numbers it is incomplete.

BTW - NESN's plus channel is about to light up because of a conflict with the Bruins playoff games and the Red Sox. It's tough to live in my part of the world - what to watch!


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> There's a channel dedicated to mother in law's?


Sorry for your confusion...MIL is the Military Channel. It's either a part of the History Channel Network or the Discovery Channel Network. So I don't know why it didn't go HD when those channels went HD about 2 years ago.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV transmits all channels in their native resolution...Dish does not. DirecTV gives HD channels more room to breath than Dish...less compression/higher bit rate.
> 
> DirecTV HD picture quality > Dish picture quality
> 
> ...


Do you have proof of those claims? Specifically the PQ ones?

I could have sworn a while back that one of the Charlie Chat or Tech Forum questions dealt with this issue. That DISH broadcasts the channels in the resolution they get. So better check your facts on that one.


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

BudShark said:


> Since you asked... :grin:
> My personal opinion is PPV is a separate service and should NOT be included. I can't subscribe to it, I don't get free previews of it, its not reflected in my bill... It exists as a separate business service that rides on top of the equipment I have from DirecTV. I could go an entire lifetime and not once use/see/watch/touch PPV. There would be no cost for this, and DirecTV would have no loss and/or gain. Its a separate business.
> 
> An RSN, Premium, etc. should count. In my opinion, a part time HD channel should count as well provided an agreed upon "Truth in advertising" standard is announced (the channel must be lit 50.1% of the time for example).
> ...


Either Dish's numbers need to drop to account for the lack of full time broadcast on many of their channels or D*'s numbers need to be increased to add their part time channels that aren't included in their 24/7 list.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

Before too long they will be fighting on who has the least SD channels


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Athlon646464 said:


> Good idea - but without DISH's numbers it is incomplete.


Yeah, I'm not sure how to get those. I would say ask in the Dish forums here but I have a feeling that might not go over to well.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Do you have proof of those claims? Specifically the PQ ones?
> 
> I could have sworn a while back that one of the Charlie Chat questions dealt with this issue. That DISH broadcasts the channels in the resolution they get. So better check your facts on that one.


Dish Network reduces all networks that use a native 1920x1080 resolution to 1440x1080. They have not transmitted a single 1080i network in full resolution since mid-to-late 2007. Couple that with the fact that their compression efforts are far too aggressive and you end up with the degraded PQ mess that is Dish Network.

HD-Lite is in fact used by Dish Network. It was formally used by DirecTV. Ask any of the Dish experts here at DBS or elsewhere. Find me a single knowledgeable person who will dispute that. HD-Lite alone is not the issue. It becomes worse when you overload transponders in order to compete.

If I owned bargin-bin displays and had forgone professional calibration...perhaps I would go for Dish Network. I want the best available to me. I pay for the best available to me. Dish just can't cut it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> pfp said:
> 
> 
> > How about a single movie replayed 12 times a day for a few weeks? That's essestially what a PPV channel is.
> ...


I'm pretty sure that I raised the issue before ... but specifically related to the VOD options listed in the program guide (displayed as channels). Having 14 HD movies that start whenever I want to start them is comparable to having 14 HD PPV channels starting movies at pre-set times.

If DirecTV counts PPV DISH should count PPV, however they are delivered.



> At least with PPV (DISH or DIRECTV), the channels can quickly be converted to another movie or other content. The Movie titles are "forever" .. DIRECTV's downloaded movies (400 this summer?) could could count in that total making DIRECTV the first to reach 500 HD channels (yeah, that's stupid, too).


Number of instant options would be a better way to go. If the content is on your receiver or is viewed live immediately via satellite it is an instant option.

Even the four year old ViP-622 can download HD movies via the Internet. I really don't consider that satellite service. But both DISH and DirecTV have gone beyond being satellite providers.



> I've said previously, I'm happy with counting all 24/7 channels .. This can include PPV from any provider. Others want to take PPV out so there is no standard that everyone can agree to.


I like the idea of separating counts ... it also helps with people with no interest in sports and/or movies. Counting the "premium" movie channels separately is a good idea - even though both providers bundle them in their top packages. There are enough people that don't like them.

x regular HD, y premium HD, z PPV/VOD per event HD (instant options)

BTW: It is illegal for DirecTV to deliver the eight "distant network" stations they include in their count to people in my area, and many other areas of the country. Local versions are available in many of the areas but that reduces the count by a few.

DirecTV called out DISH ... "We challenge DISH Network and cable to show you their full list...but we know they won't."
Oh no, you didn't! 

And the HD wars continue ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Beerstalker said:


> I do like this breakdown. It would be even more interesting if it could be broken down further to show the differences in Full time RSN and part time RSN.





Athlon646464 said:


> Good idea - but without DISH's numbers it is incomplete.


The easy answer is DISH doesn't have full time HD RSNs. They are all game only.
(Big Ten Network is a full time HD channel - the rest, not so much.)

I suppose it could be said that they are HD when it matters but there are too many reports of missing games and lost HD replays. DISH needs to make these full time HD channels and stop the switching.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

rkr0923 said:


> I agree, adding all these to the Total Count isnt right. If you dont live their you cant get it. 27 PAY channels> who cares.
> 
> CSN Chicago HD
> CSN Mid-Atlantic HD
> ...


I tend to agree... EXCEPT, withour these channels we would not get HD feeds for NHLCI, MLBEI, NBALP which everyone CAN subscribe to.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

pfp said:


> I tend to agree... EXCEPT, withour these channels we would not get HD feeds for NHLCI, MLBEI, NBALP which everyone CAN subscribe to.


And that's really the problem with counting RSNs the same as other 24/7 national HD, for a DirecTV subscriber to have them full time they not only have to subscribe to a premium package but also to three separate sports packages.

E*'s claim to 200 HD channels is inane, but I think it's equally inane to compare the list of HD channels that E currently offers with a D* press release that they will begin adding more HD in a month, especially when many of the "name" channels D* announced E* already carries and E* has many "name" channels that D* hasn't said they will add.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

QuickDrop said:


> And that's really the problem with counting RSNs the same as other 24/7 national HD, for a DirecTV subscriber to have them full time they not only have to subscribe to a premium package but also to three separate sports packages.
> 
> E*'s claim to 200 HD channels is inane, but I think it's equally inane to compare the list of HD channels that E currently offers with a D* press release that they will begin adding more HD in a month, especially when many of the "name" channels D* announced E* already carries and E* has many "name" channels that D* hasn't said they will add.


My $.02:
So long as the channel is available 24/7 and anyone CAN subscribe to it it should be counted. Just because the channel has an added fee should not disqualify it.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

pfp said:


> My $.02:
> So long as the channel is available 24/7 and anyone CAN subscribe to it it should be counted. Just because the channel has an added fee should not disqualify it.


I agree with your fee statement. However, what if 8 channels are showing the very same movie 24/7. Should it be counted as 8 channels?


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I agree with your fee statement. However, what if 8 channels are showing the very same movie 24/7. Should it be counted as 8 channels?


I don't have to deal with that question becasue to the best of my knowledge nobody can subscribe to those 8 channels.

The only PPV channel I am aware of that is available by subscription as well is Playboy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pfp said:


> I don't have to deal with that question becasue to the best of my knowledge nobody can subscribe to those 8 channels.
> 
> The only PPV channel I am aware of that is available by subscription as well is Playboy.


I assume Titanium is no longer available?

I don't know about DirecTV but DISH allows monthly subscriptions to their regular porn channels. (None are in HD so it doesn't matter here.)


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'm pretty sure that I raised the issue before ... but specifically related to the VOD options listed in the program guide (displayed as channels). Having 14 HD movies that start whenever I want to start them is comparable to having 14 HD PPV channels starting movies at pre-set times.


That logic is how Comcast has "more HD" and "1000 HD choices" in my area, but they only have a TOTAL of ~30 channels including like 8 locals plus PBS from NYC, with a total HD line up that looks like DirecTV when they were using Ku band only with PIII's.

DirecTV doesn't have BBCA, and I don't think History International or Investigation Discovery.

I think U-verse might actually have the most HD channels, but obviously has limited availability and their compression is pretty bad.

One isn't better than the other, but Dish is cheaper, and DirecTV has more features.

EDIT: Comcast and locals


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

James Long said:


> I assume Titanium is no longer available?
> 
> I don't know about DirecTV but DISH allows monthly subscriptions to their regular porn channels. (None are in HD so it doesn't matter here.)


channel 497 is HustlerHD. I assume that they show HD stuff although I have never watched it so I do not know. I do notice that the schedule is different than on the SD Hustler channel so I guess that it may be PPV only and that you cannot subscribe monthly to the Hustler HD channel.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> I assume Titanium is no longer available?
> 
> I don't know about DirecTV but DISH allows monthly subscriptions to their regular porn channels. (None are in HD so it doesn't matter here.)


I think DirecTV only has monthly subscription to Playboy?

Anyway, Titanium was invented to have a value for legal moves against pirates and even when it was started was not available to all. They limited the number of customers.

I have no idea if it still exists. There were reports here that they did sell a few...


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> I can see it now they hire the geniuses at Syfy and Comcast and come up with Dysh Xtream®. :lol:


:lol: sounds Dyshy to me...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

archer75 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081
> Best channel comparison and count in my book.


I have always linked to that site as well. They need to update it though, as 
National Geo Wild, HLN, Style, Turner Classic Movies, G4 and EPIX are now HD on Dish. 
Overall that is one of the better overall and balanced charts out there.

I hate the numbers game. NUMBERS are worthless as they all lie about, all have some sort of PPV, and VOD count. Dish deserves to get some heat over this, if for no other reason, so people will no look at all Pay for TV carriers, and discount there PPV's, VOD, or Cinema channels. None of those should be involved in ANY Carriers numbers.

The overall number of 200HD Channels, and using the "CAPACITY" word allows, Dish to poke fun at anther company that a just a year ago, had a National TV Ad compagin, claiming that they would SOON have the "Capacity" to carry 200 channels. We all knew than that number was a crock as nobody could get there without a HUGE PPV/VOD/Cinema number.


----------



## joenhre (Nov 8, 2008)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Sorry for your confusion...MIL is the Military Channel. It's either a part of the History Channel Network or the Discovery Channel Network. So I don't know why it didn't go HD when those channels went HD about 2 years ago.


The Military Channel is owned by Discovery Networks and used to be called the Discovery Wings channel. Yes other channels from the old discovery suite have gone HD (Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Animal Planet and the newer Discovery HD Theater) the only two that don't have HD versions are The Military Channel and the Discovery Health Channel. Discovery Health will go away in January 2011 and is supposed to become OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network).TLC is also owned by discovery networks and of course it also has an HD version.

Count me in as one of those who would like to see an HD version of the Military Channel, hopefully Discovery introduces one soon.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

pfp said:


> My $.02:
> So long as the channel is available 24/7 and anyone CAN subscribe to it it should be counted. Just because the channel has an added fee should not disqualify it.


But you still have to count PPV channels that are used for part time RSN over flows as well.


----------



## bamaweather (Jan 18, 2009)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But you still have to count PPV channels that are used for part time RSN over flows as well.


Technically, if they are part time sports channels, that means they aren't showing movies part of the time. Thus, they aren't 24/7.

I don't believe they should count PPV channels, but I do believe 24/7 RSNs should be counted. Even moreso now that other providers like Dish and UVerse provide several of them in SD around the country.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I agree with your fee statement. However, what if 8 channels are showing the very same movie 24/7. Should it be counted as 8 channels?


Agreed. Same with the RSN's in non-gametime hours. I mean, you can sometimes see the same episode of Poker Stars playing on a dozen RSN's at a time. :lol: Counting each one of these channels as national HD's is silly.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm glad DirecTV is rolling out more and more of them, .... but the count is kind of misleading.

Jeff


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm working on updating my counts ... so far I have 102 regular HD channels on DISH (before PPV, VOD, RSN, alternate channels, network TV but including premiums) and 70 on DirecTV eliminating the same categories. Adding in DirecTV's 24 RSNs and the 19 regular and 3 RSN channels they have announced they will have 116. I don't believe the 27 RSNs (May prediction) are really worth 27 channels to most people but with 24/7 pass through they do serve the in market viewers better than "game" RSNs.

Maybe there should be some factoring on the math? Count lower package channels (such as those in AT120) as 100% channels and reduce the value of channels not available to all viewers (either through package placement, blackout or legal restrictions). The more restricted the channel's distribution by cost or other reasons the less that it is worth. After all, we are discussing how "160" channels can be worth more than "200" channels.

Overall, including all the DISH HD channels in the guide (and trying not to double count) I find 155 before adding local network TV. This includes alt channels and the game only RSNs but not the VOD HD. There would be 116 for regular channels + PPV.

The biggest challenge to a count is figuring out what isn't there. I can list the 116 channels that are always available on DISH Network - the rest share a few channels of bandwidth. But how many of DirecTV's PPV channels go away when the space is needed for sports? Is a PPV always dropped for a "game only" sports feed or are there a couple of channels used for "game only" feeds that sit empty when there is no game?

The other thing I am looking at is probably more important overall than "the count" ... and that is "what is missing". DirecTV's promise of 30 channels removes a lot of channels from their "missing" list and adds a couple to the DISH missing list ... but both lists seem pretty short. Regardless of how many channels they have there doesn't seem to be a lot missing that the other has.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'm working on updating my counts ... so far I have 102 regular HD channels on DISH (before PPV, VOD, RSN, alternate channels, network TV but including premiums) and 70 on DirecTV eliminating the same categories. Adding in DirecTV's 24 RSNs and the 19 regular and 3 RSN channels they have announced they will have 116. I don't believe the 27 RSNs (May prediction) are really worth 27 channels to most people but with 24/7 pass through they do serve the in market viewers better than "game" RSNs.
> 
> Maybe there should be some factoring on the math? Count lower package channels (such as those in AT120) as 100% channels and reduce the value of channels not available to all viewers (either through package placement, blackout or legal restrictions). The more restricted the channel's distribution by cost or other reasons the less that it is worth. After all, we are discussing how "160" channels can be worth more than "200" channels.
> 
> ...


The DirecTV 132 are on 24x7.

It's 71 + 8 + 24 + 29. All 24x7. Details here.

The 71 are the networks.
The 8 are the DNS networks East and West.
The 24 are full-time RSN's.
The 29 are PPV (Cinema) which are always "live", except when they're switched for a part-time need, then switched right back when the part-time is no longer needed, so they're always 24x7.

How would Dish compare? The DirecTV 132 is full-time bandwidth, always transmitting.

Just asking, since I have no info on Dish.

The only part of the DirecTV list that I've always questioned is the 8 for DNS, but I guess it's still full-time bandwidth whether you can actually receive all 8 or not. The rest all seem to be counted fairly.

And the 132 is really 131 these days with 136/137 being used for MLB Mix HD.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish Network reduces all networks that use a native 1920x1080 resolution to 1440x1080. They have not transmitted a single 1080i network in full resolution since mid-to-late 2007. Couple that with the fact that their compression efforts are far too aggressive and you end up with the degraded PQ mess that is Dish Network.
> 
> HD-Lite is in fact used by Dish Network. It was formally used by DirecTV. Ask any of the Dish experts here at DBS or elsewhere. Find me a single knowledgeable person who will dispute that. HD-Lite alone is not the issue. It becomes worse when you overload transponders in order to compete.
> 
> If I owned bargin-bin displays and had forgone professional calibration...perhaps I would go for Dish Network. I want the best available to me. I pay for the best available to me. Dish just can't cut it.


Just out of curiosity, what programs did you watch last night?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sixto said:


> The DirecTV 132 are on 24x7.
> 
> It's 71 + 8 + 24 + 29. All 24x7. Details here.
> 
> ...


I'll have to look at the list in detail ... thanks for the link.

My DirecTV count is based on the titles listed on their website claiming 160 channels in May. Apparently they missed a current channel as I only see 70 networks ... and their page says 27 PPV.



> How would Dish compare? The DirecTV 132 is full-time bandwidth.
> 
> Just asking, since I have no info on Dish.


It is a good question and basically the same one I asked about DirecTV.

I'm seeing 116 "always available" channels ... DISH has a few more that they use for game only RSNs and alt channels and for feeding the VOD HD content that is stored on receivers. Plus DISH has a few channels testing that will be released in May (they just have not been public about it). The two systems are less than 10 channels apart (after May launches).


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mystic7 said:


> Just out of curiosity, what programs did you watch last night?


Too much on to choose from. I switched between the NFL Draft, NHL hockey, local and national news, a DVR'd episode of The Pacific, and I even took a break to watch Crazy Heart on blu-ray. Tonight we have more hockey and Avatar on blu-ray.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

The only channel count that matters in the end are who has the channels I (you) want and are they in HD. Anything else is pure e-penis measuring.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

RobertE said:


> The only channel count that matters in the end are who has the channels I (you) want and are they in HD. Anything else is pure e-penis measuring.


AMEN


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RobertE said:


> The only channel count that matters in the end are who has the channels I (you) want and are they in HD.


The key word being "has" as opposed to something future tense.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The key word being "has" as opposed to something future tense.


Sure, we'll wait 30 days before we count the extra DIRECTV HD


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> The key word being "has" as opposed to something future tense.


If every channel I watch or wish to watch is currently in HD and carried by provider X, any additional ones are not relevant to me. Doesn't matter if that channel is in SD or HD in the past present or future. If I don't watch or want to watch a program on it, I DON'T CARE.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

joenhre said:


> The Military Channel is owned by Discovery Networks and used to be called the Discovery Wings channel. Yes other channels from the old discovery suite have gone HD (Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Animal Planet and the newer Discovery HD Theater) the only two that don't have HD versions are The Military Channel and the Discovery Health Channel. Discovery Health will go away in January 2011 and is supposed to become OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network).TLC is also owned by discovery networks and of course it also has an HD version.
> 
> Count me in as one of those who would like to see an HD version of the Military Channel, hopefully Discovery introduces one soon.


Don't forget Planet Green HD, Travel HD, and Investigation Discovery HD (only on U-Verse AFAIK).

Although the free market hasn't seemed to turn the heat up for the incumbents, at least these guys are duking it out, which, even with ridiculous channel counts greatly benefits the consumer in the end, as they are pushing adding HD left and right.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Don't forget Planet Green HD, Travel HD, and Investigation Discovery HD (only on U-Verse AFAIK).
> 
> Although the free market hasn't seemed to turn the heat up for the incumbents, at least these guys are duking it out, which, even with ridiculous channel counts greatly benefits the consumer in the end, as they are pushing adding HD left and right.


You mean Investigation Discovery is only Available on U-Verse(and Brighthouse) right? Dish and Direct Both have Planet Green in HD now, and Dish has the Travel Channel in HD already.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Too much on to choose from. I switched between the NFL Draft, NHL hockey, local and national news, a DVR'd episode of The Pacific, and I even took a break to watch Crazy Heart on blu-ray. Tonight we have more hockey and Avatar on blu-ray.


Oh, ok, so you actually do WATCH tv, not just measure pixel counts 
Just yankin' ya, btw.


----------



## Avder (Feb 6, 2010)

So, I was curious. How much bandwidth, in terms of frequency allocations, does DirecTV have compared to Dish Network and the average Cable operator (eg Comcrap)?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Sorry for your confusion...MIL is the Military Channel.


Actually, I believe it's MILT.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Avder said:


> So, I was curious. How much bandwidth, in terms of frequency allocations, does DirecTV have compared to Dish Network and the average Cable operator (eg Comcrap)?


There really isn't a fair comparison. Digital cable companies are working with a different technology. Instead of large transponders they have smaller channels that carry the same number of feeds. They also do not have to carry locals for other markets. Each head end feeds only the channels they need to deliver locally.

DISH vs DirecTV there is also a problem of comparison. All of DirecTVs bandwidth is centrally located and all of their customers use the same satellites for service. DISH has divided the country into western and eastern service where they are using three orbital locations for the east and three for the west. Basically, DISH is transmitting everything twice. Plus DISH has three satellite slots that have formerly been used for their DISH Network service that are currently used for business and international services. A number would be just a number without a lot of qualification (and the usual debate over what counts).


----------



## Avder (Feb 6, 2010)

James Long said:


> There really isn't a fair comparison. Digital cable companies are working with a different technology. Instead of large transponders they have smaller channels that carry the same number of feeds. They also do not have to carry locals for other markets. Each head end feeds only the channels they need to deliver locally.
> 
> DISH vs DirecTV there is also a problem of comparison. All of DirecTVs bandwidth is centrally located and all of their customers use the same satellites for service. DISH has divided the country into western and eastern service where they are using three orbital locations for the east and three for the west. Basically, DISH is transmitting everything twice. Plus DISH has three satellite slots that have formerly been used for their DISH Network service that are currently used for business and international services. A number would be just a number without a lot of qualification (and the usual debate over what counts).


Well sure, but then you can get into stuff like how many MHz of Bandwidth are needed per channel and the like, which can reflect meaningful things like picture quality.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

GrumpyBear said:


> You mean Investigation Discovery is only Available on U-Verse(and Brighthouse) right? Dish and Direct Both have Planet Green in HD now, and Dish has the Travel Channel in HD already.


Yeah, poor wording, only Investigation Discovery isn't on D* and E*, as D* is getting TravelHD soon.

Dish's two arcs in a way save a LOT on locals bandwidth, since a satellite dish that only sees 3 satellites allows those three to carry only half of the nation's locals. The weird part is that most installs in "Eastern Arc" areas are still split with 61.5/110/119, since they were upgraded to HD.

EDIT: That, and you can't compare bandwidth, as satellite uses MPEG-4, and cables uses MPEG-2.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> The key word being "has" as opposed to something future tense.


Yeah, cause when the provider locks you into a two year contract, you should only look at what they have the day you order. Makes sense to me.


----------



## drkashner (Nov 16, 2008)

Will the new D12 sat. be handling any local HD channels? I wish they would add my local CW and PBS HD channels. If I had them I wouldn't need my OTA antenna. I'm also disappointed we're not getting BBC America HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Yeah, cause when the provider locks you into a two year contract, you should only look at what they have the day you order. Makes sense to me.


It is the only thing that the customer has any (reasonable) guarantee of seeing.

Hopefully when someone signs up they sign based on the current lineup and nothing important goes missing (like Versus - although DirecTV is not alone in problems with programmers). If they sign up based on a promise of more HD than currently offered they may be disappointed when the September satellite launch turns into late December and you're still waiting to see something new as the announced deadlines approach.

If one signs up based on future programming one would like their 24 month commitment to include mostly months of having the promised programming available and not months of waiting for it. It is good to have some promise that what the provider has isn't all they will have for the next two years ... but hopefully people can be happy with what is available at the moment they signed up. It's the old bird in the hand thing.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Avder said:


> So, I was curious. How much bandwidth, in terms of frequency allocations, does DirecTV have compared to Dish Network and the average Cable operator (eg Comcrap)?


This is a really complex question because there are so many factors involved. If you looked at Sat compared to Cable, Sat would look massively ahead in the terms of raw mhz allocations they have. A full ku allocation is 500mhz of each polarity for 1ghz worth total. A ka allocation actually has 2 blocks of space in each allocation for effectively 2ghz worth. 2 ka and 1 ku allocation in the core DirecTV would have 5ghz of total bandwidth available to a customer with a SL3 which looks huge compared to the ~850 a typical cable co has. Dish has closer to 2 1/2 ku allocations for their eastern and western arcs. They use 3 different slots for each but both arcs have some of them that are not fully dishes (110/119 are shared with DirecTV on the west and 72.5 is shared with DirecTV on the east).

This isn't a fair comparison tho because Cable Co's use QAM with no FEC(forward error correction) because their signal doesn't have to deal with nearly as much interference or possible interruptions as a Sat signal does. Dealing with qpsk or 8psk and the FEC that is needed for Sat to provide a stable signal gives you less effective bandwidth, in terms of mbs, from the raw frequency allocations possible.

To put it in a more simple metric DirecTV has 96 KA tps between 99 and 103. If they had the sats in place and where using them all for Conus channels with their typical 5 channels per TP would allow for 480 channels. Obviously they need to use some of those to provide their local channels and they don't have the sats in place to use that many KA tps. Figuring another d12 like sat for 99 and all 4 sats running 16 conus tps would give them 320 Conus hd channels and still leave plenty of tps for spots to cover local channels and would be a pretty simple step from where they are now.

They also have 101/110/119 Ku and BSS 99/103/111 to work with so they seem to have plenty of potential space available.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

evan_s said:


> This is a really complex question because there are so many factors involved. If you looked at Sat compared to Cable, Sat would look massively ahead in the terms of raw mhz allocations they have. A full ku allocation is 500mhz of each polarity for 1ghz worth total. A ka allocation actually has 2 blocks of space in each allocation for effectively 2ghz worth. 2 ka and 1 ku allocation in the core DirecTV would have 5ghz of total bandwidth available to a customer with a SL3 which looks huge compared to the ~850 a typical cable co has. Dish has closer to 2 1/2 ku allocations for their eastern and western arcs. They use 3 different slots for each but both arcs have some of them that are not fully dishes (110/119 are shared with DirecTV on the west and 72.5 is shared with DirecTV on the east).
> 
> This isn't a fair comparison tho because Cable Co's use QAM with no FEC(forward error correction) because their signal doesn't have to deal with nearly as much interference or possible interruptions as a Sat signal does. Dealing with qpsk or 8psk and the FEC that is needed for Sat to provide a stable signal gives you less effective bandwidth, in terms of mbs, from the raw frequency allocations possible.
> 
> ...


That still doesn't account for MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4. Also, cable could have virtually unlimited bandwidth, if they went to 100 home nodes with 1ghz SDV, effectively turning everything except clear QAM locals into VOD streams. If they actually rebuilt their plants for the 21st century and killed analog once and for all, they would blow right by DirecTV and Dish with the same number of HD channels but at the full 19mbit half-channel QAM without recompression, but they think their incumbent status is going to protect them forever. U-Verse also has virtually unlimited channel capacity, even though they can only do two or three (at best) HD streams into the house at once.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

drkashner said:


> Will the new D12 sat. be handling any local HD channels? I wish they would add my local CW and PBS HD channels. If I had them I wouldn't need my OTA antenna. I'm also disappointed we're not getting BBC America HD.


I hear from WCIU they D* may add it when D* has more room.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> It is the only thing that the customer has any (reasonable) guarantee of seeing.
> 
> Hopefully when someone signs up they sign based on the current lineup and nothing important goes missing (like Versus - although DirecTV is not alone in problems with programmers).


What where to happen if the unthinkable happen and your RSN got pulled off? Be able to drop out with no ETF?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What where to happen if the unthinkable happen and your RSN got pulled off? Be able to drop out with no ETF?


Personally? I'm beyond any ETF date for my service.
I also cannot remember the last time I watched my RSN.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That still doesn't account for MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4. Also, cable could have virtually unlimited bandwidth, if they went to 100 home nodes with 1ghz SDV, effectively turning everything except clear QAM locals into VOD streams. If they actually rebuilt their plants for the 21st century and killed analog once and for all, they would blow right by DirecTV and Dish with the same number of HD channels but at the full 19mbit half-channel QAM without recompression, but they think their incumbent status is going to protect them forever. U-Verse also has virtually unlimited channel capacity, even though they can only do two or three (at best) HD streams into the house at once.


cables high box rent costs are killing then and lack of VOD on 3rd party stuff is bad as well also the need for add on SDV tuners for cable card boxes as well.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is the only thing that the customer has any (reasonable) guarantee of seeing.


No, you cannot assume everything will work out but you should at least be aware that something is happening and factor that in. If you just look at today, you have no idea what can happen.

If you bought a house in a new development, wouldn't you want to know if the plan was to put a house that blocked that tremendous view up in the next six months?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> No, you cannot assume everything will work out but you should at least be aware that something is happening and factor that in. If you just look at today, you have no idea what can happen.
> 
> If you bought a house in a new development, wouldn't you want to know if the plan was to put a house that blocked that tremendous view up in the next six months?


Nope. I would assume someone will build a house in every lot nearby.  I would look at the plot layout and determine what lines of sight I would have.

So I would factor that in up front.

Now, I were to suddenly look for new Pay TV service, I personally would factor in that everyone will have more HD. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That still doesn't account for MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4. Also, cable could have virtually unlimited bandwidth, if they went to 100 home nodes with 1ghz SDV, effectively turning everything except clear QAM locals into VOD streams. If they actually rebuilt their plants for the 21st century and killed analog once and for all, they would blow right by DirecTV and Dish with the same number of HD channels but at the full 19mbit half-channel QAM without recompression, but they think their incumbent status is going to protect them forever. U-Verse also has virtually unlimited channel capacity, even though they can only do two or three (at best) HD streams into the house at once.


Yup. I agree that there are a ton of factors that make it very difficult to make a good comparison. Most Cable Co's big issue is the legacy analog channels. A single analog channel takes up as much space as a digital QAM channel which can hold 2 or 3 hd channels or even more SD channels. Area's that have gone completely or almost all digital are typically the areas with the most HD channels available on cable networks. Cable networks do also loose some channel capacity to space used for Data for Cable modems or reserved for their on-demand services.

With appropriately sized nodes and SDV they could have virtually unlimited # of HD channels but SDV does face resistance due to it's compatibility issues with 3rd party boxes.

Fios is basically a best case scenario for Cable Co's as it's setup basically makes each home their own node and carries all data/on demand data separately. So it is basically an all digital cable node able to use all the QAM channels for actual TV channels. They've had no problems with channel counts, even when only using 2 HD channels per QAM channel so they can pass the original OTA mpeg2 encoding.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

evan_s said:


> Yup. I agree that there are a ton of factors that make it very difficult to make a good comparison. Most Cable Co's big issue is the legacy analog channels. A single analog channel takes up as much space as a digital QAM channel which can hold 2 or 3 hd channels or even more SD channels. Area's that have gone completely or almost all digital are typically the areas with the most HD channels available on cable networks. Cable networks do also loose some channel capacity to space used for Data for Cable modems or reserved for their on-demand services.
> 
> With appropriately sized nodes and SDV they could have virtually unlimited # of HD channels but SDV does face resistance due to it's compatibility issues with 3rd party boxes.
> 
> Fios is basically a best case scenario for Cable Co's as it's setup basically makes each home their own node and carries all data/on demand data separately. So it is basically an all digital cable node able to use all the QAM channels for actual TV channels. They've had no problems with channel counts, even when only using 2 HD channels per QAM channel so they can pass the original OTA mpeg2 encoding.


Analog is a big problem. They seem to think that they need to support it, when it is, in reality, killing them.

Yes, DOCSIS and phone uses up some bandwidth, but with small-node SDV, you need a lot less bandwidth to provide 200+ HD channels. Comcast is substantially larger than DirecTV or Dish, and I would think that they could develop their own head-end equipment, their own boxes, their own software, and build a customized system that they could upgrade all of their markets to, but no, they use a bunch of legacy garbage left over from the '90s and wonder why they are churning customers to D* and E* like no tomorrow.

Fios is good, except that if they switch to some IP delivery of less-watched channels (their equivalent of SDV) they are going to screw over cablecard users unless they build software support for TiVo and MCE. I don't know what the practicality of using SDV for, say, three 32-home fiber strands is at the CO, but they are currently totally out of bandwidth on the coax side, even though the IP side is virtually unlimited.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> If you bought a house in a new development, wouldn't you want to know if the plan was to put a house that blocked that tremendous view up in the next six months?


It is almost the opposite ... Say you bought the first house in a new development and the other lots were either bare dirt from land clearing or partially built homes. When you bought you EXPECTED to be in a nice neighborhood - once it was finished - you bought the promise.

Then the developer got behind and the other homes didn't get built, finished and sold to families like yours. Your home is now in the middle of the worst neighborhood possible with no resale value. The neighborhood you paid big money for doesn't exist.

That's just part of the risk of buying something on spec.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Analog is a big problem. They seem to think that they need to support it, when it is, in reality, killing them.


Last I checked, the FCC requires cable companies to support analog through at least 2012 - although if they provided a digital box for every outlet they might get a waiver to turn off the analog.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

James Long said:


> Last I checked, the FCC requires cable companies to support analog through at least 2012 - although if they provided a digital box for every outlet they might get a waiver to turn off the analog.


As far as I know this is only for the must carry channels, like you local channels etc.

They can move any other channels to digital as they wish.

Like you said they can also move the must carry channels to digital if they provide everyone with a free converter box and get a waiver. I'm not 100% sure that they have to give you one for every outlet though, I think just one per home.

Right now I believe most of the cable companies are only moving the expanded basic channels to digital and are giving customers 2 free converter boxes. However, I don't think that they have to give out any free converter boxes for this, and it wouldn't suprise me if they eventually start charging for them.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is almost the opposite ... Say you bought the first house in a new development and the other lots were either bare dirt from land clearing or partially built homes. When you bought you EXPECTED to be in a nice neighborhood - once it was finished - you bought the promise.
> 
> Then the developer got behind and the other homes didn't get built, finished and sold to families like yours. Your home is now in the middle of the worst neighborhood possible with no resale value. The neighborhood you paid big money for doesn't exist.
> 
> That's just part of the risk of buying something on spec.


Exactly. But you should know the range of possibilities. I was only saying that you cannot buy on what is available just today when you are buying for a 2 year period. You need to know what is in the plans (generally since no provider gets very specific...but you do know that DirecTV is almost done with a new satellite, Dish has just launched a new satellite, Comcast is turning off analog and going more and more digital with HD rollouts happening across the country) plus the history of the companies (DirecTV in its arguments with Comcast, Dish with its tendency to turn off channels during disputes).

There is no cut and dry answer but to just look at what is available today is plain wrong. You can get burned if you go with a provider or burned if you don't. This is not the equivalent of going into Panera Bread and seeing if they have the muffin you want to eat right now.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> Last I checked, the FCC requires cable companies to support analog through at least 2012 - although if they provided a digital box for every outlet they might get a waiver to turn off the analog.


No. They have to carry local channels in analog if they offer any analog service. The solution is to not offer any analog service. RCN in Boston apparently did it, Comcast should do the same.

EDIT: The requirement is just that they provide an analog signal to the TV. If they switch locals over to digital only, they have to give everyone DTA's with RF output, even if they are only getting basic cable. Losing a bit on the basic cable equipment should be well worth it to support the higher-paying customers with more HD.

Realistically, even with a completely SDV system, they would have to leave locals in SD and HD non-SDV since they are clear QAM, and an SD expanded basic lineup since DTA's probably can't manage SDV, but that would give them a BOATLOAD of bandwidth to provide 200+ full-bitrate HD channels, VOD, 100mbit DOCSIS 3, 400+ total channels, etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> There is no cut and dry answer but to just look at what is available today is plain wrong.


I didn't say it was the ONLY thing to look at ... just that it is the only thing you can be assured of getting.

If you buy a house in a subdivision full of half built or cleared but dirt lots you know that you will be living with that view for a while. Hopefully you can accept it if the construction and filling of those homes is delayed. If you bought solely on the promise of the future you're going to be disappointed.

If you're buying satellite service and you're not happy with what you are getting immediately and are relying solely on the promise that it will get better you are setting yourself up for the same disappointment. The best the provider can do is meet your expectations.

Look at the promise ... but accept that there may be delays getting there. If you can't be happy with what you have when you sign up it makes the wait longer.

With a promise of May this is a good time for DirecTV ... but what about last May? Those subscribers are the ones who have been waiting for D12 more than anyone looking for new service today. Those are the people I hope were happy with last May's lineup.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Bigg said:


> No. They have to carry local channels in analog if they offer any analog service. The solution is to not offer any analog service. RCN in Boston apparently did it, Comcast should do the same.
> 
> EDIT: The requirement is just that they provide an analog signal to the TV. If they switch locals over to digital only, they have to give everyone DTA's with RF output, even if they are only getting basic cable. Losing a bit on the basic cable equipment should be well worth it to support the higher-paying customers with more HD.
> 
> Realistically, even with a completely SDV system, they would have to leave locals in SD and HD non-SDV since they are clear QAM, and an SD expanded basic lineup since DTA's probably can't manage SDV, but that would give them a BOATLOAD of bandwidth to provide 200+ full-bitrate HD channels, VOD, 100mbit DOCSIS 3, 400+ total channels, etc.


But even then will they still have only at best 2 HD out of market games on at any one time?

Better hardware and guides?

Bigger HDD's best that they can do NOW is 320G? Direct had that 2 years ago and now they have 500gb and maybe even looking at 1tb.

Also how much will SDV save?

Cablevision has SDV and when they had that free VOD PPV day the system was out room and people where not able to view VOD and they want to have a remote DVR like that will work with out running out space.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But even then will they still have only at best 2 HD out of market games on at any one time?
> 
> Better hardware and guides?
> 
> ...


Programming is another area entirely.

I think Comcast, as the biggest in the market, should actually compete in the DVR space with a 2TB, 6-tuner DVR-server that serves video out to remote thin clients over MoCA. Even though tech enthusiasts could run an quad-core, 5TB+ MCE 8-tuner (4 through Ceton, 4 clear QAM) 6-TV monster off of cable/Fios, average Joe would have no clue how to do that, and Comcast needs to provide a premium product. I think they should take their existing junk DVRs and charge $5/mo for the service for the house, and give them out like regular boxes, and then charge $15+ for a new whole-house solution.

SDV, with a 100-home node, will make bandwidth unlimited. If you get rid of all the analog, and go full SDV, the only channels you carry are HD locals (clear QAM) plus expanded basic in SD for the DTA's. Figure 12 clear QAM locals in HD, that's 6 channels or 36mhz, and 90 SD between expanded basic, local subchannels, and SD simulcasts of locals. That's 9 channels or 54mhz. Add in 3 downstream channels for DOCSIS 2 and one for digital voice, and you've got a total of 114 mhz.

For video, you have to use frequencies below 860mhz, since cablecard devices can't handle 1ghz. Individual VOD to newer MSO-supplied boxes and DOCSIS 3 would use the last 140mhz, with MoCA using 1000-1500mhz.

Given that cable starts at 55mhz, you have 804mhz of useful downstream capacity. 804mhz-114mhz=690mhz. That's 115 channels, or 1,150 SD streams, or 230HD streams. With 230HD (or 345 with triple channeling) streams, it would be virtually impossible for a 100 home node to run out of bandwidth, especially given that many houses will watch the same channel at the same time, using only one channel.

Add to that the fact that a LOT of people watch a LOT of shows on the networks, which aren't included in that number, since they are broadcast Clear QAM.

At the point that basically everything is VOD, the only limit to the number of channels is the capacity of the fiber feeding the node (or you could switch farther up the chain eliminating even that bottleneck). There's no reason it couldn't have 200+HD and 400+SD plus international and packages or even more channels available running right alongside 100mbit internet. At the point that you're sending individualized streams, there's no reason not to get as many channels as you can (possibly through bundles or a-la-carte for some of the more obscure ones as to not jack up the package prices).

It's not unfeasible in that scenario to add 70+mbit VOD streams through DOCSIS 3 in that last 140mhz to deliver the blu-ray encode to the more powerful cable boxes that are IP-enabled.

Once you have virtually unlimited capacity, AT&T has nothing on it, and DirecTV has nothing on it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Programming is another area entirely.
> 
> I think Comcast, as the biggest in the market, should actually compete in the DVR space with a 2TB, 6-tuner DVR-server that serves video out to remote thin clients over MoCA. Even though tech enthusiasts could run an quad-core, 5TB+ MCE 8-tuner (4 through Ceton, 4 clear QAM) 6-TV monster off of cable/Fios, average Joe would have no clue how to do that, and Comcast needs to provide a premium product. I think they should take their existing junk DVRs and charge $5/mo for the service for the house, and give them out like regular boxes, and then charge $15+ for a new whole-house solution.
> 
> ...


But see how big some areas are and the cost of having many 100 home nodes what will the time line be for a roll out 2-4 years? 1-2? It took them that long to come out with A28 guide that add some stuff that D* had 2 years ago.

Will they cheap out do some thing like 1000 home nodes?

Also I would add the in market RSN HD channels to the NOT on SDV list.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> I didn't say it was the ONLY thing to look at ... just that it is the only thing you can be assured of getting.


Didn't say you did. But you origiinally responded to my post that was criticizing someone else's post that DID say that was the sole criteria.

But even then, you are not assured of getting anything. What about the customer who signed up for DirecTV the day before Versus went off the air for months. Or the guy who signed up for Dish the day before Voom (and many others) went away?

NOTHING is assured. At all.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Didn't say you did. But you origiinally responded to my post that was criticizing someone else's post that DID say that was the sole criteria.
> 
> But even then, you are not assured of getting anything. What about the customer who signed up for DirecTV the day before Versus went off the air for months. Or the guy who signed up for Dish the day before Voom (and many others) went away?
> 
> NOTHING is assured. At all.


I look at it this way: I do not pay $100/month for one channel. One channel being added or removed will not make me decide whether or not I want DirecTV. It would take a number of changes in order to sway my decision.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

Univision HD and Telefutura HD are live... DirecTV=162


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But see how big some areas are and the cost of having many 100 home nodes what will the time line be for a roll out 2-4 years? 1-2? It took them that long to come out with A28 guide that add some stuff that D* had 2 years ago.
> 
> Will they cheap out do some thing like 1000 home nodes?
> 
> Also I would add the in market RSN HD channels to the NOT on SDV list.


Well, the problem is, they should have seen the crunch 5 years ago and started doing this. Why would you not SDV the local RSN's? There is no reason for them to be on there when a game's not on (and thus, no one is watching them). SDV doesn't decrease video quality at all, and the RSNs are definitely NOT clear QAM. Yeah, everyone watches them when baseball is on, but otherwise they are niche channels just like a lot of other junk that can be SDV'ed off.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Univision HD and Telefutura HD are live... DirecTV=162


Uh, no.

U & T are part of the 30 DirecTV is adding to _GET_ to 160 ... DirecTV=160 when they are done.
The rest will come starting in "May" (with Gol TV later on when there is an actual HD signal to carry).

Congrats on the new HD!


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Well, the problem is, they should have seen the crunch 5 years ago and started doing this. Why would you not SDV the local RSN's? There is no reason for them to be on there when a game's not on (and thus, no one is watching them). SDV doesn't decrease video quality at all, and the RSNs are definitely NOT clear QAM. Yeah, everyone watches them when baseball is on, but otherwise they are niche channels just like a lot of other junk that can be SDV'ed off.


Maybe the carp ones have junk on where there is no game but they are on DTA level so why put them in SDV?


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

James Long said:


> Uh, no.
> 
> U & T are part of the 30 DirecTV is adding to _GET_ to 160 ... DirecTV=160 when they are done.
> The rest will come starting in "May" (with Gol TV later on when there is an actual HD signal to carry).
> ...


Ah, my bad... I was excited to hear of new HD and combined with the ungodly early hour of the morning I had to wake up at... well, I hope you understand...


----------



## GoPokes43 (Sep 13, 2007)

James Long said:


> Uh, no.
> 
> U & T are part of the 30 DirecTV is adding to _GET_ to 160 ... DirecTV=160 when they are done.
> The rest will come starting in "May" (with Gol TV later on when there is an actual HD signal to carry).
> ...


Even then, I think it was indicated that Univision HD took a Cinema HD channel. So, +2 and -1 is just a +1 for the day (if the other new HD channel didn't replace another as well).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GoPokes43 said:


> Even then, I think it was indicated that Univision HD took a Cinema HD channel. So, +2 and -1 is just a +1 for the day (if the other new HD channel didn't replace another as well).


I'm not one who likes to count PPVs anyways. Any PPVs removed will be returned when "May" happens.
The 160 number is DirecTV's and is post "May" (including GolTV which won't be HD until Summer).


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

As for channel count, remember that these two spanish channels were added on the existing sats. D12 isn't in (on?) service just yet. So to light them up may indeed mean they need to take down a PPV channel. Which is the whole reason the PPV channels were there in the first place. Might as well use the bandwidth for something until needed for something better (new channel, HD game, Sunday Ticket/MLB/March Madness/etc).


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Maybe the carp ones have junk on where there is no game but they are on DTA level so why put them in SDV?


Oh yeah, of course, that's part of expanded basic, I was talking about the HD version. The DTA's and expanded basic is SD only, even with current digital switchovers.


----------



## am7crew (Jun 6, 2009)

I love how everyone gets in a uproar over the Dish 200 count when Directvs "30" news channel announcement is really 22 channels and *more direct cinema* channels. go figure


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

am7crew said:


> I love how everyone gets in a uproar over the Dish 200 count when Directvs "30" news channel announcement is really 22 channels and *more direct cinema* channels. go figure


Wellll... It might have to do with the fact that all of DIRECTVs current HD receivers can play all those 8 channels. Unlike Dish's "channels" that are only available if something has downloaded to only one DVR.

(And the old HD receivers that can't receive the PPVs had opportunities for free replacement. Try that with an older Dish receiver--oh yeah... like a non-DVR...) 

While I understand the questioning of PPVs as HD channels, they do take bandwidth 24/7. Calling a VOD item a "channel" crosses a line about honesty.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> While I understand the questioning of PPVs as HD channels, they do take bandwidth 24/7. Calling a VOD item a "channel" crosses a line about honesty.


I give it some leway as some VOD 'channels' are available on DISH's oldest HD DVR (the four year old ViP-622) and having instant start options in the guide is just as good as having a PPV channel ... except the movie can start at 10:14pm or 10:32pm without missing anything. The movie starts when the customer wants it to.

I prefer not to count PPVs and VODs anyways, but if you're going to go there don't forget to ignore duplicate movies and "off air" channels. "29" is a nice number but isn't an honest one with the same thing playing in 30 minute/hour intervals.

VODs are certainly not as good as regular channels such as E!, History International, Style, Headline News, even premiums like HBO Signature
or HBO Family. But they should count for something.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> I give it some leway as VOD 'channels' are available on DISH's oldest HD DVR (the four year old ViP-622) and having instant start options in the guide is just as good as having a PPV channel ... except the movie can start at 10:14pm or 10:32pm without missing anything.
> 
> I prefer not to count PPVs and VODs anyways, but if you're going to go there don't forget to ignore duplicate movies and "off air" channels. "29" is a nice number but isn't an honest one with the same thing playing in 30 minute/hour intervals.


I wouldn't count any of the preloaded HD PPV's on either service since if you didn't have a HD DVR those 'channels' would be unavailable to the customer.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> I give it some leway as some VOD 'channels' are available on DISH's oldest HD DVR (the four year old ViP-622) and having instant start options in the guide is just as good as having a PPV channel ... except the movie can start at 10:14pm or 10:32pm without missing anything. The movie starts when the customer wants it to.
> 
> I prefer not to count PPVs and VODs anyways, but if you're going to go there don't forget to ignore duplicate movies and "off air" channels. "29" is a nice number but isn't an honest one with the same thing playing in 30 minute/hour intervals.
> 
> ...


I usually think of you in these discussions about counting or not counting the PPVs. 

You've remained pretty consistent with your counting, very well thought out, and well described.

Anyway, how can anything that can only play on a DVR and doesn't take bandwidth be counted as a "channel". Even all the H2x can play the PPV channels. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Anyway, how can anything that can only play on a DVR and doesn't take bandwidth be counted as a "channel". Even all the H2x can play the PPV channels.


As noted, I don't count them ... nor PPV channels. But I'll note them for those who do want to give credit for them. I do like the way they are displayed in the guide as channels (one channel per movie) and not hidden away.

How many HD PPV channels are showing the same movie or are off air in the evenings for sports? Is the count of "29" accurate? I understand that some Sundays during football season DirecTV only has four PPV channels. Which is fine for subscribers who are watching the NFL Sunday Ticket games (at extra cost) anyways - or thought ahead far enough to record a movie earlier in the day (which of course requires a DVR).

(Hmm ... It's 11:57pm and 14 movies start now on my DVR. That has to be worth something. It will be worth more if it was 12:04am and I'd just missed the beginning of the PPV. )

Capacity ... that is a moving target. Having room for 40 more channels after the "May" additions is just preparing for the inevitable filling of those slots and the desire for more HD. And the begging of people who's channels didn't make the "May" list. DISH, like DirecTV, has some HD not yet available to customers. We really don't know what capacity is without doing a complete transponder inventory and looking for holes.

I try to be fair in the counting ... I have my preferences and my core count does not include PPVs, VODs and (in general) RSNs because of the heavy use of blackouts during key programming. But at the moment DISH is so far ahead with those categories removed that I'll count the 22 full time RSNs. 

But I'll pass on counting PPVs or VODs ... even though they are valuable viewing options.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:


> But at the moment DISH is so far ahead with those categories removed that I'll count the 22 full time RSNs.


Per sixto its 24:

- 24 HD Full-time Regional Sport Networks (RSN's).


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Tom Robertson said:


> I usually think of you in these discussions about counting or not counting the PPVs.
> 
> You've remained pretty consistent with your counting, very well thought out, and well described.
> 
> ...


Comcast has "1000 HD choices" on a system with ~20 non-local HD channels. At least Dish is 70% honest, Comcast is 2% honest. DirecTV is 100%.

Seriously though, PPV is okish to count, it is an HD channel from an electrical engineering perspective, even if it's not a channel to the consumer. Some of Dish's "HD channels" physically don't even exist. Don't they fill every last bit of bandwidth with HD, and just add more PPV channels if they are placeholding for "real" HD channels?

What's their capacity going to look like when they have new sats at both 99 and 103?

The other question is why did they abandon 110 and 119 for English CONUS programming? They can't use them now because they are using SL3 dishes that can't see them. Hartford-New Haven uses SL5s because of locals. Were the LOS issues that big of a deal to give up 110 and 119? Or do they need them for international anyways?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dcowboy7 said:


> Per sixto its 24:
> - 24 HD Full-time Regional Sport Networks (RSN's).


I'll take another look ... I see 69 channels and removed the -1s as part time/alternates leaving 25 but three non -1 channels are marked part time.



Bigg said:


> Comcast has "1000 HD choices" on a system with ~20 non-local HD channels. At least Dish is 70% honest, Comcast is 2% honest. DirecTV is 100%.


Nobody is 100%. 



> Seriously though, PPV is okish to count, it is an HD channel from an electrical engineering perspective, even if it's not a channel to the consumer. Some of Dish's "HD channels" physically don't even exist. Don't they fill every last bit of bandwidth with HD, and just add more PPV channels if they are placeholding for "real" HD channels?


That seems to be DirecTV's trick ... with HD Cinema channels going away to make room for "real channels". DISH managed to add four new HDs last week without changing the PPV count.

New satellites will help provide space to add more - and both companies have a satellite hanging around in a test slot "ready to move". Things are looking pretty good for both companies.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'll take another look ... I see 69 channels and removed the -1s as part time/alternates leaving 25 but three non -1 channels are marked part time.


Best way to find the full-time RSN's is on the transponder maps. Post#2. I have them labeled as RSN.

68 full-time HD on D10, 64 on D11, 1 on D7S (119). 133 Total, all transmitting 24x7.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It seems that DirecTV's counting mechanism is fairly accurate.

Per the transponder maps, you have transponders transmitting HD channels. 133 of them.

What's the difference whether its a regular network, an RSN, or Cinema HD. That's a DirecTV business decision in how to best utilize the available bandwidth.

You tune to the channel with a regular non-DVR receiver, with the proper subscription, and you get the HD channels. 133 of them.

If there's any issue, it's around the 8 DNS, which I think one person can only get 4 of them at once, but it's still 8 in total. Also, 136/137 come and go for Mix HD (MLB Mix HD now).

And the hesitancy to count Cinema seems unfair, since the channels are real HD channels, received by any regular non-DVR receiver, and they go a step further and reuse the same channel bandwidth for many part-time needs, which is a great use of the bandwidth.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sixto said:


> If there's any issue, it's around the 8 DNS, which I think one person can only get 4 of them at once, but it's still 8 in total.


And that one person cannot get all four networks (or any of the four networks) in every market in the country. Distants are, by law, very limited offerings.

A lot of this comes down to engineering vs programming.

From an engineering standpoint one can remove all the labels from the channels and count raw feeds ... without a care for any down time or shared use. In some ways an engineering based number will reduce a count (people who count the same bandwidth used for a PPV as a part time/alternate RSN). In some ways an engineering based number will increase a count (feeds that are only used for part time uses and are dead most of the time - available but not in use 24/7).

From a programming standpoint the labels mean a lot more. Programming does not count feeds of whatever, programming counts content. Using a programming count "corrects" the engineering count and makes different mistakes.

I don't have an 8PSK tuner and the furthest I can go on DISH Network's system is the NIT/SDT that tells me what transponder a channel is on but does not tell me what content is shared. Experience helps narrow some of that down (seeing the same channel in the 9000s and the 4000s does not make it two HD feeds). But I do know that DISH has about 117 HD channels live to all customers (including non-DVR receivers and not counting any RSN). Add in the "feeds" used by engineering for HD RSNs and the new channels in test modes and the number goes up.

Of course, for DirecTV the numbers will go up next month when another 20 real channels go online (and space for more is available). DISH will just sneak a few more channels on the air without a lot of fanfare. And the real HD war ... the one between the satellite providers, not the fans of the companies, will continue.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

James Long said:


> And that one person cannot get all four networks (or any of the four networks) in every market in the country. Distants are, by law, very limited offerings.
> 
> A lot of this comes down to engineering vs programming ...


My perspective has been to just take a regular "customer" perspective, one with access to the top programming tier and $ for Cinema HD. Just J6P.

If J6P can sit in front of a TV, with a non-DVR, and tune to a linear HD channel 24x7x365, and watch the HD programming 24x7x365, then it seems reasonable to count the HD channel.

Only issue was how to deal with the DNS HD channels, because they're really not available to everyone. Every other HD channel is, with the proper tier and $. I actually was alright with counting DNS HD because at least some people could access the DNS HD channels, but wasn't sure if anyone could actually get all 8.

So if we ignore DNS, DirecTV would be 125. Right now, with a regular non-DVR HD receiver, J6P can watch 125 HD channels, with the proper tier and $.

Just curious, what's the HD channel count for Dish with the same criteria?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sixto said:


> Just curious, what's the HD channel count for Dish with the same criteria?


As I noted in my post there are 117 channels that people with enough money to buy all the PPV could watch live at any moment on any HD receiver. The count only goes up if one includes any RSNs that might be active for that customer (DISH RSNs do not take away from the 117).

The cost would be $109.99 for AEP+HD, $49.99 for a WWE event and $5.99 each for 14 unique (one channel per movie) PPV channels ($403.82).

102 24/7 HD Feeds for $109.99 isn't a bad deal.
118 24/7 HD Feeds for $129.98 (after "May") isn't bad either if blackouts don't count.
(I found the two 24/7 RSNs - too many are marked "game only" in the first post of that thread.)

As you noted a couple of posts back ... it is a business decision. DISH decided to offer national channels instead of PPVs and RSNs. Their next push is 100% locals coverage in SD and full HD markets to meet the conversion deadlines. There will be more national HD released as well. Just nothing announced.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> I'll take another look ... I see 69 channels and removed the -1s as part time/alternates leaving 25 but three non -1 channels are marked part time.
> 
> Nobody is 100%.
> 
> ...


But I think dish is just replace a old sat with a new one that will maybe add a little more room but dish needs to work on there RSN HD and give the RSN over flows fixed channel numbers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But I think dish is just replace a old sat with a new one that will maybe add a little more room but dish needs to work on there RSN HD and give the RSN over flows fixed channel numbers.


I'd like to see DISH at least spotbeam the RSNs 24/7 ... but there is only so much space. The business decision went to national channels first.

E14 will help with locals more than anything else ... but the details are a topic for another forum.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> And that one person cannot get all four networks (or any of the four networks) in every market in the country. Distants are, by law, very limited offerings.
> 
> A lot of this comes down to engineering vs programming.
> 
> ...


The engineering perspective is the only way to avoid counts getting out of control, i.e. double counting and the like.

The DNS feeds are tricky, because of a couple of things:

1. In the NYC or LA area, you get the four that belong to you.
2. Hartford-New Haven gets three of the four NYC's (but not PBS or ABC, no clue why). Other neighboring DMA's presumably in the same situation.
3. If you aren't in NYC, LA, Hartford-New Haven or another adjacent DMA, you would have spot-beamed locals for your area, which aren't counted here, since they aren't CONUS.
4. In Hartford-New Haven, as an example, there are 6 spot locals (5 Hartford, 1 New Haven), and 3 CONUS (NYC) locals, for a total of 9, which is 1 more than the DNS feeds, 5 of which the area can't get.

Of course, a valid counterargument is that networks of any kind shouldn't count, since you can stick an antenna up and get them for free. That's just as right as my math above.

EDIT: Spelling.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> 1. In the NYC or LA area, you get the four that belong to you.


In their own markets they are called "locals", not distants.



> 2. Hartford-New Haven gets three of the four NYC's (but not PBS or ABC, no clue why). Other neighboring DMA's presumably in the same situation.


"Significantly Viewed" stations are distants ... but neighboring market signals that are a lot easier to carry than distants or locals. Stations qualify for this status based on the size of their over the air viewership (not via cable or satellite). Some stations were given status when the law passed that created the "Significantly Viewed" category for cable usage - others petitioned for status in later years. Stations that don't have SV status either don't qualify or didn't need the status to get cable carriage.

Using a list designed for cable carriage for satellite carriage is a mistake I like to rant about in the legal issues forum. 



> 3. If you aren't in NYC, LA, Hartford-New Haven or another adjacent DMA, you would have spot-beamed locals for your area, which aren't counted here, since they aren't CONUS.


And having your own locals of a network is an instant disqualification for getting that network as a distant.
BTW: In my market all six local stations DirecTV carries via satellite are in HD.



> Of course, a valid counterargument is that networks of any kind shouldn't count, since you can stick an antenna up and get them for free. That's just as right as my math above.


The math is complicated. One number that satellite providers have been throwing around for years is a percent coverage of their locals. "We provide locals to 9x% of the nation's television households.*" The difference between 93% and 95% isn't that many markets.

So do we look market by market and channel by channel and work up a percentage of carriage for each network? Rank it on a sliding scale? "DirecTV provides an ABC HD feed (local or distant) to 95% of the nation's households." Then celebrate when 20-30 more markets are added and they can raise that number to 96%? Or perhaps just draw a line and say that if a feed is available to 95% of potential subscribers it counts and 94% doesn't.

The math just gets too hard on network TV.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> In their own markets they are called "locals", not distants.


Yes, but they are the same channels from an EE perspective.



James Long said:


> "Significantly Viewed" stations are distants ... but neighboring market signals that are a lot easier to carry than distants or locals. Stations qualify for this status based on the size of their over the air viewership (not via cable or satellite). Some stations were given status when the law passed that created the "Significantly Viewed" category for cable usage - others petitioned for status in later years. Stations that don't have SV status either don't qualify or didn't need the status to get cable carriage.


Complicated... I assume then, that cable is not going by this list? Because they carry all 5, PBS in HD (its the only one that carries different programming during prime time). Does PBS even count for this stuff? I.e. why is DirecTV not allowed to turn on WNET (PBS-NYC) for parts of Hartford-New Haven?



James Long said:


> Using a list designed for cable carriage for satellite carriage is a mistake I like to rant about in the legal issues forum.
> 
> And having your own locals of a network is an instant disqualification for getting that network as a distant.
> BTW: In my market all six local stations DirecTV carries via satellite are in HD.


Unless they are neighboring, so legally, yes, but from an EE perspective, Hartford-New Haven gets 3 national feeds.



James Long said:


> The math is complicated. One number that satellite providers have been throwing around for years is a percent coverage of their locals. "We provide locals to 9x% of the nation's television households.*" The difference between 93% and 95% isn't that many markets.


Doesn't the tail get pretty long for the last 5% though? The networks are such a legacy model that just won't die. It would be so nice if the networks had national feeds that everyone could get.



James Long said:


> So do we look market by market and channel by channel and work up a percentage of carriage for each network? Rank it on a sliding scale? "DirecTV provides an ABC HD feed (local or distant) to 95% of the nation's households." Then celebrate when 20-30 more markets are added and they can raise that number to 96%? Or perhaps just draw a line and say that if a feed is available to 95% of potential subscribers it counts and 94% doesn't.


Isn't the goal 100% carriage? Maybe the networks should have taken some initiative and consolidated markets. Plus there's markets where the locals are spread out over two cities (Hartford-New Haven), markets that are incomplete, and markets that have duplicates, triplicates, or even quadruplicates (Boston has a bunch).



James Long said:


> The math just gets too hard on network TV.


Also, what's the waiver process like these days? Does it still exist?

EDIT: Cleaning up the quotes


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Complicated... I assume then, that cable is not going by this list? Because they carry all 5, PBS in HD (its the only one that carries different programming during prime time). Does PBS even count for this stuff? I.e. why is DirecTV not allowed to turn on WNET (PBS-NYC) for parts of Hartford-New Haven?


For cable the list is just another way to get the channel added. Cable can carry channels from out of market without the list. In some cases cable is required to carry "out of market" channels because of RF reception (OTA coverage) that satellite rules based on arbitrary lines on a map (DMAs) turn into legal "distants".

WNET may not be listed as SV in all parts of Hartford-New Haven. I'd be surprised if it was. Most SVs are a couple of border counties.



> Doesn't the tail get pretty long for the last 5% though?


Yes. Moving from 94% to 95% is a lot more markets than moving from 93% to 94%. The closer you get to 100% the more markets it takes to significantly move the needle.



> Isn't the goal 100% carriage?


100% is what is needed to compete 100% with cable. Quite frankly, 94% means nothing if the locals carried on the local cable system are not on the satellite system. All of them ... not just the "in market" ones.



> Also, what's the waiver process like these days? Does it still exist?


I believe it does ... but with 94%+ locals coverage the distants are becoming obsolete. When 100% is reached you'll only see distants in "short markets" where a network doesn't have an affiliate. I expect you'll see more SV distants - close distants where the station you would need the waiver from is the one that will be provided to you as a distant. The few remaining white areas won't require waivers.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> For cable the list is just another way to get the channel added. Cable can carry channels from out of market without the list. In some cases cable is required to carry "out of market" channels because of RF reception (OTA coverage) that satellite rules based on arbitrary lines on a map (DMAs) turn into legal "distants".
> 
> WNET may not be listed as SV in all parts of Hartford-New Haven. I'd be surprised if it was. Most SVs are a couple of border counties.
> 
> ...


How do you end up with 2 channels not SV, and three SV, from the same neighboring market? It makes no sense. Plus, we live 17 miles from the NYC DMA (Long Island).

I thought the FCC was going to try and mandate 100% locals? Yeah, they should be under the same set of rules.



James Long said:


> I believe it does ... but with 94%+ locals coverage the distants are becoming obsolete. When 100% is reached you'll only see distants in "short markets" where a network doesn't have an affiliate. I expect you'll see more SV distants - close distants where the station you would need the waiver from is the one that will be provided to you as a distant. The few remaining white areas won't require waivers.


It's too bad that the whiny little local affiliates won't allow D* and E* to just put those 8 up as nationals. The nets themselves would certainly like it. It still wouldn't solve the SV issue, except for parts of CT, NJ, parts of PA, and a few areas in CA. If they're really worried about people inadvertantly watching the feeds instead of locals, give them really nonsensical channel numbers and only remap them if you're in their actual DMA, or charge $5/mo extra and give that money to the supposed DMA's locals.

Also, did anyone ever think to create a hybrid channel for smaller DMA's to get them in HD? If they got the timing exactly right, they could have the small DMA's channel in SD, and during network primetime, switch to the HD DNS feed for the actual show and back to the SD local for commercials, local news, and the like. It would take some special software in the box, but it would be really cool. Either that or use a special set of channels just for the hybridization of like 10 DMA's at once, smushing and overcompressing all the SD feeds together in place of the one HD for local news and commercials.

Can you get a waiver to get a national feed even if you have your own locals on D*?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> How do you end up with 2 channels not SV, and three SV, from the same neighboring market? It makes no sense. Plus, we live 17 miles from the NYC DMA (Long Island).


That is the problem with using a list written for cable for satellite coverage. It doesn't make sense.

OTA reception ratings are how stations made the SV list ... so it is possible that at the time the list was created those two stations were not as popular as the other three. If a station already had cable carriage they didn't worry about "errors" on the list. Which leaves those errors as stumbling blocks for satellite carriage.



> I thought the FCC was going to try and mandate 100% locals? Yeah, they should be under the same set of rules.


The law has not been finalized (law comes from Congress, rules to enforce the law come from the FCC - Congress needs to act first).

From the drafts of the legislation there will be a reward for having locals in 100% of local markets ... but that reward will help DISH (the ability to carry distants again) more than DirecTV (where distants can still be carried).



> It's too bad that the whiny little local affiliates won't allow D* and E* to just put those 8 up as nationals.


That is the marketing model that the networks came up with. And it works pretty good. The most popular programs remain on broadcast TV ... when the rights are owned by a company that has multiple outlets (broadcast and cable) look at where they put the content. Why is NASCAR on Fox broadcast instead of a Fox cable channel and ABC instead of ESPN? Why are pro sports on any broadcast network? Because that's the way they WANT to distribute the content.

Selling rights to local affiliates and protecting those rights is what makes the network affiliation model work for the networks. They are not going to undercut themselves by breaking that arrangement.



> Also, did anyone ever think to create a hybrid channel for smaller DMA's to get them in HD?


An interesting thought but it would have to be done on the same transponder ... which would narrow the number of markets. Retuning to a different transponder would introduce a channel change gap in programming. It could be done on the same transponder but getting the timing right is key.

There is more on local stations in HD than the network hours. Stations are now doing syndicated programs in HD and local production such as news.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> That is the problem with using a list written for cable for satellite coverage. It doesn't make sense.
> 
> OTA reception ratings are how stations made the SV list ... so it is possible that at the time the list was created those two stations were not as popular as the other three. If a station already had cable carriage they didn't worry about "errors" on the list. Which leaves those errors as stumbling blocks for satellite carriage.
> 
> ...


This issue with SV is that the cable companies can carry more than the SV list, and they do. Apparently WNET is pretty popular, as it's one of only 26 HD channels on the Comcast system here.

I didn't think of the TP issue. D* would probably never do it, since they are "HD all the time", it seems like something Dish would do, it's an even more granular version of their "HD" RSNs and bandwidth sharing.

Most of the stuff people watch in HD is network programming. The channels in the smallest markets where that scheme would be used wouldn't be making their own HD programming. Here they are only just switching over to HD production of news now, and it will be a long time before all of the stations are doing their whole news programs in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a lot easier just to carry the final 5% of markets in SD only ... perfectly legal and legitimate ... and any out of markets brought in as SV/distants would be down converted to the same level.

100% HD coverage of the country is not mandated.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> I'd like to see DISH at least spotbeam the RSNs 24/7 ... but there is only so much space. The business decision went to national channels first.
> 
> E14 will help with locals more than anything else ... but the details are a topic for another forum.


I think D* had RSN on Spotbeams 24/7 HD and they did put some on the main beams for the sports packs game only?

Before they moved them to the main ones.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> It is a lot easier just to carry the final 5% of markets in SD only ... perfectly legal and legitimate ... and any out of markets brought in as SV/distants would be down converted to the same level.
> 
> 100% HD coverage of the country is not mandated.


Yeah. Not much money in those markets anyways if they're that small. How much more space is there up there for North American DBS between, say 61.5 and 150ish? Is there tons of room using KA, or is it pretty maxed now? I assume KU is all maxed out?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Yeah. Not much money in those markets anyways if they're that small. How much more space is there up there for North American DBS between, say 61.5 and 150ish? Is there tons of room using KA, or is it pretty maxed now? I assume KU is all maxed out?


Ku won't be maxed out until they run out of the ability to add new spotbeam satellites. With their limited ku bandwidth DirecTV led the way with spotbeams back in the day ... DISH had less of a need for spotbeams as they had more bandwidth. Now DISH is working off of 100+ spotbeam satellites and replacing the 25 spot models. All at existing satellite locations.

There is ku DBS (which is all DISH is using now for their primary service) with nominally 9 degree spacing and ku FSS with two degree spacing (DISH's 105, 118.7 and 121 satellites - now used for commercial and international channels). Then you get into ka which DirecTV is using for their HD. And in the future (testing on D12) there will be more ku frequencies using "reverse DBS" BSS service.

The US has eight slots ... 119, 110, 101 and 61.5 are almost all assigned (there are two transponders at 61.5 that are officially available the last time I checked). The four slots at 148-157-166-175 are vacant with DISH holding licenses at 148 the last time I checked. But the FCC and the ITU have been kind in allowing Canadian and Mexican slots to be used for US coverage as well (such as 129, 72.7 and 77).

The FCC is still working on deciding if they should allow "tweeners" between the US slots (such as at 114.5). Officially these would be foreign satellites but could provide service to US customers if all parties approved. All high power ku DBS service. Hopefully not interfering with each other.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> Ku won't be maxed out until they run out of the ability to add new spotbeam satellites. With their limited ku bandwidth DirecTV led the way with spotbeams back in the day ... DISH had less of a need for spotbeams as they had more bandwidth. Now DISH is working off of 100+ spotbeam satellites and replacing the 25 spot models. All at existing satellite locations.
> 
> There is ku DBS (which is all DISH is using now for their primary service) with nominally 9 degree spacing and ku FSS with two degree spacing (DISH's 105, 118.7 and 121 satellites - now used for commercial and international channels). Then you get into ka which DirecTV is using for their HD. And in the future (testing on D12) there will be more ku frequencies using "reverse DBS" BSS service.
> 
> ...


Wow, Ok, I'm not going to try to do all the math on those! So is Dish (and DirecTV at 72.5) basically leasing those three from the Canadians. What happens if 10 years down the road the Canadians want their spots back, but Dish EA is dependent upon their bandwidth?

How tight can you get the spots, and with certain areas of the country having densely packed DMA's, how many sets of bandwidths (equivalent to CONUS) do you need to cover all 210 DMAs? Are we talking 20? 50? 100?

Oh yeah, and what on earth do you do with 157, 166, and 175? Create the Hawaii arc? Could they effectively do west coast LIL's? Wouldn't they be so spread out that the main satellites' spotbeams would already have surplus capacity in the west and be bottlenecked east of the Mississippi, making the western satellites totally useless?

How many markets are on spots versus CONUS? Or are they all on spots, but they can consolidate spots down and increase frequency re-usage to get more capacity?

Why does 61.5 have unassigned TP's? Wouldn't Dish snap them up, since they have a TON of customers pointed at 61.5 to reduce/eliminate the need for EA conversions for the majority of customers in the NE that currently have 61.5/110/119?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Wow, Ok, I'm not going to try to do all the math on those! So is Dish (and DirecTV at 72.5) basically leasing those three from the Canadians. What happens if 10 years down the road the Canadians want their spots back, but Dish EA is dependent upon their bandwidth?


10 years down the road there may be another option. DISH has "reverse DBS" slots planned (similar to what is being tested on D12). The key is to get a contract where the owner of the slot can't just take it back.

DirecTV should be gone from 72.5, so if the Canadian owner wanted to use some of the transponders for actual Canadian service they could without it being a three way fight for space. Fortunately the Canadian slots are available. For their population and how their TV is distributed they don't need as much space as the US satellite companies. The two competing Canadian companies have plenty of space where they are.



> How tight can you get the spots, and with certain areas of the country having densely packed DMA's, how many sets of bandwidths (equivalent to CONUS) do you need to cover all 210 DMAs? Are we talking 20? 50? 100?


You need a spot big enough to cover each DMA. So assuming one spot beam is enough to deliver one DMA's locals you would need somewhere around 200. Some DMAs are small and could share space with a neighboring market. Most spots (physical area aimed at) have more than one transponder (physical frequency) so in the case of a market that needs more than one transponder's worth of channels they would light up two transponders on that spot.

On Ciel-2 some of the overlapping spots use the same transponder frequencies. If you are in the overlap you get garbage from the interference - but those spots are designed to cover markets where there is no interference.



> Oh yeah, and what on earth do you do with 157, 166, and 175? Create the Hawaii arc?


I think that is an excellent idea. Coverage of Alaska and Hawaii is required from satellites at those slots (and any replacement satellite put at 148).

For the west coast it would be similar to Midwest people trying to get the western arc. It could be done.



> How many markets are on spots versus CONUS? Or are they all on spots, but they can consolidate spots down and increase frequency re-usage to get more capacity?


On western arc all HD is on spotbeams. I have not checked the SD locals but I believe most of them are spotbeamed as well. Those that are left will likely go to spots when E14 arrives.



> Why does 61.5 have unassigned TP's? Wouldn't Dish snap them up, since they have a TON of customers pointed at 61.5 to reduce/eliminate the need for EA conversions for the majority of customers in the NE that currently have 61.5/110/119?


DISH is using the two unassigned transponders but last I checked the FCC wouldn't give them a permanent license. They are leaving the door open for a third competitive service. What kind of service could be provided on two transponders would be minimal.

(SkyAngel used two transponders back when they were a satellite service ... they leased part of E3 as the equipment to transmit their signals in exchange for allowing DISH to use 9 of SkyAngel's licensed channels. When SkyAngel moved to IPTV they transferred their licenses to DISH.)


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Why does 61.5 have unassigned TP's? Wouldn't Dish snap them up, since they have a TON of customers pointed at 61.5 to reduce/eliminate the need for EA conversions for the majority of customers in the NE that currently have 61.5/110/119?


The eastern arc is also mostly made up of sats that have been repurposed or moved there from other spots. Some are also suffering from partial failure that is limiting their functionality. Dish is still working on getting all the sats in use up there as sats that were actually designed for those locations and their "eastern arc" plan. Keep in mind that the eastern arc has only existed for ~year at this point. Prior to that they just had some sats over there providing additional locals or alternate sats to 129/148 that east coast people couldn't get but you still needed to see 110/119 to get all the programing.

Everything you ever wanted to know about dish sats and then some.

http://dishuser.org/satellites.php


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> 10 years down the road there may be another option. DISH has "reverse DBS" slots planned (similar to what is being tested on D12). The key is to get a contract where the owner of the slot can't just take it back.
> 
> DirecTV should be gone from 72.5, so if the Canadian owner wanted to use some of the transponders for actual Canadian service they could without it being a three way fight for space. Fortunately the Canadian slots are available. For their population and how their TV is distributed they don't need as much space as the US satellite companies. The two competing Canadian companies have plenty of space where they are.
> 
> ...


I thought DirecTV had a whole bunch of local markets set up at 72.5? Are they moving those over to 110/119 now that they got rid of MPEG-2 HD?

Do you know what the equivalent amount of spectrum all the locals would use? Like how many CONUS equivalent channels they are using?

The Hawaii arc might be nice, but it has no scale of economy. Why couldn't the existing satellites be set up to shove a signal "blob" at Alaska and one at Hawaii? Or re-use a whole ton of spot beam frequencies to replicate the whole service without using up any bandwidth for CONUS? As it is, they can get service, just with a bigger dish.

I guess they could be used for West Coast locals then if for some reason they were needed, as 110/119 are used on the east coast by both companies (although D*'s 110 is inactive). We can see 129, but an extraordinarily clear LOS would be needed.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I thought DirecTV had a whole bunch of local markets set up at 72.5? Are they moving those over to 110/119 now that they got rid of MPEG-2 HD?


The 72.5 locals have been migrating over to MPEG4 on 99/103 for a while. The sat at 72.5 only had conus TPS so there weren't a whole lot of locals there compared to what could have been if there were spots.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Do you know what the equivalent amount of spectrum all the locals would use? Like how many CONUS equivalent channels they are using?


It depends on how you do the math and what a "CONUS equivalent channel" is.



> Why couldn't the existing satellites be set up to shove a signal "blob" at Alaska and one at Hawaii? Or re-use a whole ton of spot beam frequencies to replicate the whole service without using up any bandwidth for CONUS?


Actually, DISH is doing this. They have a set of spotbeams aimed at Alaska and Hawaii (two sets of beams with mirrored content) plus a couple of Hawaii Only or Alaska Only beams. Since the main 129 feeds do not reach those areas (ConUS 48 design) some of the HD channels there are mirrored across. (There are spots on 129 that could serve Alaska and Hawaii as well.)



> (although D*'s 110 is inactive)


Hey if you're not using it DISH could put up some new HD there.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> It depends on how you do the math and what a "CONUS equivalent channel" is.
> 
> Actually, DISH is doing this. They have a set of spotbeams aimed at Alaska and Hawaii (two sets of beams with mirrored content) plus a couple of Hawaii Only or Alaska Only beams. Since the main 129 feeds do not reach those areas (ConUS 48 design) some of the HD channels there are mirrored across. (There are spots on 129 that could serve Alaska and Hawaii as well.)
> 
> Hey if you're not using it DISH could put up some new HD there.


I was thinking of how many total transponders they need for spots, and what the re-use rate is. I.e. if they can average a 20x spot re-use on a new satellite, that would be 11 TP's for all markets, if they can fit everything for a given market on one TP. Of course then there's HD LIL's but anyways...

DirecTV will use it eventually, it's going to have to be foreign language or LIL's though, as the SL3's can't see it. I think their plan is to keep the LIL's that are on 119 there, and use the rest of 119 and 110 for foreign language/ para todos, and concentrate all CONUS HD and HD LIL's on 99 and 103, with the legacy (SD) on 101?

Dish already has a crapload of HD-Lite, although they do they would do well to upgrade it to real HD.


----------

