# DIRECTV Has the HD 'Capacity' to Bamboozle



## markrw58 (Apr 5, 2007)

Thoughts, comments on this opinion..



> Commentary
> DIRECTV Has the HD 'Capacity' to Bamboozle
> By Swanni
> Washington, D.C. (December 1, 2009) -- DIRECTV is now running a series of clever TV commercials depicting a fictional cable TV company discussing ways to combat the satcaster's HDTV programming lineup.
> ...


Mod Edit (Tom Robertson): To protect the rights of the copyright holder, please do not include the full text of articles from other sources.

To see the rest of Swanni's commentary, please follow this link: http://www.tvpredictions.com/dads120109.htm


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, Swanni does have a tendency to be a little over the top, but I have to admit that I thought this was a little misleading as well when they started running them. I think they are fine to run it legally as they do say soon will have the capacity, but it does seem like it is designed to confuse people into thinking DirecTV is still the HD leader. Especially with the graph behind the guy, that Swanni does not even mention, where DirecTV is shown well over all the other lines. Of course, there is no timescale so I am sure they are fine legally there also.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Swanni: Pot, meet kettle.

Ok, so he might not count the PPVs as HD channels--yet for capacity planning, they take up a full HD channel space. (And possibly are required by contracts with studios...)

He might not "like" DIRECTV's choices for channels, yet they still are channels.

He might not like many things DIRECTV, yet he still rails upon them regularly...

Ah well, he's entitled to his opinion. And obviously knows how to share it.

Lastly, who knows how much these channels will cost? Many might be already covered by existing contracts. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## transam98 (Dec 2, 2009)

Now the scumbags at direct tv need to QUIT Charging nickel and dime prices of $10.00 per month for HD Channels which are the NORM Now plus Cable Companies PROVIDE ALL Locals in HD FOR FREE and Most other HD Channels are FREE with the SD Version of them !!!!!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm not a big fan of Swanni, Tom, but he does make a point. When this commercial first came out several weeks ago, my instant reaction was, "What a crock of s--t!" I felt then and still feel now that DirecTV is really BSing people.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

transam98 said:


> Now the scumbags at direct tv need to QUIT Charging nickel and dime prices of $10.00 per month for HD Channels which are the NORM Now plus Cable Companies PROVIDE ALL Locals in HD FOR FREE and Most other HD Channels are FREE with the SD Version of them !!!!!


Cable is free? Really? Not in my area.


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm sick of Swanni's anti-DirecTV blogs (yes that's all they are is blogs, he's NOT a reporter OR an insider). He thinks he can predict the future but he can't. The commercials say (after D12) they'll have the CAPACITY for 200 HD channels. This is a provable fact. What's unprovable is his belief of what the new capacity will be used for. he doesn't know the contracts with each individual channel. he doesn't know what will be added and when, or what won't be added. He's really full of himself thinking he knows what will happen 6 months from now.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

transam98 said:


> Now the scumbags at direct tv need to QUIT Charging nickel and dime prices of $10.00 per month for HD Channels which are the NORM Now plus Cable Companies PROVIDE ALL Locals in HD FOR FREE and Most other HD Channels are FREE with the SD Version of them !!!!!


Which provider are you referring to?
Cable HD Setups cost more than Cable SD setups.
Sat HD Setups cost more than Sat SD setups.

Time Warner, Cox, Comcast... Dish & DirecTV

& for the record, when I saw Capacity for 200HD channels, I understood Capacity for 200HD channels.
I dont care if its 200HD PPV channels, or 180 HD PPV channels with 20 HD locals, etc etc etc. Capacity does not mean existence.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

I think they are kind funny. Nothing more or less. I know what I'm getting for the price I pay and I'm satisfied with that. Those commercials aren't going to change my mind one way or another nor will the opinion of some guy raving in a blog.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> I'm not a big fan of Swanni, Tom, but he does make a point. When this commercial first came out several weeks ago, my instant reaction was, "What a crock of s--t!" I felt then and still feel now that DirecTV is really BSing people.


I might be more sympathetic to his point if he didn't go so over the top with his rant.

And since the whole industry is very creative with their channel counting, I pretty much don't jump and down over anyone's numbers.

Lastly, there are going to be a lot of new channels on DIRECTV soon. I'd rather Woohoo! that, than be a Swanni poopoo. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Patience is a virtue, catch it if you can. Seldom born a woman, never born a man.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Swanni's blogs = !pusht!


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Swanni's blogs = !pusht!


Don't forget:

:icon_lame

!rolling

:beatdeadhorse:

:bonk1:

and of course

:icon_stup


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

IIRC the same things were coming up when DirecTV used to run the ad's about soon having capacity for 150 national HD channels before D10 went active. They say capacity in the ad's, if folks don't know what the word capacity meand then yes they'd be mad. 

As for Swanni, every since he dad had problems with DirecTV he has done nothing but bash them whenever possible, just ignore him.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Comcast and others are currently getting rid of analog TV channels so they can up the number of HD channels offered,some estimates say they could easily add 80+ channels on their digital boxes.


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

The one thing I REALLY HATE about Directv is the abuse of the word "Soon". I signed up in 2006 because they were going to "SOON have 150 HD Channels". Guess what - a year and half later we got less than a 100. Then in 2007 we were going to get PBS HD "Soon" - the roll out started a year later and several large markets still don't have it today. 
I invested too much in Diretv to easily change but I want to stuff a towel in the mouth of anyone at Directv that says the word "soon".


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

When I first saw that commercial I thought that was a little over the top then I realized that it's better than watching beonce rolling 
around in gold one more time. Swanni claims directv will grow from 130 hd channel "capacity" to 200 channels. Can 1 satellite really 
add 50% bandwidth? Can anybody verify those numbers? That is fantastic and great news for the future (if it's true). 

Now as soon as d12 goes on line how many national hd channels can directv turn on? Maybe 10 like swanni said and hopefully about 
10 more hbo etc. channels for us premier subscribers. That is about all that exists now right? Is there any confirmation of these new 
channels under contract within the next 3 months? They have been growing all around us on fiber (with fast internet). Swanni is generally 
negative about directv but he is more knowedgeable than any regular reporter. It is his specialty. Please disprove his rants with facts for us 
common folks. Thanks


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

kikkenit2 said:


> When I first saw that commercial I thought that was a little over the top then I realized that it's better than watching beonce rolling
> around in gold one more time. Swanni claims directv will grow from 130 hd channel "capacity" to 200 channels. Can 1 satellite really
> add 50% bandwidth? Can anybody verify those numbers? That is fantastic and great news for the future (if it's true).
> 
> ...


Again, he NOT a reporter, he's a BLOGGER. His rants are 100% his own opinion and 0% fact. His so called "reports" are stuff he cut and pasted off Google News (It's called plagiarism).


----------



## je4755 (Dec 11, 2006)

As noted above, the “capacity/up to” issue bruited by “Swanni” has been discussed on this forum countless times. I share his concern and am hedging my bets by upgrading my Comcast package – which now will include, among others, Travel Channel HD, Versus HD and AMC HD – on December 15th for six months. I trust by the end of this period DirecTV will all offer these channels, many other national HD networks and the full range of HD locals (my DMA still only receives SD LIL) so I can cut costs. But, as “Swanni” suggests – although I have more hope and a tad less cynicism – we’ll see.


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

Well by calling him not a regular reporter I meant blogger. He is not a regular reporter and you may not agree with his opinions but he still knows way more about directv than any "reporter" or name one. I don't care to read tons of threads about speculation or opinions of the future. Again please does anybody have any facts to dispute or prove wrong his opinions? The dislike of his comments by most is fine with me but i'm most interested in the content of his speculation. When are we getting the national hd channels that most of the competition already has? And what about all these channels that comcast is buying up? Versus is just the start. We could be losing 5 more comcast owned channels soon. It looks like comcast is going to ask directv to pay exclusive rates that are legal but directv isn't willing to pay! I guess im looking for more answers than misleading funny commercials.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kikkenit2 said:


> When I first saw that commercial I thought that was a little over the top then I realized that it's better than watching beonce rolling
> around in gold one more time. Swanni claims directv will grow from 130 hd channel "capacity" to 200 channels. Can 1 satellite really
> add 50% bandwidth? Can anybody verify those numbers? That is fantastic and great news for the future (if it's true).
> 
> ...


Be happy to help.

The simplest (but sans info) answer is Yes, one satellite can at 50% National HD capacity.

Ok, the slightly longer but much more helpful answer is there are currently 2 satellites broadcasting HD Nationals. So one satellite is (approximately) 50% more.

There are much more complicated answers if you want, that break down the transponders at each orbital slot, how many National HD channels each has, and the few channels for Distant Networks, as well as the few remaining old MPEG2 HD channels on 119 and 110. For that breakdown, I refer you to these excellent threads:

Sixto Report: D12/RB-2A Info: Launch Date set 12/29/2009 and
 DirecTV HD - Current Listing 

Warning--there is a lot of very good technical content. Enter when you have time for a few headaches. 

Hope this helps,
Tom


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

The scientific fact is D12 can hold 80 HD channels. Which channels it'll carry and exactly when they'll be added, nobody knows


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Cable is free? Really? Not in my area.


No, he meant that basic HD service is included in the base price of cable companies, and that is true of the three areas I am familiar with (Grenada, MS/CableOne, Helena, AL/Charter, Bessemer, AL/Brighthouse). All offer free basic HD. Brighthouse even carries all the locals in HD which DirecTV doesn't do yet. CableOne carries only one local in HD, but DirecTV carries none at all, so&#8230;

Heck CableOne gives me that one HD affiliate for free even though I'm only an internet subscriber. But that's neither here nor there. The point is the cable companies offer less HD generally, but also charge less. DirecTV could one-up everyone by dropping the charge.

Swanni may have a gargantuan ax to grind with DirecTV, so I take all he harps about with a huge grain of gray sea salt.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

I find the "and it's in FULL 1080p..." line in the ads more disingenuous than the capacity portion.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

My opinion on Swami's article... Can't fix stupid!


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Bottom line is the obvious "INTENT" of the commercials is to make people "THINK" there will be 200 HD channels despite the fact it says "capacity.". *That is the purpose of advertising.* It's no different for ANY company be it DBS or Cellular or Automobile. Why there has to be such a big discussion over a commercial is beyond me. Is the "salad shooter" the best appliance out there just because they say so? Does the thighmaster make every woman's thighs look like Suzanne Somers' ? Does "herbal Viagra" work just as good as the real thing? :lol:

C'mon people, it's just a silly advertisement. What's the big deal. You should have learned that from watching Mad Men.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Tom Servo said:


> No, he meant that basic HD service is included in the base price of cable companies, and that is true of the three areas I am familiar with (Grenada, MS/CableOne, Helena, AL/Charter, Bessemer, AL/Brighthouse). All offer free basic HD. Brighthouse even carries all the locals in HD which DirecTV doesn't do yet. CableOne carries only one local in HD, but DirecTV carries none at all, so&#8230;
> 
> Heck CableOne gives me that one HD affiliate for free even though I'm only an internet subscriber. But that's neither here nor there. The point is the cable companies offer less HD generally, but also charge less. DirecTV could one-up everyone by dropping the charge.


I know what he meant, but it's not what he said.  The fact is, the price of that HD isn't "free" and the customer DOES pay for it. I don't know where the idea is coming from that basic digital cable with HD is less expensive than Directv. That's not a constant nationwide. It's certainly not around here, the last time I checked (about a year ago); the channel selection is inferior to Directv and the quality is decidedly lower. Plus the Comcrap DVRs suck big-time. Would I love to lose the $10 HD Access fee? Heck yeah. But I'm not gonna lose that much sleep over it for now either.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> I know what he meant, but it's not what he said.  *The fact is, the price of that HD isn't "free" and the customer DOES pay for it*. I don't know where the idea is coming from that basic digital cable with HD is less expensive than Directv. That's not a constant nationwide. It's certainly not around here, the last time I checked (about a year ago); the channel selection is inferior to Directv and the quality is decidedly lower. Plus the Comcrap DVRs suck big-time. Would I love to lose the $10 HD Access fee? Heck yeah. But I'm not gonna lose that much sleep over it for now either.


Yes, most of it is made up in expensive equipment rental fees.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> I find the "and it's in FULL 1080p..." line in the ads more disingenuous than the capacity portion.


Agreed.

In the battle of slimy and disingenuous advertising, DirecTV has certainly learned to compete with Cable and Dish. There was a day when they seemed to be above that fray, but no more. Shame, really.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Tom Servo said:


> Heck CableOne gives me that one HD affiliate for free even though I'm only an internet subscriber. But that's neither here nor there. The point is the cable companies offer less HD generally, but also charge less.


Comcast Chicago land charges more then direct tv 
in some parts of the area you need sports pack for the speed channel. Also you need sports pack to get fox movie channel.

And you need comcast digital classic / comcast digital preferred to get sci-fi and others. and that costs about $75 just about the same price as Direct tv HD dvr.

Comcarp wants $16-$20 per HD dvr and $8-$10 per HD box as well.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Headline on local news webpage this morning "Audit: Cable rates increased 21% in the past two years".

That would be Charter, and they have been losing customers left and right to Dish and D* around here. No wonder.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

Fool me once: D11 will provide the ability to have up to 150 HD channels.
Shame on me.
Fool me twice: D12 will provide the ability to have up to 200 HD channels.
Shame on you.

I was a DIRECTV subscriber when D11 was launched. The hype around D11 was the "capacity to provide 150 HD channels," or "up to 150 HD channels." People being optimistic took that to mean that they would soon have 150 HD channels to view. What became fact after the launch is that DIRECTV has never used D11 to actually boost the HD channel count to 150 (and apparently never intended to).

Now they're doing the exact same thing with the D12 launch. "Up to 200 HD channels." Go figure. My guess is they won't have anywhere close to 200 HD channels, although D12 may allow them to reach the 150 mark.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Coca Cola Kid said:


> I'm sick of Swanni's anti-DirecTV blogs (yes that's all they are is blogs, he's NOT a reporter OR an insider). He thinks he can predict the future but he can't. The commercials say (after D12) they'll have the CAPACITY for 200 HD channels. This is a provable fact.


Personally, I would feel much better about the commercial if they mentioned that it will be after the launch of the new satellite. THey leave this fact out purposefully so it is a littel harder for someone to realize just how soon it may or may not be.

Thean again, as others mentioned, it is just another ad and I usually look at any advertising with a very skeptical eye.

I will have to say, in general, I really like these series of commercials. Much better (and much quieter, thankfully) than the Beyonce ones, no doubt.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

l8er said:


> Fool me once: D11 will provide the ability to have up to 150 HD channels.
> Shame on me.
> Fool me twice: D12 will provide the ability to have up to 200 HD channels.
> Shame on you.
> ...


I think D11 was used more for local HD channel launches than national HD channels.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> I think D11 was used more for local HD channel launches than national HD channels.


It most certainly was. Besides which, with their subscriber base growing even in a bad economy, Directv has had little incentive to continue to add marginal channels that won't add substantially to their revenue stream. Face it: they're in business to make money for their shareholders, not to cater to the TravelHD fanbois.  And of course, you can insert whatever favorite channel(s) you want in place of TravelHD. Me, I want AMC HD and HBO Signature, but even without those I'm happy enough not to switch. If that ever changes, I will change providers. It's as simple and unemotional as that.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> He might not "like" DIRECTV's choices for channels, yet they still are channels.


A channel is more than a quantum of bandwidth. What DIRECTV is offering on as many as five HD quantums at a time is a single movie staggered on 30 minute starts. Looking at this mornings schedule, Terminator Salvation is playing on nine channels (five HD, four SD)

Justifying it by saying that "their contract requires it" is not very comforting. Who negotiated their contract for them?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> I think D11 was used more for local HD channel launches than national HD channels.


D10 had some problems with its spot beams, so D11 had to be used.

Capacity is one thing, while signed contracts is another.
Capacity is a technical issue, and contracts are a legal issue.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Justifying it by saying that "their contract requires it" is not very comforting. Who negotiated their contract for them?


"Comforting?" What planet do you live on where corporations have "comforting" you as their real goals? And if you're not happy, change providers.

Oh, that's right. You're not even a subscriber.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Justin23 said:


> I think D11 was used more for local HD channel launches than national HD channels.


People though tend to forget that D11 also allowed for all the old MPEG2 HD channels to be mirrored in MPEG4 and got rid of HD-Lite. It also added a bunch of RSN's as full time channels and all the pesky HD PPV channels that share transponder space with the part time RSN's and NFL Sunday Ticket and NASCAR Hot Pass channels. So D11 did allow for a bunch of new HD channels, just not the channels many folks were hoping for.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> A channel is more than a quantum of bandwidth. What DIRECTV is offering on as many as five HD quantums at a time is a single movie staggered on 30 minute starts. Looking at this mornings schedule, Terminator Salvation is playing on nine channels (five HD, four SD)
> 
> Justifying it by saying that "their contract requires it" is not very comforting. Who negotiated their contract for them?


And as a Dish sub, you're saying Dish doesn't do the same thing?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

RAD said:


> People though tend to forget that D11 also allowed for all the old MPEG2 HD channels to be mirrored in MPEG4 and got rid of HD-Lite. It also added a bunch of RSN's as full time channels and all the pesky HD PPV channels that share transponder space with the part time RSN's and NFL Sunday Ticket and NASCAR Hot Pass channels. So D11 did allow for a bunch of new HD channels, just not the channels many folks were hoping for.


And as a result of all that, it really gave Directv a lot more flexibility with their bandwidth, since just about all their core HD programming is now MPEG4-only (and the last few like HBO, TNT and ESPN/ESPN2 soon will be as well I'm sure). That leaves 110 and 119 open for other underserved niche programming and increases revenue while consolidating the big-money sports and mainstream programming at the core 99-101-103 slots. That, in turn, simplifies installations and lowers hardware and service costs overall.


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Bottom line is the obvious "INTENT" of the commercials is to make people "THINK" there will be 200 HD channels despite the fact it says "capacity.". *That is the purpose of advertising.* It's no different for ANY company be it DBS or Cellular or Automobile. Why there has to be such a big discussion over a commercial is beyond me. Is the "salad shooter" the best appliance out there just because they say so? Does the thighmaster make every woman's thighs look like Suzanne Somers' ? Does "herbal Viagra" work just as good as the real thing? :lol:
> 
> C'mon people, it's just a silly advertisement. What's the big deal. You should have learned that from watching Mad Men.


Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Thank you, TBlazer07.

I might add that Swanni's blog helps to increase his web traffic which helps to increase his ad revenue. Cha-ching.

To everyone that reads Mr. Swanni's blog - You are helping to put money in his pocket. Just think about that when you come here and ***** and moan about his posts.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Bottom line is the obvious "INTENT" of the commercials is to make people "THINK" there will be 200 HD channels despite the fact it says "capacity.". *That is the purpose of advertising.*


Yeah, that's the way I see it, too. It's like those ads for saving on car insurance. Each one of them says they can save me "up to" several hundred dollars. If each one of them were really able to save me several hundred dollars, I'd only need to swap insurance companies a few times and then they'd be paying _me_! :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Lastly, there are going to be a lot of new channels on DIRECTV soon.


There's that magic word again: "soon".

The current plan is for a little over six months from today.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> The current plan is for a little over six months from today.


Great news, Harsh! And can you tell us exactly which channels that will include?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> And as a Dish sub, you're saying Dish doesn't do the same thing?


Dish maxes out at about three HD and three SD showings simultaneously.

The point being that I don't consider these channels at all as they are showing the same movie all day long on multiple channel numbers.

This is another one of those many issues where it just doesn't matter who your provider is (but you chose to make an issue of it anyway).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rudeney said:


> Great news, Harsh! And can you tell us exactly which channels that will include?


The plan doesn't include channels, silly.

The plan is all about "capacity".


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Dish maxes out at about three HD and three SD showings simultaneously.
> 
> The point being that I don't consider these channels at all as they are showing the same movie all day long on multiple channel numbers.
> 
> This is another one of those many issues where it just doesn't matter who your provider is (but you chose to make an issue of it anyway).


I "made an issue" since I don't have dish and wanted to know.
DirecTV is promoting the new release. Does dish even offer it yet? [again just want to know].
What you or I "consider" channels isn't really the point [is it] but that they do seem to be there. Next week they could be carrying different [re-runs] movies.
"Fake channels" would be those that are merely being mirrored to other channel numbers.
As it always becomes: How many HD channels would you watch, are the numbers that matter.
More capacity means "I might" find more to watch.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> This is another one of those many issues where it just doesn't matter who your provider is (but you chose to make an issue of it anyway).


YOU are the one, as a Dish sub, who chooses to [mod edit](peruse) the Directv threads and YOU are the one, as a Dish sub, who made an issue of it. Silly doggy.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> The plan doesn't include channels, silly.
> 
> The plan is all about "capacity".


And you claim to sit on the Directv management team now too? We all know how well your previous predictions about satellite operations have worked out, so it's gonna be fun to find these posts again in late spring.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Well Satelliteracer said somewhere around here that "99% of us would be happy" with the launch of D12 and the new HD channels coming soon.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Well Satelliteracer said somewhere around here that "99% of us would be happy" with the launch of D12 and the new HD channels coming soon.


But it's the 1% that ***** the most. :lol:


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

stephenC said:


> I might add that Swanni's blog helps to increase his web traffic which helps to increase his ad revenue. Cha-ching.
> 
> To everyone that reads Mr. Swanni's blog - You are helping to put money in his pocket. Just think about that when you come here and ***** and moan about his posts.


Another ding, ding, ding.

The Swanster benefits financially from the traffic. Simple as that.


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

LameLefty said:


> YOU are the one, as a Dish sub, who chooses to troll the Directv threads and YOU are the one, as a Dish sub, who made an issue of it. Silly doggy.


I've found that if you ignore barking dogs, they shut up and go away :lol::lol:


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

I've noticed something about Swanni's site-he has no place to leave comments on his bloviating. I guess he's been burned once (or twice or a million) times before.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

Newshawk said:


> I've noticed something about Swanni's site-he has no place to leave comments on his bloviating. I guess he's been burned once (or twice or a million) times before.


You can access the area, but the last article he allowed comments on was Feb 2009. He can dish it out, but he can't take it in return.


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

Newshawk said:


> I've noticed something about Swanni's site-he has no place to leave comments on his bloviating. I guess he's been burned once (or twice or a million) times before.


There's an email address on the bottom. [email protected]


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> A channel is more than a quantum of bandwidth. What DIRECTV is offering on as many as five HD quantums at a time is a single movie staggered on 30 minute starts. Looking at this mornings schedule, Terminator Salvation is playing on nine channels (five HD, four SD)
> 
> Justifying it by saying that "their contract requires it" is not very comforting. Who negotiated their contract for them?


So let me understand this... You're complaining that DIRECTV is offering one of the hottest releases on sufficient cycles to give everyone the chance to watch roughly when they want to watch? A whole 5 channels?

And later comparing that to Dish with "at about three HD" as an example of "about" a good thing? Why should I be happy about waiting 2 hours for the start of the next showing? It might be just a quantum of bandwidth to you, but it's a missed opportunity for revenue for Dish. I could drive to the far side of Salt Lake (50 miles) and find it at 10 video stores and drive back in that amount of time. (Of course, if I were stupid enough to do that drive instead of going around the corner, I might be stupid enough to actually wait the two hours.) Thankfully, I'm not stupid, I have DIRECTV. !rolling

Maybe it's a good thing that DIRECTV has more than 14 HD PPV channels...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Thankfully, I'm not stupid, I have DIRECTV. !rolling


:lol: I think this would make a great tagline for a commercial!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> So let me understand this... You're complaining that DIRECTV is offering one of the hottest releases on sufficient cycles to give everyone the chance to watch roughly when they want to watch?


Yes. Playing a movie three or four times in an evening should be sufficient for most.

DIRECTV played the movie about 60 times today in HD alone; is that really necessary?

Are that many people biting at $5.99 a whack?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> I could drive to the far side of Salt Lake (50 miles) and find it at 10 video stores and drive back in that amount of time. (Of course, if I were stupid enough to do that drive instead of going around the corner, I might be stupid enough to actually wait the two hours.) Thankfully, I'm not stupid, I have DIRECTV.


How many DIRECTV Cinema HD movies have you "purchased" recently versus getting them by other means?


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

I have a real dumb question/observation here.

IF, all of the PPV was not needed, because there wasn't such a demand for it, wouldn't D* cut down on the amount of PPV channels that are being broadcast, and route that bandwidth to other desired HD channels that ARE in demand??

Instead it seems that they are launching a brand new satellite (which isn't cheap BTW), to provide the bandwidth for the new HD channels. 

I don't get the argument. As much as I don't like all the PPV channels, it must be working for them that they are paying all that money to launch a new satellite.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I have a real dumb question/observation here.
> 
> IF, all of the PPV was not needed, because there wasn't such a demand for it, wouldn't D* cut down on the amount of PPV channels that are being broadcast, and route that bandwidth to other desired HD channels that ARE in demand??
> 
> ...


Thats a weird way to state your question/observation.

If DirecTV was flat-out losing money on PPVs then yea, they would cut down on them. PPVs are almost a direct profit, and the way they're running, DirecTVs obviously making some money on them.
I'm not a fan of PPV earlier. I'm actually watching Dexter on Netflix on demand right now (the contrast is that I'm a netflix fan). But apparently it's working for DirecTV.

However, if it wasn't working, that doesnt mean they would throw it all out and bring in new channels. New channels cost money, and take time to negotiate. While this new satellite will give DirecTV the capacity for more, that doesn't mean they have negotiations for more (yet).


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

CJTE said:


> New channels cost money, and take time to negotiate. While this new satellite will give DirecTV the capacity for more, that doesn't mean they have negotiations for more (yet).


That is a fair observation. Here is a question.

If D* broadcasts the Travel channel in SD, and they want to broadcast it in HD, does that require additional negotiations? Since it is the same channel, with the same content, I am wondering if there is additional negotiations.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Tom Servo said:


> No, he meant that basic HD service is included in the base price of cable companies, and that is true of the three areas I am familiar with (Grenada, MS/CableOne, Helena, AL/Charter, Bessemer, AL/Brighthouse). All offer free basic HD. Brighthouse even carries all the locals in HD which DirecTV doesn't do yet.


That is also true in Honolulu of TW cable. No extra charge for the HD locals, and TWC carries all of them, while DirecTV only carries some. In fact, if you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of keeping track of the local cable channel numbers and your TV has a capable tuner, you don't even have to rent a box to get local HD channels over cable.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Milkman said:


> That is a fair observation. Here is a question.
> 
> If D* broadcasts the Travel channel in SD, and they want to broadcast it in HD, does that require additional negotiations? Since it is the same channel, with the same content, I am wondering if there is additional negotiations.


Short answer - yes.

The ESPN negotiations were a good indicator of that because a lot of press came out. They wanted more money if you carried the HD channel.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

CJTE said:


> Thats a weird way to state your question/observation.
> 
> If DirecTV was flat-out losing money on PPVs then yea, they would cut down on them. PPVs are almost a direct profit, and the way they're running, DirecTVs obviously making some money on them.
> I'm not a fan of PPV earlier. I'm actually watching Dexter on Netflix on demand right now (the contrast is that I'm a netflix fan). But apparently it's working for DirecTV.
> ...


Suffice it to say, based on comments, press releases, and other information that has floated around, DirecTV could add several new channels fairly rapidly - including the HBOs.

Its a business decision and a direction. As Milk pointed out, they didn't put these on to lose money. And considering DirecTV makes their billions off selecting the right channel mix to attract the most lucrative customers - I'll make the wild assumption they've put a lot more thought into this than any of us. And the results speak for themselves.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

GregLee said:


> That is also true in Honolulu of TW cable. No extra charge for the HD locals, and TWC carries all of them, while DirecTV only carries some. In fact, if you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of keeping track of the local cable channel numbers and your TV has a capable tuner, you don't even have to rent a box to get local HD channels over cable.


How much do they charge, then? How many HD channels (aside from locals) do they carry? How much do they charge to rent their boxes? How do their DVRs work and what is the recording capacity? And to address the OTA issue, you do realize that not everyone lives in a metro area with a giant extinct volcano handy to put their broadcast towers on, right? A good number of us live in hilly terrain.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Milkman said:


> IF, all of the PPV was not needed, because there wasn't such a demand for it, wouldn't D* cut down on the amount of PPV channels that are being broadcast, and route that bandwidth to other desired HD channels that ARE in demand??


I guess what D* is doing works for them. But it's reasonable to discuss whether it works for us, too, isn't it? The welfare of D* is sort of interesting to me, but I'm more interested in my own welfare. The last satellite that D* sent up had very disappointing results for me -- for HD channels that I would ever want to watch, I got zilch. What can I expect when the next satellite goes up? Apparently, nothing. Looking past the deceptions of the D* ads, they make no commitments about carrying any HD channels that will have any interest for me. So I am fully in support of what Swanni says in the linked article.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

GregLee said:


> I guess what D* is doing works for them. But it's reasonable to discuss whether it works for us, too, isn't it? The welfare of D* is sort of interesting to me, but I'm more interested in my own welfare. The last satellite that D* sent up had very disappointing results for me -- for HD channels that I would ever want to watch, I got zilch. What can I expect when the next satellite goes up? Apparently, nothing. Looking past the deceptions of the D* ads, they make no commitments about carrying any HD channels that will have any interest for me. So I am fully in support of what Swanni says in the linked article.


Understood Greg, and I actually largely agree... I offer a great adage appropriate to the situation:

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few - Spock​
While I completely agree that I would rather see more normal HD channels (i.e. NON-PPV), I would say that we are probably in the minority, as they must be making lots of money on the PPV.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

BudShark said:


> Short answer - yes.
> 
> The ESPN negotiations were a good indicator of that because a lot of press came out. They wanted more money if you carried the HD channel.


I could be wrong, but I don't know if I would classify ESPN negotiations as a indicator of the rest of the market. With HD Sports being in such HUGE demand, I don't know if that would be the same as say, The Travel Channel.

BTW I consider that the biggest ripoff going. The same that I do Superfan. What a joke.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Milkman said:


> Instead it seems that they are launching a brand new satellite (which isn't cheap BTW), to provide the bandwidth for the new HD channels.


The new satellite will also help future proof themselves with more bandwidth as more channels go HD.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Milkman said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't know if I would classify ESPN negotiations as a indicator of the rest of the market. With HD Sports being in such HUGE demand, I don't know if that would be the same as say, The Travel Channel.
> 
> BTW I consider that the biggest ripoff going. The same that I do Superfan. What a joke.


I agree. Why pay twice for a channel? Broadcasters and providers need to start doing away with SD channels altogether "sooner than later" and just have all HD channels. Those with SDTVs could receive a downrezed HD channel.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> How much do they charge, then? How many HD channels (aside from locals) do they carry? How much do they charge to rent their boxes? How do their DVRs work and what is the recording capacity? And to address the OTA issue, you do realize that not everyone lives in a metro area with a giant extinct volcano handy to put their broadcast towers on, right? A good number of us live in hilly terrain.


TWC's web site gives $13.52/month as their rate for basic cable, and with the right tuner, that is enough to get local HD, though it is not very convenient. A cable box and subscription to digital cable that lets you tune to the locals using the cable channel numbers is $67.53. Local HD is no extra, as I said.

I wasn't saying anything about OTA, only about cable. Actually, I am in a hilly area, too, and I can receive no TV OTA at all. I'm not aware that the local TV broadcast towers in Honolulu are on extinct volcanoes (though of course all the mountains on Oahu are ancient lava flows), but at any rate there are tall cliffs between me and them.

Did you really want to know about cable DVRs and recording capacities? I don't see the relevance.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> It most certainly was. Besides which, with their subscriber base growing even in a bad economy, Directv has had little incentive to continue to add marginal channels that won't add substantially to their revenue stream. Face it: they're in business to make money for their shareholders, not to cater to the TravelHD fanbois.  And of course, you can insert whatever favorite channel(s) you want in place of TravelHD. Me, I want AMC HD and HBO Signature, but even without those I'm happy enough not to switch. If that ever changes, I will change providers. It's as simple and unemotional as that.


Yes, it was used more for locals, but that was in direct conflict with what DirecTV SAID it would be used for in their D11 press release. National HD was clearly and undeniably the focus of that press release, and on national HD, D11 delivered next to nothing.

Not arguing the need for locals, RSN's, etc., but to suggest the company "did what they said they would" is silly.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> Yes. Playing a movie three or four times in an evening should be sufficient for most.
> 
> DIRECTV played the movie about 60 times today in HD alone; is that really necessary?
> 
> Are that many people biting at $5.99 a whack?


If they weren't buying it, DirecTV wouldn't keep selling it.

Ultimately, corporations act in their own best interests. Wasting valuable quantums on endeavors that are not profitable won't be tolerated long.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And I'm not quite sure that's a bad thing. Certainly you have to offer value, not just suck profits, but clearly a lot of people see the value in PPV.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

When I lived 15 miles out in the sticks and in the days before widespread adoption of DVDs and the advent of Netflix, my wife and I used to order one or two PPVs per week. It was a sensible, cost efficient (about $1.99 as I recall) way to watch movies for us. It's less so now, since we do have a Netflix account (and streaming through both our Macs and PCs as well as XBox Live to the big TV), but on occasion it's still an option for spur-of-the-moment viewing. It's still certainly WAY cheaper and more convenient than a night at the movies with the whole family (the cost of which can easily push $100 even out here in small city suburbia).

Clearly, enough people find value in it for Directv to offer it, whether any of us would prefer the bandwidth be used for something else.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> The new satellite will also help future proof themselves with more bandwidth as more channels go HD.


I don't know about future proof, it does give more bandwidth. If you look at the list of available HD channels they could add with D12, they could fill up D12


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

In short, Swanni needed more hits on his site. When he finds himself in that position, he dredges up old news or makes inflammatory statements.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> How many DIRECTV Cinema HD movies have you "purchased" recently versus getting them by other means?


I rarely use PPV. I have watched a few, the most recent set came via a subscriber anniversary gift--just like any other 11 year sub. And all my PPV comes like any other sub.

If you're "suggesting" I get programming for free, I do not. I did eat some munchies at CES a couple times. 

I have participated in field tests--along with many others here. 

Mostly I buy movies or watch on the premium channels--that I also pay for.

And I'm still glad I don't have to fit my schedule around Dish Networks PPV. I'm glad that those times I do want to watch something, I'm not twiddling my thumbs for the next couple hours...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

From the article: "...leaving it far short of the 200 HD channel mark. However, it will count on the NFL Sunday Ticket to keep disappointed HD viewers on board for the next six months and beyond."

That's not much of a prediction, that's what DIRECTV does now.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> "Comforting?" What planet do you live on where corporations have "comforting" you as their real goals? And if you're not happy, change providers.
> 
> Oh, that's right. You're not even a subscriber.


Give Harsh a break. He's still trying to find something to distract him from the lack of comfort that DISH gave him when one of their recent satellite launches failed to reached a usable orbit.... "What?", "The satellite ended up where?" :hair:


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> Cable is free? Really? Not in my area.


Same here. Local Telephone cable Co charges ""*$16.95 a month*" *for HD Service. NOT including a DVR That's another $11 a month for that.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

xmguy said:


> Same here. Local Telephone cable Co charges ""*$16.95 a month*" *for HD Service. NOT including a DVR That's another $11 a month for that.


In fact, in my area, Comcast charges $72.95/month for "over 100 digital channels", plus $7.95/month for HD (no specific mention of how many HD channels there actually are), plus $15.95 for DVR service ("Records up to 90 hours (SD programming)").

Nope, not free.


----------



## kog (Jul 11, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> In fact, in my area, Comcast charges $72.95/month for "over 100 digital channels", plus $7.95/month for HD (no specific mention of how many HD channels there actually are), plus $15.95 for DVR service ("Records up to 90 hours (SD programming)").
> 
> Nope, not free.


It's not free but Comcast does not charge extra for HD. They no longer have a HD tier for their programming. If they carry an HD version of the channel in your lineup then you can get it. The $7.95 fee you're quoting is the hardware fee for the box that can receive HD. But if you had something like a TivoHD you don't need to pay that, though you would most likely need to rent a cable card (or two) to get all the channels you're suppose to.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

kog said:


> It's not free but Comcast does not charge extra for HD. They no longer have a HD tier for their programming. If they carry an HD version of the channel in your lineup then you can get it. The $7.95 fee you're quoting is the hardware fee for the box that can receive HD. But if you had something like a TivoHD you don't need to pay that, though you would most likely need to rent a cable card (or two) to get all the channels you're suppose to.


Um, that's not what it says for my local area. Yours may be different.

Ah, the joys of multistate cable companies (which now own the content as well as the pipes to deliver it).


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

harsh said:


> The plan doesn't include channels, silly.
> 
> The plan is all about "capacity".


 I have no idea what you just said Harsh? :shrug:

I am readin through this thread trying to see what all the ruckus is about, and the whole time I am just asking... do you have DirecTV?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

kog said:


> It's not free but Comcast does not charge extra for HD. They no longer have a HD tier for their programming. If they carry an HD version of the channel in your lineup then you can get it. The $7.95 fee you're quoting is the hardware fee for the box that can receive HD. But if you had something like a TivoHD you don't need to pay that, though you would most likely need to rent a cable card (or two) to get all the channels you're suppose to.


some comcast systems do have the HD cable card fee as well.

also there may be a outlet fee + cable card rent as well.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Seattle area Comcast charges $6.50 per month for HD and $8.95 per month for a DVR. The DVR is 90 hours of SD and does not permit recording their on-demand channel/programming. Six month introductory offer for $45 a month which raises to $75 a month on the seventh month (plus HD and DVR puts it at about $91 a month). That's for one TV set/location. Their service is now completely digital, so every television requires a box, just as DirecTV does.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

The only reason I have questions over HD PPV is the fact that so many people seem to have HD DVRs. I was a long time holdout for that upgrade and it seemed like I was one of a handful here with an Hxx box. With DVRs there is absolutely no reason to be sending so many movies down so many dedicated channels. Now only one bedroom has HD with no DVR.

With SD on the other hand, I completely understand why there are so many channels, since it is my understanding that SD users are less likely to have the DVR service.


----------



## cgking114 (Mar 5, 2007)

gregjones said:


> In short, Swanni needed more hits on his site. When he finds himself in that position, he dredges up old news or makes inflammatory statements.


:goodjob:


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Tom Servo said:


> The only reason I have questions over HD PPV is the fact that so many people seem to have HD DVRs. I was a long time holdout for that upgrade and it seemed like I was one of a handful here with an Hxx box. With DVRs there is absolutely no reason to be sending so many movies down so many dedicated channels. Now only one bedroom has HD with no DVR.
> 
> With SD on the other hand, I completely understand why there are so many channels, since it is my understanding that SD users are less likely to have the DVR service.


They need a lot of them for RSN HD over flows, NFLST, HOT PASS, and other part time sports needs.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Obviously Comcast differs by location. Fortunately for us, this very day I received this snail mail:









Very interesting they only compare themselves to Dish Network , but clearly our local charge for HD is $7. (Plus all the fun larger charges for DVRs...)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Obviously Comcast differs by location. Fortunately for us, this very day I received this snail mail:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that more like $7 per HD box.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

transam98 said:


> Now the scumbags at direct tv need to QUIT Charging nickel and dime prices of $10.00 per month for HD Channels which are the NORM Now plus Cable Companies PROVIDE ALL Locals in HD FOR FREE and Most other HD Channels are FREE with the SD Version of them !!!!!


correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't cable charge extra for digital service? to be honest, i don't really care about how the costs are itemized, i care about the total amount i am paying. assuming the cable could offer everything that d* does, do you really think cable would cost less than d*? i don't.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

So he thinks that D* will only add 10 channels of HD after D12 is launched? Well, that's a prediction that he might want to revise.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> So he thinks that D* will only add 10 channels of HD after D12 is launched? Well, that's a prediction that he might want to revise.


Oh snap.....Swanni just got SERVED! :lol:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> So he thinks that D* will only add 10 channels of HD after D12 is launched? Well, that's a prediction that he might want to revise.


Swanni just got a smackdown. :lol:


----------



## wolfjc (Oct 4, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Obviously Comcast differs by location. Fortunately for us, this very day I received this snail mail:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The HD charge for Dish is $10.00 there is no up.
They changed the extra HD of $10.00 for Platinum is now included in the basic HD fee.


----------



## wolfjc (Oct 4, 2006)

Now they're doing the exact same thing with the D12 launch. "Up to 200 HD channels." Go figure. My guess is they won't have anywhere close to 200 HD channels, although D12 may allow them to reach the 150 mark."

Where are there 200 new HD channels?
I seriously doubt that there any were near 200 new national HD channels out there anywhere.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

It's all in how you read the words, too. When D12 becomes operational, is the author saying 10 HD channels will not launch that day or forever? Not sure how to read his words on that one. But yeah, it will be more than 10 channels, whether they all go up on a certain day remains to be seen. Depends on a number of factors on the actual timing but D* isn't launching a bird with all this capacity to sit on it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

wolfjc said:


> Now they're doing the exact same thing with the D12 launch. "Up to 200 HD channels." Go figure. My guess is they won't have anywhere close to 200 HD channels, although D12 may allow them to reach the 150 mark."
> 
> Where are there 200 new HD channels?
> I seriously doubt that there any were near 200 new national HD channels out there anywhere.


There are 144 total HDs out there not counting RSNs or networks.
46 Premiums
98 Nationals


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

dhines said:


> correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't cable charge extra for digital service? to be honest, i don't really care about how the costs are itemized, i care about the total amount i am paying. assuming the cable could offer everything that d* does, do you really think cable would cost less than d*? i don't.


Perhaps, with cable it's all about the boxes. I've only got one HD set, so for the three other TVs they could make do with no digital cable and no boxes. Since I have to have boxes with DirecTV no matter what, two of them are HD, downconverted to SD.

So for the time being, cable here would be way cheaper but it also has fewer HD channels to enjoy&#8230; although I could live with it I suppose since they have the ones I watch most.

I know I'm probably in the minority in that case, too. Heck you get what you pay for. No matter how much we all complain about stuff D* does, you gotta admit it's still better than cable in most places_!_


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> So he thinks that D* will only add 10 channels of HD after D12 is launched? Well, that's a prediction that he might want to revise.





Satelliteracer said:


> It's all in how you read the words, too.


First, I would like say I think Swanni is an idiot.

But with that said, there is a press release from DirecTV from June of 2007 regarding the launch of the HBO multiplex in HD once D*10 went operational. It did not happen. Then D*11 went operational and it still did not happen. I know I keep bring this point up, but DirecTV did issue the press release and did not follow through.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> But with that said, there is a press release from DirecTV from June of 2007 regarding the launch of the HBO multiplex in HD once D*10 went operational. It did not happen. Then D*11 went operational and it still did not happen. I know I keep bring this point up, but DirecTV did issue the press release and did not follow through.


At the risk of being labeled a "fanboy," or an "apologist" or whatever else, I feel that accuracy requires me to point out three things. First, the 2007 press release was put together before D10 was even launched and certainly before the issue with its spot beams was identified. That may or may not have had an impact on the overall rollout of HD content, but it certainly was putting the horse before the cart. Which leads me to my second point: that press release was put out as marketing material which should ALWAYS be taken with a grain of salt and relied upon only with caution, from any company.

And finally, my last and most important point, Satelliteracer has NEVER given us inaccurate information or dropped hints that were flat out wrong here at DBSTalk.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> So he thinks that D* will only add 10 channels of HD after D12 is launched? Well, that's a prediction that he might want to revise.


Tell it brother! :bowdown:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> At the risk of being labeled a "fanboy," or an "apologist" or whatever else, I feel that accuracy requires me to point out three things. First, the 2007 press release was put together before D10 was even launched and certainly before the issue with its spot beams was identified. That may or may not have had an impact on the overall rollout of HD content, but it certainly was putting the horse before the cart. Which leads me to my second point: that press release was put out as marketing material which should ALWAYS be taken with a grain of salt and relied upon only with caution, from any company.
> 
> And finally, my last and most important point, Satelliteracer has NEVER given us inaccurate information or dropped hints that were flat out wrong here at DBSTalk.


Yes, the PR was put together before D*10. Which means it was also before D*11. Both launched sucessfully, so there is no way it is a capacity issue that the HBO multiplex is not up, spotbeam issue or not.

And yes, Satelliteracer's info has been 100% rock solid and this was not a slam on him. But he stated that its in how you read the words. I can't read the 2007 PR and come up with any other meaning.

So let's Fast Forward here a couple of months. Can you imagine the firestorm that will hit this board if D* uses the D*12 capacity to launch another 50 PPV's and not mainstream channels? Fifty is greater than 10, so satelliteracer's comments will have been accurate.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Yes, the PR was put together before D*10. Which means it was also before D*11. Both launched sucessfully, so there is no way it is a capacity issue that the HBO multiplex is not up, spotbeam issue or not.
> 
> And yes, Satelliteracer's info has been 100% rock solid and this was not a slam on him. But he stated that its in how you read the words. I can't read the 2007 PR and come up with any other meaning.
> 
> So let's Fast Forward here a couple of months. Can you imagine the firestorm that will hit this board if D* uses the D*12 capacity to launch another 50 PPV's and not mainstream channels? Fifty is greater than 10, so satelliteracer's comments will have been accurate.


I feel your pain. My big goal is more premium HDs.  

And you are right, DIRECTV did promote some channels very early on that haven't materialized yet. I presume some legal or technical negotiations (or both) held some channels up far longer than expected--until the capacity ended up being used by other channels first. (So I guess.)

And I'm not complaining. I have been very happy with what we've had so far. Just more would be even better.  

Thankfully, I know I can trust Satelliteracer's comment that 99% of the members/subscribers will be happy with the next round(s) of channels delivered by D12. Ok, maybe it will only be 98%. Or 99.9%. But I'm expecting to be in that large group either way.  

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> So let's Fast Forward here a couple of months. Can you imagine the firestorm that will hit this board if D* uses the D*12 capacity to launch another 50 PPV's and not mainstream channels? Fifty is greater than 10, so satelliteracer's comments will have been accurate.


D11 may have been disappointing for some or many people but DirecTV's choices can be understood even if you don't agree with them.

Taking more RSNs full time HD and PPV HD channels were all about being able to provide their sports coverage with out impacting other things. I was not a subscriber then but have read that they used to have to turn off the HD TNT channel when Sunday Ticket had it's games on because they needed the bandwidth and it was before all the games were HD. DirecTV knew they would need lots of bandwidth for Sunday ticket to be able to provide all the games and the Full Time RSNs ensure that NBA league pass, NHL Center Ice, etc have all their games in HD (these sports packs are remaps of the RSNs). Analysis has shown that at peak usage most of the PPV HD channels have been replaced with other things.

For D11 also mirrored the old mpeg2 channels in mpeg4 at their core location allowing them to start using the SL3 for cheaper/easier installs and less LOS issues.

For D12 we don't have any of these issues to deal with. There are a couple more RSNs that could go full time but I don't see any need for additional PPV channels so I expect that any additional PPV channels will just be temporary when working on getting new National channels running.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Since they still have more SD PPV channels than HD, I bet DIRECTV will add another 10 or so fairly quickly--as permanent additions. 

Aside from that minor point, evan_s' analysis is spot on. There aren't anymore MPEG2's to mirror, there isn't a need for a lot more HD PPVs, and the RSN season is mostly done too.

Bring on the Premiums!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

evan_s said:


> D11 may have been disappointing for some or many people but DirecTV's choices can be understood even if you don't agree with them.


Not trying to beat a dead horse, but the only thing I don't agree with is issuing a PR, then not doing what you said you would do. Tom mentioned possible contractual issues, but I can't imagine a scenario where D* would announce something without the contracts being finalized. There may have been technical issues that we are not aware of, but capacity is not one of them.

And someone may correct me if I am wrong, but TNT-HD and HDNet(due to the overwhelming resistance they got when they shut off TNT-HD during the Chase) were shut off in the MPEG-2 days, and not since D*10 launched.

And yes, D*11 was a disapointment. But again, can you imagine the "disapointment" that will happen if they don't use D*12 to launch some "real" channels.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Not trying to beat a dead horse, but the only thing I don't agree with is issuing a PR, then not doing what you said you would do. Tom mentioned possible contractual issues, but I can't imagine a scenario where D* would announce something without the contracts being finalized. There may have been technical issues that we are not aware of, *but capacity is not one of them.*


Did you actually read what evan_s and Tom wrote? Have you followed Sixto's bandwidth/transponder tracking and analysis at all? Your statement is demonstrably false. They need just about every transponder they've got for the peak of the Sunday Ticket, NASCAR, etc. sports packages on weekends.

However, once D12 is on-orbit and active, that need for overflow capacity for special programming should not be a constraint or issue for adding additional full-time HD channels.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Since they still have more SD PPV channels than HD, I bet DIRECTV will add another 10 or so fairly quickly--as permanent additions.
> 
> Aside from that minor point, evan_s' analysis is spot on. There aren't anymore MPEG2's to mirror, there isn't a need for a lot more HD PPVs, and the RSN season is mostly done too.
> 
> Bring on the Premiums!


Fair enough. I have all the ppv hidden normally so I had no idea if all the PPV channels had a hd version or not =). Even if they do add 10 more permanent PPV channels that still leaves room to add 70 more channels.

I also forgot to mention that D11 has several tps that have been left at 4 channels instead of 5, presumably to allow higher bandwidth for the RSN and part time sports channels like sunday ticket. Possibly also to allow bandwidth for the interactivity feature, the red button sports scores. Once again D12 shouldn't have to deal with this either.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Did you actually read what evan_s and Tom wrote? Have you followed Sixto's bandwidth/transponder tracking and analysis at all? Your statement is demonstrably false. They need just about every transponder they've got for the peak of the Sunday Ticket, NASCAR, etc. sports packages on weekends.


Yes I did, but I stand by my statement. They *HAD* the capacity. They may not now, but they did over the time period from the PR until they ran out.

The PR was issued in June of 2007. After that, D*10 was launched and became operational. Lots of new HD channels were added. The HBO multiplex as announced in the PR, was not included. D*11 was launched. Many RSN's and a few other channels were added, but again the HBO multiplex as announced in the June 2007 PR was not added.

So since the PR was released, they have launched 2 satellites and added over 100 HD channels. Yet they made a choice to not add the majority of the channels they listed in their PR. Capacity may be an issue now, but since that statement, they have had the capacity and chose not to use it for the HBO multiplex.

There is no way to say they did not have the capacity at some point since June 2007.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> ...Yet they made a choice to not add the majority of the channels they listed in their PR. Capacity may be an issue now, but since that statement, they have had the capacity and chose not to use it for the HBO multiplex.
> 
> There is no way to say they did not have the capacity at some point since June 2007.


Having capacity is only half of the battle. Having an agreement is the other. Maybe they chose not to carry them and maybe they were not able to come to an agreement giving them permission to carry them.

Did they *choose* not to carry VS? Comcast made demands which resulted in raising the price.

I agree with a lot of your points, but we cannot assume that it is always the fault of DirecTV. BBC America was a fine example. They went all out advertising that the network would be in HD on a specific date. They then admitted that they had carriage agreements with exactly zero distributors just a month or so before the date.

I don't know why the channels were not carried. But I admit that I don't know.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Remember that it takes two to tango. I've said that a few times here. So when a PR says the plans are to launch X,Y,Z, well X,Y,Z need to be on board. Sometimes those things change, after a PR is sent out. It's unfortunate, but those things do happen from time to time in the real world of business. Heck, there are situations where X,Y, or Z change their mind after the deal is done. Look at Billy Donovan becoming the head coach of the Orlando Magic or many other such transactions that were something on one day and something else a day or two later.

D12 should make many people very pleased on the national scope. D11 made many people happy on a regional or local scope. Let's just keep our fingers crossed that she flies well and straight, ends up in the correct orbit and everything is a go. If so, then we can all enjoy some more HD Festivus in a few months.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

many disagree, but I think they did it right on d11 taking care of locals. those that complained had locals while many of us were ota only with refused waivers to some networks.
I was very happy when I finally got hd locals last year.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> Remember that it takes two to tango. I've said that a few times here. So when a PR says the plans are to launch X,Y,Z, well X,Y,Z need to be on board. Sometimes those things change, after a PR is sent out. It's unfortunate, but those things do happen from time to time in the real world of business. Heck, there are situations where X,Y, or Z change their mind after the deal is done. Look at Billy Donovan becoming the head coach of the Orlando Magic or many other such transactions that were something on one day and something else a day or two later.
> 
> D12 should make many people very pleased on the national scope. D11 made many people happy on a regional or local scope. Let's just keep our fingers crossed that she flies well and straight, ends up in the correct orbit and everything is a go. If so, then we can all enjoy some more HD Festivus in a few months.


Yep, keeping fingers crossed that D12 goes 100%.

What do you think the odds are that we might see a new channel or two before D12 goes active or should all the guessing going on be stopped since there won't be anything added before then?


----------

