# Directv Just Blew E* Out of the Water



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

D* New Hd channels are stunning. Absolutely perfect picture. There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. This is a major step forward for Directv! Congrats!


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Where is that picture of the atomic bomb going off when you need it?


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Kabooooom!


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Now now, lets not gloat.


----------



## JMartinko (Dec 16, 2006)

jal said:


> ......... There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. ................


I will reserve THAT comment until later when they have the 70 or so channels INCLUDING the HD channels up too. Until then, I think it is safe to say that D* is at least BACK in the HD business.

The PQ looks awesome, it will be fun to see what the resolution and bit rates measure on some of these new channels. That may be really where D* is able to give E* some gas....:grin:


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

braven said:


> Now now, lets not gloat.


Yeah right


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

It was all worth it. Kiran Chetry looks fantastic on CNN HD!


----------



## emrmc (Jul 4, 2007)

where are the D* Voom channels?

LOL, crap.


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

jal said:


> It was all worth it. Kiran Chetry looks fantastic on CNN HD!


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

I have to agree... The pictures that I've seen so far are as good as it gets. Absolutely no macroblocking during NFL Replay (Seachickens and Bengels) last night but the color did seem to be a little washed out. I'd have to blame CBS' cameras, as I've noticed that before during games where shadow covers half the field. I now have 53 HD channels (including OTA) in my guide - no repeats. Yeah!


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

jal said:


> D* New Hd channels are stunning. Absolutely perfect picture. There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. This is a major step forward for Directv! Congrats!


Really? There still isn't enough to overtake E*. Besides on the D* website there isnt the 100 channels by end of year, not near what they said it was gona be


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

projectorguru said:


> Really? There still isn't enough to overtake E*. Besides on the D* website there isnt the 100 channels by end of year, not near what they said it was gona be


The PQ on these new HD stations blows E* way


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

E* can't do anything to try to compete right now with the technology and bandwidth they have. Its all over but the crying.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Gee, I remember the E* folks saying no way can D* add all these channels, they don't exist. Even after TWC started to run add saying some new shows would be in HD they were still saying TWC wouldn't be HD until next year. HA!

Now if D* can get Sci-Fi up in the next couple of weeks, which some E* folks were still saying it doesn't exist and no plans to start a HD version, and E* doesn't add then right away I wonder what the reaction will in the E* camp?


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

projectorguru said:


> Really? There still isn't enough to overtake E*. Besides on the D* website there isnt the 100 channels by end of year, not near what they said it was gona be


Are you kidding? This is the old E* talking point. The channels have launched. D* proved itself. Today reminds me of the day I first got satellite back in 96--the pictures were far better than anything Id seen before.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Brandon428 said:


> E* can't do anything to try to compete right now with the technology and Bandwidth they have. Its all over but the crying.


I'm sure JL will be along shortly to say yes they can.


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

projectorguru said:


> Really? There still isn't enough to overtake E*. Besides on the D* website there isnt the 100 channels by end of year, not near what they said it was gona be


I don't know what you are talking about. And, I don't think you do either. They have always advertised a total capacity over the two satellites of 150 national HD channels with UP TO 100 live by the end of the year.


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

jal said:


> Are you kidding? This is the old E* talking point. The channels have launched. D* proved itself. Today reminds me of the day I first got satellite back in 96--the pictures were far better than anything Id seen before.


I'm tryin to figure out how they proved themselves? My Cousin(also my neighbor) told me about half hour ago, hes not impressed, glad hes got more HD, but not near what was supposed to be on D*. I have E* now, maybe switchin to direct cuz of other issues, my point is they are not the leader yet, Charlie will be adding more shortly, we are only missing about 5 of the channels you guys got this morning, the rest we had. I'm glad D* is rolling them out, but its still short of the promised number


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

Don't forget...

And TWC
And Comcast
And practically every cable provider out there


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

E* will catch up, as will cable eventually. That's why competition and capitalism rocks. The reason I've stuck with DirecTV is simple:

* better prices
* better DVRs
* better DVR fees
* better service (I think)

If FIOS or something comes along which can do better, I'll consider them. But--how many companies have a program like D* has with the CE's and the attention they've paid to us here? How many things/tweaks have been added just because D* has allowed their engineers and coders to come here for suggestions and feedback? Charlie may have his chat program where he blows smoke up people's behinds, but DirecTV has been here in the trenches, helping us to help them make their services and equipment better.


----------



## jeffwltrs (Apr 2, 2006)

We definitely get to gloat!!!! I hope the trouble E* makers stay in a forum discussing their E* issues and stop trying to irritate us! A big thanks to Earl & ALL Mods! A thanks to all in this forum!


----------



## SinBin (Apr 13, 2007)

Capmeister said:


> E* will catch up, as will cable eventually. That's why competition and capitalism rocks. The reason I've stuck with DirecTV is simple:
> 
> * better DVRs


It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.

And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


----------



## redskin9 (Oct 12, 2005)

Let's see if this changes all the free stuff that D* has been giving away to upgrade to H20 or HR20. Has to come to an end at some point if they're now ahead of E*.


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

jeffwltrs said:


> We definitely get to gloat!!!! I hope the trouble E* makers stay in a forum discussing their E* issues and stop trying to irritate us! A big thanks to Earl & ALL Mods! A thanks to all in this forum!


+1 I don't think it would have happened as fast without DBSTalk, Earl and all the mods!


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

redskin9 said:


> Let's see if this changes all the free stuff that D* has been giving away to upgrade to H20 or HR20. Has to come to an end at some point if they're now ahead of E*.


Yes and No. There are people in my family that want to switch, but the up front cost is still holding them back.


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

You guys find the quality on the discovery channels good? Most of the programming has a black stripe down the right side of the screen and just looks bad in general. They need to work on their upconverter or something.


----------



## CoachGibbs (May 23, 2007)

Juppers said:


> You guys find the quality on the discovery channels good? Most of the programming has a black stripe down the right side of the screen and just looks bad in general. They need to work on their upconverter or something.


It's because they are cropping 4:3 which leaves those small black bars.


----------



## msfaulk (Jan 9, 2007)

Capmeister said:


> E* will catch up, as will cable eventually. That's why competition and capitalism rocks.


Exactly! Eventually everyone will offer all HD. So the "we have more HD than you" spat will be pointless. Then it will be price and service wars. Of course that could be years away. So untill then - we have more HD than you!! :grin:

I must say though, I do love the new HD. Can't wait for Sci-Fi HD.

Mike


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

SinBin said:


> It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


1. I think that may be just people switching from Tivos to the HR20 who have the learning curve. Once you get used to that, the HR20 seems to me to be the far superior DVR, but YMMV.

2. I'm not into sports.


----------



## CoachGibbs (May 23, 2007)

SinBin said:


> It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


The HR20 has a long way to go before it's in the same league as the VIP 622, IMO. I have both, love the 622 don't care much for the HR20. The HR20 has gotten a lot better from the time I've gotten it till now though. So maybe one day it'll be close.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RAD said:


> I'm sure JL will be along shortly to say yes they can.


I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.

My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.

Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


----------



## ChrisWyso (Nov 16, 2005)

JMartinko said:


> I will reserve THAT comment until later when they have the 70 or so channels INCLUDING the HD channels up too. Until then, I think it is safe to say that D* is at least BACK in the HD business.
> 
> The PQ looks awesome, it will be fun to see what the resolution and bit rates measure on some of these new channels. That may be really where D* is able to give E* some gas....:grin:


How can I see the bit rates? Is it something in the HR20 I can do, or is it completely and external thing? The wife & I were watching HEROES last night and I said, "Man, I've never compressed a DVD with this low of a bit rate!"

Thanks!

-Chris


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RAD said:


> Gee, I remember the E* folks saying no way can D* add all these channels, they don't exist. Even after TWC started to run add saying some new shows would be in HD they were still saying TWC wouldn't be HD until next year. HA!


I would imagine that the TWC HD start was based largely on the president of the channel saying that it wouldn't happen.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Everybody wins!


I'm with James here. We can have friendly "who's got more HD" rivalries but the bottom line is that both services are finally stepping up to the challenge of 21st century programming and that's a great thing!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

harsh said:


> I would imagine that the TWC HD start was based largely on the president of the channel saying that it wouldn't happen.


Even after TWC started to run ads saying some programming October would be in HD folks were still saying no there was no TWC HD.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

SinBin said:


> It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


..and does the E* HD DVR have DLB?

I want my MSG HD and YES HD!


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

JMartinko said:


> I will reserve THAT comment until later when they have the 70 or so channels INCLUDING the HD channels up too. Until then, I think it is safe to say that D* is at least BACK in the HD business.
> 
> The PQ looks awesome, it will be fun to see what the resolution and bit rates measure on some of these new channels. That may be really where D* is able to give E* some gas....:grin:


Agreed. Currently Dish still offers more HD channels than D*. When D* is up to the 70 channels - then they will be the "leader" in HD.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

TWC will start the good HD programming on Sunday. I don't recall the name of the show, but it is an HD show.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Even though I prefer D*, I still have to give E* the edge in HD quantity but not necessarily quality.


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

SinBin said:


> ...
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


D* doesn't control blackouts. They are (generally) contract-defined. If the contract with the NHL prohibits the remote feed, they have to block it.

Case closed.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.
> 
> My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.
> 
> Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


I'm surprised to see someone who is a Super Moderator fall for the marketing claptrap that more is better. Yeah - 14 kinds of crackers in great in the cookie aisle; but, if they all contain empty calories instead of the real stuff they're useless.

PQ is what I want HD for. It's why I remained confident about what was coming from D*. The numbers game is what Charlie played - and played E* subscribers like poor fish. Bandwidth is bandwidth and believing that channel count is supreme is absurd.

When I switched to HD I stopped watching 95% of what was left in SD. The same will also hold for the stretchovision and poorly uprezzed content on many of the new channels we just got. The remainder are something that E* won't be able to match until they get another bird up there.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

SinBin said:


> It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


Umm think again where is the MLBEI for E* and as far as blackout rules they are the same for all providers.
So please prove me wrong and fill me in on this.


----------



## GreyGhost00 (Aug 12, 2003)

LOL - yeah, like the campaign E* is currently running touting football "24x7 and games every night of the week!" Of course they don't mention that D* has exactly the same programming PLUS NFLST which gets you all of the games as they're actually happening!

Any fool who falls for that marketing crap deserves what they get.


----------



## ilfn143 (Jul 10, 2007)

jal said:


> D* New Hd channels are stunning. Absolutely perfect picture. There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. This is a major step forward for Directv! Congrats!


i switched from E* to D* and i have to say E* PQ looks better  they're all mp4 also.


----------



## Wrangler3 (Jun 27, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.
> 
> My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.
> 
> Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


This link has E* at 39 (with 15 Voom channels) and D* at 28. It also reports that D* will add 27 more.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=419472


----------



## rkjg24 (Apr 23, 2007)

ilfn143 said:


> i switched from E* to D* and i have to say E* PQ looks better  they're all mp4 also.


Then I think something is amist otherwise.


----------



## kcarstens (Jan 8, 2007)

Ed Campbell said:


> When I switched to HD I stopped watching 95% of what was left in SD. The same will also hold for the stretchovision and poorly uprezzed content on many of the new channels we just got. The remainder are something that E* won't be able to match until they get another bird up there.


With you on this. Very glad to finally have more HD channel options, but am experiencing some disappointment in the stretching factor. I don't like squished flat fat people on my screen. I'd rather watch an uprezzed 4x3 pillar bar pic than "stretchovision".


----------



## Sat4me (May 13, 2006)

Capmeister said:


> E* will catch up, as will cable eventually. That's why competition and capitalism rocks. The reason I've stuck with DirecTV is simple:
> 
> * better prices
> * better DVRs
> ...


Better DVRs?????? You are kidding, of course. The 2 services both have some strong and some weak points and the competition is good for all us viewers but don't kid yourself, the Directv DVR can't even compare to the DishNet 622/722. Absolutely no contest. Dish wins that one hands down. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a friend with a 622 and get him to give you a demo.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Sat,
Can you tell us what your comparison points are? I considered E* at one time. But because if the situation arose where I wanted to watch one thing and record another and somebody wanted to watch something else, I could not do it, I decided to go to D*. With DVRs in two rooms, I can watch what I want and record another while the same thing went on for somebody else, I figured it gave me a lot more flexibility.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.
> 
> My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.
> 
> Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


No doubt that D* will be adding the HD channels that E* has (excluding the voom channels I hope!) and adding lots more new HD channels. We've just seen the tip of the HD iceburg today from D*. Lots more coming! the "blown out of the water" part is still to come!


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> I'm surprised to see someone who is a Super Moderator fall for the marketing claptrap that more is better. Yeah - 14 kinds of crackers in great in the cookie aisle; but, if they all contain empty calories instead of the real stuff they're useless.
> 
> PQ is what I want HD for. It's why I remained confident about what was coming from D*. The numbers game is what Charlie played - and played E* subscribers like poor fish. Bandwidth is bandwidth and believing that channel count is supreme is absurd.
> 
> When I switched to HD I stopped watching 95% of what was left in SD. The same will also hold for the stretchovision and poorly uprezzed content on many of the new channels we just got. The remainder are something that E* won't be able to match until they get another bird up there.


Amen brother!

It's not just the "number of channels", *"quality" is paramount!* I'd rather have 5 great tasting chocolate chip cookies than 10 broccoli flavored cookies. That is why I love D*. We get the great tasting chocolate chip cookies, and lots of them.

Soon to be "The most HD channels in the known universe"  Any questions? 

D* should restart their "better picture quality" campaign again. This time it would be factual.


----------



## ilfn143 (Jul 10, 2007)

purtman said:


> Sat,
> Can you tell us what your comparison points are? I considered E* at one time. But because if the situation arose where I wanted to watch one thing and record another and somebody wanted to watch something else, I could not do it, I decided to go to D*. With DVRs in two rooms, I can watch what I want and record another while the same thing went on for somebody else, I figured it gave me a lot more flexibility.


you're comparing 2 receiver against 1. but with the 622/722 if you have picture-in-picture tv you can watch something you're recording and watch another show at the same time.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

That's true, but E*'s selling point to me was just the one DVR.


----------



## ilfn143 (Jul 10, 2007)

you could ask for 2 

E* and D* are both very competitive, the only one that got blew out of the water is cable company.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

I did want two, but then the CSR started jacking up the costs. I agree cable is getting blown out of the water. But regardless, we're all in a win-win situation. If you're a sports lover, D* is clearly the way to go. If you're not and you prefer more international channels, E* appears to be the way to go.


----------



## LDLemu4U (Oct 16, 2006)

spoonman said:


> The PQ on these new HD stations blows E* way


I don't think so! E* is just as good! or better.

Like somebody had said earlier, until we get the # of HD channels more than E* we can't blow them away.

Don't bash me on these but PQ quality is relative and dependent on so many factors. I have been a D* sub since 1994.

==============================================
AT9 - WB68 
3 HR20 700 at 0 18a Wed 8/28
Toshiba 37HL95 
Toshiba 42LZ196 
SAMSUNG LN-T4661F


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

smiddy said:


> Where is that picture of the atomic bomb going off when you need it?


Close enough?


----------



## SinBin (Apr 13, 2007)

djstough said:


> D* doesn't control blackouts. They are (generally) contract-defined. If the contract with the NHL prohibits the remote feed, they have to block it.
> 
> Case closed.


So why cant DirecTV negotiate a deal similar to Dish in order to provide sports fans both feeds? Dish does not block both feeds unless you're in a blackout area. IMO, more fans are becoming aware of DirecTV's blackout limitations when choosing a satellite provider.


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

SinBin said:


> So why cant DirecTV negotiate a deal similar to Dish in order to provide sports fans both feeds? Dish does not block both feeds unless you're in a blackout area. IMO, more fans are becoming aware of DirecTV's blackout limitations when choosing a satellite provider.


You need to quote examples of this. I am not doubting you, but I have not experienced this. I watch as many hockey games with my teams announcers as I can handle (and that's a lot over the season!)


----------



## SinBin (Apr 13, 2007)

djstough said:


> You need to quote examples of this. I am not doubting you, but I have not experienced this. I watch as many hockey games with my teams announcers as I can handle (and that's a lot over the season!)


I've had the Center Ice package from DirecTV for many years. Let's say the Ducks are playing the Stars and you lived in a non-blackout location such as Wyoming. If both FSN West & FSN SW are broadcasting the game, you'll only get one feed from DirecTV (sometimes excluding a HD broadcast, if any). I have a few friends with Dish who also have the Center Ice package and they are allowed to watch the feed of their choice, if provided.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

DirecTV doesn't black out games on its own whim. It is subject to the blackout rules set down by the respective professional sports league. DISH is, too, but if they're choosing to ignore some of them in order to broadcast certain feeds, they do so at their peril.


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

What sports does Echo* show both feeds for?


----------



## Trump_01 (May 26, 2007)

Prob the same reason they lost their DNS feeds. they like to bend the rulez


----------



## gusmahler (Aug 1, 2006)

SinBin said:


> And if you're into sports (other than football),


Or soccer and rugby (Setanta sports exclusive)

Or NASCAR (Hot pass exclusive)


----------



## SinBin (Apr 13, 2007)

lobofanina said:


> What sports does Echo* show both feeds for?


NHL games, but it might apply to NBA game feeds as well.


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> DirecTV doesn't black out games on its own whim. It is subject to the blackout rules set down by the respective professional sports league. DISH is, too, but if they're choosing to ignore some of them in order to broadcast certain feeds, they do so at their peril.


that is not what the previous posters are referring to. i don't believe it's directv _blacking out_ games - it's more directv only carrying a single feed of each game. dish broadcast both feeds of _out of market_ games - directv only shows the home feed - again of out of market games, we're talking. whether contractual or bandwith i don't know, but i agree that this is huge for most sport fans - and the reason i will switch after 10 years with directv to dish. i'm a ny ranger fan and its painful to listen to some other team's broadcast when they're on the road!


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

It really can't be debated,as of right now E* has more HD channels. Obviously not for long though,but when it comes to PQ D* has the edge hands down. I'm blown away at the PQ. I was afraid that HD Lite might come into play but it surely hasn't and if they are skimming some off the top they sure fooled me. I can say by looking at the picture that I'm 99% sure its full 1920x1080i and it looks fantastic.


----------



## rusi2sunny (Jul 29, 2007)

gusmahler said:


> Or soccer and rugby (Setanta sports exclusive)
> 
> Or NASCAR (Hot pass exclusive)


Ha ha , nothing true for the soccer.
Dish has same Setanta sports . but you will never watch REAL HD SOCCER GAME from Spain - like every week World Sport shows the derby from La Primera Division.:hurah:


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

smiddy said:


> Where is that picture of the atomic bomb going off when you need it?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Brandon428 said:


> It really can't be debated,as of right now E* has more HD channels. Obviously not for long though,but when it comes to PQ D* has the edge hands down. I'm blown away at the PQ. I was afraid that HD Lite might come into play but it surely hasn't and if they are skimming some off the top they sure fooled me. I can say by looking at the picture that I'm 99% sure its full 1920x1080i and it looks fantastic.


We are seeing the best PQ *ever* sourced to Pay-TV. Echostar, of course, has access to the same sources, but does not have the bandwidth to do what DIRECTV did today in preserving that source so completely. At least not for the next round of new channels. 

Perhaps it would be interesting to consider this. From one single dish, that is 1M or less so meets FCC HOA requirements, DIRECTV can send roughly 5.5GHz of bandwidth. Cable on coax can deliver only .9GHz continuous. With Switched Video, they can deliver more until your neighborhood is overwhelmed with requests. I have 9(?) receivers most with dual tuners. How many homes can a Switched neighborhood handle like me 

Echostar has a lot of bandwidth as well. But how many dishes does it take to get all that to your home? 

I am amazed at DIRECTV's incredible strategic planning. It has been outstanding for all this time. Perhaps DIRECTV hasn't been as profitable as desired in the past, but man, are they positioned well now! 

There will be 100 HD channels by year end and only on DIRECTV. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

rusi2sunny said:


> Ha ha , nothing true for the soccer.
> Dish has same Setanta sports . but you will never watch REAL HD SOCCER GAME from Spain - like every week World Sport shows the derby from La Primera Division.:hurah:


What's soccer? Is that a sport?


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

How can you make any argument regarding sports with e*? They don't have NFLST or MLBEI. Case closed, move on. Who cares about away feeds when they don't have the two most popular sports in the country?

Also, that football 24x7 campaign is the scummiest marketing campaign I've ever seen. I just wonder how many people have signed up with e* because of that commercial, thinking that they'd be getting NFLST. The NFL shouldn't allow NFL players to be in those commercials.


----------



## oudabashian (Aug 19, 2007)

Sat4me said:


> Better DVRs?????? You are kidding, of course. The 2 services both have some strong and some weak points and the competition is good for all us viewers but don't kid yourself, the Directv DVR can't even compare to the DishNet 622/722. Absolutely no contest. Dish wins that one hands down. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a friend with a 622 and get him to give you a demo.


 Most anyone that has had both would agree that the Dish DVR/PVR is way better then DirecTV. When it comes to hardware, DirecTV for the most part is always playing catch-up to E*. But the bottom line is that DirecTV customers all have a reason to celebrate. Let's keep it coming...


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)




----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Mission accomplished!


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

skaeight said:


> How can you make any argument regarding sports with e*? They don't have NFLST or MLBEI. Case closed, move on. Who cares about away feeds when they don't have the two most popular sports in the country?


case closed? i watch hockey and only hockey - i don't care about football or bb so why should i care dish doesn't have them? also, both feeds is huge for me- its not always about quanity, its about content and what is broadcast as to what's best for you as a viewer. and dish is best - for me and probably most hockey fans.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

"Most" hockey fans? What's that, about 6 people?


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> "Most" hockey fans? What's that, about 6 people?


:hurah: i knew i was opening myself up for a shot! i don't care if there's one other fan - as long as i get my games!


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> We are seeing the best PQ *ever* sourced to Pay-TV. Echostar, of course, has access to the same sources, but does not have the bandwidth to do what DIRECTV did today in preserving that source so completely. At least not for the next round of new channels.
> 
> Perhaps it would be interesting to consider this. From one single dish, that is 1M or less so meets FCC HOA requirements, DIRECTV can send roughly 5.5GHz of bandwidth. Cable on coax can deliver only .9GHz continuous. With Switched Video, they can deliver more until your neighborhood is overwhelmed with requests. I have 9(?) receivers most with dual tuners. How many homes can a Switched neighborhood handle like me
> 
> ...


Thats just amazing. The early mornings with nothing but disappointment and all the lost hours of sleep was worth it all!


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

Is the NHL strike still going strong?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

What's the NHL?


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> What's the NHL?


it's the sport without dog killers, fixed games by refs, and gun toting steroid using wife beating felons, er uh, i mean athletes ....


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

eddieras said:


> it's the sport without dog killers, fixed games by refs, and gun toting steroid using wife beating athletes ....


Russian Mafia is your claim to fame I guess.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

And how many football or baseball players have been arrested for things they did ON THE PLAYING FIELD (ICE)? OK, aside from that bird incident in Toronto (he he)!

Seriously, I know some true hockey fanatics, and they really are good people!


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> And how many football or baseball players have been arrested for things they did ON THE PLAYING FIELD (ICE)? OK, aside from that bird incident in Toronto (he he)!
> 
> Seriously, I know some true hockey fanatics, and they really are good people!


:eek2: 
Shhhhhhhhhhhh( Hint:Jose Offerman) SHHHHHhhhhhhhh


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> And how many football or baseball players have been arrested for things they did ON THE PLAYING FIELD (ICE)? OK, aside from that bird incident in Toronto (he he)!
> 
> Seriously, I know some true hockey fanatics, and they really are good people!


I agree whole-heartedly with my captain. :coolglass


----------



## SinBin (Apr 13, 2007)

eddieras said:


> case closed? i watch hockey and only hockey - i don't care about football or bb so why should i care dish doesn't have them? also, both feeds is huge for me- its not always about quanity, its about content and what is broadcast as to what's best for you as a viewer. and dish is best - for me and probably most hockey fans.


Ditto. I watch primarily hockey as well, so this is what matter the most to me. I suppose one positive for DirecTV is they just added Versus HD, so we might catch a few more NHL games in HD when golf isn't on. Of course, this is still a minor upgrade compared to Dish's offering of multiple NHL game feeds.


----------



## lobofanina (Apr 14, 2007)

SinBin said:


> Ditto. I watch primarily hockey as well, so this is what matter the most to me. I suppose one positive for DirecTV is they just added Versus HD, so we might catch a few more NHL games in HD when golf isn't on. Of course, this is still a minor upgrade compared to Dish's offering of multiple NHL game feeds.


As long as were talking about sports that only a very select few watch, I'll counter with Tennis for DirecTv.


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

SinBin said:


> Ditto. I watch primarily hockey as well, so this is what matter the most to me. I suppose one positive for DirecTV is they just added Versus HD, so we might catch a few more NHL games in HD when golf isn't on. Of course, this is still a minor upgrade compared to Dish's offering of multiple NHL game feeds.


dish has versus hd too


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Guys, this is not the NHL support line nor the NHL bashing fest. Lets go back to DIRECTV and Echostar discussions. :backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## barryhammond (Sep 13, 2007)

So far, big whoop. I get some extra HD channels that stretch SD channels so that they are not watchable, some movie channels in HD that I don't pay for, some channel that is shared between hockey and golf and most surely will be showing the opposite of what I want to watch if there is both hockey and golf on at the same time, and them probably in stretch mode. Like why can't they actually have both. And I get to pay $5 extra to continue to watch HDNet and HDNet movies and Universal HD which actually have shows in HD that I occasionally watch (including Dallas Mavs games when D* doesn't screw up and block them out of my zip code, even when I live in Dallas and they are supposed to be available). The supercrop bugs still makes it very hard to watch SciFi and Fx which are not available yet in HD. And my local PBS might never be available in HD. And I get to watch CNN with black bars on the sides that say HD or something instead of just being black bars. D* and the content providers still needs to get their crap together, but at least this is a first baby step.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

D* made a good choice. Giving out 20 or so new channels at a time.
After the giddyness over the new channels fades you'll get another batch!


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Badger said:


> No doubt that D* will be adding the HD channels that E* has (excluding the voom channels I hope!)


Why don't you want everyone to get what they want?


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

Sat4me said:


> Better DVRs?????? You are kidding, of course. The 2 services both have some strong and some weak points and the competition is good for all us viewers but don't kid yourself, the Directv DVR can't even compare to the DishNet 622/722. Absolutely no contest. Dish wins that one hands down. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a friend with a 622 and get him to give you a demo.


You may say the 622 is better than the HR20 but I'll never know because the 622 is the reason I didn't switch to E* last year when D* first started dropping TNT-HD for the Sunday Ticket.

I live in a market that E* doesn't provide HD LiL service. Then consider the fact that the 622 only has one OTA tuner and that is a deal breaker for me. If I had E* I wouldn't be able to record two HD network shows at the same time or watch one and record another. Since I watch more HD network shows than anything else it is an easy choice for me that the HR20 is better than the 622.


----------



## tunce (Jan 19, 2006)

I look long and hard at E* but no local HD was the breaker for me. I figured my family watches more "free" network tv then the other HD. Also the fact I had NFLST every year except this year just got way to expensive and you also have to pay extra for HD NFLST... FORGET IT.

Now I can't wait for the next batch of HD  ... I need my FoodHD, HGTVHD and SciFiHD. Does anyone know if Eureka is filmed in HD???


----------



## He Save Dave (Jun 6, 2006)

uncrules said:


> I live in a market that E* doesn't provide HD LiL service. Then consider the fact that the 622 only has one OTA tuner and that is a deal breaker for me. If I had E* I wouldn't be able to record two HD network shows at the same time or watch one and record another. Since I watch more HD network shows than anything else it is an easy choice for me that the HR20 is better than the 622.


I've been trying to decide whether to switch to Direct since they just popped the new national HD channels. I don't get my locals in HD with Dish either. One thing I've been stuck on is the 622 vs the HR20. My TV doesn't do PiP itself so I'm essentially trading PiP for my HD locals if I switch. I hadn't even thought about the fact that I could record 24 and Heroes in HD at the same time on Mondays.

Yeah, pretty sure I'm switching soon. Thanks, uncrules.

PS: Sunday Ticket and Trackpass ain't bad either. lol


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

skaeight said:


> Also, that football 24x7 campaign is the scummiest marketing campaign I've ever seen. I just wonder how many people have signed up with e* because of that commercial, thinking that they'd be getting NFLST. The NFL shouldn't allow NFL players to be in those commercials.


I agree. That is a scumb bag commercial. Any informed consumer knows it's total B.S. Talk about misleading. Good job Charlie.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

He Save Dave said:


> I've been trying to decide whether to switch to Direct since they just popped the new national HD channels. I don't get my locals in HD with Dish either. One thing I've been stuck on is the 622 vs the HR20. My TV doesn't do PiP itself so I'm essentially trading PiP for my HD locals if I switch. I hadn't even thought about the fact that I could record 24 and Heroes in HD at the same time on Mondays.
> 
> Yeah, pretty sure I'm switching soon. Thanks, uncrules. You deserve a "referred by".
> 
> PS: Sunday Ticket and Trackpass ain't bad either. lol


I must be honest. I truly loved E*'s 622 receiver. That was the one thing that kept me with Dish for so long. But, I've been with D* since about mid July, and though I still remember how nice that DVR was, I truly don't miss it now. The HR20 is a great DVR in its own right. And I'm very satisfied with it now that I've gotten used to it.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> Why don't you want everyone to get what they want?


I hope everyone gets whatever tv they want. What I was refering to in my post that you took that snipit from was that I wouldn't want voom if D* did what E* did and raise the HD access fee by $10 with NO choice of taking them or not. E* needed satelloite space badly and got that from voom and then tacked on $10 to their HD access fee to pay for it. With E* you want HD tv then you pay for voom if you want to or not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Badger said:


> I hope everyone gets whatever tv they want. What I was refering to in my post that you took that snipit from was that I wouldn't want voom if D* did what E* did and raise the HD access fee by $10 with NO choice of taking them or not. E* needed satelloite space badly and got that from voom and then tacked on $10 to their HD access fee to pay for it. With E* you want HD tv then you pay for voom if you want to or not.


Can we work with the facts please?

E*'s carriage of Voom's channels is NOT related in any way to the satellite purchase. They paid cash for the satellite and an uplink. The decision to add 10 and now 15 Voom HD channels to E*'s service came at a time where there wasn't much else available. It was an instant way of increasing the size of their package without waiting for channel providers to get their acts together.

Prior to February 2006 Voom was an option ... $5 for 10 channels ... to be added to E*'s then 5 HD channel package (7 channels counting premiums, plus PPV and event channels). Not only did the 2006 change incorporate Voom into one HD package but many additional channels have been added. Sure E* raised their rates ... they also raised their service and if you think D* isn't going to raise their rates next year I have a bridge to sell you.

So now D* has 16 HD channels, plus 4 more in the "HD Extra" pack (currently grandfathered) and 10 HD Premium channels. Not bad. E* has 20 HD channels, plus 15 Voom and 4 HD Premium channels. Not "blown out of the water".

Glad to see you're happy about the new channels ... but keep it in perspective.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Spike said:


> I must be honest. I truly loved E*'s 622 receiver. That was the one thing that kept me with Dish for so long. But, I've been with D* since about mid July, and though I still remember how nice that DVR was, I truly don't miss it now. The HR20 is a great DVR in its own right. And I'm very satisfied with it now that I've gotten used to it.


I never looked at 622. I am curious, what do you like about it?


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

I don't think it's a good thing for D* subscribers if E* is so blown out of water. Competition keeps people honest and stimulates improvement. Most ideally, we are just slightly better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

n3ntj said:


> ..and does the E* HD DVR have DLB?


Yes!

It also features PIP and side-by-side viewing so you can see two games in real time.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

That's nice. But if you don't have the MLB package (or other pictures for that matter), what difference does it make in watching two games at once?


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Yes!
> 
> It also features PIP and side-by-side viewing so you can see two games in real time.


Unless both those game were OTA.


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

purtman said:


> That's nice. But if you don't have the MLB package (or other pictures for that matter), what difference does it make in watching two games at once?


as long as it has the sport _you _want you'll be watching two games-- and i'll be watching hockey! and if they continue with both feeds, and NHL Network, then i'm there - sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

I agree, the new HD programing is the best thing I ever seen. Yes I have seen other providers. The new format (MPEG4) wow!!! even better than (MPEG2)


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Makes me want to buy a 1080p display. I don't care if no one is broadcasting in 1080p, or that the difference is not discernable <3 ft. I can stand within 1 foot of my TV and it looks incredible!


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

eddieras said:


> :hurah: i knew i was opening myself up for a shot! i don't care if there's one other fan - as long as i get my games!


Well, I know a lot more hockey fans than there are Star Wars fans!


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 11, 2007)

barryhammond said:


> So far, big whoop. I get some extra HD channels that stretch SD channels so that they are not watchable, some movie channels in HD that I don't pay for, some channel that is shared between hockey and golf and most surely will be showing the opposite of what I want to watch if there is both hockey and golf on at the same time, and them probably in stretch mode. Like why can't they actually have both. And I get to pay $5 extra to continue to watch HDNet and HDNet movies and Universal HD which actually have shows in HD that I occasionally watch (including Dallas Mavs games when D* doesn't screw up and block them out of my zip code, even when I live in Dallas and they are supposed to be available). The supercrop bugs still makes it very hard to watch SciFi and Fx which are not available yet in HD. And my local PBS might never be available in HD. And I get to watch CNN with black bars on the sides that say HD or something instead of just being black bars. D* and the content providers still needs to get their crap together, but at least this is a first baby step.


x2 on this post.

Man, talk about overreacting (the entire whose HD is bigger and badder debate). Seems to me, except for switching my "favorites" custom guide to the newer HD channel designations (using 206 instead of 73 for ESPN), what's really changed for me? Not much. I could care less about the channels Directv added. I'm sure I am not alone, either. I don't find myself setting up any new Series Links for any of the new HD channels (TBS, A&E?), so that says something. If they had delivered FX in HD (The Shield, Rescue Me), that would have been good. But CNN?

So it's "whoop f-ing p" at this juncture. Sure, it's good to see Directv finally delivered something new HD-wise, but this is so early in the HD era, it's laughable to say anyone is kicking anyone else's butt. The channels most people watch (the nets, ESPN, HBO, Showtime, some other sports channels) are in HD, but they have been for three years.

I'd bet it's more about having the channels than actually watching them for many of the HD "fans" out there rushing to praise Directv for its recent HD developments. Just my POV.


----------



## dcbag (Oct 1, 2006)

Dusty said:


> I don't think it's a good thing for D* subscribers if E* is so blown out of water. Competition keeps people honest and stimulates improvement. Most ideally, we are just slightly better.


I totally agree, until we have as many & the same channels (such as HGTV, etc.), I don't see how one can say we blow Dish out of the water. Maybe we might be able to make that comment in a week or so, but not right now. Just my opinion.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Dusty said:


> I don't think it's a good thing for D* subscribers if E* is so blown out of water. Competition keeps people honest and stimulates improvement. Most ideally, we are just slightly better.


Slightly better isn't good enough. That only calls for evolutionary changes, on a glacial timeline. Every provider needs to strive for being monumentally better than the competition, within the bounds of profitability. That moves the bar in much bigger increments, and makes a noticeable impact on the subscribers and the competition.


----------



## jclark (Oct 4, 2006)

Spike said:


> I must be honest. I truly loved E*'s 622 receiver. That was the one thing that kept me with Dish for so long. But, I've been with D* since about mid July, and though I still remember how nice that DVR was, I truly don't miss it now. The HR20 is a great DVR in its own right. And I'm very satisfied with it now that I've gotten used to it.


I am glad to hear you say that. I have been thinking about going to E* just because of the 622. My sister has it and it looks awesome, but I haven't really had time to play with it. I don't really like the HR20. But hearing from someone that has used both shows me that I may just be to picky and should just get over it.


----------



## eddieras (Aug 31, 2007)

jclark said:


> I am glad to hear you say that. I have been thinking about going to E* just because of the 622. My sister has it and it looks awesome, but I haven't really had time to play with it. I don't really like the HR20. But hearing from someone that has used both shows me that I may just be to picky and should just get over it.


what about the 722?? from what i understand, same machine, larger capacity


----------



## Mavrick (Feb 1, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.
> 
> My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.
> 
> Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


With the addition of 6 more national channels today the count is now 39 E* to 36 D* the ground is closing fast.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Mavrick said:


> With the addition of 6 more national channels today the count is now 39 E* to 36 D* the ground is closing fast.


You can call that 11 new national channels - those RSN's are available to anyone with the Sports Pack or Premier Package. Just as HBO and Cinemax count despite being premium subscription channels, the RSN's should count the same. I live in New Orleans, but with the Premium Package, I get all of those RSN's in glorious HD. DirecTV has added 32 new channels to bring their total to 41.


----------



## Mavrick (Feb 1, 2006)

say-what said:


> You can call that 11 new national channels - those RSN's are available to anyone with the Sports Pack or Premier Package. Just as HBO and Cinemax count despite being premium subscription channels, the RSN's should count the same. I live in New Orleans, but with the Premium Package, I get all of those RSN's in glorious HD. DirecTV has added 32 new channels to bring their total to 41.


Yes this is true but if you see the post that I quoted in mine James did not count the RSN's on E* in his post so if those were to be counted E* would have more than the 39 that it is mentioned that they have.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

say-what said:


> You can call that 11 new national channels - those RSN's are available to anyone with the Sports Pack or Premier Package. Just as HBO and Cinemax count despite being premium subscription channels, the RSN's should count the same. I live in New Orleans, but with the Premium Package, I get all of those RSN's in glorious HD. DirecTV has added 32 new channels to bring their total to 41.


We're getting there.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Well, I was the one who started this post, so I thought I'd add a little bit more. When the HR20 first came out, we all know the problems it had. It was a long, frustrating process. Now, however, the box is working well (other than noise), and I recently started playing with VOD on it. The new HD channels, and the VOD, truly make Directv fun to have.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Mavrick said:


> Yes this is true but if you see the post that I quoted in mine James did not count the RSN's on E* in his post so if those were to be counted E* would have more than the 39 that it is mentioned that they have.


I thought the RSNs are not counted on E* because they are not national?


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

RAD said:


> Gee, I remember the E* folks saying no way can D* add all these channels, they don't exist. Even after TWC started to run add saying some new shows would be in HD they were still saying TWC wouldn't be HD until next year. HA!
> 
> Now if D* can get Sci-Fi up in the next couple of weeks, which some E* folks were still saying it doesn't exist and no plans to start a HD version, and E* doesn't add then right away I wonder what the reaction will in the E* camp?


SciFi is now up.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

Mavrick said:


> Yes this is true but if you see the post that I quoted in mine James did not count the RSN's on E* in his post so if those were to be counted E* would have more than the 39 that it is mentioned that they have.


Aren't the E* RSNs only for games? Meaning you do not get the other content broadcast in HD. Like Sportsnite and Daily News Live on SNY.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

eh.. it just kind of kills me to see the E* "number" with Voom added in. I'm sorry, but those channels aren't worth spit and certainly not worth $10 extra per month that E* charges for them. And no I'm not just randomly excluding channels that I feel should be excluded. They have 3 more channels than DirecTV. Good for them. But that 39 should be annotated with an asterisk that states below "20 of these are Voom channels which you will spend 8 minutes watching within the first 30 days of your subscription and will never watch after that." They're only one step away from including RSN and PPV channels.

I guess the true justice is that probably almost every E* subscriber who flaunts that 39 number doesn't even spend 5 minutes a month on all of the Voom channels combined (and yes I know there will be some who come here and say otherwise, true or not)


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

DirecTV is going to overtake Dish in HD for a time. Then, Dish will catch up. At somepoint--in the next couple years--HD will be the STANDARD and this disagreement will be proven silly. HD is going to be NORMAL TV in a relatively short period of time.


----------



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

Swanni predicts that by next year the Space race for hd will be so competitive that if you are not in hd , no one will be watching . IN other words he predicts that 2008 will be the year for hd convergence. More people will have true hd tvs, all providers will be competing to have the most hd channels out there , which means ALL tv watchers will benefit. I am betting that all national channels that most people watch will be in hd by next year on both Dish and Directv.


----------



## dcbag (Oct 1, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Swanni predicts that by next year the Space race for hd will be so competitive that if you are not in hd , no one will be watching . IN other words he predicts that 2008 will be the year for hd convergence. More people will have true hd tvs, all providers will be competing to have the most hd channels out there , which means ALL tv watchers will benefit. I am betting that all national channels that most people watch will be in hd by next year on both Dish and Directv.


It seems to always be next year. Now after the 2nd week of HD rollout, I am quite dissappointed with content, and with D's choices of channels.

Quality is very important to me, but even more so is content. I am begining to think maybe I should look to see if E's current content is better to my liking than D's,

I for one am tired of waiting. Or maybe better yet, my OTA of 20 or so channels offer the best quality & content is not too bad, I could save the $70-$80 a month, or spent some of that money on DVDs.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

dcbag said:


> It seems to always be next year. Now after the 2nd week of HD rollout, I am quite dissappointed with content, and with D's choices of channels.
> 
> Quality is very important to me, but even more so is content. I am begining to think maybe I should look to see if E's current content is better to my liking than D's,
> 
> I for one am tired of waiting. Or maybe better yet, my OTA of 20 or so channels offer the best quality & content is not too bad, I could save the $70-$80 a month, or spent some of that money on DVDs.


That's what choices and competition are all about. You've got to vote with your dollars, and get the best situation for you.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Capmeister said:


> DirecTV is going to overtake Dish in HD for a time. Then, Dish will catch up. At somepoint--in the next couple years--HD will be the STANDARD and this disagreement will be proven silly. HD is going to be NORMAL TV in a relatively short period of time.


Exactly. It doesn't matter to me what Dish offers in HD as I'm a DirecTV subscriber and have no plans to switch.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

The now-weekly complaining is not only predictable but it's becoming lame.

Let's see...complaining about no channels being added? Check.
Complaining about when the channels ARE being added....check.
Complaining about WHICH channels are being added....check.

Seriously, what exactly did you expect? They're starting to roll them out on a weekly basis and people _still_ complain about everything. IMO it's time to get over it.

No NGC or Food? Man I'd wait just a little bit, something tells me we're close on those. Not enough HD? Well don't blame Directv for that. Most of these channels have just/recently begun broadcasting in HD so it's like most SD channels -- only a small percentage of their programming IS in HD.

More people carp about RSN's in HD. Well let me tell you I've been waiting for NESN in HD since I bought an HDTV so today is a day I've been looking forward to for over a year. Just because it doesn't suit _your_ tastes doesn't mean others aren't thrilled with today's update.

The quality of the channels is terrific, and I for one am thrilled at these-weekly updates AND the channels they're adding. My world isn't going to end because Food's not in HD for another week, like it apparently is for some people. :grin:


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

I don't get it. The content isn't D*'s thing, that's the individual networks. Dish is going to be giving people the same networks and they'll have the same content.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Capmeister said:


> I don't get it. The content isn't D*'s thing, that's the individual networks. Dish is going to be giving people the same networks and they'll have the same content.


No kidding. I have no idea what that poster expects but methinks his expectation level was far beyond any normal or informed viewer.

And even if the PQ isn't all in HD on the new channels, I can appreciate the improved clarity of even those channels. They're a big step up from the SD channels, so thumbs up there too.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 25, 2006)

I'm fascinated that everyone is so impressed with the PQ and competitive about whether D* is better or worse than the competition. It really makes me wonder how many bad HQ providers must be out there to compare. For me, the new HD is fine, but the PQ of the HD I got with the local Central NJ Comcast was still noticably better. I'm happy to have better than SD PQ for the channels on D* now but I'm hardly ready to jump up and down with excitement. I've never looked at E*'s HD PQ, is it really that bad? I guess for most it must be a step-up, which is great for you. I am cursed by having seen better and therefore knowing it can be better still...


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> I thought the RSNs are not counted on E* because they are not national?


Exactly, and some E* subs dont want D* to count them either. They just dont understand that D* has them national. Game blackouts excluded


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

I believe Smithsonian is a D* exclusive, for now. And it's the best of what we've acquired.

And E* will still be stuck with HD-lite until they get more hardware up in the sky.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

dcbag said:


> It seems to always be next year. Now after the 2nd week of HD rollout, I am quite dissappointed with content, and with D's choices of channels.
> 
> Quality is very important to me, but even more so is content. I am begining to think maybe I should look to see if E's current content is better to my liking than D's,
> 
> I for one am tired of waiting. Or maybe better yet, my OTA of 20 or so channels offer the best quality & content is not too bad, I could save the $70-$80 a month, or spent some of that money on DVDs.


  :eek2: :eek2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono: :nono:
In short time the national channels on Both D* & E* will be the same the only difference will be in any extras
as in Sports and some exclusive channels.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

say-what said:


> Exactly. It doesn't matter to me what Dish offers in HD as I'm a DirecTV subscriber and have no plans to switch.


I agree :yesman: :hurah: D :sunsmile: The channels are rolling out, if your favorites aren't there yet they will be


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> paulman182 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the RSNs are not counted on E* because they are not national?
> ...


That was my understanding and per the Dish website, "DISH Network now offers game only content from many Regional Sports Networks." http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/our_products/dish_hd/programming/sports/RSNindex.shtml

The RSN's are at the very least not fulltime (and I don't think they are national) on Dish like the 5 that just went live nationally on DirecTV.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

DMRI2006 said:


> The now-weekly complaining is not only predictable but it's becoming lame.
> 
> Let's see...complaining about no channels being added? Check.
> Complaining about when the channels ARE being added....check.
> ...


I agree. Some people all they do is whine because everything must go there way and if it doesn't someone has something against them.

SHUT UP and stop whinning. If you do not like the way things are LEAVE.


----------



## rynning (Jan 29, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Mike D-CO5
> Swanni predicts that by next year the Space race for hd will be so competitive that if you are not in hd , no one will be watching . IN other words he predicts that 2008 will be the year for hd convergence. More people will have true hd tvs, all providers will be competing to have the most hd channels out there , which means ALL tv watchers will benefit. I am betting that all national channels that most people watch will be in hd by next year on both Dish and Directv.


I bet by the end of 08, 100% of national and regional content will be produced in 1080 HD, including commercials. The "channels" (is there a better term?) will be there next, and broadcasters, satellite, and cable operators will be playing catch-up through 2009 to deliver everything in HD. Broadcasters will be first since they already have the OTA bandwidth and must be digital in Feb 09.

Sound right?


----------



## thefoyboy (Apr 1, 2007)

Blitz68 said:


> I agree. Some people all they do is whine because everything must go there way and if it doesn't someone has something against them.
> 
> SHUT UP and stop whinning. If you do not like the way things are LEAVE.


Whoa......I had to quote that latent but great philosopher Rodney King yesterday.....must we harken back to his call to all once again........


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> Exactly, and some E* subs dont want D* to count them either. They just dont understand that D* has them national. Game blackouts excluded


game content is the only thing broadcast in HD for pretty much all of the channels, so how is D*'s solution any different than E*'s?


----------



## GirkMonster (Mar 20, 2007)

Maybe what we really need is a thread devoted solely to whining and complaining and keep all that nonsense out of all other threads.

We have more HD now than ever before anywhere. I see nothing at all to complain about.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

grooves12 said:


> game content is the only thing broadcast in HD for pretty much all of the channels, so how is D*'s solution any different than E*'s?


The 5 new channels are 24/7 HD and national on DirecTV - not game content only.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

DMRI2006 said:


> The now-weekly complaining is not only predictable but it's becoming lame.
> 
> Let's see...complaining about no channels being added? Check.
> Complaining about when the channels ARE being added....check.
> Complaining about WHICH channels are being added....check.


You missed one:
People complaining about people complaining.. check :lol:

Nice to see Rhode Island in the house! My home for 11 years&#8230;!

Personally I was hoping for Food HD & HGTV HD. No biggie, I can wait. Peace


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

grooves12 said:


> game content is the only thing broadcast in HD for pretty much all of the channels, so how is D*'s solution any different than E*'s?


Don't know if it was 720p/1080i or just SD upconverted, but just surfing this AM two of the new RSN channels (YES and CSN-Chicago) were showing 16:9 content and it looked very good, so there is more out there then just games, but E* subs would never know that.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know the funny thing? I will watch "almost" anything in HD, and will watch "almost" nothing in SD. Now that Sci-Fi is in HD, that leaves "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" as my only HD series links. 

On the other hand I am not proud to admit I watched "A Wedding Story" with Mrs. Shadow on HD Theater.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

grooves12 said:


> game content is the only thing broadcast in HD for pretty much all of the channels, so how is D*'s solution any different than E*'s?


while i was watching this morning everything they showed on NESN and "that yankees channel" was in HD. The sports and team news, everything. So id think its ALOT different if you want out of market team news


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> Don't know if it was 720p/1080i or just SD upconverted, but just surfing this AM two of the new RSN channels (YES and CSN-Chicago) were showing 16:9 content and it looked very good, so there is more out there then jhust games, but E* subs would never know that.


Too bad the baseball season's over, because Comcast SportsNet's broadcasts of Cubs or White Sox home games in HD were excellent. The PQ was outstanding.


----------



## holtzd (Jul 30, 2007)

dcbag said:


> It seems to always be next year. Now after the 2nd week of HD rollout, I am quite dissappointed with content, and with D's choices of channels.
> 
> Quality is very important to me, but even more so is content. I am begining to think maybe I should look to see if E's current content is better to my liking than D's,
> 
> I for one am tired of waiting. Or maybe better yet, my OTA of 20 or so channels offer the best quality & content is not too bad, I could save the $70-$80 a month, or spent some of that money on DVDs.


I think you should switch to E* as soon as possible. Then you'll have HGTV HD and MHD a few days before the rest of us that are stuck with D*. :sunsmile:


----------



## fazzmanic (Aug 21, 2007)

Sat4me said:


> Better DVRs?????? You are kidding, of course. The 2 services both have some strong and some weak points and the competition is good for all us viewers but don't kid yourself, the Directv DVR can't even compare to the DishNet 622/722. Absolutely no contest. Dish wins that one hands down. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a friend with a 622 and get him to give you a demo.


i have the hr20-700

a friend of mine has the top end E* DVR and it beats the D* DVR to death

i agree 100%


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

Too much competition is bad for business.

Too little competition is bad for service.

I'm rooting for all the other providers besides mine.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

fazzmanic said:


> i have the hr20-700
> 
> a friend of mine has the top end E* DVR and it beats the D* DVR to death
> 
> i agree 100%


And for everyone that prefers one you can find a person that likes the other. It usually comes down to what you are used to. Personally, I like the HR-20 better. I have had and still have one E* dvr's in the past. No comparison. Granted the Dish DVR i have isnt a 622.
However my neighbor has a 622/722, and even after spending a good bit of time using it, I still like the HR_20 better. Not saying the 622/722 isnt a good box, it is. Just for me, not AS good.


----------



## fazzmanic (Aug 21, 2007)

i just like some of the technical things it can do, and the look of the guides. other then a few relatively minor things im still pleased with the HR-20.


Technically there is no reason the HR20 cant do the same things the 622/722 can. Software updates +++


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mavrick said:


> With the addition of 6 more national channels today the count is now 39 E* to 36 D* the ground is closing fast.


Only 6? I guess we'll be seeing more Wednesday parties until D* keeps the rest of their promises.


paulman182 said:


> I thought the RSNs are not counted on E* because they are not national?


RSNs can be national on E* ... they have been national longer than on D* since E* placed them on ConUS satellites and made them available to SportsPack subscribers from day one.

The problem with RSNs on E* is the same that D* customers will soon find out ... blackouts and game only coverage. Why count a channel when the most important and most likely to be in HD content (the game) is not available? Why count a channel when it is never available outside of it's own market (even if it is teasing customers by being in the guide)?

D* promised 29 RSNs, 18 of them "game only". With blackouts the "game only" RSNs are useless outside of their markets and the 11 "24/7" RSNs are not 24/7 outside of their markets.

If you want inflated figures I'll give them ... 74 HD channels on E* - woo hoo! But if you want a reasonable count you won't find PPV, RSNs or alt channels in my counting.

Time to update my webpage. Only six? Wow.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I've been told the RSNs are national if you have the sports pack.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

SNY and Yes have plenty of non-game content in HD. I would imagine NESN does too. These are big market areas, who have plenty of nationwide fans. As a Mets fan I watch a lot of SNY and Daily News Live is a great sports talk panel show covering all topics and is on every night. You should check it out if E* offers a 24/7 SNY.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Only 6? I guess we'll be seeing more Wednesday parties until D* keeps the rest of their promises.
> RSNs can be national on E* ... they have been national longer than on D* since E* placed them on ConUS satellites and made them available to SportsPack subscribers from day one.
> 
> The problem with RSNs on E* is the same that D* customers will soon find out ... blackouts and game only coverage. Why count a channel when the most important and most likely to be in HD content (the game) is not available? Why count a channel when it is never available outside of it's own market (even if it is teasing customers by being in the guide)?
> ...


The game blackouts apply to other sports channels also in some form. Ive had ESPN blacked out before. Does that mean it shouldnt be counted? As for now, im happy with the out of market team news, since my wife is a HUGE red sox fan. For me thats as important as VOOM is for some E* subs. Which means even if it isnt important to most it is to some, and since we are counting voom.... And unless it changes, all of the content I saw this morning was in HD. Every bit i watched. 
PPV is a totally different animal.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I've been told the RSNs are national if you have the sports pack.


Yep, the Yankees post-season preview on YES looked very nice.


----------



## william8004 (Oct 6, 2006)

DMRI2006 said:


> The now-weekly complaining is not only predictable but it's becoming lame.
> 
> Let's see...complaining about no channels being added? Check.
> Complaining about when the channels ARE being added....check.
> Complaining about WHICH channels are being added....check.


This microwave oven takes too long!!!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

GeorgeLV said:


> Yep, the Yankees post-season preview on YES looked very nice.


But JL wouldn't know that since he has E*

The CSN-Chicago studio shows also looked very good.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

RAD said:


> But JL wouldn't know that since he has E*
> 
> The CSN-Chicago studio shows also looked very good.


How'd that fat guy on the Bears coverage look?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I've been told the RSNs are national if you have the sports pack.


The same as on E* (as noted in my post). Blackout rules apply on the most desired stuff (the actual professional sports).

BTW, where is HGTV and Food? Those should have been easy adds and are 24/7 HD (even if the programs don't match the SD version). How much of Bravo, USA and SciFi are in HD? Anything yet? Or just promises of an occasional HD show or block?

Congrats on the new channels, but keep it in perspective.

(And, to borghe, there are only 15 Voom channels - not 20. There were 21 Voom HD channels when Voom had them on their now failed independent service, but there are only 15 US channels today.)


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> The same as on E* (as noted in my post). Blackout rules apply on the most desired stuff (the actual professional sports).
> 
> BTW, where is HGTV and Food? Those should have been easy adds and are 24/7 HD (even if the programs don't match the SD version). How much of Bravo, USA and SciFi are in HD? Anything yet? Or just promises of an occasional HD show or block?
> 
> ...


So much for objectivity...

The debate here is not whether E* or D* has national beams of RSNs and how you subscribe to them. They both have had them for a long, long time but until today, they've all been Standard Definition.

As of today, at least three RSNs have their HD feeds on a NATIONAL beam (available to ANYONE who subscribes, irrespective of location) with D*. Is the same true of E*? A simple yes or no will clear up that matter.

And by the way, the count of six is inaccurate. NINE national HD channels were added today. Hurray for equality.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Only 6? I guess we'll be seeing more Wednesday parties until D* keeps the rest of their promises.
> RSNs can be national on E* ... they have been national longer than on D* since E* placed them on ConUS satellites and made them available to SportsPack subscribers from day one.
> 
> The problem with RSNs on E* is the same that D* customers will soon find out ... blackouts and game only coverage. Why count a channel when the most important and most likely to be in HD content (the game) is not available? Why count a channel when it is never available outside of it's own market (even if it is teasing customers by being in the guide)?
> ...


Gotta love Charlie's fanboys in Dave's forum....lol


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> The same as on E* (as noted in my post). Blackout rules apply on the most desired stuff (the actual professional sports).
> 
> BTW, where is HGTV and Food? Those should have been easy adds and are 24/7 HD (even if the programs don't match the SD version). How much of Bravo, USA and SciFi are in HD? Anything yet? Or just promises of an occasional HD show or block?
> 
> ...


Im sure HGTV and FOOD are on the way, i know they are on the list. Who knows what reasons they choose to add what they do, but im happy to get them. Even the upconvert stuff, which will be less and less over time looks ALOT better than it did in basic bit starved SD.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heavyobjects said:


> So much for objectivity...
> 
> The debate here is not whether E* or D* has national beams of RSNs and how you subscribe to them. They both have had them for a long, long time but until today, they've all been Standard Definition.
> 
> ...


Thanks you. Well said.
And i thought it was 11. I may need to recount this evening


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

SinBin said:


> It seems the ViP model DVR's from Dish have a better customer satisfaction rate compared to DirectTV's HR-20.
> 
> And if you're into sports (other than football), you can't beat Dish as they allow viewing of both home & away game feeds. DirecTV allows only one feed and blacks out the other.


Not saying much insofar as Fiat has better satisfaction rated than the HR20, but I'm staying with D*!


----------



## Cybercowboy (Sep 14, 2007)

Yeah that E* is great for NFL Sunday Ticket HD and MLB pack. :lol:

I love it. An E* subscriber chiding D* for their RSN's. Like they even _care_ about sports. :lol:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

islesfan said:


> Not saying much insofar as Fiat has better satisfaction rated than the HR20, but I'm staying with D*!


Im wondering how he got Dish is better for sports??????:eek2:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> BTW, where is HGTV and Food? Those should have been easy adds and are 24/7 HD (even if the programs don't match the SD version). How much of Bravo, USA and SciFi are in HD? Anything yet? Or just promises of an occasional HD show or block?
> 
> Congrats on the new channels, but keep it in perspective.


Last time I checked it wasn't the end of October yet, which is when D* is saying they would be on. As for where the HD is on Bravo, USA and Sci-Fi, they've been on for less then 6 hours and usually networks don't run their A list programming during the day, ever hear of Prime Time, let's just wait and see what happens.

BTW, I like it now how the E* fan boys are asking where all the HD programming is when D* has many of the same HD channel that they've been bragging about for the past few months. It was OK that they weren't 24x7 HD content then but now it's a big issue.:sure:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Cybercowboy said:


> Yeah that E* is great for NFL Sunday Ticket HD and MLB pack. :lol:
> 
> I love it. An E* subscriber chiding D* for their RSN's. Like they even _care_ about sports. :lol:


A word to the wise... James is a Super Moderator here, and I'm sure he wasn't chiding anyone.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> The debate here is not whether E* or D* has national beams of RSNs and how you subscribe to them. They both have had them for a long, long time but until today, they've all been Standard Definition.


Bzzz. Sorry. E* has had HD RSNs for several months - available in their Sports Pack and subject to blackout rules. They have not been all in standard definition (except on D*).


> As of today, at least three RSNs have their HD feeds on a NATIONAL beam (available to ANYONE who subscribes, irrespective of location) with D*. Is the same true of E*? A simple yes or no will clear up that matter.


Bzzz. Sorry. E* has 22 HD RSNs on national beams available to anyone who subscribes to the appropriate package.


> And by the way, the count of six is inaccurate. NINE national HD channels were added today. Hurray for equality.


Bzzz. Sorry again. If you are going to count RSNs count all five that D* added today ... making 11 "national" channels (all five of D*'s 24/7 HD RSNs are now available nationally - subject to blackout).

Look ... I'm happy for you - all of you D* guys. Great, more to watch! But keep it in perspective. If you want to count every stinking HD channel the count is E* 74 and D* 42 (58 with game only MPEG2 RSNs).

And now back to your regularly scheduled euphoria ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RAD said:


> BTW, I like it now how the E* fan boys are asking where all the HD programming is when D* has many of the same HD channel that they've been bragging about for the past few months. It was OK that they weren't 24x7 HD content then but now it's a big issue.:sure:


I hope you're not counting me as a fan boy ... I've never been overly happy about A&E, TNT and the other "upconvert" channels that now pass for HD on both systems.

Perspective. Cool, now you can watch a few channels upconverted and some stretched on your HD television! Hopefully when prime time comes there will be true HD feeds ... but that still comes down to the same complaint I have with E* channels - a few hours a week does not a HD channel make.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> (And, to borghe, there are only 15 Voom channels - not 20. There were 21 Voom HD channels when Voom had them on their now failed independent service, but there are only 15 US channels today.)


I respectfully stand corrected. However you have to admit that for the most part the voom channels are about as "worthwhile" as the RSN's everyone is arguing about. And while a few people might chime in with "I love _____Voom channel. Screw you!!" the majority of E* subs likely turn to them for 10 minutes after getting their HD install and then never pay another bit of attention to 'em.

As for your complaints (and everyone else's) about the content of USA, Sci-Fi, Bravo, etc... don't you think it's more than a little unfair to be leveling those criticisms at DirecTV? DirecTV has no control over what they decide to send out. They've only made the commitment to carry the channel. And while from an HD enthusiast's point of view it might make more sense to carry HGTV or Food which air considerably more HD content than Sci-Fi or USA, it makes much more sense to a mass consumer to carry channels like USA, Sci-Fi, Bravo, etc. As much as you dismiss the channels because of their lack of HD programming, the average consumer is going to find those much more appealing as bullet points than either of "your" primarily HD channels.

Just saying, your reasons for downing on DirecTV's additions are just as flawed and skewed as many of those piping them up. 11 24/7 channels added, in whatever capacity, is a huge improvement and does nothing but improve viewing for the majority of the consumer base in some form or another. And E* customers have no problem acting the exact same way when E* adds 1-3 channels. So why is it now any less impressive when D* adds 6-11 channels? Just saying.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I hope you're not counting me as a fan boy ... I've never been overly happy about A&E, TNT and the other "upconvert" channels that now pass for HD on both systems.
> 
> Perspective. Cool, now you can watch a few channels upconverted and some stretched on your HD television! Hopefully when prime time comes there will be true HD feeds ... but that still comes down to the same complaint I have with E* channels - a few hours a week does not a HD channel make.


I dont think anyone is calling you a fanboy james. I know im not. But do you have a link that shows which 22 RSN's are available nationally in 24/7 HD basis on E*? Ive looked on their site and cant find it.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> I dont think anyone is calling you a fanboy james. I know im not. But do you have a link that shows which 22 RSN's are available nationally in 24/7 HD basis on E*? Ive looked on their site and cant find it.


The only link I can find is

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/our_products/dish_hd/programming/sports/RSNindex.shtml

Where they specifically state that all 22 are game only.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> The now-weekly complaining is not only predictable but it's becoming lame.
> 
> Let's see...complaining about no channels being added? Check.
> Complaining about when the channels ARE being added....check.
> ...


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

borghe said:


> The only link I can find is
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/our_products/dish_hd/programming/sports/RSNindex.shtml
> 
> Where they specifically state that all 22 are game only.


Well thats what it looks like to me, and if that is in fact the case, its a totally different comparison
and from what i see it doesnt say anything about them being national.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

there is currently no clue as to how the HD Extra pack will work. The big question on everyone's mind is "will it be included in any tiers". Traditionally DirecTV has always offered additional packs (like the old family pack with boomerang) on at least a top-end-non-premium tier as well as the platinum/premier/whatever tier. However the old HD Acess tier was the first one that wasn't offered anywhere else. You had to subscribe to it no matter what package you had. However to me that seems different than HD Extra which seems to me to be more like the old family package.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> Bzzz. Sorry. E* has had HD RSNs for several months - available in their Sports Pack and subject to blackout rules. They have not been all in standard definition (except on D*).


OK, that's good information - information I've been asking about for quite some time now. I stand corrected.



James Long said:


> Bzzz. Sorry. E* has 22 HD RSNs on national beams available to anyone who subscribes to the appropriate package.Bzzz. Sorry again. If you are going to count RSNs count all five that D* added today ... making 11 "national" channels (all five of D*'s 24/7 HD RSNs are now available nationally - subject to blackout).


Bzzz. You just covered that. Emphasis noted.



James Long said:


> Look ... I'm happy for you - all of you D* guys. Great, more to watch! But keep it in perspective. If you want to count every stinking HD channel the count is E* 74 and D* 42 (58 with game only MPEG2 RSNs).
> And now back to your regularly scheduled euphoria ...


You keep talking about perspective, and I'm all for that. Perspective is best gotten by taking a step backward. Take two steps, and you will see that the list of HD feeds is already roughly equal, with a few variances. Take two more, and you will see that the number of HD feeds will jump again in a few months for D* (and likely other providers as well). So why are you arguing for perspective when you are taking the same treelined view as everyone else?

And by the way, how are you able to confirm what is Mpeg2 and what is Mpeg4? Do you have DirecTV? From what I know, that information has not been officially released by D* yet. Bzzz me if I'm wrong.


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Bzzz. Sorry. E* has had HD RSNs for several months - available in their Sports Pack and subject to blackout rules. They have not been all in standard definition (except on D*).Bzzz. Sorry. E* has 22 HD RSNs on national beams available to anyone who subscribes to the appropriate package.Bzzz. Sorry again. If you are going to count RSNs count all five that D* added today ... making 11 "national" channels (all five of D*'s 24/7 HD RSNs are now available nationally - subject to blackout).
> 
> Look ... I'm happy for you - all of you D* guys. Great, more to watch! But keep it in perspective. If you want to count every stinking HD channel the count is E* 74 and D* 42 (58 with game only MPEG2 RSNs).
> 
> And now back to your regularly scheduled euphoria ...


I guess simple answers are not available.

SuperModerator or not, it's rather rude to BZZZ every line... He asked a simple question, and even ASKED for a yes or no answer. You did use yes or no in a reply!

To each, their own. I prefer to have a single dish to receive everything. It might be nice to see "both" sides of a game, but I want to maintain my ability to see the game at all, when the content is pulled due to violations of terms.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> As for your complaints (and everyone else's) about the content of USA, Sci-Fi, Bravo, etc... don't you think it's more than a little unfair to be leveling those criticisms at DirecTV? DirecTV has no control over what they decide to send out.


It remains D*'s decision to send out those channels. For many years E* made the decision not to send out low-HD HD channels, apparently judging channels by the number of hours of HD and not adding the channels with few real HD hours. That decision is slipping, but the market is also changing to where many more channels are going to have upconverts with some HDs. If D* wants to lead the way with upconvert channels I'm fine with that - but I see no reason why it cannot be noted or questioned.


> And E* customers have no problem acting the exact same way when E* adds 1-3 channels. So why is it now any less impressive when D* adds 6-11 channels? Just saying.


I have not seen an "E* blows D* out of the water" thread ... so "the same way"? Not quite.

I've had E* HD for 17 months with a decent channel lineup that has grown over those month ... D* is playing catchup. And I'm very glad that they are. E* has made one promise: To remain the HD leader. Any D* catchup puts pressure on E* to put up or shut up.

Pressure on the company, mind you, not on any poster in this forum. We are not here as representatives of E* or D* ... nearly everyone I know on this forum has no connection to the companies. Which is why we need to make sure this isn't personal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> I dont think anyone is calling you a fanboy james. I know im not. But do you have a link that shows which 22 RSN's are available nationally in 24/7 HD basis on E*? Ive looked on their site and cant find it.


Did I say they were 24/7 and not game channels? They are available nationally subject to blackout. Every one of them (except SportsSouth) appears in my EPG. Unfortunately just like on the 24/7 RSNs, there are blackouts.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Did I say they were 24/7 and not game channels? They are available nationally subject to blackout. Every one of them (except SportsSouth) appears in my EPG. Unfortunately just like on the 24/7 RSNs, there are blackouts.


James if i understand the blackout rules, the games would only be available in that particular region. If that is true, to say its national would be false. correct?
And if they arent 24/7 then no they shouldnt be counted i dont think anyone is saying that they should. But the difference between a national 24/7 channel that only blacks out games, and a "game only" channel that blacks out games is great in my opinion


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> Did I say they were 24/7 and not game channels? They are available nationally subject to blackout. Every one of them (except SportsSouth) appears in my EPG. Unfortunately just like on the 24/7 RSNs, there are blackouts.


Some RSNs have programming other than games. These shows are worth watching for fans of an out of market team. When Fox Sports for Oakland goes online and if I find out they have HD shows regarding the Raiders such as is shown on SNY and Yes for the Mets and Yankees the sports pack will look very good to me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't count RSNs of either type --- and have not even in my SD counts.
Just discussing the reasoning a bit.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> I don't count RSNs of either type --- and have not even in my SD counts.
> Just discussing the reasoning a bit.


Why not? If they are available 24/7, nationally, and have regular HD content, then they should be considered "National Channels". No less so than HBO or Showtime, which you also have to subscribe to. I am still a bit confused then about your definition of a HD RSN in D* and E*.

DirecTV HD RSN = nationally available, regardless of zip code, 24/7 programming, subject to blackouts (like any other network is).

E* HD RSN = nationally available (regardless of zip code???), subject to blackouts ...


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

ok, to clear things up, 24/7 RSNs and Game Only RSNs are NOT the same thing. Sorry James. You can still see programming content, in HD, on the 24/7 channels throughout the day on D*. You can't on E*. The games are shown nationally, subject to blackout, on E* and are subject to the same blackout rules on D* also. However when a game isn't being shown/blacked-out, the HD channel is dead on E*, but not on D*. This is a key difference.

As for D* "making the decision" to throw up low-content channels and E* "making the decision" to keep off low-content channels, let's not kid ourselves here. E* "looks out for you" because they don't have a whole ton of bandwidth to be throwing around at every station that pops up. They have to gauge between what they can retransmit and what they can't. But I promise you if E* had enough bandwidth they would instantly sign up every single of the 100 channels DirecTV has promised to bring this year.

Conversely, DirecTV does have the bandwidth. More than enough actually. So they have little care for how much content an HD provider has. It's not their problem. Is it padding numbers and kind of bogus? Absolutely, but if even two HD shows a week air on that network, those are two HD shows not available on the competition.

Bottom line is that both companies are limited. E* with the bandwidth they have to play with to add new channels, and D* with the amount of content they have available to put up. But crowing about how E* looks out for you and that D* is only interested in padding its numbers is missing the point on both counts.

And discounting 24/7 national channels where most times outside of a game I can flip to and see HD content is kind of going against what you were just saying. So you can't count USA and Sci-Fi because they don't have HD content, and you can't count the RSN's because the only HD content they have that we really want is usually blacked out. Seems like you have a lot of rules for what you can count, and the only advantage to playing by those rules is that E* comes out ahead in channel counts.

just saying.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

NYSmoker said:


> Some RSNs have programming other than games. These shows are worth watching for fans of an out of market team. When Fox Sports for Oakland goes online and if I find out they have HD shows regarding the Raiders such as is shown on SNY and Yes for the Mets and Yankees the sports pack will look very good to me.


Thats my point exactly. I went home at lunch, turned on YESHD and watched Mike and Mike, in HD.
Another one that they lit up had a football game playing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> Why not? If they are available 24/7, nationally, and have regular HD content, then they should be considered "National Channels".


They are not available 24/7 ... they are subject to blackouts. 
(Probably shouldn't count ESPN and ESPN2 using that rule, but the ESPNs have less blackouts and are _intended_ to be national channels not RSNs.)


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> They are not available 24/7 ... they are subject to blackouts.
> (Probably shouldn't count ESPN and ESPN2 using that rule, but the ESPNs have less blackouts and are _intended_ to be national channels not RSNs.)


But do they have regualar HD content?
Thats very picky James They are available 22.77799999/7 then. lol must have to be 22.8/7!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> E* "looks out for you" because they don't have a whole ton of bandwidth to be throwing around at every station that pops up. They have to gauge between what they can retransmit and what they can't. But I promise you if E* had enough bandwidth they would instantly sign up every single of the 100 channels DirecTV has promised to bring this year.


E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD. They made a decision.

Have fun and enjoy your HD folks ... after all, that is the IMPORTANT thing about new HD ... not arguing on a forum but watching the CONTENT!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD. They made a decision.
> 
> Have fun and enjoy your HD folks ... after all, that is the IMPORTANT thing about new HD ... not arguing on a forum but watching the CONTENT!


THAT I agree with! Just trying to understand you crazy E* folks! oh wait, I have E* also!


----------



## TARDIS (Sep 5, 2007)

dcbag said:


> It seems to always be next year. Now after the 2nd week of HD rollout, I am quite dissappointed with content, and with D's choices of channels.


#1 it seems to be this year not next that we are getting the channels or did I miss something 

#2 D* is not responsible for the content on the channels e.g. Sci-Fi is responsible for their content not D*

#3 They seem to be rolling out some of the more popular channels. Granted there are some channels that I would like to have that they have not yet added and some channels that they have added that I don't care to have but so far they are delivering on thier promise to roll out 70 channels by the end of the month. So w/i three weeks we should have about 30 more channels. I think you will find that most people don't have every channel they would like yet in HD.

#4 I bet which channels get added when is not decided randomly. Perhaps someone could share and/or speculate why, for example, channel x would be rolled out before channel y. I would enjoy learning more how the process works. Thanks.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I am very happy about the D* HD channels, it's a big improvement. I have been using Satellite TV for over 25 years, ever since I was a teenager and picked up my first catalog that had an old 70mhz drake receiver listed along with a Tracker IV. Somehow I was able to convince my father to fund and let me build a 12 foot dish and from there I have been hooked ever since.

At home I have all the systems and from a comparison this is pretty much how I see it in order of ranking.

1) FTA HD is the best picture (using a HTPC)
2) C-Band 4DTV HD 
3) OTA
4) D*
5) E*

You can flip a coin between D* and E* on most channels but a few D* channels are just better and thats why I would rank it slightly higher.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

DISH still advertises 38 HD channels. Some have argued that the 15 Vooms offer enough content for 5 channels.

DIRECTV has these HD's: 9 (MPEG2) + HD Locals + 21 (last week) + 6 (this week) + 5 (RSN)

So depending on how you add it up, DIRECT is pretty close to DISH in number.

Still no press release for DIRECTV yet saying the channel are on. Orders are too backlogged...

- Craig


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD. They made a decision.
> 
> Have fun and enjoy your HD folks ... after all, that is the IMPORTANT thing about new HD ... not arguing on a forum but watching the CONTENT!


Ah but at work I can't watch content so why not argue a little?

I am having fun remotely scheduling my HR20 to record plenty of content to watch later.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD. They made a decision.


I don't know if I buy that. Didn't Charlie vow to be the HD leader? Why would they make a decision not to use bandwidth to keep that vow?


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD. They made a decision.


Considering most of E*'s HD bandwidth is leased, I certainly would not say they have a ton to spare. The fact is that they ARE limited.. while not constrained at this very second they do have to account for channels coming up that customers will probably want. Adding CNN-HD now probably isn't a good move if it means they can't add Disney-HD (a higher ratings channel) later. The decision made was based on bandwidth, because if it wasn't, what benefit do they have by not carrying a channel especially when all per-subscriber fees are more than recouped on the HD package fee.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

You have the Remote booking working???
I thought that was not out yet. I looked and I still don't see a record option.



NYSmoker said:


> Ah but at work I can't watch content so why not argue a little?
> 
> I am having fun remotely scheduling my HR20 to record plenty of content to watch later.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> You have the Remote booking working???
> I thought that was not out yet. I looked and I still don't see a record option.


Check the Cutting Edge section.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Thanks


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was just going to fade away and let you enjoy your HD without commentary ... but I've got to correct a couple things here:


man_rob said:


> Didn't Charlie vow to be the HD leader? Why would they make a decision not to use bandwidth to keep that vow?


74 to 42 (58 with MPEG2 RSNs) total ... 39 to 36 true national channels.
E* is still ahead and the vow is unbroken (so far).


borghe said:


> Considering most of E*'s HD bandwidth is leased, I certainly would not say they have a ton to spare.


Most of E*'s bandwidth is directly licensed to E*. On the DBS side E* has 111 licensed transponders (including the eight that are being transferred from SkyAngel. D* has 45 DBS transponders. Add to that the Canadian space that both companies lease (D* at 72.5° and E* at 129°) and E* still holds a lot more DBS licenses.

Step to the FSS side (ku just below DBS) and E* has license to 500 MHz at 121° . They are leasing and using 500 MHz at 118.7° and have available 500 MHz at 105°. MOST of E*'s space is NOT leased ... it is theirs.

My statement was "E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD." To clarify, that doesn't include HD LILs, but E* isn't in a pinch.


> The decision made was based on bandwidth, because if it wasn't, what benefit do they have by not carrying a channel especially when all per-subscriber fees are more than recouped on the HD package fee.


There are some on the E* side that believe that the per subscriber fees on the uncarried HD channels are zero - included in the SD carriage price (at least for some channels).

I'm glad that _YOU_ know exactly what is going on, since people who follow such things much closer don't seem to have a clue.  


NYSmoker said:


> I am having fun remotely scheduling my HR20 to record plenty of content to watch later.


I wonder when that will come out of CE? E* should have that by Christmas. Then we can say who has the better remote booking system.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JL, why didn't you include the Ka licenses that D* has at 99/101/103 in your calculations of who has what, do it's a more accurate picture?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I wasn't doing a complete bandwidth comparison. I was correcting a statement made that most of E* space was leased (it isn't) and reinforcing the statement that E* has the space available to add all of D*'s HD (if they wanted to go that way).


----------



## hbkbiggestfan (May 25, 2007)

Well I guess D* officially has more QUALITY HD channels than E* and speaking of quality, PQ on these new HDs is as perfect as any HD picture I have ever seen through any cable/satellite provider. Great job DirecTV! Keep 'em coming!


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> I was just going to fade away and let you enjoy your HD without commentary ... but I've got to correct a couple things here:74 to 42 (58 with MPEG2 RSNs) total ... 39 to 36 true national channels.


Unfortunately to get those numbers YOU say you either have to throw out ALL of the RSN's because they aren't true 24/7 thanks to blackouts, OR that you have to include them all because an RSN is an RSN, even if E* is game only. See the problem? Your refusal to acknowledge that *DirecTV has 24/7 RSNs that are subject to league blackout rules* is making your case very shaky, and hence the arguments here. You can't toss out a 24/7 channel just because 3 hours a day might be blacked out thanks to the same blackout rules that apply to every sports channel, ESPN, RSN, or otherwise.. And you can't include E*'s game only HD RSNs to D*'s 24/7 RSN's because, well.. you just can't. Surely even you can see the difference there. But to sum it up simply on RSNs, you CAN include DirecTV's because on ANY given day you will see HD on them. You CAN'T include E*'s because you could go an entire week or more without seeing HD on them. It's as simple as that and your dancing around the subject doesn't change it.



> My statement was "E* has more bandwidth spare than D* is using for HD." To clarify, that doesn't include HD LILs, but E* isn't in a pinch.
> 
> There are some on the E* side that believe that the per subscriber fees on the uncarried HD channels are zero - included in the SD carriage price (at least for some channels).
> 
> I'm glad that _YOU_ know exactly what is going on, since people who follow such things much closer don't seem to have a clue.


Ok.... you're really digging yourself a shallow grave here. Either one of two things is true, and these are the ONLY one of two things that can be true. Either there are NO per-subscriber costs, at which point according to you E* has all of this bandwidth doing nothing and it wouldn't cost them a single penny more to carry these channels.. OR there ARE per-subscriber costs, which are easily absorbed by E*'s significantly higher $20/month HD access fee and E* is simply choosing not to carry them either to raise profits or to.........?????? Under NO scenario does it make sense for E* to NOT carry these channels if the per-subscriber costs are able to be absorbed or non-existent AND they have the bandwidth to spare plus some. You can get as technical as you want but that's just straight up business economics 101. Under NONE of those scenarios is it beneficial for E* to say "You know, we have the bandwidth, but we're just better off not carrying those channels."

You've argued intelligently and rationally for the most part, but this far in your sounding more like an apologist trying to defend why "his" (emphasis) provider isn't carrying the channels another provider is.

Now obviously E* WILL carry them at some point. and maybe it isn't bandwidth related to them not carrying them now (maybe). But there is a reason they're not carrying them, and any sane person sitting on the outside of it would say it's NOT because they are saving their precious subscribers from all of the upconverts and stretching. If anything those upconverted and stretched channels are bullet points in marketing for competition, something that E* is VERY interested in doing. Besides, you didn't see them "protecting" their subscribers from TNT when it was 85% stretched upconverts, or from Discovery HDT or BravoHD when they were airing a total of maybe 20 hours of different programming a week at their very starts.


----------



## JMartinko (Dec 16, 2006)

Does E* actually SHOW any and all of the available HD RSN games, or do they do a select number on a few channels like D* has done for several years on 93, 94 95, & 97? If E* doesn't offer ALL available HD games on the additional channels it wouldn't seem like they could count as 22 or whatever the number is any more than D* could have counted them for the last two years. I honestly don't know what E* offers, so I am asking a legitimate question, not trying to start a new flame war.


----------



## ez2logon (Oct 24, 2006)

Let's see...61.5, 110, 119, 118.7, 121, 129 and I think 140something.

I don't subscribe to the "D* does whatever to E*" premise 'cause I really don't care what E* is doing. I decided a long time ago to stick with the service that I thought had the most coherent plan to serve their subscribers. I think I made the right decision.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > I was just going to fade away and let you enjoy your HD without commentary ... but I've got to correct a couple things here:74 to 42 (58 with MPEG2 RSNs) total ... 39 to 36 true national channels.
> ...


E*'s already claiming the 74 ... to get to 70 by the end of October and "up to 100" by the end of the year D* is going to have to use the same inflation. I gave both numbers ... the one you are going to hear from the providers (inflated beyond belief) and a number that I believe in ... with no inflation for channels where the best content is not available to most subscribers.



> You can't toss out a 24/7 channel just because 3 hours a day might be blacked out thanks to the same blackout rules that apply to every sports channel, ESPN, RSN, or otherwise.. And you can't include E*'s game only HD RSNs to D*'s 24/7 RSN's because, well.. you just can't.


Because "you just can't." Best argument in the thread. 

It isn't just three hours a day blacked out ... it is the best three hours every day (unless there isn't a game to black out). ESPN has less blackouts than RSNs. They are very annoying (I lost the last two seconds of play and postgame of the ND game last weekend because the ran over into the next event which was blacked out) but not as common as an out of market RSN black out.

How many channels should RSNs count for? Just one's local RSN? I get two local RSNs. Just 24/7 RSNs? All RSNs available? When the best content is missing to most viewers nationally it is easier to simply say ## channels plus RSNs and PPV.



> Under NO scenario does it make sense for E* to NOT carry these channels if the per-subscriber costs are able to be absorbed or non-existent AND they have the bandwidth to spare plus some. You can get as technical as you want but that's just straight up business economics 101. Under NONE of those scenarios is it beneficial for E* to say "You know, we have the bandwidth, but we're just better off not carrying those channels."


I said it was E*'s decision ... I did not say that the decision made sense nor that I agreed with it.

There is proof that the space exists. There is rumor that the costs are low or zero. And there are many claims, including yours, from people who seem to know why E* isn't adding channels. The only thing that we can say for sure is that E* has not added the channels.

No need to get violent about it. Simply put ... they made a business decision.



JMartinko said:


> Does E* actually SHOW any and all of the available HD RSN games, or do they do a select number on a few channels like D* has done for several years on 93, 94 95, & 97?


E* has individual channels for each of the 22 RSNs they carry. They share space on two transponders so not all 22 of them can have a game active at the same time. I don't believe a local market has missed a HD game yet (other than the RSNs that are not carried in HD).


----------



## LDLemu4U (Oct 16, 2006)

Does anybody here have any statistics as to how many HD subs does E* and D* have right now? Also, total subs for each of them?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

Everyone keeps talking about the pro sports blackouts on RSNs. Many of us love *COLLEGE* sports. RSN college blackouts are few and far between. Many college sports fans live outside the RSN of their alma mater. We dream of the day when we can get our out of market college games in HD.

When all of the RSNs have gone HD, and are showing all of the most popular college sports (basketball/football) in HD, there's going to be a major bandwidth crunch on E* as compared to D*. That's when D*'s 24/7 will come into importance. I understand that E* currently claims to carry all HD games from all RSNs but I don't see how they can do that when there are 30 RSNs carrying HD college football games at the same time on a Saturday night. It's not happening today but it will be happening soon.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LDLemu4U said:


> Does anybody here have any statistics as to how many HD subs does E* and D* have right now? Also, total subs for each of them?


Neither E* nor D* break down their subs by HD. (I've seen public statements from both stating that.)

D* claims "more than 16.3 million customers", E* claims "more than 13.585 million".


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

the E* bandwidth agruement can be brought down to one question. Do you want 1 dish(2 dish in a few Dma's for a limited time or internationals) for all for D*programming or do you want E* antenna farm you are going to have to have for all of E* programming


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Based upon what I have read so far in this thread, I have to say that JL's analysis, logic, facts and responses are far more credible than the attacking, unintelligible and unsupported statements others are making in this thread. JL is very capable of stating his position intelligently and concisely. I, for one, value his comments.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Christopher Gould said:


> the E* bandwidth agruement can be brought down to one question. Do you want 1 dish(2 dish in a few Dma's for a limited time or internationals) for all for D*programming or do you want E* antenna farm you are going to have to have for all of E* programming


With the FCC's recent order that prohibits DBS providers from using two dishes to deliver programming, it ought to be interesting to see what effect this has on D* or DISH.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

The only thing I really remember from my E* days was that, even with good signal readings on my superdish, I'd lose my locals every time we had wind with the force of a fart. 

Oh yeah, one more thing. It was really, really aggravating when I would have to go into the menus on many occasions after a thunderstorm and have to get it just right before doing a "check switch." If I didn't get it just right, it usually meant having to make a call to Hadji and finally getting the tv back on an hour or so later.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

Questions for James to clear up my understanding of E* RSNs:

If I have a California zip code, and I tune into NESN on E* while the Red Sox are playing, what will I see and will it be in HD?

If I have a California zip code, and I tune into NESN on E* when SportsDesk is on, what will I see and will it be in HD?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Christopher Gould said:


> the E* bandwidth agruement can be brought down to one question. Do you want 1 dish(2 dish in a few Dma's for a limited time or internationals) for all for D*programming or do you want E* antenna farm you are going to have to have for all of E* programming


I'll take the farm ... but a Dish 1000+ is four satellites and most programming. East coast has to deal with 61.5° for HD (at the moment) but most customers can be single dish seeing four orbits on a smaller dish than D*'s new HD dish.



Lord Vader said:


> With the FCC's recent order that prohibits DBS providers from using two dishes to deliver programming, it ought to be interesting to see what effect this has on D* or DISH.


What order? Both D* and E* is in full compliance with having all locals within each market on the same dish. Digital locals can be on another dish per the rules. What will be interesting is 2009 when analog locals go POOF! But that's not a problem for 16 months (or so).



TigersFanJJ said:


> The only thing I really remember from my E* days was that, even with good signal readings on my superdish, I'd lose my locals every time we had wind with the force of a fart.


Cut back on the beans and other gassy food if your flatulence is that strong.

How is that big ka dish handling the breeze?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> What order? Both D* and E* is in full compliance with having all locals within each market on the same dish. Digital locals can be on another dish per the rules.


No they can't. The FCC vacated a previous ruling that allowed it. This is no longer permitted. Here's a report on that:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6471667.html


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> Questions for James to clear up my understanding of E* RSNs:
> 
> If I have a California zip code, and I tune into NESN on E* while the Red Sox are playing, what will I see and will it be in HD?
> 
> If I have a California zip code, and I tune into NESN on E* when SportsDesk is on, what will I see and will it be in HD?


NESN is not yet carried by E* in HD.

If you want to use CSN Chicago as an example ... the blackout rules are the same as for the regular RSN. If you see the game on the SD channel you would see it on the HD channel of that RSN. HD is game only.

Another example ... FSN Detroit ... If the Tigers were playing on FSN Detroit and not blacked out in my area on the SD channel I could also watch the game on the HD channel via E*. E* doesn't arbitrarily cut off game feeds by region. D* does not offer FSN Detroit HD in my area.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> NESN is not yet carried by E* in HD.
> 
> If you want to use CSN Chicago as an example ... the blackout rules are the same as for the regular RSN. If you see the game on the SD channel you would see it on the HD channel of that RSN. HD is game only.
> 
> Another example ... FSN Detroit ... If the Tigers were playing on FSN Detroit and not blacked out in my area on the SD channel I could also watch the game on the HD channel via E*. E* doesn't arbitrarily cut off game feeds by region. D* does not offer FSN Detroit HD in my area.


That's not my question.

If you, in Detroit, tried to tune into CSN Chicago, would YOU see the game? Would it be in HD for YOU?

If you, in Detroit, tried to tune into CSN Chicago when there was not a game, would YOU see anything? Would it be in HD for YOU (if the station was broadcasting in HD) in Detroit?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> No they can't. The FCC vacated a previous ruling that allowed it. This is no longer permitted. Here's a report on that:
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6471667.html


You don't understand the rule.

The rule is that a market's stations cannot be split between two dishes ... not that two (or more) dishes cannot be required for a full programming package. The only thing the 2004 law and belated ruling affected was E*'s _former_ practice of having major networks on the main dish and must carry channels on a wing dish. That practice _ceased_ (as required by law).

Both D* and E* can put locals wherever they like as long as entire markets are kept together. HD locals do not have to be kept on the same location as SD, but the HDs have to be together.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

The rule is clear, and neither E* nor D* can attempt to get around it, the former of which is very good at flaunting the law.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> If you, in Detroit, tried to tune into CSN Chicago, would YOU see the game? Would it be in HD for YOU?


It all depends on the blackout rules. If the game is blacked out a Detroit viewer would not see it in SD or HD - even on D*. If the game is not blacked out in Detroit the viewer could watch in either SD or HD - their choice.



> If you, in Detroit, tried to tune into CSN Chicago when there was not a game, would YOU see anything? Would it be in HD for YOU (if the station was broadcasting in HD) in Detroit?


CSN Chicago is available in SD nationwide ... a Detroit viewer could watch non-blacked out non-game content there. No E* customer gets HD RSNs when there is no game on. If you don't understand the words "game only HD" I can't help you further.

I do get games on "game only HD" RSNs that D* has yet to make available outside of their home markets. That may not be the point YOU are trying to make, but it is the rest of the story, so to speak. Watching non-game HD from one of the RSNs D* added today may be interesting ... but I get _games_ in HD that D* refuses to deliver to my market. I'll take that trade off.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> The rule is clear, and neither E* nor D* can attempt to get around it, the former of which is very good at flaunting the law.


Both companies are within the law on this one.

If you would like to increase your understanding check out the legal issues forum here at DBSTalk. It certainly is off topic for this thread.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> It all depends on the blackout rules. If the game is blacked out a Detroit viewer would not see it in SD or HD - even on D*. If the game is not blacked out in Detroit the viewer could watch in either SD or HD - their choice.
> 
> CSN Chicago is available in SD nationwide ... a Detroit viewer could watch non-blacked out non-game content there. No E* customer gets HD RSNs when there is no game on. If you don't understand the words "game only HD" I can't help you further.
> 
> I do get games on "game only HD" RSNs that D* has yet to make available outside of their home markets. That may not be the point YOU are trying to make, but it is the rest of the story, so to speak. Watching non-game HD from one of the RSNs D* added today may be interesting ... but I get _games_ in HD that D* refuses to deliver to my market. I'll take that trade off.


Bzzz. That IS the point. The HD RSNs that were added by D* today ARE national feeds 24/7, not "special feeds" as is the case with E* "game-only" content. Blackouts apply to NHL, NFL, MLB, and NBA across ALL channels, on ALL providers, not just on RSNs on a particular provider. Which "games" do you see in HD on the "game-only" HD RSNs when most "games" and blacked out anyway? Not many, I would imagine, unless you are in the local RSN area, in which case, we are STILL not talking about national HDs.

ALL of the content, barring blackout rules, from HD RSNs are available to D* sports subscribers, even the blank screens that you are getting during your blacked-out HD "game only" games.

To insinuate that D* and E*'s RSNs in HD are somehow comparable, or that E* has an edge in that deparment, is ludicrous.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Here is a simple question.
How many NFL games do you get from E* in HD every week on Sunday morning and afternoon?


----------



## surfmaui03 (Feb 26, 2005)

JL, Seeing how you are moderator on the E* forum, why would you come to a D* forum, and do nothing but make snide remarks, and be rude to almost everyone? To me, it seems like if one of us D* guys posted comments on an E* forum the way you are here, we would get our posts removed, or possibly banned. I don`t know why you continue to post here, with nothing good to say about D*. Kind of abusing the moderator title aren't we?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

More than I care to watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> To insinuate that D* and E*'s RSNs in HD are somehow comparable, or that E* has an edge in that deparment, is ludicrous.


If you prefer to watch talking heads chatter and show clips of games that were blacked out in your area on the 5 HD RSNs that D* finally offers nationally to getting actual HD game coverage that IS available on E* and not currently on D* ... well that's your choice. 22 HD RSNs available as far as the blackout rules allow. Something that is still "coming soon" on D*.



luckydob said:


> Here is a simple question.
> How many NFL games do you get from E* in HD every week on Sunday morning and afternoon?


Without an expensive exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket subscription ... the same number as you do.

Plus the non-sports lover has been able to watch TNT-HD and other HD channels on Sunday without the fear that their HD channel will disappear for a few hours so someone else can watch football. It is good to see D* finally fix that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

surfmaui03 said:


> JL, Seeing how you are moderator on the E* forum, why would you come to a D* forum, and do nothing but make snide remarks, and be rude to almost everyone? To me, it seems like if one of us D* guys posted comments on an E* forum the way you are here, we would get our posts removed, or possibly banned. I don`t know why you continue to post here, with nothing good to say about D*. Kind of abusing the moderator title aren't we?


At the moment I'm being attacked by many people here ... which is understandable as most have a vested interest in D* ... most of my posts have been corrections or direct answers.

I post here as a member ... yes, as Stewart mentioned earlier in the thread I am also a moderator. I only post as a moderator as needed ...

If you guys want a thread where you can blindly pretend that everything is rosy that's fine. It is good that D* added channels. It is great that you enjoy the channels they have added. But it isn't time for a victory dance ...

That will come in a few more channels.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

surfmaui03 said:


> JL, Seeing how you are moderator on the E* forum, why would you come to a D* forum, and do nothing but make snide remarks, and be rude to almost everyone? To me, it seems like if one of us D* guys posted comments on an E* forum the way you are here, we would get our posts removed, or possibly banned. I don`t know why you continue to post here, with nothing good to say about D*. Kind of abusing the moderator title aren't we?


For the same reason, that I go over to the E* forums at times.
Just because you are a "moderator" in one area... doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion, or be part of a discussion else where.

Wouldn't mater if his title said "Moderator"/"Super Moderator"/"Admin"

And honestly... no.. they wouldn't be removed, provided that you remained with in the confines of the rules of the overall forum board.

So if you disagree with James' opinion, or mine for that mater...
That is fine... as we are "forum members" just like the rest of you.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

:backtotop


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> If you prefer to watch talking heads chatter and show clips of games that were blacked out in your area on the 5 HD RSNs that D* finally offers nationally to getting actual HD game coverage that IS available on E* and not currently on D* ... well that's your choice. 22 HD RSNs available as far as the blackout rules allow. Something that is still "coming soon" on D*.


Whoa whoa whoa.... What game content are you getting in HD that I am not? Everthing outside of your viewing area is blacked out... it's the non-game HD content that is really at the heart of the matter. You don't get that through E* AT ALL.

And as with you, if you are being forthright, my intentions are simply for sake of clarification... to compare apples with apples, etc. I have no vested interest - on the contrary, I believe that pulling for one's competitors is the best way to ensure your own good service.


----------



## surfmaui03 (Feb 26, 2005)

James Long said:


> At the moment I'm being attacked by many people here ... which is understandable as most have a vested interest in D* ... most of my posts have been corrections or direct answers.
> 
> I post here as a member ... yes, as Stewart mentioned earlier in the thread I am also a moderator. I only post as a moderator as needed ...
> 
> ...


I got ya! I just thought it was odd for an E*moderator to come on here and stir the pot. Personally, I am happy with D*, and their new HD additions. I don`t see your point about "pretending" that every thing is Rosy, I think it is. It has been a long time coming, but well worth the wait for me! I was an E*subscriber for about 6 months, and hated them. Terrible equipment, daily problems, losing my channels, poor cust service\techs, etc. I have friends who love E*, and have never had a problem.

If it ever had worked right at my house, I might have been a subscriber to both services, since there are a few channels I like, that both carry, that the other doesn't. But seeing how I live near an airport( that was the excuse E* finally determined after 10+ service calls, and multiple equipment swaps, and my next door neighbor has E* with none of the problems I had), I guess I am stuck with just one provider !


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Bob Coxner said:


> Everyone keeps talking about the pro sports blackouts on RSNs. Many of us love *COLLEGE* sports. RSN college blackouts are few and far between. Many college sports fans live outside the RSN of their alma mater. We dream of the day when we can get our out of market college games in HD.
> 
> When all of the RSNs have gone HD, and are showing all of the most popular college sports (basketball/football) in HD, there's going to be a major bandwidth crunch on E* as compared to D*. That's when D*'s 24/7 will come into importance. I understand that E* currently claims to carry all HD games from all RSNs but I don't see how they can do that when there are 30 RSNs carrying HD college football games at the same time on a Saturday night. It's not happening today but it will be happening soon.


The college football/basketball games aren't blacked out because they are made nationally available to all RSN's. In other words, 25 of 30 RSN's are going to be showing the same game at the same time.


----------



## surfmaui03 (Feb 26, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> For the same reason, that I go over to the E* forums at times.
> Just because you are a "moderator" in one area... doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion, or be part of a discussion else where.
> 
> Wouldn't mater if his title said "Moderator"/"Super Moderator"/"Admin"
> ...


I undertand being a moderator, you can have an opinion. I just don`t understand the point of coming here, and riling up people as an E* member, more or less saying E* is better, and things like "wow, 6 whole channels today". I disagree with things said here on this forum at times too., but it sounds like more of a mocking of D* to me....


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

surfmaui03 said:


> I undertand being a moderator, you can have an opinion. I just don`t understand the point of coming here, and riling up people as an E* member, more or less saying E* is better, and things like "wow, 6 whole channels today". I disagree with things said here on this forum at times too., but it sounds like more of a mocking of D* to me....


It depends on if you are here for learning/debate/discussion, or you just want a rah rah experience. JL was just straightening out some misinformed opinions, which there are plenty of on both sides of the fence. JL is not a rah rah guy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

heavyobjects said:


> Whoa whoa whoa.... What game content are you getting in HD that I am not?


You not being in the same town as me we get entirely different RSNs and blackouts. But comparing a D* sub with my address vs what I get with E* ... apples to apples ... I got to watch the Tigers on FSN Detroit in HD. That channel is not offered by D* in my area.

With a Sports Pack subscription the HD RSNs are not limited geographically ... only by the usual blackout rules. As long as it is on one of the 22 channels, if I get a game in SD I can get it in HD. (I have both 61.5 and 129 in my setup.)


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Well I have been making the E* HD subscribers feel better.I have been letting them know that when the"price is right" they will see TBSHD.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> If you prefer to watch talking heads chatter and show clips of games that were blacked out in your area on the 5 HD RSNs that D* finally offers nationally to getting actual HD game coverage that IS available on E* and not currently on D* ... well that's your choice. 22 HD RSNs available as far as the blackout rules allow. Something that is still "coming soon" on D*.
> 
> Without an expensive exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket subscription ... the same number as you do.
> 
> Plus the non-sports lover has been able to watch TNT-HD and other HD channels on Sunday without the fear that their HD channel will disappear for a few hours so someone else can watch football. It is good to see D* finally fix that.


so if we are talking pricing...I pay 9.99 for my HD channels...and you pay how much a month????


----------



## drisner (Jun 8, 2007)

You pay more than $9.99 per month for your HD channels. You also pay all the rest of your subscription fees to get HD from D*. E* customers pay slightly less for their regular sub fees and more for their HD. Seems like a wash.

I used to have E*. Their customer service was so bad that I left them to go to cable (blech!) And you would every other sweeps or so lose a network (like ABC and all its sister stations) because of pricing arguments.

I have been and still am very happy with D*. USA HD and SciFi HD are huge plusses since they are channels that I watch quite a few shows on. If they could get AMC (Mad Men), FX (The Shield) and Lifetime (Blood Ties) in HD, I would be incredibly happy.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

drisner said:


> You pay more than $9.99 per month for your HD channela. You also pay all the rest of your subscription fees to get HD from D*. E* customers pay slightly less for their regular sub fees and more for thei HD. Seems like a wash.
> 
> I used to have E*. Their customer service was so bad that I left them to go to cable (blech!) And you would every other sweeps or so lose a network (like ABC and all its sister stations) because of pricing arguments.
> 
> I have been and still am very happy with D*. USA HD and SciFi HD are huge plusses since they are channels that I watch quite a few shows on. If they could get AMC (Mad Men), FX (The Shield) and Lifetime (Blood Ties) in HD, I would be incredibly happy.


Not to mention with the new HD additions, D* is increasing their HD price by $5. 
E*'s customer service is brutally bad. 
Although I've never heard of any of those shows you mention, I will pull for your shows, if you pull for BTN HD alts. Deal?


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

heisman said:


> Not to mention with the new HD additions, D* is increasing their HD price by $5.
> E*'s customer service is brutally bad.
> Although I've never heard of any of those shows you mention, I will pull for your shows, if you pull for BTN HD alts. Deal?


The extra $4.99 is only if you want the Extra Pack - HDNet, HDNet Movies, UHD, MHD, Smithsonian HD, & MGM HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

luckydob said:


> so if we are talking pricing...I pay 9.99 for my HD channels...and you pay how much a month????


It depends. How much do you pay to watch that Sunday Ticket in SD?

D* has grandfathered their current HD subscribers ... so you're going to get to keep paying that $9.99 per month for a while. When the grandfathering ends I'm sure you'll pay more (or lose the six and likely more channels that are "extra"). Perhaps even the $9.99 fee will go up.

Pricing is part of marketing ... each system makes a choice of how to charge their customers in the best way possible to recoup their costs and make a profit. Prices are not related to the programming cost as much as it is related to how to get money from the customer without them freaking out too much. $10 gets you something $20 gets you something ... it all goes into the same pot. Marketing is just looking for a pain threshold.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath. 

I like D*, and I am very pleased with the hd additions that have come lately, but this does not mean E* is inferior. Both companies have unique strengths and weaknesses. But this tit-for-tat back and forth is kind of ridiculous. Would anyone get so personally involved in a debate between Coke and Pepsi. I know we all want to think our choices are the correct ones, and they usually are for each of us as individuals. But to say someone else is wrong because they draw different conclusions after viewing the same information is childish. From what I have seen JL has tried to correct some inaccurate statements (something we all seem to love doing), and just because he does not live in our neighborhood his opinions are in some way diminished...... come on...... then just take your ball and go home.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath.
> 
> I like D*, and I am very pleased with the hd additions that have come lately, but this does not mean E* is inferior. Both companies have unique strengths and weaknesses. But this tit-for-tat back and forth is kind of ridiculous. Would anyone get so personally involved in a debate between Coke and Pepsi. I know we all want to think our choices are the correct ones, and they usually are for each of us as individuals. But to say someone else is wrong because they draw different conclusions after viewing the same information is childish. From what I have seen JL has tried to correct some inaccurate statements (something we all seem to love doing), and just because he does not live in our neighborhood his opinions are in some way diminished...... come on...... then just take your ball and go home.


Amen... Thread closed... lol


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Based upon what I have read so far in this thread, I have to say that JL's analysis, logic, facts and responses are far more credible than the attacking, unintelligible and unsupported statements others are making in this thread. JL is very capable of stating his position intelligently and concisely. I, for one, value his comments.


Normally you would be correct, however i have honestly been baffled with what i see as a refusal to see the difference between the RSN offerings


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> If you prefer to watch talking heads chatter and show clips of games that were blacked out in your area on the 5 HD RSNs that D* finally offers nationally to getting actual HD game coverage that IS available on E* and not currently on D* ... well that's your choice. 22 HD RSNs available as far as the blackout rules allow. Something that is still "coming soon" on D*.
> 
> .


James thats the same argument that some D* subs like to make about voom. The content that you or I or anyone else may not find appealing doesnt negate the whole channel in this case or lineup in the case of voom. The fact is they are available on a national hd basis, more or less 24/7. 
And yes 22 may be AVAILABLE to someone, somewhere, but really, how far do the blackout rules allow? Not outside the regional market. And that my fiend does mean not national, so not the same. Thats more of a regional pay per view channel that you paid for in advance


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Normally you would be correct, however i have honestly been baffled with what i see as a refusal to see the difference between the RSN offerings


I too am surprised by how some "D* folks" refuse to think that one through as well. Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference. The argument seems to be over which one is greater than the other more than if they are different.



msmith198025 said:


> And yes 22 may be AVAILABLE to someone, somewhere, but really, how far do the blackout rules allow? Not outside the regional market.


Once D* provides the 18 "game only" HD RSNs they promised (with the other 11 promises being 24/7 RSNs) to the fullest extent that blackouts allow then they will be on equal footing with (or better than) E*. For now, D* HD game RSNs are available in areas SMALLER than the blackouts allow. And that should be noted.

It should also be noted that this whole debate over whether a RSN is national or not is the reason why I make the whole issue a footnote and count _no_ RSNs. 24/7 RSNs are hacked to pieces by blackouts with hours of content missing. Like a PPV channel where one cannot purchase the movie without buying a special (and often expensive) season package. Counting swiss cheese seems odd.

Not counting RSNs isn't about content that is desired or not, it is about content that is available or not. Voom channels don't suffer from blackouts. When one discusses Voom they are not rationalizing that the "off-hours" content is good enough to watch even though "prime" content is available only in select areas. One is discussing a channel where _some_ content is always available.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* is still ahead and the vow is unbroken (so far).


So you're saying that E* will add channels before the end of the month to keep ahead?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm just an observer ... I expect E* to add more channels but when the company has made no announcements (other that to state that they will remain the HD leader) saying they "will" do anything is out of my hands.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'm just an observer ... I expect E* to add more channels but when the company has made no announcements (other that to state that they will remain the HD leader) saying they "will" do anything is out of my hands.


When they launched 7 channels back in August, E* announced it over a month before. Why would E* not be stressing that they are keeping up? Why would they bother spending billions launching new satellites if they already have the bandwidth? Why did E* go to HD lite, and move the Voom channels to mpeg4 to add the channels back in August?


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> I was just going to fade away and let you enjoy your HD without commentary ... but I've got to correct a couple things here:74 to 42 (58 with MPEG2 RSNs) total ... 39 to 36 true national channels.
> E* is still ahead and the vow is unbroken (so far).
> Most of E*'s bandwidth is directly licensed to E*. On the DBS side E* has 111 licensed transponders (including the eight that are being transferred from SkyAngel. D* has 45 DBS transponders. Add to that the Canadian space that both companies lease (D* at 72.5° and E* at 129°) and E* still holds a lot more DBS licenses.
> 
> ...


More promises by Charlie? I go with the DBS company that delivers now.

Sound familiar?

HD now. Check
VOD now. Check
Remote Booking now. Check

Have fun waiting for those things. I will continue to enjoy MLB playoff baseball in glorious HD on TBS.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

man_rob said:


> When they launched 7 channels back in August, E* announced it over a month before. Why would E* not be stressing that they are keeping up? Why would they bother spending billions launching new satellites if they already have the bandwidth? Why did E* go to HD lite, and move the Voom channels to mpeg4 to add the channels back in August?


Again, we're observers. Most of that has been speculated about already in this thread. What E* is doing and why is their mystery.

New satellites are needed regardless of channel launches. Those things don't last forever. E* still has their oldest two satellites in orbit serving programming (although not core programming). Their third oldest satellite (E3) is losing transponders and needs replaced. E4 failed shortly after launch but is keeping a Mexican license warm. E5 has it's own problems but is in service to the best of it's ability at 129° (a Canadian slot). E6 is now a spare (just in case a primary satellite has troubles). E7 is a workhorse keeping E*'s main orbital slot and many local markets running. E8 is scheduled for replacement (soon to be a spare). E9 is not a DBS satellite (it serves 121° FSS Ku). E10 is the latest spot beam satellite (in excellent condition). E12 was purchased from Rainbow DBS and only can cover 13 of E*'s soon to be 30 licenses at 61.5°.

E11 is the next to launch ... it will replace E8 providing stronger ConUS coverage including increased signal in Alaska and Hawaii (increased enough that some E10 content may not be needed on spots).

Everyone needs new satellites. Even D* has replaced a few along the way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYSmoker said:


> More promises by Charlie? I go with the DBS company that delivers now.


Funny. The post you quote contains no promises from Charlie. Cue the rah rah rah?


> _HD now. Check
> VOD now. Check
> Remote Booking now. Check_


So every customer who signs up gets VOD and remote booking? Or are you counting things in CE (that are not even available to everyone currently in CE) as finished products?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I too am surprised by how some "D* folks" refuse to think that one through as well. Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference. The argument seems to be over which one is greater than the other more than if they are different.
> 
> Once D* provides the 18 "game only" HD RSNs they promised (with the other 11 promises being 24/7 RSNs) to the fullest extent that blackouts allow then they will be on equal footing with (or better than) E*. For now, D* HD game RSNs are available in areas SMALLER than the blackouts allow. And that should be noted.
> 
> ...


Im not saying one is greater than the other, I AM saying that they are totally different in how they are sent out to the national audience. If blackout rules dont allow them to be shown at all out of market then bringing that up is simply filling in a thin argument.

Actually D* offers RSN's the same way that E* does in some regions. Here i get Fox sports south and CSS as my regional offerings in SD.
When a game comes on that they show in HD they put it on channel 95, 96, ect. Those arent full time. I imagine that they do it for other areas that dont have full time HD RSN's also. So I understand about E*'s game only channels, D* has them too, and they are completely different than the ones that just came out.

And dont take anything i Posted personally james, just a little friendly argument


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Actually D* offers RSN's the same way that E* does in some regions.


I'm glad that they do. E* doesn't have the spotbeam problem that D* currently has, so the "in some regions" falls off. (Although the choice to put some RSNs on 61.5° and most on 129° limits those who can't see both satellite slots.)

37 + RSNs and PPV is just simpler than saying 42* or 45** and writing a huge disclaimer explaining that 42* is "with constant blackouts" and 45** is "estimate based on being within the spotbeam of three "game only" RSNs. One might as well write 37, 42 and 45 as "up to 100" when the disclaimers start getting thick.

"Up to 74" HD on E* and "Up to 46" on D*? Nahh ... let's not go to that fiction!
39 to 37 ... congrats on MHD this morning. Hope you like it more than I do!


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> Funny. The post you quote contains no promises from Charlie. Cue the rah rah rah?
> So every customer who signs up gets VOD and remote booking? Or are you counting things in CE (that are not even available to everyone currently in CE) as finished products?


You said "I wonder when that will come out of CE? E* should have that by Christmas. Then we can say who has the better remote booking system."

Had E* said anything about Remote Booking or are you making it up as you go along?

These enhancements are available to me and anyone else who frequents this forum. So I count them as much as you would count VOOM channels in E*s HD count. Talk about unfinished.

:grin:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps you should trim quotes to what you are commenting on. I like what I write, but I shouldn't have to re-read my posts entirely to figure out what one is commenting on. 

At this time in the morning I can't remember if it was on a Tech Chat or Charlie Chat ... but it was mentioned on one of those programs. Direct communication to customers and not a press release ... take it at whatever value you wish. It is basically the same forum where Mr Ergan said E* would remain the HD leader. (Informally, not as a promise at the bottom of every press release for a year.)


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> A word to the wise... *James is a Super Moderator *here, and I'm sure he wasn't chiding anyone.


I don't care what he is.

He is a human like the rest of us.

His constant Charlie rah, rah is getting old.

Keep that [email protected]%t in Charlies forum. We do not want to hear the words of a fanboy of a second rate company.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> Im not saying one is greater than the other, I AM saying that they are totally different in how they are sent out to the national audience. If blackout rules dont allow them to be shown at all out of market then bringing that up is simply filling in a thin argument.
> 
> Actually D* offers RSN's the same way that E* does in some regions. Here i get Fox sports south and CSS as my regional offerings in SD.
> When a game comes on that they show in HD they put it on channel 95, 96, ect. Those arent full time. I imagine that they do it for other areas that dont have full time HD RSN's also. So I understand about E*'s game only channels, D* has them too, and they are completely different than the ones that just came out.
> ...


I guess I am still confused so there are RSN,s on E* that show games that are blackouts on D* for the same RSN. I thought blackout rules are the same for all.
What am I missing here.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> "Up to 74" HD on E* and "Up to 46" on D*? Nahh ... let's not go to that fiction!


can you ever at ANY time possibly flip through 74 HD channels on E*? No.

can you ever at ANY time possibly flip through 46 HD channels on D*? Yes.

so the question should be here, how many channels at most given times can you flip through with E*? Package only, not PPV (hence flip through).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'm glad that they do. E* doesn't have the spotbeam problem that D* currently has, so the "in some regions" falls off. (Although the choice to put some RSNs on 61.5° and most on 129° limits those who can't see both satellite slots.)
> 
> 37 + RSNs and PPV is just simpler than saying 42* or 45** and writing a huge disclaimer explaining that 42* is "with constant blackouts" and 45** is "estimate based on being within the spotbeam of three "game only" RSNs. One might as well write 37, 42 and 45 as "up to 100" when the disclaimers start getting thick.
> 
> ...


James i added "in some regions" because im simply going by mine. I ASSUME that this is done in others as well, but do not know that to be an absolute fact. Just didnt want to give misinformation. And again that was just an example of why i see the two RSN offereings as completely different. U dont, and that is fine.

Thanks. I did watch it while i was getting ready for work this morning and it took me back to the days when MTV actually had music.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

borghe said:


> can you ever at ANY time possibly flip through 74 HD channels on E*? No.
> 
> can you ever at ANY time possibly flip through 46 HD channels on D*? Yes.
> 
> so the question should be here, how many channels at most given times can you flip through with E*? Package only, not PPV (hence flip through).


as good of a way to put it as any.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I did say not to go to that fiction ... 


> _can you ever at ANY time possibly flip through 46 HD channels on D*? Yes._


D* has 37 national channels, five 24/7 RSNs and a PPV channel. 42 channels. To get to 46 one would have to have four "special" HD RSNs active (the 95/96 type channels). Would you like to rephrase your answer?



msmith198025 said:


> And again that was just an example of why i see the two RSN offereings as completely different. U dont, and that is fine.


I do see them as different and said so earlier this morning:
_Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference._​


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Blitz68 said:


> I don't care what he is.
> 
> He is a human like the rest of us.
> 
> ...


While he seems to love E* I havent seen him blatantly put D* or their customers down. Arguments are good and all, but lets try to keep it civil


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I did say not to go to that fiction ...
> D* has 37 national channels, five 24/7 RSNs and a PPV channel. 42 channels. To get to 46 one would have to have four "special" HD RSNs active (the 95/96 type channels). Would you like to rephrase your answer?
> 
> I do see them as different and said so earlier this morning:
> _Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference._


Actually i count 41, i dont count the PPV. but yeah you are right for the most part


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I do see them as different and said so earlier this morning:
> _Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference._​


I meant different in why one should be counted and not the other


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't count PPVs either (even though E* has 9 HD PPVs and could use the padding). It was included because we were discussing the fictional numbers. 

RSNs are by their nature swiss cheese. I'd rather add them with an asterisk than take them away.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> I did say not to go to that fiction ...
> D* has 37 national channels, five 24/7 RSNs and a PPV channel. 42 channels. To get to 46 one would have to have four "special" HD RSNs active (the 95/96 type channels). Would you like to rephrase your answer?
> 
> I do see them as different and said so earlier this morning:
> _Sure there is a difference ... non-game content on five HD channels coast to coast vs game content on 22 HD channels as far as blackouts allow is a difference._


sorry. I was quoting your numbers..

avsforum's official topic has 28 and 39 currently for D* and E* respectively, not including yesterday's launches. Unless you don't count the 24/7 national RSNs, that would bring D* up to 40. Feel free to correct me if that is wrong.


----------



## old7 (Dec 1, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> While he seems to love E* I havent seen him blatantly put D* or their customers down. Arguments are good and all, but lets try to keep it civil


Does this count?



James Long said:


> No ... just that in a month (if the D* guys answer honestly) we will know just how little we will be missing by not having an upconvert channel. E* can make their own decisions on what is worthy to be carried.
> 
> How many E* folks love their A&E?


Why would "the D* guys" not be honest?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> avsforum's official topic has 28 and 39 currently for D* and E* respectively, not including yesterday's launches. Unless you don't count the 24/7 national RSNs, that would bring D* up to 40. Feel free to correct me if that is wrong.


I find that chart confusing ... where are the west feeds? I prefer a simple list, which is why I maintain my own:
http://jameslong.name/directv.html (see the bottom of the page for HD)



old7 said:


> Why would "the D* guys" not be honest?


For the same reason I have found E* guys not to be honest. Blinders.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

old7 said:


> Does this count?
> 
> Why would "the D* guys" not be honest?


I still dont see that as a put down actually. He may very well be right on one or two channels. We will have to wait and see


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> I find that chart confusing ... where are the west feeds? I prefer a simple list, which is why I maintain my own:
> http://jameslong.name/directv.html (see the bottom of the page for HD).


ok, so again, going by your page and including the RSNs that you can see content on at anytime during the day except if there is a game that day that happens to be blacked out, D* is at 42. It doesn't matter that you don't like the regional sports shows. It doesn't matter that talking heads aren't as fun to watch as the game that is blacked out would be. And it certainly is nowhere near the same thing as E*'s RSNs which you could go an entire season with never seeing a single bit or byte from one of the channels thanks to blackouts.

42 channels by your own count. As soon as Dish's RSNs go 24x7 I fully expect those to be added to its counts also. The point remains that throughout most of the day and week, I can flip through 42 channels on D* and only 39 channels on E*. end of story.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

How about a simple comparison? Leave RSNs for another debate.

What HD channels does E* currently carry that are unavailable on D*?

What HD channels does D* currently carry that are unavailable on E*?

Update each Wednesday.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> What HD channels does D* currently carry that are unavailable on E*?


5 nationally available 24x7 RSNs 

sorry.. 

going by the avs thread and James' site:

*D* Exclusive:*
ShowToo
Smithsonian
Starz Comedy
Starz Edge
Starz Kids
Starz West
HBO West
Cinemax West
Showtime West
TBS
TMC
WeatherHD
USA
Sci-Fi
Bravo
Comcast SportsNet Chicago HD
Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic HD
New England Sports Network/NESN HD
SportsNet New York HD
YES HD

*E* Exclusive:*
National Geo
HGTV
Food
BTN overflow games (1-3 channels)
Rave HD
Equator HD
Gallery HD
Treasure HD
Animania HD
World Cinema HD
Rush HD
WorldSport HD
Ultra HD
Kung Fu HD
Film Fest HD
Monsters HD
HDNews
GamePlay HD
Family Room HD


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

borghe said:


> 5 nationally available 24x7 RSNs
> 
> sorry..
> 
> ...


Pretty soon, D* will have both Food and NGC. The only other difference is in the BTN where E* shows all of the Saturday games in HD.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Just a note that seems to have a place here...

I accidentally left HBO West off the list of channels that was added yesterday. It's there now.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

purtman said:


> Pretty soon, D* will have both Food and NGC. The only other difference is in the BTN where E* shows all of the Saturday games in HD.


you are correct and I've updated my post with that.


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

borghe said:


> 5 nationally available 24x7 RSNs
> 
> sorry..
> 
> ...


I think this list is more important than who has the most channels. You should go with provider gives you what you want, not who gives you the most. Me personally, I like D*'s exclusive list better than E*'s


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

uncrules said:


> I think this list is more important than who has the most channels. You should go with provider gives you what you want, not who gives you the most. Me personally, I like D*'s exclusive list better than E*'s


Let's see. The DiSh exclusives boil down to Voom. The rest are on their way for DirecTV as part of the rollout.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

uncrules said:


> I think this list is more important than who has the most channels. You should go with provider gives you what you want, not who gives you the most. Me personally, I like D*'s exclusive list better than E*'s


I would too personally


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Let's see. The DiSh exclusives boil down to Voom. The rest are on their way for DirecTV as part of the rollout.


You got it. :lol:


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I think the clock is ticking on Voom...

And I'd really like a couple of the channels.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> I don't care what he is.
> 
> He is a human like the rest of us.
> 
> ...


People who attack other people have no credibility. If you can't debate intelligibly and factually, then don't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> ok, so again, going by your page and including the RSNs that you can see content on at anytime during the day except if there is a game that day that happens to be blacked out, D* is at 42.


It is too much swiss cheese. It is bad enough that D* needs the 29 SD RSNs to get to 188 video channels in Premier ... it is just inflation.



borghe said:


> *E* Exclusive:*
> National Geo
> HGTV
> Food
> BTN overflow games (1-3 channels)


There are four BTN overflows in the E* guide. Does D* have them in HD? I'd consider that a major exclusive for E* if the D* sports powerhouse not to be playing every BTN feed in HD.

E* also has nine channels of PPV in HD which should be mentioned.

It really surprises me that NatGeo, HGTV and Food are not available ... especially since NatGeo was available as a sneak preview a while back. But they will come. Just like the HD premiums and other HD channels will come to E*.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

James Long said:


> There are four BTN overflows in the E* guide. Does D* have them in HD?


NO! :grrr: :bang :shrug: :crying: :blackeye: :bad_nono: :crying_sa


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

richiephx said:


> People who attack other people have no credibility. If you can't debate intelligibly and factually, then don't.


Whatever go scratch.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> Whatever go scratch.


You just confirmed my point.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* also has nine channels of PPV in HD which should be mentioned.
> 
> It really surprises me that NatGeo, HGTV and Food are not available ... especially since NatGeo was available as a sneak preview a while back. But they will come. Just like the HD premiums and other HD channels will come to E*.


I dont dont mind the PPV being mentioned, but they cant be counted in the total IMO since they arent part of any subs. base package.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

richiephx said:


> People who attack other people have no credibility. If you can't debate intelligibly and factually, then don't.


While his words sound pretty and his manners are top notch, I wouldn't call discounting an entire tier of programming, because it doesn't quite measure up to your standards of what _should_ be counted, as intelligent and factual. That they are subject to the same blackout rules that apply to every other channel which broadcasts sportsubject to is besides the point.

But really it's the same thing over and over again at this point. If he has to discount the 24x7 RSNs to keep E*'s numbers higher, more power to him. I'm sure the RSN subscribers (such as myself) are just torn up at how inadequate and insignificant their channels are. If he wants to go saying there are 5 HD BTNs when they have only ever broadcast 3 simultaneously so far this season, go right ahead. 9 PPVs, have a blast. If he wants to equate game only RSNs to 24x7 RSNs, go get 'em. But I certainly don't have the time to be chasing my tail around in circles on this. I can sleep comfortably knowing that when I say D* has 42 fulltime HD channels and E* has 39, I don't have to explain the exceptions and conditions on how I arrived at my numbers.

and to be polite about it, congrats to E* for having the lead as long as they did. It's what prompted this expansion in the first place. Now here's to them catching up sooner rather than later.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

borghe said:


> While his words sound pretty and his manners are top notch, I wouldn't call discounting an entire tier of programming, because it doesn't quite measure up to your standards of what _should_ be counted, as intelligent and factual. That they are subject to the same blackout rules that apply to every other channel which broadcasts sportsubject to is besides the point.
> 
> But really it's the same thing over and over again at this point. If he has to discount the 24x7 RSNs to keep E*'s numbers higher, more power to him. I'm sure the RSN subscribers (such as myself) are just torn up at how inadequate and insignificant their channels are. If he wants to go saying there are 5 HD BTNs when they have only ever broadcast 3 simultaneously so far this season, go right ahead. 9 PPVs, have a blast. If he wants to equate game only RSNs to 24x7 RSNs, go get 'em. But I certainly don't have the time to be chasing my tail around in circles on this. I can sleep comfortably knowing that when I say D* has 42 fulltime HD channels and E* has 39, I don't have to explain the exceptions and conditions on how I arrived at my numbers.
> 
> and to be polite about it, congrats to E* for having the lead as long as they did. It's what prompted this expansion in the first place. Now here's to them catching up sooner rather than later.


Well I would say that sums it up Thanks!! borghe.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are four BTN overflows in the E* guide. Does D* have them in HD? I'd consider that a major exclusive for E* if the D* sports powerhouse not to be playing every BTN feed in HD.


Why? They are in the process of putting things up. D* will have the BTN feeds in the time it will take a new customer to pay their first bill.



James Long said:


> It really surprises me that NatGeo, HGTV and Food are not available ... especially since NatGeo was available as a sneak preview a while back. But they will come. Just like the HD premiums and other HD channels will come to E*.


Hmm. You use that reasoning for NGCHD, HGTV and Food but not BTN?

As for what comes to E*, we will have to see. D* is in the process. E* we just wait and see what they get and what they have room for. I hope they get lots of the stuff for E* customers but you just assume E* will but slam DirecTV for taking a few weeks in the middle of the biggest single rollout of HD channels in history to get the BTN alternates in?


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

borghe said:


> While his words sound pretty and his manners are top notch, I wouldn't call discounting an entire tier of programming, because it doesn't quite measure up to your standards of what _should_ be counted, as intelligent and factual. That they are subject to the same blackout rules that apply to every other channel which broadcasts sportsubject to is besides the point.
> 
> But really it's the same thing over and over again at this point. If he has to discount the 24x7 RSNs to keep E*'s numbers higher, more power to him. I'm sure the RSN subscribers (such as myself) are just torn up at how inadequate and insignificant their channels are. If he wants to go saying there are 5 HD BTNs when they have only ever broadcast 3 simultaneously so far this season, go right ahead. 9 PPVs, have a blast. If he wants to equate game only RSNs to 24x7 RSNs, go get 'em. But I certainly don't have the time to be chasing my tail around in circles on this. I can sleep comfortably knowing that when I say D* has 42 fulltime HD channels and E* has 39, I don't have to explain the exceptions and conditions on how I arrived at my numbers.
> 
> and to be polite about it, congrats to E* for having the lead as long as they did. It's what prompted this expansion in the first place. Now here's to them catching up sooner rather than later.


I say, go back and watch E*. If he has regrets that and is locked into a contract, and can't switch to D*, I'm sorry. We have what we want. D* has what they want. He has what he wants.

Don't go away angry, just go away?


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

It does not really matter who is in the lead on any given date. As long as the race continues we all win.


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> It is too much swiss cheese. It is bad enough that D* needs the 29 SD RSNs to get to 188 video channels in Premier ... it is just inflation.
> 
> There are four BTN overflows in the E* guide. Does D* have them in HD? I'd consider that a major exclusive for E* if the D* sports powerhouse not to be playing every BTN feed in HD.
> 
> ...


BTN's are great, don't get me wrong, but the NFL package on D* more than makes up for that!

Would be nice to have some more pay per view options though on D*.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

why is this thread still going?? lol


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Why? They are in the process of putting things up. D* will have the BTN feeds in the time it will take a new customer to pay their first bill.


I signed up on Sept 1, and have already paid 2 bills. CS is also stating they have no plans to add BTN alts. in HD, so I don't know why you would chalk them up just yet.



mrrydogg said:


> BTN's are great, don't get me wrong, but the NFL package on D* more than makes up for that!


BTN is a free channel, NFLST requires a hefty subscription. I was given NFLST for free when I signed up but haven't had the chance to watch a single game yet. I can understand equating BTN during football season to NFLST I suppose, but during hoops season, those overflow channels are going to be put to use about 3 nights a week, and once again, at no charge.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> why is this thread still going?? lol


Because people like to argue about nothing


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Because people like to argue about nothing


we arent just argueing about dish's hd expansio.....oh, you meant the topic means nothing. my bad


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

heisman said:


> BTN is a free channel, NFLST requires a hefty subscription. I was given NFLST for free when I signed up but haven't had the chance to watch a single game yet. I can understand equating BTN during football season to NFLST I suppose, but during hoops season, those overflow channels are going to be put to use about 3 nights a week, and once again, at no charge.


Price aside, The fact that E* has NO NFL PACKAGE is in itself a HUGE selling point for D*. Those extra BTN's will be on D* in no time. Plus, with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, NBC, TNT, TBS, NBA TV, ESPN OCHO.....its really not that big of deal for most college sports, basketball is no different.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are four BTN overflows in the E* guide. Does D* have them in HD? I'd consider that a major exclusive for E* if the D* sports powerhouse not to be playing every BTN feed in HD.


"Major"? If D* didn't have any, then I would say "yes". Otherwise, it's definitely an exclusive, but not major.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Its probably the only temporary "major" E* has ever had. :lol: Let him gloat for a day or so.


----------



## LDLemu4U (Oct 16, 2006)

I just can't believe this thread, eventually everybody will D*, E*, telephone cos, cable: will have the same # of HD channels. E* had the advantage until this month when D* introduced the new HDs. Eventually the cable companies will catch up with D* and E*, may it be advancement of technology or whatever. 

For me, what is really lacking right now on HD is content. I have seen the birth of TV and never in my experience where content lagged the technology. I had DirectTv HD access for over 2 years now and what I've been watching on channels like HDnet, Discovery Theatre etc were mostly repeats.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

LDLemu4U said:


> I just can't believe this thread, eventually everybody will D*, E*, telephone cos, cable: will have the same # of HD channels. E* had the advantage until this month when D* introduced the new HDs. Eventually the cable companies will catch up with D* and E*, may it be advancement of technology or whatever.
> 
> For me, what is really lacking right now on HD is content. I have seen the birth of TV and never in my experience where content lagged the technology. I had DirectTv HD access for over 2 years now and what I've been watching on channels like HDnet, Discovery Theatre etc were mostly repeats.


technically this isn't true. content ALWAYS lags the technology. Now I wasn't around for anything except for maybe when the major adoption of cabletv began in the early 80's and obviously c-band and DBS. but from history it has shown us that when TV first launched, there were very few stations, and the stations there were certainly did not start out 24x7. By the time they did go to 24x7 and UHF rolled around, how many UHF stations were there? How many are there still? Color? A ways past the introduction of color there were still a majority of black and white shows. Why? Because all of the sets were equipped with black and white cameras. Granted once color cameras were installed on the sets it mean that many shows on each set instantly went to color also (though the same could be said about HD now). Stereo? Hi-Fi VCRs were introduced as early as '84 IIRC if not earlier and major OTA stereo broadcasting didn't begin taking place until the late 80's.

Just saying, content has ALWAYS majorly lagged behind technology. It has to because it always comes down to involving a cost to upgrade the existing equipment that up til the technology was released served the studios and broadcasters just fine. Fortunately while the local stations have to deal with the logistics of getting syndicated content delivered to them, many of the cable channels are already airing content from sister companies that is available in HD and fed to them over satellite. My guess is we'll be seeing plenty of HD reruns on cable/satellite before too long. A heck of a lot sooner than we'll see the same reruns on local stations' syndication.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

LDLemu4U said:


> I just can't believe this thread, eventually everybody will D*, E*, telephone cos, cable: will have the same # of HD channels. E* had the advantage until this month when D* introduced the new HDs. Eventually the cable companies will catch up with D* and E*, may it be advancement of technology or whatever.
> 
> For me, what is really lacking right now on HD is content. I have seen the birth of TV and never in my experience where content lagged the technology. I had DirectTv HD access for over 2 years now and what I've been watching on channels like HDnet, Discovery Theatre etc were mostly repeats.


I dont understand why you cant believe it. Its friendly banter for the most part. Just roll with it


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is just surprising that "the sports DBS company" doesn't have something as simple as the rest of the BTN HDs. They have let something slip by them --- even if for only a few weeks. It is also surprising that the three networks E* has and D* has yet to add are long standing HD feeds ... these are not networks where D* has to wait for HD to be present or delivered.

I have no doubt that D* will add these channels ... perhaps even in the next batch. It it just interesting where they have placed their priorities.

Perhaps those who want to brag should just go watch TV. That's what it is all about!


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> It is just surprising that "the sports DBS company" doesn't have something as simple as the rest of the BTN HDs. They have let something slip by them --- even if for only a few weeks. It is also surprising that the three networks E* has and D* has yet to add are long standing HD feeds ... these are not networks where D* has to wait for HD to be present or delivered.
> 
> I have no doubt that D* will add these channels ... perhaps even in the next batch. It it just interesting where they have placed their priorities.
> 
> Perhaps those who want to brag should just go watch TV. That's what it is all about!


Big Ten is overrated anyway. Now show me a Pac-10 or SEC network and then we can talk!!!


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is just surprising that "the sports DBS company" doesn't have something as simple as the rest of the BTN HDs. They have let something slip by them --- even if for only a few weeks. It is also surprising that the three networks E* has and D* has yet to add are long standing HD feeds ... these are not networks where D* has to wait for HD to be present or delivered.
> 
> I have no doubt that D* will add these channels ... perhaps even in the next batch. It it just interesting where they have placed their priorities.
> 
> Perhaps those who want to brag should just go watch TV. That's what it is all about!


Yes I must agree it is the heart of the BT football season but I am still holding hope for saturday.
Now on the other hand why has E* not added TBSHD for the BB playoffs I am sure there are more people interested in that then BT Football.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

upnorth said:


> Yes I must agree it is the heart of the BT football season but I am still holding hope for saturday.
> Now on the other hand why has E* not added TBSHD for the BB playoffs I am sure there are more people interested in that then BT Football.


Ohio State played 4 games last year that had higher ratings than the highest rated World Series game.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is just surprising that "the sports DBS company" doesn't have something as simple as the rest of the BTN HDs.


"Simple"? If it was so simple, why didn't E* have it for that first big weekend?


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

heisman said:


> Ohio State played 4 games last year that had higher ratings than the highest rated World Series game.


Especially the last one!


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

purtman said:


> Especially the last one!


The last one actually doubled the ratings of the highest rated World Series game. Good call!


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

purtman said:


> "Simple"? If it was so simple, why didn't E* have it for that first big weekend?


E* signed a contract with BTN on a Wednesday and had 5 BTN HD channels up by Saturday--very impressive.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

heisman said:


> I signed up on Sept 1, and have already paid 2 bills. CS is also stating they have no plans to add BTN alts. in HD, so I don't know why you would chalk them up just yet.


Because they will be there. And I meant someone who signs up today....you know someone who would make a choice based upon what is available. It is shortsighted to plan on what is here today and not look at a month out or two months out. And it is a bit impatient to whine because the BTN alternates aren't up yet when DirecTV is busy rolling out 70 or so HD channels.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> .....you know someone who would make a choice based upon what is available...


Why do you think I switched???


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> It is a bit impatient to whine because the BTN alternates aren't up yet when DirecTV is busy rolling out 70 or so HD channels.


I have complimented E* on their extremely fast rollout of BTN HD and alts. I have questioned why this would be so difficult to do on D*. You have never heard me whine about anything. Repeat....anything. Very happy with D* overall.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

heisman said:


> I have complimented E* on their extremely fast rollout of BTN HD and alts. I have questioned why this would be so difficult to do on D*. You have never heard me whine about anything. Repeat....anything. Very happy with D* overall.


You may not realize it sounds like whining when you complain that DirecTV doesn't have all the BTN HD channels up yet.

And maybe because DirecTV is busy rolling out 70 HD channels. They don't get done all at once. Not if you expect quality.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

BTW, Sci-Fi HD on D* is showing Species:The Awakening in 16:9 HD as I type. So the channel really does exist and is not an upconvert as many folks have said it was.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> You may not realize it sounds like whining when you complain that DirecTV doesn't have all the BTN HD channels up yet.
> 
> And maybe because DirecTV is busy rolling out 70 HD channels. They don't get done all at once. Not if you expect quality.


I did not complain either. I questioned, hoping for an informed answer.

Examples of whining or complaining: D* sucks! I'm cancelling! This is BS!
These are things I have never felt, said, thought, or posted.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> ...Not if you expect quality.


I'm not sure what service providers you've had, but of the 3 I've had, D*'s HD PQ is still in 3rd place behind Comcast and E*. D*'s SD PQ, however, is leaps and bounds ahead of both Comcast and E*.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

purtman said:


> "Simple"? If it was so simple, why didn't E* have it for that first big weekend?


They wanted a better deal than BTN was demanding for that first weekend. They got a better deal. While BTN is currently available to all AT subscribers next year it becomes an RSN ... saving E* money by not requiring them to pay for the rights to deliver it to customers that have no interest in BTN sports. E* got the deal _THEY_ wanted.



heisman said:


> E* signed a contract with BTN on a Wednesday and had 5 BTN HD channels up by Saturday--very impressive.


Yes. When E* decides to move they move! (We need more of those decisions.)

21 new HD channels for D* last week, 12 new HD channels for D* this week. The pace seems to be slowing down. Maybe next week's 11 will include BTN?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

heisman said:


> I'm not sure what service providers you've had, but of the 3 *I've had*, D*'s HD PQ is still in 3rd place behind Comcast and E*. D*'s SD PQ, however, is leaps and bounds ahead of both Comcast and E*.


But do you have D* MPEG4 hardware now? A few folks that have been VERY critical of D* PQ in the past have been saying good things about the MPEG4 channels.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

RAD said:


> But do you have D* MPEG4 hardware now? A few folks that have been VERY critical of D* PQ in the past have been saying good things about the MPEG4 channels.


I have an HR-20. Just like I was telling TonyD, don't assume or read into what I'm saying. I'm not being critical or complaining, just stating an experience. I think D*'s HD PQ is just fine, but it's not as good as E*'s, or Comcast's (in my area) to a greater degree IMO.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

heisman said:


> I have an HR-20. Just like I was telling TonyD, don't assume or read into what I'm saying. I'm not being critical or complaining, just stating an experience. I think D*'s HD PQ is just fine, but it's not as good as E*'s or Comcast's (in my area) to a greater degree IMO.


Sorry, your post said you HAD the services didn't say you still did and wanted to know what you were basing your comments on.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

RAD said:


> Sorry, your post said you HAD the services didn't say you still did and wanted to know what you were basing your comments on.


I switched from E* to D* last month, so I don't have E* anymore. I still keep Comcast basic for $12 a month and get about 8 HD channels with that service.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yes. When E* decides to move they move! (We need more of those decisions.)


Problem is most of the time they don't make that decision until subs lose channels for a while.


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

heisman said:


> Ohio State played 4 games last year that had higher ratings than the highest rated World Series game.


How that has anything to do with the BTN network is beyond me. Your talking about National games, not BTN exclusives. That comparison is beyond bloated.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heisman said:


> I have an HR-20. Just like I was telling TonyD, don't assume or read into what I'm saying. I'm not being critical or complaining, just stating an experience. I think D*'s HD PQ is just fine, but it's not as good as E*'s, or Comcast's (in my area) to a greater degree IMO.


Wow, you are surely entitled to your opinion, but id think there would be some other factors that im not aware of that makes it that way. From what Ive seen, and ive done ALOT of looking since these new ones came out, D* is roughly 20% better on PQ than either E* HD at my neighbors and another friends and ANY cable ive seen anywhere. Of course this is simply my opinion. No more right than yours is to anyone but me


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

Do those alternate BTN channels broadcast 24/7? Nope can't count em.
They also don't interest me so can't count them for that reason either.

These things can go both ways.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shouldn't MHD be a DISH "exclusive"?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

harsh said:


> Shouldn't MHD be a DISH "exclusive"?


Nope, was on as of yesterday morning, ch 332.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RAD said:


> Nope, was on as of yesterday morning, ch 332.


That's kind of unprecedented. Thanks for the heads up.

I was surprised that they dragged it out as long as they did as MHD was the one channel that they had on their list of channels coming soon a while back.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

NYSmoker said:


> Do those alternate BTN channels broadcast 24/7? Nope can't count em.
> They also don't interest me so can't count them for that reason either.
> 
> These things can go both ways.


I I actually count only count BTN and alternates as one because Only one is on all the time. The others are overflow. Same reason I dont count 94-98 on D*

Cant not count them cause they dont interest you!!!!!!!!! lol


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> That's kind of unprecedented. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> I was surprised that they dragged it out as long as they did as MHD was the one channel that they had on their list of channels coming soon a while back.


I believe D* had some issues on Wednesday so it was postponed a day after the others.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

mrrydogg said:


> How that has anything to do with the BTN network is beyond me. Your talking about National games, not BTN exclusives. That comparison is beyond bloated.


Not bloated whatsoever. Comparing the cream of the crop Big Ten football games to the cream of the crop World Series baseball games. Apples to Apples. Now, if you want to check the ratings of last week's PSU vs. Illini clash to the Padres vs. the D'Backs on some RSN in August, I'm sure the same discrepancy would apply.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't count the BTN alts (even though E* does). But their presence bears mentioning.


----------



## hombresoto (Sep 10, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'm sure they can ... will they is the other question.
> 
> My count is 39 E* to 30 D* (national channels not counting RSNs and PPV). Today is D*'s day ... so I see no reason not to allow D* folks to gloat, especially in the D* forum. "Blown out of the water" is a bit of an overstatement, but yes - it is cool to see HD channels added to either system.
> 
> Now we just need E* to add the few channels D* just added that E* didn't already have (CNN, TBS, TWC, Smithsonian, Show Too and Show West and the five Starz! channels) and D* to add the remaining E* channels and a few more. Everybody wins!


Everybody knows the VOOM channels are a joke.... What do you have left when you eliminate them?


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

hombresoto said:


> Everybody knows the VOOM channels are a joke.... What do you have left when you eliminate them?


not much and isnt every channel E* has now downrezzed HDlite?


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

James Long said:


> I find that chart confusing ... where are the west feeds? I prefer a simple list, which is why I maintain my own:
> http://jameslong.name/directv.html (see the bottom of the page for HD)
> 
> For the same reason I have found E* guys not to be honest. Blinders.


here is a better list

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ShawnL25 said:


> here is a better list
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


With all due respect, it is not a better list. It is missing channels.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

hombresoto said:


> Everybody knows the VOOM channels are a joke.... What do you have left when you eliminate them?


I don't know if you guys are kidding, or just ignorant. Anybody else catch Hitchcock's "The Birds" on MonstersHD last night? Great movie, better in HD.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

James Long said:


> With all due respect, it is not a better list. It is missing channels.


This list doesn't include:
1.Local Channels
2.West Coast Feeds
3.Game/Event Only Channels
4.Part Time RSN's
5.HD PPV
6.HD on Demand

This is however everything included in Premier, Everything, the All the Channels Packages you can subscribe to.

This is at the top of the list, it's not missing channel's they are excluded.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

vurbano said:


> not much and isnt every channel E* has now downrezzed HDlite?


I have had both services and E*'s HD PQ is still slightly better than D*'s. I have no idea what the official resolution and bitrate both are using, but one thing to remember is that resolution only makes up about 20% of overall PQ.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is just surprising that "the sports DBS company" doesn't have something as simple as the rest of the BTN HDs


They have the most important thing... NFLST

And the last time I checked they have a few more customers than Charlie so they must be doing 1 or 2 things right.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

richiephx said:


> You just confirmed my point.


A fanboy's fanboy. Got to love it.

How much does Charlie pay you two?

And are you more than friends?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Blitz68 said:


> And the last time I checked they have a few more customers than Charlie so they must be doing 1 or 2 things right.


Consider that for the last several quarters, the subscriber numbers have been coming increasingly closer. DIRECTV is doing some things right, but there's lots of room for improvement. Adding compelling non-sports programming (like filling in the blanks in Cinemax) is likely one of the things that could maintain or extend the lead.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Blitz68 said:


> And the last time I checked they have a few more customers than Charlie so they must be doing 1 or 2 things right.


Just a few.

December 31, 1999 ... D* had 8 million customers ... E* had 3.4 million
June 30, 2007 ... D* had 16.316 million customers ... E* had 13.585 million

It seems that D* has only added 8 million customers in the same time E* added 10 million. D* dropping from 70% of combined subscribers down to 54%.

Yes, D* is doing a 1 or 2 things right ... otherwise E* would be gaining on them much faster. In the 2nd quarter alone D* added 900k subscribers for a net addition of 128k. E* gained 850k subscribers for a net addition of 170k. E* must be doing 1 or 2 things right to be gaining on D* in overall subscriber count.

Cue the fanboys who will say "but that was 2nd quarter before D* delivered their new HD channels" recue them when the 3rd quarter results show the same (with the same excuse since channel additions didn't start until 4Q).

Both companies are doing well ... and the little differences shouldn't mean a thing as long as YOU enjoy what you subscribe to and I enjoy what I subscribe to.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

To James' point, at CES both companies clearly had viable business models, both are seeking particular parts of the market segments, and I respect both approaches.

A 20 year younger and more frugal me would quite possibly been more interested in Dish if I were in a place I could still watch the Packers. (NFL ST is the major trump card for me.) 

I hope both companies continue to succeed and grow. Competition is a good thing. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Mikey said:


> I don't know if you guys are kidding, or just ignorant. Anybody else catch Hitchcock's "The Birds" on MonstersHD last night? Great movie, better in HD.


I think ignorant is the key word. Anyone who hasn't seen any of the current VOOM channels and says the things they say can't be described as anything else. The Alfred Hitchcock trio of films was excellent (Psycho, The Birds and Frenzy) and the picture quality for such older movies was good too. People should speak from experience instead of speaking through other non-verbal orifices.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> A fanboy's fanboy. Got to love it.
> 
> How much does Charlie pay you two?
> 
> And are you more than friends?


I don't have to justify anything I state. I will let other readers form their own opinions about your comments and my response.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Just a few.
> 
> December 31, 1999 ... D* had 8 million customers ... E* had 3.4 million
> June 30, 2007 ... D* had 16.316 million customers ... E* had 13.585 million
> ...


James, you know that facts cloud the position of people who make statements that are not based on fact.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

James Long said:


> I don't count the BTN alts (even though E* does). But their presence bears mentioning.


If you're comparing apples to apples and D* is counting NFLST, then you'd have to count the BTN alts. In fact, BTN alts deserve greater consideration when you consider it's the only way to see those games in HD, as opposed to NFLST where you can see alot of those games OTA.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Just a few.
> 
> December 31, 1999 ... D* had 8 million customers ... E* had 3.4 million
> June 30, 2007 ... D* had 16.316 million customers ... E* had 13.585 million
> ...


It is pretty interesting that you picked that time period to start from. IIRC (my memory could be going), DirecTV had already made huge headway into its LiL service by the end of 1999, meaning they had already seen massive subscriber growth up to that point. It took at least 3-6 months later for E* to begin it's large LiL push. Being that LiLs are what caused the sat companies to surge in the first place, I think that's a pretty important piece of information.

I think a better comparison, just specifically because of the timing of your dates, would be to gauge where things were starting (IIRC) January 2001 when must-carry went into effect. By that time both D*'s and E*'s LiL service was already established in the large majority of the country, versus your timeline when there was still a pretty large disparity between the two.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I picked 1999 because that was the oldest annual report that D* had available on their website (E* actually has older reports available).

2000 was a good year for E* ... by January 1st 2001 E* had 5.26 million subscribers. They have added 8.325 million subscribers since. 2000 was also a decent year for D* ... by January 1st 2001 D* had 9.5 million subscribers. D* has added 6.816 million subscribers since. E* has added 1.5 million more subscribers this millennium than D*.

Want to move the cheese another year? On December 31st, 2001 E* was at 6.83 million subscribers and D* at 11.2 million. E* gained 6.755 million and D* gained 5.116 million since. Even after your dates E* is beating D* in subscriber growth. (One could say E* is blowing D* out of the water. )


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

I have no problems with your numbers.. I was just stating that the year you picked was a bit skewed being that D* had already made serious headway into LiL service while E* had not until the next year. LiL was pretty much the turning point where the two satellite companies started to seriously take numbers away from cable and both saw unprecedented levels of growth as a result. Just seemed fair to me to pick a date after both had already been well on there way into their LiL expansion. Besides, E* comes off even more impressive that way. That's all.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> . (One could say E* is blowing D* out of the water. )


perhaps when or if they catch up that would be valid


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> perhaps when or if they catch up that would be valid


Which is valid both for Dish's catching up to DIRECTV for customers as well as for DIRECTV overtaking Dish for HD. 

Competition is good!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Which is valid both for Dish's catching up to DIRECTV for customers as well as for DIRECTV overtaking Dish for HD.
> 
> Competition is good!


The only difference is one has happend the other hasnt


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> The only difference is one has happend the other hasnt


Which has happened?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Which has happened?


D* offering more national HD channels


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

More than last month, but not more than E* ... (at least by the company's counts.)


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> More than last month, but not more than E* ... (at least by the company's counts.)


So by your count, how many new channels HD does D* need to add to have the most national HD channels?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> More than last month, but not more than E* ... (at least by the company's counts.)


And again depends on if you count the national RSN's which are available in the premier pack in HD. This can go round and round with nobody agreeing. Until probably sometime this week then there wont be an argument on the count.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> So by your count, how many new channels HD does D* need to add to have the most national HD channels?


Actually, going by what they have listed on each webpage. NOT counting RSN's or any sports package. D* has 40 listed. E* has 38.

And with the RSN's that number goes a little higher


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Regardless of what we say the count is, the only count that will matter is the one that D* & E* will published in the media. What we say here means nothing.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Regardless of what we say the count is, the only count that will matter is the one that D* & E* will published in the media. What we say here means nothing.


Which is why i counted the number that is listed in each companies web site
and im not saying one is better than the other based on this. Just showing what they have listed


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I try to be more accurate than the media! 

BTW: The 40 logos counted counts a single channel twice (Golf/Versus) and three major TV networks that are not available nationally. (What, no logo for NBC HD?)


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I try to be more accurate than the media!
> 
> BTW: The 40 logos counted counts a single channel twice (Golf/Versus) and three major TV networks that are not available nationally. (What, no logo for NBC HD?)


Well i dont know what the coverage would be on the big four. But I do know that they are offered on a wider national basis than E* since E* cant offer distants anymore. I do get distant HD networks with D*
But we will knock one off for Golf or versus. 39 it is


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Wider isn't wide enough. BTW The missing logo is Starz West ... add that, don't count the dupe Golf/Versus or non national broadcast HD and you are back to 37.

Just because D* has an error on their website doesn't mean the counts can't be better.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Wider isn't wide enough. BTW The missing logo is Starz West ... add that, don't count the dupe Golf/Versus or non national broadcast HD and you are back to 37.
> 
> Just because D* has an error on their website doesn't mean the counts can't be better.


Does anyone have any idea who can or cant get the Distant HD? If it is refused alot then id be happy to drop it. I dont know of any that couldnt get it when locals werent offered, although Ill admit i havent checked into it much. I know there is supposed to be a waiver process, however i didnt have to do it. If people without locals can get it, and i mean the ones that want it, not the ones that dont have it or want it, then Id say count it, because that would sound pretty national to me. Just curious


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

you guys can go back and forth all day long if ya want on what numbers to count who has what ect. For me its quality and actually which channels I watch vs how many. I have had dish for 7 years, and its cheaper for me to goto D*(which is what I'm doing) than to upgrade to one more receiver, but I am not switchin cuz of HD, but price upfront as a new customer vs getting nowwhere with Dish on an upgrade as an existing customer. I will miss some Voom channels for sure, but it don't matter to me if D* has 200 more HD channels than anyone else, cuz theres only a few 24/7 HD channels tha I watch anyway, so by my numbers both have about 15 HD channels, with a few maybe in the next 5 years


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:



> I try to be more accurate than the media!
> 
> BTW: The 40 logos counted counts a single channel twice (Golf/Versus) and three major TV networks that are not available nationally. (What, no logo for NBC HD?)


Okay by _your_ strict accounting methods, how many channels would D* need to add to have the most national HD channels.

Oh, and is it true that E* removed an HD PPV to make room for TBS?


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> Does anyone have any idea who can or cant get the Distant HD? If it is refused alot then id be happy to drop it. I dont know of any that couldnt get it when locals werent offered, although Ill admit i havent checked into it much. I know there is supposed to be a waiver process, however i didnt have to do it. If people without locals can get it, and i mean the ones that want it, not the ones that dont have it or want it, then Id say count it, because that would sound pretty national to me. Just curious


The issue is whether your locals are offered at all by D*. There wont give you a waiver becasue there are no HD Locals. Then you can go to the website and D* will petition the stations that are supposed to be your locals on your behalf. I think its hit or miss but I suspect more get turned down than get granted. Just my guess though, I have nothing to support it.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jimb726 said:


> The issue is whether your locals are offered at all by D*. There wont give you a waiver becasue there are no HD Locals. Then you can go to the website and D* will petition the stations that are supposed to be your locals on your behalf. I think its hit or miss but I suspect more get turned down than get granted. Just my guess though, I have nothing to support it.


well the way D* acted when i got mine was you are too far to even bother with the waivers, here are your Distants. I didnt even have to try to convince them. I wouldnt be suprised if this isnt the case for everyone though


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Does anyone have any idea who can or cant get the Distant HD?


If you are in any of the markets D* provides local channels to or if you are within the Grade B coverage of an affiliate of each network you want you can't get distants without waivers from every affiliate of that network.

If D* is doing the process properly most of their customers should not be eligible for distants. If they are not doing it properly distants should be sued out of existence.



man_rob said:


> Okay by _your_ strict accounting methods, how many channels would D* need to add to have the most national HD channels.


One more than E*. Note a much higher count is needed to "blow E* out of the water".


> Oh, and is it true that E* removed an HD PPV to make room for TBS?


Temporarily. Perhaps we will find out why on Wednesday? It seems that adding TBS HD was a rush job.


----------



## knives of ice (Sep 15, 2007)

until directv has all the RSN's up who cares about these worthless HD channels with no content. yeah, they are nice to have...but if i can't watch my local sports in HD yet which i can't i'm not happy. personally, i won't watch any of the HD channels that have been recently launched cause there is just nothing on them i care about. how RSN's take a back seat to all these channels with no content is beyond me.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> One more than E*. Note a much higher count is needed to "blow E* out of the water".


And those numbers are?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Rather than repeating the same information, read the postings in this thread


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

What happens when Charlie runs out of money paying the fines and going to court fighting Tivo?

They will have ALOT of pissed of customers when there DVR's are disabled.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

richiephx said:


> Rather than repeating the same information, read the postings in this thread


ok, knock off the condescending attitude here. he has stated a flurry of numbers around this thread in a number of places on both sides. not to mention what "he considers" a proper channel and what many other consider a "proper" channel is completely open to debate. it's certainly possible for someone to not knw what "his" numbers might be.

are you really in this thread for any reason other than as cheerleader?

for the record, apparently going by the utterly retarded "RSNs don't count" rule (at least until E* gets them I guess) "his" channel counts should be at 38 and 40 IIRC. So more than likely by Wednesday D* will officially be over E*, at which point he'll take issue with the "blown out of the water" part.

Some people are never wrong. Ever.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A little thread reading wouldn't hurt ... especially since repeating the information will just repeat all the arguments as to why the information is spot on (or not).

Be careful with your insults ... let's keep the discussion friendly!


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Be careful with your insults ... let's keep the discussion friendly!


The insults may have been a bit much, but his posts in this thread have amounted to nothing more than bashing and criticizing people who are arguing with you with nothing even being objectively backed up. This door happens to swing both ways.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> A little thread reading wouldn't hurt ... especially since repeating the information will just repeat all the arguments as to why the information is spot on (or not).
> 
> Be careful with your insults ... let's keep the discussion friendly!


I would just like you to pin down a count.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Bash" the information not the people and the thread can continue.
Numbers are transient ... E* will add channels, so will D* ... I've given enough numbers.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> I would just like you to pin down a count.


as said, I ""believe" his count is currently 38 D*, 40 E*.

Realistically with RSNs however this has already been passed.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

knives of ice said:


> until directv has all the RSN's up who cares about these worthless HD channels with no content. yeah, they are nice to have...but if i can't watch my local sports in HD yet which i can't i'm not happy. personally, i won't watch any of the HD channels that have been recently launched cause there is just nothing on them i care about. how RSN's take a back seat to all these channels with no content is beyond me.


Well those are in the process of being turned on. quite a few of them were last week


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Swanni's article today is about the channel count "battle" going on between E* and D*, http://www.tvpredictions.com/echo48100807.htm .


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

borghe said:


> as said, I ""believe" his count is currently 38 D*, 40 E*.
> 
> Realistically with RSNs however this has already been passed.


I agree that both of those statements are facts. lol


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> I would just like you to pin down a count.


Another point is the count itself is an ever changing thing. Today is one count tomorrow another, and Wednesday yet another.

James has done an excellent job updating his count and his website with the rules therein.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

RAD said:


> Swanni's article today is about the channel count "battle" going on between E* and D*, http://www.tvpredictions.com/echo48100807.htm .


Nice counting by E*


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

James Long said:


> One more than E*. Note a much higher count is needed to "blow E* out of the water".


:lol:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

wouldnt it be more accurate to say "blow E*out of the sky?"


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> "Bash" the information not the people and the thread can continue.
> Numbers are transient ... E* will add channels, so will D* ... I've given enough numbers.


So according to _your_ rules, D* has 38, and E* has 40?


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

The numbers will remain close there are only so many HD channels out there.
As far as Blowing someone out of the water E* was doing that and Like someone in a earlier post said D* is back in the game now.
I expect them to remain close for sometime.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Would anyone (in this forum) say that E* blows D* out of the water on SD (since the count today is E* 333 to D* 255)? Even counting video only they are running E* 218 to D* 188 ... but I doubt anyone would say D* is "blown out of the water."

That's the standard for the second part of the count ... being within a couple of channels of each other is decent. Pretty much the same as when people compare D* Choice vs E* AT200 w/locals (similar priced packages). 

E* and D* are doing well ... a couple of weeks ago we couldn't say that about D* (it was all promises). Time to go watch some of that HD! (Or get back to work so you can pay for the service.)


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

RAD said:


> Swanni's article today is about the channel count "battle" going on between E* and D*, http://www.tvpredictions.com/echo48100807.htm .


:lol: Creative accounting at work over at E*.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Would anyone (in this forum) say that E* blows D* out of the water on SD (since the count today is E* 333 to D* 255)? Even counting video only they are running E* 218 to D* 188 ... but I doubt anyone would say D* is "blown out of the water."
> 
> That's the standard for the second part of the count ... being within a couple of channels of each other is decent. Pretty much the same as when people compare D* Choice vs E* AT200 w/locals (similar priced packages).
> 
> E* and D* are doing well ... a couple of weeks ago we couldn't say that about D* (it was all promises). Time to go watch some of that HD! (Or get back to work so you can pay for the service.)


Your video count on your page for E* is 189 on AEP and 188 for D* on premier.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> Would anyone (in this forum) say that E* blows D* out of the water on SD (since the count today is E* 333 to D* 255)? Even counting video only they are running E* 218 to D* 188 ... but I doubt anyone would say D* is "blown out of the water."
> 
> That's the standard for the second part of the count ... being within a couple of channels of each other is decent. Pretty much the same as when people compare D* Choice vs E* AT200 w/locals (similar priced packages).
> 
> E* and D* are doing well ... a couple of weeks ago we couldn't say that about D* (it was all promises). Time to go watch some of that HD! (Or get back to work so you can pay for the service.)


Well if D* adds 3 HD channels this week, you'll still have the bragging rights to E* being SD leader.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Your video count on your page for E* is 189 on AEP and 188 for D* on premier.


In order to go "apples to apples" one must add 29 to E*'s count for the RSNs. RSNs are not included in the Almost Everything Pack. (I suppose I could get into Superstations and other stuff if I wanted to get picky.)



man_rob said:


> Well if D* adds 3 HD channels this week, you'll still have the bragging rights to E* being SD leader.


After four and a hald years of reading arguments on this forum I'll take any victory given by a D* subscriber.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> In order to go "apples to apples" one must add 29 to E*'s count for the RSNs. RSNs are not included in the Almost Everything Pack. (I suppose I could get into Superstations and other stuff if I wanted to get picky.)


ahhh, the old RSN's . Is it the same argument we were having before though? Are those game only or nationwide?
Yeah the superstations are one area for sure where E* has it all over D* . And i like that package


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

24/7 with heavy blackouts, just like D*'s SD RSNs in Premier.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> 24/7 with heavy blackouts, just like D*'s SD RSNs in Premier.


Ok, then I would say it is fair to count them then what is fair is fair


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

james can you give a rough overview of what is on E* SD that D* doesnt have?
Ill be honest Ive got AEP on E* or the equiv. old package in SD and cant think of many if any that I dont get on D*.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> I
> After four and a hald years of reading arguments on this forum I'll take any victory given by a D* subscriber.


Well, you do sort of bring it on yourself.

I'm not anti-E. and have often been accused of secretly being an E* customer when I don't fall in line with the D* fans. I even thought of switching at one point, but D* upgraded me to HD for free, and E* doesn't have some of the channels I enjoy.

Whether you admit it or not, you're a dyed in the wool E* fan, and are just as guilty of being argumentative as D* fans.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> And again depends on if you count the national RSN's which are available in the premier pack in HD.


The Sports Pack is available without the Premier package as a premium plex.

Without knowing subscription statistics for the plexes, it is difficult to tell whether adding a particular channel is meaningful for a significant number of subscribers. Adding Cinemax HD to the dismal D* Cinemax plex may make it worth subscribing to.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RAD said:


> Swanni's article today is about the channel count "battle" going on between E* and D*, http://www.tvpredictions.com/echo48100807.htm .


That does hint that E* has topped out on the HD they can offer at this time, so now they change their definition of channels in an attempt to maintain bragging rights.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> The Sports Pack is available without the Premier package as a premium plex.
> 
> Without knowing subscription statistics for the plexes, it is difficult to tell whether adding a particular channel is meaningful for a significant number of subscribers. Adding Cinemax HD to the dismal D* Cinemax plex may make it worth subscribing to.


I know they are available without premier. Saying they are available in premier had basis in the argument we were having about what should be counted and "base packages"


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> I know they are available without premier. Saying they are available in premier had basis in the argument we were having about what should be counted and "base packages"


I now understand what you were getting at.

I'm not sure I associate Premier and AEP with "base" packages as they are essentially the top "base" package (Choice Extra/AT250) with all of the "premiums" included. Actually, Playboy is treated as a "premium" by DISH for billing purposes, but it is _not_ included in the AEP while DIRECTV's Sports Pack is billed as a premium _and_ included with Premier.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> I now understand what you were getting at.
> 
> I'm not sure I associate Premier and AEP with "base" packages as they are essentially the top "base" package (Choice Extra/AT250) with all of the "premiums" included. Actually, Playboy is treated as a "premium" by DISH for billing purposes, but it is _not_ included in the AEP while DIRECTV's Sports Pack is billed as a premium _and_ included with Premier.


Yeah what i mean by base package is the programming that you get at a flat rate per month without any add ons( MLB EI, gameplan, NFL ST, adult channels, ect...). So whatever is included in the package that you sub to, be it premiums or whatever are in your "base package"


----------



## PhillyFan (Sep 21, 2007)

OK, just to make things fun, I have a formula which I call the "HD Happiness Index". For any given subscriber to E*, D* or another provider, the following should apply:
H= (HD1/HD) x (P1/P) 

Where : 
H equals the total HD happiness index
HD equals the total number of high def. channels available from the service,
HD1 equals the number of available high def. channels which you actually want to watch on a regular basis
P equals the price of your subscription, and
P1 equals the maximum price you would be willing to pay for the subscription

Any thoughts?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

PhillyFan said:


> OK, just to make things fun, I have a formula which I call the "HD Happiness Index". For any given subscriber to E*, D* or another provider, the following should apply:
> H= (HD1/HD) x (P1/P)
> 
> Where :
> ...


Um, shouldn't this be in another thread?


----------



## PhillyFan (Sep 21, 2007)

My only point is that blowing someone out of the water involves more than just channel counts. 100 channels of HD home shopping network wouldn't do it for me...


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

borghe said:


> ok, knock off the condescending attitude here. he has stated a flurry of numbers around this thread in a number of places on both sides. not to mention what "he considers" a proper channel and what many other consider a "proper" channel is completely open to debate. it's certainly possible for someone to not knw what "his" numbers might be.
> 
> are you really in this thread for any reason other than as cheerleader?
> 
> ...


My intent was not to be condescending or a reason to provoke anyone. I'm sorry you took it the way you did.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

richiephx said:


> My intent was not to be condescending or a reason to provoke anyone. I'm sorry you took it the way you did.


To be frank with you, it's not your place to tell others what to do here. When you do that, expect some forum members to be annoyed with you.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> james can you give a rough overview of what is on E* SD that D* doesnt have?
> Ill be honest Ive got AEP on E* or the equiv. old package in SD and cant think of many if any that I dont get on D*.


E* has 32 Shopping and PI channels "nobody wants" plus 8 other non-premium channels (International Music Feed, SiTV, Telefutura, Univisión Oeste, Hallmark Movie Channel, Mun2 Television, Nickelodeon Games and Sports, Veria) and 10 premium movie channels D* doesn't carry.

D* has 8 Shopping and PI channels "nobody wants", three special channels (news and sports mixes and the 101) plus 6 non-premium channels (BET J, Chiller, Fuel TV, Logo, Ovation, PBS Kids Sprout), 1 premium movie channel and 1 RSN (YES) E* doesn't carry.

The other channels E* and D* have in common.

Remember, it's a numbers game ... no fair picking on shopping channels if you're going to count mostly upconvert channels as HD. Quality isn't the issue. Right? 



man_rob said:


> To be frank with you, it's not your place to tell others what to do here. When you do that, expect some forum members to be annoyed with you.


Please let me leave my moderator hat off for a while ... talk about the topic, not each other. This goes for everyone!

:backtotop


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* has 32 Shopping and PI channels "nobody wants" plus 8 other non-premium channels (International Music Feed, SiTV, Telefutura, Univisión Oeste, Hallmark Movie Channel, Mun2 Television, Nickelodeon Games and Sports, Veria) and 10 premium movie channels D* doesn't carry.
> 
> D* has 8 Shopping and PI channels "nobody wants", three special channels (news and sports mixes and the 101) plus 6 non-premium channels (BET J, Chiller, Fuel TV, Logo, Ovation, PBS Kids Sprout), 1 premium movie channel and 1 RSN (YES) E* doesn't carry.
> 
> ...


You're racking up the bragging rights. Dish Network, The Shopping Channel Leader!. 30 more SD channels than D*, 24 of them being shopping networks.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Remember, it's a numbers game ... no fair picking on shopping channels if you're going to count mostly upconvert channels as HD. Quality isn't the issue. Right?
> 
> Please let me leave my moderator hat off for a while ... talk about the topic, not each other. This goes for everyone!
> 
> :backtotop


Mostly upconvert unless its in primetime, same as the Big 4 networks.

I dont mind them counting shopping channels. I have more than enough of those on D* and i guess E* also. So one having that on the other is a non issue. But they are there, they are 24/7 i assume and they are national, so they should be counted.

But thanks for the overview!


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Remember, it's a numbers game ... no fair picking on shopping channels if you're going to count mostly upconvert channels as HD. Quality isn't the issue. Right?


hmm.. this is kind of unfair though. I mean local networks have "mostly upconverted" programming also, yet we count those as full HD. UniversalHD has all HD content that almost universally (pun intended) is agreed upon that it is near worthless. Quantifying the "eligibility" of an HD channel based on the amount of HD or not is almost as arbitrary as just counting the "eligibility" based on the actual content itself (as you *ahem* do with the RSNs).

The bottom line is that even though channels like USA, Sci-Fi, and TBS even upconvert most of their programming, the true test of an HD channel should be whether its most watched programming is in fact HD. L&O:CI, Monk, My Boys, SG:A, Sci-Fi Original movies and baseball have so far all been in HD this past week, and I think it's safe to say that when other highly watched shows come back... BSG, My Boys, Burn Notice, Dead Zone, etc that they will be in HD as well.

If an HD channel is broadcasting the majority of its top rated programming as HD, I see no reason why one wouldn't count it, even if the majority of its overall programming isn't in HD. It would be like *****ing about Sci-Fi not being mostly HD when you're talking about paid programming and mid-day reruns (which is essentially what's going on). By this merit, the HD RSNs should also be counted considering, again, their most watched content IS in HD. Whether you can get it or not is subject to blackout rules, but the content is still broadcasted in HD nonetheless. Heck, your receiver even gets it just fine.. although it letting you watch it is an entirely different story 

also it goes without saying that comparing pay-to-carry channels to regular cable channels is inane at best.

But really at the end of the day the quantity of channels, HD or SD, has very little to do with why people decide to go from one service to another. Things like customer service, price, incentives, convenience, and just old fashioned spur of the moment decision making have more to do with why people choose the services they choose. Heck, I STILL know people personally who have left one of the sat companies to go with our local cable co. People with HD setups who consciously make the decision to go to our cable provider who has had less HD that DirecTV even before this huge expansion.

About the only place these numbers matter are right here on this board and others like it. That being said, I still contend that it says a whole lot about DirecTV's recent expansion when numbers have to be juggled like bowling pins at a carnival to keep E* ahead in the game of HD channel quantities between the two


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> Quantifying the "eligibility" of an HD channel based on the amount of HD or not is almost as arbitrary as just counting the "eligibility" based on the actual content itself (as you *ahem* do with the RSNs).


I discount the RSNs because of the amount of content MISSING on a national basis. If there was an underwater basket weaving channel in HD it would get counted. But if the best content on that channel was summarily removed from being viewed by most of the country the channel isn't national. (Even though I at the moment have no clue what the most compelling content on UBW-HD would be ... perhaps Bikini night?)

The ESPN channels have their share of blackouts but not to the extent of an RSN.

Getting into arguing every channel on the schedule gets tedius. If you don't like the way I add go ahead and add D*'s RSNs ... I'll add E*'s or I'll add the PPV channels (which are nationally available channels - available at a price). Or we'll agree to disagree. In any case, as long as I list all the channels you can do your own math.

I know for sure that D* and E* will do _THEIR_ own math and embarrass us all with the magic numbers they use.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> But if the best content on that channel was summarily removed from being viewed by most of the country the channel isn't national.


Who decideds what the "best content " is? I may not care to sit and watch a whole out of market game, but the ability to sit and watch some of that sports news, and catch up is very valuable to me


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> Who decideds what the "best content " is? I may not care to sit and watch a whole out of market game, but the ability to sit and watch some of that sports news, and catch up is very valuable to me


you answered your own question, which is my point, its up to you the viewer to decide that, which is why i enjoy readin all your complaints about whos got what, cuz to me it don't matter what D* or E* or any cable satellite company says they have, its up to me to decide which has that content thats best for me


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

projectorguru said:


> you answered your own question, which is my point, its up to you the viewer to decide that, which is why i enjoy readin all your complaints about whos got what, cuz to me it don't matter what D* or E* or any cable satellite company says they have, its up to me to decide which has that content thats best for me


Im just trying to understand James's logic

And honestly, I really dont care who counts what, however i do enjoy a good discussion on the matter. 
Its all in good fun


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> Would anyone (in this forum) say that E* blows D* out of the water on SD (since the count today is E* 333 to D* 255)? Even counting video only they are running E* 218 to D* 188 ... but I doubt anyone would say D* is "blown out of the water."
> 
> That's the standard for the second part of the count ... being within a couple of channels of each other is decent. Pretty much the same as when people compare D* Choice vs E* AT200 w/locals (similar priced packages).
> 
> E* and D* are doing well ... a couple of weeks ago we couldn't say that about D* (it was all promises). Time to go watch some of that HD! (Or get back to work so you can pay for the service.)


Now you have decided to count SD channels?

The people reading this thread don't give a darn about SD channels anymore. As far as I am concerned E* can be the SD leader forever.

Keep the HD coming D*.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

NYSmoker said:


> Now you have decided to count SD channels?
> 
> The people reading this thread don't give a darn about SD channels anymore. As far as I am concerned E* can be the SD leader forever.
> 
> Keep the HD coming D*.


He was being sarcastic, but yes you are right, HD is the new IT thing.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

NYSmoker said:


> Now you have decided to count SD channels?
> 
> The people reading this thread don't give a darn about SD channels anymore. As far as I am concerned E* can be the SD leader forever.
> 
> Keep the HD coming D*.


People should give a darn about SD channels considering that's what you pay top dollar for each month and that's what the majority of all subscribers on all services pays for. People should be outraged at the quality of SD on D* & E*. Don't get me wrong, I love HD just like anyone else here, but to think that SD will go away anytime soon and to not be outraged about the picture quality of SD is very naive.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

man_rob said:


> To be frank with you, it's not your place to tell others what to do here. When you do that, expect some forum members to be annoyed with you.


I simply responded to a comment. There is no reason to be so defensive and there is no reason to imply something that I did not mean or say.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYSmoker said:


> Now you have decided to count SD channels?


I've been counting SD for a long time ... mentioning it here only to make a point that a simple count isn't so simple. D* folks getting all excited about what is, at best, a two HD channel lead and, at worse, a 30 channel deficit?

I thought no D* counter in their right mind would say that E* was ahead based on that simple yet accurate count of SD channels. So why would they say E* is "blown out of the water" over a simple HD count now? Emotional claptrap.

Congrats on FINALLY getting some HD channels to brag about ... jears to D* for running the ad I saw last night on Fox Sports claiming 70 channels now.



msmith198025 said:


> National HD count as of 10/9
> E*-38
> D*-41


Which two E* HD channels are you ignoring? Which D* channel are you ignoring? Basted on the standards you expressed in this thread that should be 40 to 42.


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Basted on the standards you expressed in this thread that should be 40 to 42.


Basted? I think this argument is WELL DONE, myself!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Which two E* HD channels are you ignoring? Which D* channel are you ignoring? Basted on the standards you expressed in this thread that should be 40 to 42.


Ill double check my E* count. 
I had nine original not counting networks, and i still dont have them in my total.
They added 21 then 11 for 41.

Edit: 38 is what i get off of E*'s website


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

djstough said:


> Basted? I think this argument is WELL DONE, myself!


Some parts done weller than others ...
Perhaps we should have a 16 1/2 hour time out until both counts likely change?



msmith198025 said:


> Ill double check my E* count.
> I had nine original not counting networks, and i still dont have them in my total.
> They added 21 then 11 for 41.


MHD was added a day later making 12 last week.


> Edit: 38 is what i get off of E*'s website


Use mine ... it is more accurate than both E* and D*'s websites.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I thought no D* counter in their right mind would say that E* was ahead based on that simple yet accurate count of SD channels. QUOTE]
> 
> But I did


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

Again I think this list is most accurate and in the morning D* should take the lead period. At least until E* adds more channels.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Some parts done weller than others ...
> Perhaps we should have a 16 1/2 hour time out until both counts likely change?
> 
> MHD was added a day later making 12 last week.
> Use mine ... it is more accurate than both E* and D*'s websites.


good call, and i forgot about tbs for E* so i updated that.

I looked at your E* list, i have no problems with that. so its updated


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The ripples seem to be getting smaller ... 

Congrats on the four new channels ... hopefully D* has rocked the boat enough that E* will add some real channels to the count soon! More HD for all!

(D* added 21, then 6 and 1 the next day, then 4 for the 32 they claim on their website. The average is good, but they need to pick up the pace! :lol: )


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

updated again as of this morning. 
That gap is probably going to get wider and wider for a while, then E* should catch up some


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> The ripples seem to be getting smaller ...
> 
> Congrats on the new channels ... hopefully D* has rocked the boat enough that E* will add some real channels to the count soon! More HD for all!


Haha, at least they didnt add too many huh?

Yes this is good for all, but a little good natured fun hurts no one


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> The ripples seem to be getting smaller ...
> 
> Congrats on the four new channels ... hopefully D* has rocked the boat enough that E* will add some real channels to the count soon! More HD for all!
> 
> (D* added 21, then 6 and 1 the next day, then 4 for the 32 they claim on their website. The average is good, but they need to pick up the pace! :lol: )


your right, but it was 21 then 11 then 1. Now four


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Well if D* adds 3 HD channels this week, you'll still have the bragging rights to E* being SD leader.


Is that counting E*'s audio/PI/Shopping network channels?.Because when I figure it out there is more national SD basic channels on D*.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> updated again as of this morning.
> That gap is probably going to get wider and wider for a while, then E* should catch up some


E* will catch up.When"The Price is Right".


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> Is that counting E*'s audio/PI/Shopping network channels?.Because when I figure it out there is more national SD basic channels on D*.


not if you count the top two packages then add the sports pack for E* since D* includes that in Premier. James has a nice link on his Sig.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> E* will catch up.When"The Price is Right".


More like when the bandwidth is right.....thats all thats holding them back at this point


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> not if you count the top two packages then add the sports pack for E* since D* includes that in Premier. James has a nice link on his Sig.


Yes I checked it out.The only thing I missed was Spanish channels.

I really like E*'s website the way they list alot of channels twice.Makes it look like alot of programming.

I'll take D*'s quality SD channels any day.

You know there is a reason E* has alot of PI and shopping network channels,cause the last I heard is that they do pay their own way.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> More like when the bandwidth is right.....thats all thats holding them back at this point


Believe me when I tell you.If the price is not right you won't see the channel on E*.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> Yes I checked it out.The only thing I missed was Spanish channels.
> 
> I really like E*'s website the way they list alot of channels twice.Makes it look like alot of programming.
> 
> ...


thats basically the same argument that D* subs have made for a while about E*'s hd offerings. Sure there may be stuff that you dont want, there is on both services, but the fact remains that E* does offer more SD programing than D*. HD is a different story now!


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

This D* Vs. E* is getting old.

Why don't you Charlie loving fanboys stir the pot in Charlies forum.


----------



## JimK (Dec 13, 2006)

jal said:


> D* New Hd channels are stunning. Absolutely perfect picture. There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. This is a major step forward for Directv! Congrats!


I would guess DISH will go 1920x1080i when they get 3rd generation MPEG-4 encoders like the Harmonic Electra 7000. http://www.harmonicinc.com/view_product.cfm?id=334

DirecTV QPSK at 4 channels per TP 7.679 Mbps each
DISH___8PSK at 6 channels per TP 6.604 Mbps each

7.0 Mbps bite rate for MPEG-4 AVC HD is optimal and anything higher would be overkill with little picture improvement. Even though DirecTV MPEG4 at 4 channels per transponder has a 16% higher bite rate then DISH but would only have a 2.3% (0.5db) better PSNR. I bet that a honest evaluation between, DirecTV StarzHD and DISH StarzHD, would be very close and indistinguishable when DISH goes 1920x1080 when they get 3rd generation MPEG-4 encoders. I would not be surprised that sometime down the road DirecTV goes to 20% bite rate reduction to squeeze 5 channels per transponder just like their MPEG-4 locals are now. A 20% bite rate reduction from 7.679 Mbps to 6.143 Mbps would only have a 4% (1.4db) PSNR loss.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Blitz68 said:


> This D* Vs. E* is getting old.
> 
> Why don't you Charlie loving fanboys stir the pot in Charlies forum.


who is a charlie loving fanboy?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JimK said:


> I would guess DISH will go 1920x1080i when they get 3rd generation MPEG-4 encoders like the Harmonic Electra 7000. http://www.harmonicinc.com/view_product.cfm?id=334
> 
> DirecTV QPSK at 4 channels per TP 7.679 Mbps each
> DISH___8PSK at 6 channels per TP 6.604 Mbps each
> ...


they may, they may not


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Blitz68 said:


> This D* Vs. E* is getting old.


Feel free to ignore the thread. 



Jhon69 said:


> Is that counting E*'s audio/PI/Shopping network channels?.Because when I figure it out there is more national SD basic channels on D*.


Going through and figuring out all the PI/Shopping channels are on D* makes the count complicated. If by saying "basic" channels you mean no premiums then the count would be 157 to 122 in favor of E* (video channels including PI/shopping but not locals RSNs that vary in count depending on where one lives). There are 40 PI/shopping channels paying their way via cash or other consideration on E*. Some of those are on D*, plus other PIs/Shopping E* doesn't carry, to reach their 122 SD channel count.



msmith198025 said:


> More like when the bandwidth is right.....thats all thats holding them back at this point


E* has bandwidth ... they just have to put it to better use!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* has bandwidth ... they just have to put it to better use!


I have to ask then, james why would they take off one of the VAUNTED PPV hd channels to add TBS if so much bandwidth is available? TBS was put up in MPEG 4, so that shouldnt have used that much


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I won't repeat the conspiracy theories on that one ... the curiosity of why TBS was placed on a PPV channel _number_ (542) instead of it's permanent HD number (9499) is baffling enough. (FYI: it is mapped to the SD number similar to D*'s method.)

I have not done a complete inventory lately, but there is unused space on existing satellites that could be used for HD.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know what, though? The competition is making both companies work harder to everyone's benefit.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know what, though? The competition is making both companies work harder to everyone's benefit.


oh without a doubt. its good for both sides.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I won't repeat the conspiracy theories on that one ... the curiosity of why TBS was placed on a PPV channel _number_ (542) instead of it's permanent HD number (9499) is baffling enough. (FYI: it is mapped to the SD number similar to D*'s method.)
> 
> I have not done a complete inventory lately, but there is unused space on existing satellites that could be used for HD.


Not saying there isnt unused space, id THINK that they would want to keep some reserves in case something happend to another sat though? backup space?
Who know though, may be room enough for a whole bunch. Im not an sat. engineer


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know what, though? The competition is making both companies work harder to everyone's benefit.


Honestly, I don't see it this way at all.

What DirecTV is now in the middle of, is EXACTLY what they announced that they would be doing in September of 2004. Adding close to 100 HD national channels by the end of 2007 - really no suprise at all.

The backlash is that the competition FINALLY has to respond or look helpless. DirecTV is following its long established roll-out plan, no more, no less. The fact that there are all of these new HD offerings at this time, shows the coordination between them and DirecTV's HD initiative IMO.

We all knew that DirecTV would be agressively adding this stuff AT THIS TIME - of course that's disregarding all of the E* fanboys derisive comments in the past 2 years. Asleep at the wheel maybe?

And yes - competition is good. Without it, DISH wouldn't be adding anything right now IMHO.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Honestly, I don't see it this way at all.
> 
> What DirecTV is now in the middle of, is EXACTLY what they announced that they would be doing in September of 2004. Adding close to 100 HD national channels by the end of 2007 - really no suprise at all.
> 
> ...


But Sco, on the same token if E* wouldnt have been ahead all of these years, what incentive would D* have had in 04 for making these plans? Competition is what makes them BOTH add more, and its better for us the customer. IMHO


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> But Sco, on the same token if E* wouldnt have been ahead all of these years, what incentive would D* have had in 04 for making these plans? Competition is what makes them BOTH add more, and its better for us the customer. IMHO


Simple really. At the time DirecTV annnounced their HD plans (Sept 2004), they were actually virtually identical with DISH in HD. Both sucked, there was very little to offer. It wasn't until VOOM went out of business (May 2005) and DISH bought their sat and offered the VOOM programming that DISH took over any lead - but that was LONG AFTER the HD plans for DirecTV had been formulated, and work had already begun on retrofitting Spaceway 1 and 2, and so on. It was IN NO WAY a response to DISH.

Again, yes, competition is GOOD. But right now it is driving DISH to keep up, it is not driving DirecTV, they are following a long announced plan.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

(Talk about the issues not the people, please. Name calling is not needed.)

D* is doing fine ... but they are behind their original schedule. Kind of irrelevant since everyone's HD plans have changed over the years (especially the Voom service - they planned on being in an entirely different situation  ).

Now is prime time for HD ... set prices have been down long enough that better sets are now coming in at decent prices. Market penetration for having a HD set has soared. Early failures (such have Voom) have given way to successes (such as E*) and now full on competition between two satellite companies,cable and other delivery methods. Plus many local stations are getting HD up on the air.

The future is bright ... even if one is not a D* customer. It's good to see.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Simple really. At the time DirecTV annnounced their HD plans (Sept 2004), they were actually virtually identical with DISH in HD. Both sucked, there was very little to offer. It wasn't until VOOM went out of business (May 2005) and DISH bought their sat and offered the VOOM programming that DISH took over any lead - but that was LONG AFTER the HD plans for DirecTV had been formulated, and work had already begun on retrofitting Spaceway 1 and 2, and so on. It was IN NO WAY a response to DISH.
> 
> Again, yes, competition is GOOD. But right now it is driving DISH to keep up, it is not driving DirecTV, they are following a long announced plan.


I understand your view, however i have to disagree. If both stayed equal at the time of early adoption of HD what incentive is there to choose one over the other? Which is why, i think D* announced the plan so far ahead of time. It was a direct response to what E* had to offer. Kind of a "yeah we are equal now, but this is what we are planning, so pick us and you will be happy later" thing.

I do agree that it is driving Dish now more than Direct. But hasnt always been so


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> (Talk about the issues not the people, please. Name calling is not needed.)
> 
> .


Was that for the fanboy comment? lol or because i called him Sco?
kidding kidding.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> I understand your view, however i have to disagree. If both stayed equal at the time of early adoption of HD what incentive is there to choose one over the other? Which is why, i think D* announced the plan so far ahead of time. It was a direct response to what E* had to offer. Kind of a "yeah we are equal now, but this is what we are planning, so pick us and you will be happy later" thing.
> 
> I do agree that it is driving Dish now more than Direct. But hasnt always been so


I never expected either to stay 'equal'. But going back to late 2004, I have been hard pressed to find even a single mention by ECHOSTAR as to what their plans were to acquire the needed bandwidth to offer 100+ HD channels. They didn't announce plans to buy or launch new sats (as D* did at the time), or to lease space on other sats.

I honestly wonder where they would have been the past 2 years if VOOM had suceeded - for one they wouldn't have had those 15 channels to broadcast, they also wouldn't have had the bandwidth from Rainbow 1. IMO they would have been limited (just like DirecTV) in what they could throw up to the sky.

We will never know of course, but contracting and then having sats build takes years - DISH (just like D*) generally release info when they sign contracts for new sats.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> I never expected either to stay 'equal'. But going back to late 2004, I have been hard pressed to find even a single mention by ECHOSTAR as to what their plans were to acquire the needed bandwidth to offer 100+ HD channels. They didn't announce plans to buy or launch new sats (as D* did at the time), or to lease space on other sats.
> 
> I honestly wonder where they would have been the past 2 years if VOOM had suceeded - for one they wouldn't have had those 15 channels to broadcast, they also wouldn't have had the bandwidth from Rainbow 1. IMO they would have been limited (just like DirecTV) in what they could throw up to the sky.
> 
> We will never know of course, but contracting and then having sats build takes years - DISH (just like D*) generally release info when they sign contracts for new sats.


They would have probably been in the same situation as D* had been. They do have two ready to launch do they not? So it would have been basically same plan, just a later date.
No doubt Voom was a lucky catch for them at the time.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> They would have probably been in the same situation as D* had been. They do have two ready to launch do they not? So it would have been basically same plan, just a later date.
> No doubt Voom was a lucky catch for them at the time.


Yes I have heard one they are leasing and the other is a backup.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> Feel free to ignore the thread.
> 
> Going through and figuring out all the PI/Shopping channels are on D* makes the count complicated. If by saying "basic" channels you mean no premiums then the count would be 157 to 122 in favor of E* (video channels including PI/shopping but not locals RSNs that vary in count depending on where one lives). There are 40 PI/shopping channels paying their way via cash or other consideration on E*. Some of those are on D*, plus other PIs/Shopping E* doesn't carry, to reach their 122 SD channel count.
> 
> E* has bandwidth ... they just have to put it to better use!


E* has more SD channels sounds so much better than"The only SD channels that E* has more of than D* is audio channels/PI channels/and shopping networks.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Both companies have done a great job of using opportunities that became available. DIRECTV used Spaceway 1 and 2 as Hughes plans for satellite based internet stalled and shrank. Dish purchased Voom.

I also see DIRECTVs overall plan better, to me it "feels" more organized than Dish's. That said, had I spent more time reading the Dish history, I perhaps would see the organization and planning there as well.

I continue to contend competition is key. I agree somewhat with Scobuck, DIRECTV's plan has been announced and clear for actually more than 3 years (from reading the FCC documents). DIRECTV knew this was going to be a competitive point at some point.

Dish responded by shrewd acquisitions. Who knows, the acquisitions might have delayed their original plans. Perhaps both companies would be launching HD channels this month, had Dish not acquired Voom. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jhon69 said:


> Yes I have heard one they are leasing and the other is a backup.


One they are leasing in space was to replace a satellite that, AFAIK, was failing a bit earlier than expected. An upcoming launch will release that lease.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> Yes I have heard one they are leasing and the other is a backup.


One is a lease ... the other is a replacement for E8 which will increase capability at 110° (won't say increase capacity, just stronger signals especially to Alaska and Hawaii).

The licenses at 61.5° were more important to E* than the satellite that is keeping them warm. Yes, they need R1/E12 to operate transponders ... but that satellite in ConUS mode isn't the best in the fleet. In spotbeam mode it would do well for it's original purpose ... Voom HD RSNs or locals via satellite (or both). But E* is unlikely to use any of E12's spotbeam capability. While functional, the only thing E* needs E12 for is to serve the transponders it is serving.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> E* has more SD channels sounds so much better than"The only SD channels that E* has more of than D* is audio channels/PI channels/and shopping networks.


The former is true, the latter is NOT!

E* has more SD premium channels than D*.
E* has more SD non-shopping/PI channels than D*.
E* has more of everything than D* ... although HD channel counting is finally in D*'s favor (unless one counts PPVs).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> One they are leasing in space was to replace a satellite that, AFAIK, was failing a bit earlier than expected. An upcoming launch will release that lease.


I'm assuming you believe the lease satellite is going to 61.5°? I don't recall seeing a destination.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

"I do agree that it is driving Dish now more than Direct. But hasn't always been so."

For a Lifer like me - it _has_ always been so. I've subscribed to D* since February of '94. Checked out E* when they started up - checked 'em every few years as I also have the cable companies that have come and gone in my neck of the prairie.

There never was a serious long-term advantage to switching away.

As an early adopter in several technologies, I've also learned not to waste my money hopping about to experience content or data that I knew would be a "market leader" for only a matter of months. Every promise D* has made to me as a consumer has been kept.

I wouldn't - and couldn't in all honesty - say that about their competitors.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Oh, and James - didn't you used to blather about terms like "HD-lite"? Has that disappeared from your lexicon?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I "blathered" against that derogatory term ...
But that's another topic.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> The former is true, the latter is NOT!
> 
> E* has more SD premium channels than D*.
> E* has more SD non-shopping/PI channels than D*.
> E* has more of everything than D* ... although HD channel counting is finally in D*'s favor (unless one counts PPVs).


Well, at least you have that.

We'll also throw in a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

That anyone gives one rats arse about how one huge me-too conglomerate fares against another, on a personal level, is highly amusing to me. It's like watching a college football forum: Notre Dame v Michigan, Auburn v Alabama, Florida v Florida State. At least such loyalty and allegience in football has some (vague) grounding in reality. I chose my provider years ago, I don't care what the other is doing, or if my provider is currently "winning"  I wish the general public would put this much emotion and thought into what truly counts - local, state, and Federal elections, for instance.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> That anyone gives one rats arse about how one huge me-too conglomerate fares against another, on a personal level, is highly amusing to me. It's like watching a college football forum: Notre Dame v Michigan, Auburn v Alabama, Florida v Florida State. At least such loyalty and allegience in football has some (vague) grounding in reality. I chose my provider years ago, I don't care what the other is doing, or if my provider is currently "winning"  I wish the general public would put this much emotion and thought into what truly counts - local, state, and Federal elections, for instance.


no no you are wrong, its ALABAMA vs auburn. not the other way around


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm a Miami fan, anyway 



msmith198025 said:


> no no you are wrong, its ALABAMA vs auburn. not the other way around


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> I'm a Miami fan, anyway


oh, im sorry:lol:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> The former is true, the latter is NOT!
> 
> E* has more SD premium channels than D*.
> E* has more SD non-shopping/PI channels than D*.
> E* has more of everything than D* ... although HD channel counting is finally in D*'s favor (unless one counts PPVs).


And E* has more"because we can " fees also.Don't want to let that one get by.


----------



## DIRECTV-11 (Apr 2, 2007)

My brother is leading the charge - and he has plenty of bandwidth left, believe me. 

They are feeding him slowly, and he is doing a masterful job!

:goodjob:


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> I discount the RSNs because of the amount of content MISSING on a national basis. If there was an underwater basket weaving channel in HD it would get counted. But if the best content on that channel was summarily removed from being viewed by most of the country the channel isn't national. (Even though I at the moment have no clue what the most compelling content on UBW-HD would be ... perhaps Bikini night?)\


James, your complete inability to accept the RSNs as real channels with real content outside sporting events makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously. I and people in my family have watched non-event programming on those channels for years. They are real channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

directv11 said:


> My brother is leading the charge - and he has plenty of bandwidth left, believe me.
> 
> They are feeding him slowly, and he is doing a masterful job!


Hopefully you're getting a proper checkup so you do not have your brother's ailments! 



marksman said:


> James, your complete inability to accept the RSNs as real channels with real content outside sporting events makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously. I and people in my family have watched non-event programming on those channels for years. They are real channels.


As stated before, feel free to add the RSNs if you feel driven to do so. Then E* can count PPVs (more programming options) and we'll be at 47 to 48 instead of 41 to 40. Might as well count the game only RSNs since E* makes them available outside of their local market footprints (as discussed earlier in the thread). If you can count content without games I can count games without other content (especially when D* fails to deliver those games).

Getting circular ... but whatever.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I have a proposal - why don't we instead talk about who has a bigger schlong, or who has more money, or who has more hair ? It would be more relevant, more interesting, and a dang sight more entertaining that arguing miniscule and ever changing channel count differences.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are other threads ... no one is forcing you to read this one.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Yes, I agree, I ignored it for 20 pages, just couldn't stand it anymore :lol:



James Long said:


> There are other threads ... no one is forcing you to read this one.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Getting circular ... but whatever.


It's circular because you are wrong for not including the RSNs and you are the only one to not see it. Then when called on it you compare RSN programming to PPVs. It's circular because you use arbitrary picking and choosing of channels to include in your numbers and then don't defend it with anything beyond "Well, you can always use your own numbers if you want."

In other words, you make silly claims and then avoid discussing their merit (or lack thereof) when called on it.

PPV you have to pay to see each instance of a show, or at most get the same show for an entire day on a single channel.

RSNs have 24/7 programming. Some of that programming may not be available in your area, but it is there nonetheless. It is still being sent out by the RSN regardless of whether you are eligible or not.

Pay per viewing and blacking out a few games here and there are not the same thing. I can still flip to an RSN and have an 90% chance of seeing a show on it. If I flip to a PPV I have 0% chance of seeing a show on it, unless I pay for it first.

But of course if I don't like your brand of logic I can just choose to use my own then  The sky is forest green, and if you don't like me saying that then you can say the sky is whatever color you like.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you want to discuss it roll back the 20 pages and read where you have already discussed it. Simple enough. Every time you sink to discussing people you admit that you have nothing left to add to the real topic of this thread.

Let's talk DBS!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> As stated before, feel free to add the RSNs if you feel driven to do so. Then E* can count PPVs (more programming options) and we'll be at 47 to 48 instead of 41 to 40. Might as well count the game only RSNs since E* makes them available outside of their local market footprints (as discussed earlier in the thread). If you can count content without games I can count games without other content (especially when D* fails to deliver those games).
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## pickadish (Sep 2, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Simple really. At the time DirecTV annnounced their HD plans (Sept 2004), they were actually virtually identical with DISH in HD. Both sucked, there was very little to offer. It wasn't until VOOM went out of business (May 2005) and DISH bought their sat and offered the VOOM programming that DISH took over any lead - but that was LONG AFTER the HD plans for DirecTV had been formulated, and work had already begun on retrofitting Spaceway 1 and 2, and so on. It was IN NO WAY a response to DISH.
> 
> Again, yes, competition is GOOD. But right now it is driving DISH to keep up, it is not driving DirecTV, they are following a long announced plan.


I can appreciate your opinion but I can't really see the value in your argument.

So your saying that because D* indicated years ago that they intended to distribute more HD ( an already well established technology that EVERYONE intends to distribute more ) their motives are somehow exempt from the premise of being driven by competition?

Especially given their MAIN competition had offered ( and still does at least today ) a superior product for several years?

Hmmmm ever heard of the concept of a "competitive advantage" and how that drives business to make and/or change business plans?

How about the scenario where new technology is announced and how all players in the technology space indicate they will be moving to it at some point in the future? You ever wonder why companies make announcements like that ( sometimes several years in advance )? <sarcasm-on> Those announcements are never driven by competition. The business is just doing all the consumers a big favor by letting them know their plans in advance. <sarcasm-off>

Arguing that D* does ANYTHING that is in no way related to E* ( it's main competition ) is such a silly statement it makes me wonder if your really old enough to be posting here in the first place.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

pickadish said:


> I can appreciate your opinion but I can't really see the value in your argument.
> 
> So your saying that because D* indicated years ago that they intended to distribute more HD ( an already well established technology that EVERYONE intends to distribute more ) their motives are somehow exempt from the premise of being driven by competition?
> 
> ...


You can't see it because you don't understand the difference of the two examples that you yourself are using.

Two types of pressure:

1) The market itself has a global pressure to provide and improve the intended product

2) Competitor A makes a move and competitor B respondes to that move

In this case D* and E* were both doing #1. Both companies were establishing their ability to improve their HD platform. They went about it in a different way and E* was first to the table with a volume offering. D* has caught up on locals and has continued to implement a plan that they made even before E* took over VOOM. However, D* has rarely, if ever, taken an action directly in response to something E* did. D* has responded methodically to pressure #1.

However, D* finally getting to national roll out stage has caused the rest of the industry (not just E*) to respond to pressure #2. This includes E* doing everything it can to combat the clear advantage D* is achieving. It is obvious that the response from cable outlets and E* is directly caused by the roll-out of the D* channels.

By the way contrary to your statement, if you actually look at HD content as a hole today, D* is indeed blowing E* out of the water. VOOM is the last real advantage they have and that is an extremely weak thing to hang your hat on.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Jhon69 said:


> And E* has more"because we can " fees also.Don't want to let that one get by.


That's why I finally left E* after 9 years (about two years ago) and Ive never looked back.


----------



## RD in Fla (Aug 26, 2007)

E* does not have ST and to alot of us that is what matters. I have never thought that E* was a natural competitor to D*. I believe the suits at D* feel that cable and now FIOS are their real competitors. If I were to ever switch away from D* it would not be to another sat. service but to cable or FIOS. Just my .02 which probably isn't worth much.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

borghe said:


> RSNs have 24/7 programming...


Yeah, and 12/7 of that is either Chuck Norris and Christie Brinkley or replays, with the other 12/7 of that being blacked out to 99% of the population.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> You can't see it because you don't understand the difference of the two examples that you yourself are using.
> 
> Two types of pressure:
> 
> ...


you are right they arent in and have never been in competition with each other and dont have anything to do with each other.......(sarcasm)

Name the only two DBS services in the USA. ok now explain how they dont compete. or didnt compete or whatever stance you are taking

really the main competition each have is each other. they compete in the same rural marketplace that cable cant reach in alot of cases


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> you are right they arent in and have never been in competition with each other and dont have anything to do with each other.......(sarcasm)
> 
> Name the only two DBS services in the USA. ok now explain how they dont compete. or didnt compete or whatever stance you are taking
> 
> really the main competition each have is each other. they compete in the same rural marketplace that cable cant reach in alot of cases


They both still consider cable the enemy.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heisman said:


> They both still consider cable the enemy.


without a doubt cable IS a competitor, but the greatest threat to each is the other.
they compete in markets cable cant touch


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> without a doubt cable IS a competitor, but the greatest threat to each is the other.
> they compete in markets cable cant touch


The reason they consider cable the enemy is because E* and D* are (have been) always on the same side, fighting for the same things in the courts. Cable, on the other hand, stands alone.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heisman said:


> The reason they consider cable the enemy is because E* and D* are (have been) always on the same side, fighting for the same things in the courts. Cable, on the other hand, stands alone.


yes, they fight the same things in court. Who do you think benefits the most though in the sub. base the DBS companies have if one falls?


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> you are right they arent in and have never been in competition with each other and dont have anything to do with each other.......(sarcasm)
> 
> Name the only two DBS services in the USA. ok now explain how they dont compete. or didnt compete or whatever stance you are taking
> 
> really the main competition each have is each other. they compete in the same rural marketplace that cable cant reach in alot of cases


You still fail to understand the difference between #1 and #2. I didn't say they don't compete. In fact I said the opposite. They absolutely are competing for subscribers. They are absolutely both responding to the market. But, the idea that D* was somehow grasping at straws in response to E* is rediculous. They had a long term plan and executed it. E* had their plan, but because of the success D* is having now they are being forced into hyper-spin mode. I have never seen D* do anything based on E*. They mostly just shrug them off as irrelivent.

Again, I hope E* ends up with every channel that D* has. I hope they can only fight each other on quality and price. The winners in this debate are all of us D* and E* subscribers.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> You still fail to understand the difference between #1 and #2. I didn't say they don't compete. In fact I said the opposite. They absolutely are competing for subscribers. They are absolutely both responding to the market. But, the idea that D* was somehow grasping at straws in response to E* is rediculous. They had a long term plan and executed it. E* had their plan, but because of the success D* is having now they are being forced into hyper-spin mode. I have never seen D* do anything based on E*. They mostly just shrug them off as irrelivent.
> 
> Again, I hope E* ends up with every channel that D* has. I hope they can only fight each other on quality and price. The winners in this debate are all of us D* and E* subscribers.


I know D* had a long term plan, but why do you think they announced it TWO years ahead of when it would be done? Competition with E* and to a lesser extent the cable companies. what other reason could there be?
Never said they or anyone was grasping at straws.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> I have never seen D* do anything based on E*. They mostly just shrug them off as irrelivent.
> 
> .


why dont you email the office of the president of D* and ask him how irrelivant he thinks DISH is. that is the only other company in the USA that is similiar in scope and function. Cable delivers a similiar product, but to for the most part, a different subs. base.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> I know D* had a long term plan, but why do you think they announced it TWO years ahead of when it would be done? Competition with E* and to a lesser extent the cable companies. what other reason could there be?
> Never said they or anyone was grasping at straws.


Ok, but the suggestion was they announced it because of E* and VOOM etc... All we are pointing out is that D* announced it long before that acquisition. In fact we could make the same type of judgement and say that E* scrambled to get VOOM and expand locals BECAUSE of the D* announcements about their plans. Neither explenation is very likely to have much truth to it.

The other thing that is interesting here is that D* has (accidently I believe) timed their ramp up at precisely the right time to maximize the ramp up of HD from the providers. It is still spotty, but it sounds good in the commercials. That's a stroke of luck for D*.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> They mostly just shrug them off as irrelivent.


Right up until the point when Echostar bought DirecTV. Seriously, I'm not sure you ever consider a competitor that is right behind you in subscribers as irrelevant. What they do is very relevant as they can effect the entire market with a major change.

As for the blowing someone out of the water...ehh. Any channels worth having from a subscriber acquisition/retention view will be duplicated on both services as they're both going after the same customers.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Right up until the point when Echostar bought DirecTV. Seriously, I'm not sure you ever consider a competitor that is right behind you in subscribers as irrelevant. What they do is very relevant as they can effect the entire market with a major change.
> 
> As for the blowing someone out of the water...ehh. Any channels worth having from a subscriber acquisition/retention view will be duplicated on both services as they're both going after the same customers.


I didn't say they ARE irrelevant.

I already agreed that almost every provider will end up with roughly the same content. At that point we will hopefully get the benefit of competition that is based on price/quality instead of "HEY, we have 23498792384987234 channels of nothing to watch"

On, the blowing out of water stuff, I was being sarcastic (although reading back it is probably hard to tell). This is just an arms race to nowhere.


----------



## Trump_01 (May 26, 2007)

Good grief this topic is still goin on about who's greater than who?!?!.....ya'll are a bunch of silly salleys


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'm assuming you believe the lease satellite is going to 61.5°? I don't recall seeing a destination.


I actually am not sure where the satellite is going. I just had a vague recollection that Dish saw an opportunity to lease the satellite for a short time until the true replacement could launch. I look to you to tell me more about the Dish plans. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> Ok, but the suggestion was they announced it because of E* and VOOM etc... All we are pointing out is that D* announced it long before that acquisition. In fact we could make the same type of judgement and say that E* scrambled to get VOOM and expand locals BECAUSE of the D* announcements about their plans. Neither explenation is very likely to have much truth to it.
> 
> The other thing that is interesting here is that D* has (accidently I believe) timed their ramp up at precisely the right time to maximize the ramp up of HD from the providers. It is still spotty, but it sounds good in the commercials. That's a stroke of luck for D*.


Which still doesnt mean anything ive been saying isnt true. And sure E probably did "scramble" to get VOOM in direct response to D*, what goes for one goes for the other and no one has implied otherwise. The only point ive had a problem with is the D* didnt do any of this planning because of E* or vice versa, which i dont agree with.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> I didn't say they ARE irrelevant.
> 
> .


Well you kinda did. 
You said that D* considers them that pretty much irrelivant, and that you have never seen D* do anything in direct resonse to them.Which is not the case.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

No, I didn't even kinda. I said "They(D*) mostly just shrug them(E*) off as irrelevant." 

In any corporate memo, press release or conversation, D* barely acknowledges that E* exists except in the most round about way if forced by some dialog. Charley, on the other hand, runs his gums 24/7, and usually is taking direct shots at D*.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

To your other response, how is that not saying D* thinks E* is irrelevant?

YOU personally didnt say they were, but you did for all intents and purposes say D* thinks they are.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I'm just hoping that Echostar offers ala-carte pricing and forces DirecTV to respond. Actually DirecTV is kind of moving that way...it appears they are going to pull a few channels out of the existing packages and charge extra for them.


If they do, im afraid that prices will go up considerably, with little to no savings on less content. Just my two cents


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

E* is good for competitive balance. Pushes D* to keep the petal to the metal ...

For me, since content is king, D* is now ahead and probably ahead forever.

Always had good signal, have 4 HD locals, love MLB-EI & NFL Sunday Ticket, and now have 46 HD national channels and growing.

They got everything ... all is well ...


----------



## DIRECTV-10 (Mar 30, 2007)

Well - it's been 90 days since I have been touring our beautiful planet - I must say that the sights are truly breathtaking.

One question - How am I doing so far? 

Regards from 102.8
D10


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DirecTV10 said:


> One question - How am I doing so far?


A subject for other threads ... although I understand that you are weak in "spots" it seems you can deliver ConUS beams fine.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Sixto said:


> For me, since content is king, D* is now ahead and probably ahead forever.


There goes that count versus content issue again. Too many seem to be confusing D*'s HD count with HD content in one thread while others righteously bemoan the lack of HD content in another thread.

As usual, the whiners seem to consume more column inches, but you have to wonder if they don't have a point when you look at the HD hours per day ratio of some of these new channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DirecTV10 said:


> One question - How am I doing so far?


Please speak up; it is cloudy here.


----------



## DIRECTV-10 (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> Please speak up; it is cloudy here.


Isn't it always cloudy in Oregon?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Yup, today, the pickings is slim on some/many channels. The providers are coming to grips with the reality that HD ain't just throwing a picture on a bigger screen. 

It is arriving. Sometimes in huge jumps (just getting the bigger screen, ie the signal out in HD) is such a big necessary piece. Sometime in small jumps as in "one new hour" of true HD programming each week for a channel.

People who want to bemoan will always find sometime to bemoan. People who want to rejoice, will.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

harsh said:


> There goes that count versus content issue again. Too many seem to be confusing D*'s HD count with HD content in one thread while others righteously bemoan the lack of HD content in another thread.
> 
> As usual, the whiners seem to consume more column inches, but you have to wonder if they don't have a point when you look at the HD hours per day ratio of some of these new channels.


Agree.

For me (and family) ... having prime-time networks in HD, all the baseball games around the country in HD, almost every football game in HD on Sundays, every major network in HD that offer an HD feed, and then a number of HD PPV's for any new movies ... well, what else could you ask for ... seems like the perfect world ... plus there's only so many hours in the day to watch anyway.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I think you miss my point. The posts these days center around if DISH is going to be able to keep up right now. My statement only implied that DirecTV was simply doing exactly what it announced to the world it would do in 2004. I don't see that they are in any way responding to what DISH did last year, or what they may do now. I think they took the lead and are not looking back.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A local broadcaster just put up their HD feeds OTA ... for ABC and CW (two different stations). My receiver picked up the channels (with no EPG) fine on the first day of broadcasting. There was an issue at the station that was preventing the EPG from being linked properly ... as of last night the station fixed the issue and E* customers get these OTA HD channels with EPG - just like they should!

I wish I could say the same about D* receivers. People have had to trick their receivers to get any reception at all and EPG data is still not being linked/passed properly.

In the realm of "what matters" these two OTA HDs are worth as much to me as many satellite HD stations. An ABC affiliate that airs NASCAR and ND games and a CW affiliate that airs Smallville. Programs I'd like to see in HD.

Quantity is easy ... just start counting. Quality is a debate that will never end.


Both satellite providers looked at a market place that included each other and a third satellite competitor that has bowed out. They made their plans. E* went hard into HD in 2006 ... even though they had HD channels before then that is when the big push started. They had plans to do more earlier than 2006 but content providers were not ready. Now the content providers are ready and E* is ready to push ahead with them. D* was not ready to go hard into HD in 2006. Now they are and they have picked a good time as content providers have caught up with the desire of programmers such as E* and D*.

Did E* push D* or was it just "market forces"? E* and D* push each other to stay ahead of market forces.


----------



## Tyrate (Oct 5, 2005)

Considering all the *****ing I do about Directv, I must say for the 1st time in a long time, I am pleased with the HD product they put out so far and once again I can say to my wife "You see I told you Directv was a good investment" it's been awhile! The king is back on top!!


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

All my locals have worked great for me , guide data and all.


----------



## pickadish (Sep 2, 2007)

JMCecil said:


> No, I didn't even kinda. I said "They(D*) mostly just shrug them(E*) off as irrelevant."
> 
> In any corporate memo, press release or conversation, D* barely acknowledges that E* exists except in the most round about way if forced by some dialog. Charley, on the other hand, runs his gums 24/7, and usually is taking direct shots at D*.


Look let's make this real simple.

Only two national U.S. satellite providers.

One had a commanding market share of subs 7 yrs ago.

Today the market has grown considerably and the market share between the two is close to even.

Care to ask shareholders, investors, financial analysts, local marketing, and partners if E* has had any affect on operations?

Do you have some inside information that backs up this absurd notion that D* does nothing in response to E*? What exactly does D* internal Sales & Marketing departments do all day if they are not concerned with losing marketshare and what their MAIN AND ONLY DIRECT COMPETITOR is doing?

If you can take off the glasses for a moment and think logically why would a TECHNOLOGY company announce plans several years in advance?

Let me give you some reasons.

1.) They don't have the resources to jump head first into HD whatever their BIG PLAN is.

2.) Because of issue #1 they are hoping to one up a competitor and maybe keep the financial analysts and consumers thinking about them as a leader?

3.) Because of issue #1 they need to make sure the people who REALLY run the company don't freak about changing market conditions. Those in charge BTW are the shareholders, investors, and financial analysts. Not you and I and our $100/month service fee.

4.) If your internal analysts are worth a SH$T they would have seen VOOM was a take over candidate and would have to determine likely scenarios in who might buy them. You think they considered E* might do it?

Fast forward to 2005 and now E* is flat out leading the HD provider race. You think over the next 2.5 years ANYONE at D* noticed this???? I know they are VERY BUSY with the BIG PLAN but you think at any meeting at any level someone mentioned the fact the E* is kicking thier A$$?

Think perhaps their plans may have been altered a little by this situation?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I don't have the sub numbers from 2000, but the numbers from end of 2002 were - directv 11 million, dish 8 million. Currently directv over 16 million, fish over 13 million. Looks to me (that the facts back up) both added about the SAME number of subs. Dish is still about 3 million behind them!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I don't have the sub numbers from 2000, but the numbers from end of 2002 were - directv 11 million, dish 8 million. Currently directv over 16 million, fish over 13 million. Looks to me (that the facts back up) both added about the SAME number of subs. Dish is still about 3 million behind them!


As posted four days ago:


James Long said:


> December 31, 1999 ... D* had 8 million customers ... E* had 3.4 million
> June 30, 2007 ... D* had 16.316 million customers ... E* had 13.585 million
> 
> It seems that D* has only added 8 million customers in the same time E* added 10 million. D* dropping from 70% of combined subscribers down to 54%.





James Long said:


> 2000 was a good year for E* ... by January 1st 2001 E* had 5.26 million subscribers. They have added 8.325 million subscribers since. 2000 was also a decent year for D* ... by January 1st 2001 D* had 9.5 million subscribers. D* has added 6.816 million subscribers since. E* has added 1.5 million more subscribers this millennium than D*.
> 
> Want to move the cheese another year? On December 31st, 2001 E* was at 6.83 million subscribers and D* at 11.2 million. E* gained 6.755 million and D* gained 5.116 million since.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Thanks for the numbers. And it does look like dish was adding more up until end of 2002. Since then they have added about the same. Also the adds in 1999 and so on have nothing to do with HD or todays market place really.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> A local broadcaster just put up their HD feeds OTA ... for ABC and CW (two different stations). My receiver picked up the channels (with no EPG) fine on the first day of broadcasting. There was an issue at the station that was preventing the EPG from being linked properly ... as of last night the station fixed the issue and E* customers get these OTA HD channels with EPG - just like they should!
> 
> I wish I could say the same about D* receivers. People have had to trick their receivers to get any reception at all and EPG data is still not being linked/passed properly.


I havent had a single problem with Guide data on my HR-20 or H-20. Pulling in stations from 100 miles with each also.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> I think you miss my point. The posts these days center around if DISH is going to be able to keep up right now. My statement only implied that DirecTV was simply doing exactly what it announced to the world it would do in 2004. I don't see that they are in any way responding to what DISH did last year, or what they may do now. I think they took the lead and are not looking back.


I agree with you that D* is doing exactly what they said was in the plans two years ago. there is no doubt about it, and we are reaping the benefits! yay!
But would they have felt the need to announce so far ahead if Dish wasnt there? Why would they? A response to competition is what it appears to me.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

I view it more as throwing down a challenge to the competition, it couldn't have been a response. A response to what? Also, you are leaving out the other competitors in this from THAT time - VOOM itself AND the cable companies. The biggest HD challenge at that moment was NOT dish!


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> You still fail to understand the difference between #1 and #2. I didn't say they don't compete. In fact I said the opposite. They absolutely are competing for subscribers. They are absolutely both responding to the market. But, the idea that D* was somehow grasping at straws in response to E* is rediculous. They had a long term plan and executed it. E* had their plan, but because of the success D* is having now they are being forced into hyper-spin mode. I have never seen D* do anything based on E*. They mostly just shrug them off as irrelivent.
> 
> Again, I hope E* ends up with every channel that D* has. I hope they can only fight each other on quality and price. The winners in this debate are all of us D* and E* subscribers.


D* is bigger because they were first. I know that the D* had no DVR until after E* and the Dishplayers which were the first Satellite DVRs, Note I said Satellite DVRs not first DVRs as Tivo and Replay were out first. D* went out and got two different DVRs because of the Dishplayers. They ended up with a really good one that they let die from Microsoft. Now they've rolled their own which is arguably worse than the E* 622/722 DVRs. Oh wait the 622 is the first Mpeg4 DVR with dual tuners.

However we all know that D* is the leader and never copies any good ideas.

Memory tells me that E* started doing LIL bigtime before D* and I remember My D* PQ taking a big dump when they started doing LIL even though they didn't really have the capacity at that time.

And D* also lead the way in turning off channels to make room for Sports. Another Number one for D*.

:soapbox: Living in NJ I know about being #1, for the wrong reasons. Nuff said.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

The difference being dish turns off channels as a negotiating tactic. Then they stay off for weeks or months at a time. I am guessing you find that more acceptable.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> I view it more as throwing down a challenge to the competition, it couldn't have been a response. A response to what? Also, you are leaving out the other competitors in this from THAT time - VOOM itself AND the cable companies. The biggest HD challenge at that moment was NOT dish!


Overall biggest no, but biggest for the sub. base D* had, i disagree and say that it was DISH. Most sat. subs. at that time werent in a position to get cable. only had one other real choice.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> The difference being dish turns off channels as a negotiating tactic. Then they stay off for weeks or months at a time. I am guessing you find that more acceptable.


Now that i agree with!


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> The difference being dish turns off channels as a negotiating tactic. Then they stay off for weeks or months at a time. I am guessing you find that more acceptable.


So, are you saying that, any carrier should just accept any price that any programmer says? I'm not a E* contract negotiator, but, logic tells me I wouldn't. So the contract expires and the programmer doesn't allow carriage. On the other side of the coin, I think the programmer could also say...continue to carry my channel until we come to terms because we probably will. It goes both ways. Come on Sco, you're a baseball fanatic, you should embrace a little hardball negotiation?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> So, are you saying that, any carrier should just accept any price that any programmer says? I'm not a E* contract negotiator, but, logic tells me I wouldn't. So the contract expires and the programmer doesn't allow carriage. On the other side of the coin, I think the programmer could also say...continue to carry my channel until we come to terms because we probably will. It goes both ways. Come on Sco, you're a baseball fanatic, you should embrace a little hardball negotiation?


what about the customer in all of this, all they usually know is, hey i have missing channels, where is the money i was paying for them


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Doesn't TOS state somewhere that programming can change without notice? I agree with you that, under these circumstances, the subscriber who loses a channel because E* can't agree on price before the carriage term will be unhappy but, would they be more unhappy if they had to pay more each month because a greedy programmer is demanding too much for carriage? On the E* side, it's a no win for the subscriber to lose a channel but it is a win for the subscriber not to have to pay to keep it. On the programmer side, if they truly cared for their viewership, they would be more flexible and not be as demanding when they negotiate carriage agreements. That would be a win situation for the subscriber. I don't claim to know why E* does what they do but, it's a business decision on their part. And, I guess if a subscriber is that unhappy over losing one channel, there is always an alternative.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Directv has a real bandwidth advantage for HD at the moment over E* and cable,With the successful launch of D11 it will make this advantage much better.

This advantage probably won't last long about two years or so before E* gets a new bird up or cable switches to all digital.

Directv needs to use this time to expand it's HD customer numbers and be the King of HD !

In the long run all HD customers are going to win.  

Matt


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Quantity is easy ... just start counting. Quality is a debate that will never end.


Quantity is easy... That's a great quote from the person who counts what they want, and tells others they can't count!:lol:


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

richiephx said:


> So, are you saying that, any carrier should just accept any price that any programmer says? I'm not a E* contract negotiator, but, logic tells me I wouldn't. So the contract expires and the programmer doesn't allow carriage. On the other side of the coin, I think the programmer could also say...continue to carry my channel until we come to terms because we probably will. It goes both ways. Come on Sco, you're a baseball fanatic, you should embrace a little hardball negotiation?


I guess if it happened once or twice - but it is obvious the M.O. of Charlie is to negotiate in the public and leave his customers hanging in the middle. If it was FOX and he turned it off the day before the World Series, I guess playing hardball would be ok also. Look at the ridiculous press releases he puts out when he turns off a channel and later puts it back on - or the press release about the Big Ten, or the one about MLB (BTW cable ALSO signed with MLB, only DISH said no). DISH always plays - POOR ME.

Seems like the other carriers - cable, FiOS, DirecTV don't get into these same predicaments - why is that?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Doesn't TOS state somewhere that programming can change without notice? I agree with you that, under these circumstances, the subscriber who loses a channel because E* can't agree on price before the carriage term will be unhappy but, would they be more unhappy if they had to pay more each month because a greedy programmer is demanding too much for carriage? On the E* side, it's a no win for the subscriber to lose a channel but it is a win for the subscriber not to have to pay to keep it. On the programmer side, if they truly cared for their viewership, they would be more flexible and not be as demanding when they negotiate carriage agreements. That would be a win situation for the subscriber. I don't claim to know why E* does what they do but, it's a business decision on their part. And, I guess if a subscriber is that unhappy over losing one channel, there is always an alternative.


Im sure it does say that in the service contract, doesnt mean its right for the customer. And E* is usually the one doing this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I view it more as throwing down a challenge to the competition, it couldn't have been a response. A response to what? Also, you are leaving out the other competitors in this from THAT time - VOOM itself AND the cable companies. The biggest HD challenge at that moment was NOT dish!


D*'s plans were a response to Voom's temporary lineup (21 in house HDs helped, but they had every other HD available to them at the time, IIRC) and to E*' prior promises. D* has been running behind for a while. E* was talking HD a long time before they got their system up too. Are you going to say that E* only led the physical marketplace (not the future promise marketplace, but reality) for the past two to three years because of D*'s promises. I find it crazy to credit EVERYTHING that happens in the industry to D* ... as if they are the only one that has an idea. Boith companies look toward each other and other competition then do what they can to stay ahead.



ScoBuck said:


> The difference being dish turns off channels as a negotiating tactic. Then they stay off for weeks or months at a time. I am guessing you find that more acceptable.


This practice is rare. Perhaps under Liberty D* will behave differently. The mention seems to be off topic.

D* isn't perfect ... they turned off active HD channels for Sunday Ticket ... did they give prior warning? Was there even a footnote that their full HD package was not available when space is needed for other content? Or was it a surprise?

Every company makes tough choices. D* has made their share.



djstough said:


> Quantity is easy... That's a great quote from the person who counts what they want, and tells others they can't count!:lol:


Count what you want ... I'll try to keep my list complete so you can stop at 41, 46 or wherever you want on the D* side (or 40, 48 or 70 on the E* side). All I was saying is that *I* don't count them, not that others are forbidden from counting them.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:



> D*'s plans were a response to Voom's temporary lineup (21 in house HDs helped, but they had every other HD available to them at the time, IIRC) and to E*' prior promises. D* has been running behind for a while. E* was talking HD a long time before they got their system up too. Are you going to say that E* only led the physical marketplace (not the future promise marketplace, but reality) for the past two to three years because of D*'s promises. I find it crazy to credit EVERYTHING that happens in the industry to D* ... as if they are the only one that has an idea. Boith companies look toward each other and other competition then do what they can to stay ahead.


I have never mentioned what I thought E*s plans were. As far as D* lagging behind - there I think you are way off. First in Sept of 2004 - both were virtually identical in their HD offering (and both sucked). Second, not until May of 05 when they got Voom did they have any lead. Of the 40 HD channels they have now (not counting PPV) 15 are VOOM, of the remaining 25 10 wereadded in the past 2 months. Not really too much there in my opinion. Also as we seem to agree, quantity doesn't mean leadership. I made a decision that D* had a better HD offering (to me) due to its sports superiority. I chose sports over VOOM - I believe that that is a WAY BETTER programming choice. SO, while there were more channels (and 2 1/2 years ago VOOM was constant repeats) I honestly feel DirecTV had the better lineup. If not - I would have either switched or had both.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Trusting your numbers without checking that still leaves E* as a 15 plus Voom system for the two years when D* was just making promises to get better. The lag is waiting for delivery to catch up with promises.

E* did all of their promising in 2003, 2004 and 2005. 2006 started off with a "blows D* out of the water" introduction and some promises. Since then E* has backed off on making promises. They have just been making improvements instead.

D* has finally left the land of promises and are now delivering ... which is good. If you want to discount all the years that D* held on with only a few HD channels that's fine. But promises didn't keep all the HD channels on the air each weekend nor did it allow people to watch HD that E* has had for some time.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Trusting your numbers without checking that still leaves E* as a 15 plus Voom system for the two years when D* was just making promises to get better.


Coming from a repsected mod - this is a statement of rhetoric.

For those two years, they were doing far more than making promises. They were having sats built (2 new, 2 retrofitted). In the first year 2005 they were able to begin a HD lil rollout that gives them a far superior footprint to DISH. And I don't want to hear that locals are not important. I see way to many threads opened in BOTH D* and E* forums (here and at the other prominent sites) asking for HD locals - at least as much that ask for other named channels).

They were obviously talking with content providers to get them on-board for a 3rd Q 2007 turn on. It is NOT coincidence that these channels are coming on-board right now.

Those promises were the revealing of what their intention and plans were to get to a 100+ channel bandwidth - and it stated clearly the timeframe expected in which to do it.

They also in public acknowledged that they could NOT add HD channels prior to the launch of D10 - they NEVER shied away from that fact. They admitted a shortcoming and worked to overcome it in what I consider a reasonable timeframe. In the meantime they had to shuffle a couple of channels on some Sunday afternoons.

Meanwhile, explain to me what Hd offering DISH would have had the past 2 years if VOOM hadn't failed? I don't see that they made any statements. If your preference is the way DISH handled it, great - but to say that nothing but promises were made - you are only 'dishing' jive. They build new infrastructure, and got 3 out of their 4 birds up and running. Pretty good I say.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

ScoBuck said:


> Coming from a repsected mod - this is a statement of rhetoric.


I thought this came from JL didnt it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Behind the scenes is behind the scenes ... you were discounting all of E*'s planning and preparation leading up to the big bang in 2006 (and continuing now). I was returning the favor. 

E* has launched new satellites and has another under construction ready for launch within the next couple of months. They have taken an approach of leasing some satellites and satellite space ... so not everything they do is dependent on E* itself launching a satellite. Some of E*'s improvements are in other areas of their service. E*'s world is a little bigger than basically stagnant plus plans for HD.

As long as you're only willing to give D* 100% credit for their planning and discounting E*'s actual delivery of product I don't know how the discussion can remain fair. It has been a good month for D* ... but it has been a long time in coming.


----------



## pickadish (Sep 2, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> Coming from a repsected mod - this is a statement of rhetoric.


Coming from a D* cheerleader everything you say is rhetoric.

>>For those two years, they were doing far more than making promises. They were having sats built (2 new, 2 retrofitted). In the first

WOW! A satellite company having sats built or reworked. Imagine that. Those D* guys are leading edge. Someone needs to let E* know if they intend to keep marketshare they better start thinking about this too.

>>They were obviously talking with content providers to get them on-board for a 3rd Q 2007 turn on. It is NOT coincidence that these >>channels are coming on-board right now.

Yes you need to start those conversations early for HD content. Several years earlier to make the master plan work. Just like when TBS rolled out HD last month and E* got it in...., oh wait was it 2 days? 

>>Those promises were the revealing of what their intention and plans were to get to a 100+ channel bandwidth - and it stated clearly >>the timeframe expected in which to do it.

Great plans to get a 100+ channel BANDWIDTH. Jeez what a cheerleader.

>>They admitted a shortcoming and worked to overcome it in what I consider a reasonable timeframe. In the meantime they had to shuffle

Like they could deny it? Reasonable in who's lifetime. 2 years in the technology world is NOT RESONABLE.

>>Meanwhile, explain to me what Hd offering DISH would have had the past 2 years if VOOM hadn't failed? I don't see that they made any >>statements. If your preference is the way DISH handled it, great - but to say that nothing but promises were made - you are only >>'dishing' jive. They build new infrastructure, and got 3 out of their 4 birds up and running. Pretty good I say.

This is the greatest comments yet. What if today's reality HADNT HAPPENED E* wouldn't be so cool then.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Don't put any words in my mouth. Show me where I mentioned what E* did or didn't do in that regard. Truthfully, I didn't pay ANY attention to them back then.

What I DID SAY is that when DirecTV announced their plans in Sept 04, they were in FACT NOT BEHIND DISH. I said BOTH equal and both sucked - in regards to HD.

They made their plan, they announced their plan (which I have NOT seen any evidence of DISH doing BTW). Please post some related DISH info from back of end 2004 as to what DISH said they were going to do. Does it exist, or are we just trying to 'guesstimate what their plans were? Was it to stick a vodoo doll into Charles Dolan to hope that VOOM would fail and that they could but bandwidth and programming?

Also, it is DirecTV leading the push on the content providers - it is also the impending turning on of D10 that got DISH to add anything now - or why didn't they do it months ago? What took them until now to move VOOM to MPEG4? Just a coincidennce I suppose.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I've written to D* several times about the lack of HD games as part of their NHL Center Ice package (one 1 HD game all season so far) and each time I only get canned responses. Each time, I suggested I am thinking of moving to E* (for their superior NHL Center Ice package), although I've been with D* since 1998, and each time the only response to that is 'we appreciate you being a loyal customer for almost 10 years'. That's it. Nothing else. I would think D* would put a little effort into attempting to keep me as a customer, since I appear disgruntled in the emails.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

pickadish said:


> Coming from a D* cheerleader everything you say is rhetoric.


Time and time again we see that when a person resorts to name calling - they have no argument. You are now on my ignore list.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck, just because you didn't know their plans doesn't mean they didn't have one. 

There is plenty over in the E* forums from 2005 and before on E*'s plans ... most of it irrelevant since E* delivered on the major part of it's plan in 2006. The past 18 months have been maintaining and quietly preparing for the next step.

You have read the complaints (on both forums) about missing channels ... and that is expected. It seems to be human nature to write more about problems than successes and around here posting constantly about successes gets you labeled as a "fanboy" (or worse). But E* has had their successes. And now, D* (in relation to HD) is having theirs.

Both companies are doing fine (now). Both have weaknesses. I wish E* would announce their next round of HD, but I'd rather just see them turned on.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Just because you didn't know their plans doesn't mean they didn't have one.
> 
> There is plenty over in the E* forums from 2005 and before on E*'s plans ... most of it irrelevant since E* delivered on the major part of it's plan in 2006. The past 18 months have been maintaining and quietly preparing for the next step.


I'm sure they had a plan - never said or implied they didn't.

I am interested to read that material - but as you see the E* HD forum only goes back to Oct 05 - can you give me link to the 2004 material please. 
http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=101&page=78&order=desc


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> You have read the complaints (on both forums) about missing channels ... and that is expected. It seems to be human nature to write more about problems than successes and around here posting constantly about successes gets you labeled as a "fanboy" (or worse).


I don't care about being called a cheerleader or fanboy - I know then that I have probably made a good point or two. I also realize that a person calling me a cheerleader is only being a cheerleader on the other side (why they don't realize that themselves is beyond me). They call others a name that clearly fits around their own necks - that's too funny.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> E* has more of everything than D* ...


How many NFL games does charlie broadcast?

Give me a break. Dave is the sports king and now the HD king.

Nuff said :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I'm sure they had a plan - never said or implied they didn't.
> 
> I am interested to read that material - but as you see the E* HD forum only goes back to Oct 05 - can you give me link to the 2004 material please.
> http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=101&page=78&order=desc


You'll have to check in the main E* forum (THIS LINK should get you to November 2003) ... DBSTalk didn't start the E* HD forum until the posts here reached critical mass.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> How many NFL games does charlie broadcast?


Plenty - but they are all RE-RUNS.


----------



## pickadish (Sep 2, 2007)

ScoBuck said:


> I don't care about being called a cheerleader or fanboy - I know then that I have probably made a good point or two. I also realize that a person calling me a cheerleader is only being a cheerleader on the other side (why they don't realize that themselves is beyond me). They call others a name that clearly fits around their own necks - that's too funny.


I deleted my post due to poor judgement in making those comments.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

JL - thanks for the link back into the archives - I did find a thread from the time of the first DirecTV press release - here it is.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=32831

There is conversation and speculation, but I don't see any reference to DISH 'official' information of any type. Does any exist from that time-frame?

Thanks again.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

pickadish said:


> Sorry if I have offended you but you are the worst type of fanboy.
> 
> One that when challenged on one point just moves to another. Your comments are so one-sighted its hard to tell if you are truly serious ( or delusional ) or just have nothing better to do.
> 
> ...


Dont see how he changed points.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

OK folks .. no need to resort to name calling to make your points. Let's keep it civil.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> JL - thanks for the link back into the archives - I did find a thread from the time of the first DirecTV press release - here it is.
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=32831
> 
> There is conversation and speculation, but I don't see any reference to DISH 'official' information of any type. Does any exist from that time-frame?


Evidently memory is better than my search skills ... would you accept complaints about E* customers not getting what they expected as proof of some prior statement? 

E*'s press release site has some information from 2003 ...
*DISH Network to Add HDNet, HDNet Movies; DISH Network Unveils New SuperDish Technology Capable of Providing Consumers up to 50 HDTV Channels*
_ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 1, 2003--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) and its DISH Network™, a leading provider of satellite television entertainment services, announced today an agreement to offer customers this summer two new high definition TV networks, HDNet and HDNet Movies.

HDNet and HDNet Movies will be available to customers using DISH Network's new SuperDish, unveiled to satellite TV retailers today. The SuperDish, an elliptical 66-centimeter dish, is capable of offering customers access to hundreds of popular DISH Network channels, local channels in new markets, HDTV channels and international programming. The SuperDish is capable of receiving satellite signals from three orbital locations.

"DISH Network is enriching the home theater experience everywhere by delivering more HD sports, movies and special events like those offered by HDNet," said Ergen. "By developing the capability for SuperDish to provide up to 50 HD channels, DISH Network will offer consumers a more superior alternative to the dominant cable companies."_​
Of course this plan was changed ... HD was uplinked to 105° but never made public. E* went a better way.

*DISH Network Expands High-Def Offerings; HD Leader Packages Four Channels, Prepares Rollout of Receivers*
_ LITTLETON, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 5, 2003--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) announced today that the company's DISH Network™, America's fastest growing satellite subscription television service, will begin offering four channels of high-definition entertainment in a single, low-priced package Sept. 16.

Further establishing itself as the leader in high-definition initiatives, DISH Network will offer ESPN HD, Discovery HD Theater, HDNet and HDNet Movies in a new package for $9.99 per month or $109.89 annually, the lowest prices in the industry.

DISH Network also offers high-definition channels such as CBS-HD, HBO-HD, Showtime HD, and DISH-On-Demand pay-per-view HD movies._​
E* hasn't been good at sharing their plans ... we could probably find some investor relations releases or CES discussions. Not releasing the plan doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> How many NFL games does charlie broadcast?


Charlie broadcasts every single NFL game!*

*Most games only available on spot-beamed local channels.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> OK folks .. no need to resort to name calling to make your points. Let's keep it civil.


Thanks!


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Evidently memory is better than my search skills ... would you accept complaints about E* customers not getting what they expected as proof of some prior statement?
> 
> E*'s press release site has some information from 2003 ...
> *DISH Network to Add HDNet, HDNet Movies; DISH Network Unveils New SuperDish Technology Capable of Providing Consumers up to 50 HDTV Channels*
> ...


I am only looking to get info - and you are kind to help me locate it. But in all honesty, those don't say too much of substance, nor give any hint of time-frame.

That being said, and as I have already said, I certainly believe that Charlie and crew had begun formulating their HD plan going forward. I repeat my assertion that the DirecTV plan announced on 9/04 was not a result of what DISH had done to that point - but could well have been due to what VOOM was talking about and providing a glance into the near-future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I am only looking to get info - and you are kind to help me locate it. But in all honesty, those don't say too much of substance, nor give any hint of time-frame.


The May 1st, 2003, press release is their primary "capacity" announcement, similar to D*'s later "capacity" press releases. The time frame was "this summer" (Summer 2003) for the first channels. That was fulfilled in September ... the "50" didn't come but one would be hard pressed to find 50 HD channels to place on any satellite service until very recently. We are just starting to see the conversions now.


> That being said, and as I have already said, I certainly believe that Charlie and crew had begun formulating their HD plan going forward. I repeat my assertion that the DirecTV plan announced on 9/04 was not a result of what DISH had done to that point - but could well have been due to what VOOM was talking about and providing a glance into the near-future.


So you're willing to give VOOM credit but not DISH? Why not give credit to all of D*'s competition? Especially the competitor that was most likely to survive?

VOOM was doing more than talking in 2003 ... they were struggling to meet FCC deadlines to get the RainbowDBS service on the air. They finally got it together and launched their services in late 2003 ... with some deals for early adopters. Their service looked impressive ... lots of HD including the homebrew Voom channels. East and West feeds of premium HD and it seemed every HD network they could get a contract to carry. In 2004 the talk was about adding a second satellite at 72° ... FSS Ku band ... and some of us were wondering if the main HD and SD channels would go there opening up R1 to use its spot beams. There were also licenses sought at 166° and 175°. What they were publicly planning sounded good - until 2005 came and the board decided to cut it's losses. VOOM was not surviving. The private planning was how to shut the company down.

VOOM's biggest problem was that they were too much too soon. They spent a lot of money getting on the air, including the 21 content channels, but they were offering themselves to a market with relatively few HD viewers. If they could have launched in October 2004 or October 2005 they may have survived ... perhaps they should have offered a cheaper regional service first with no HD until they could get rid of some debt and wait for the potential HD viewer base up to the needed levels. Without financial backing to help them through the waiting they failed.

E* may have been a little early when they launched DishHD in February 2006. But they had the financial backing of a few million SD subscribers to pay for their follies. Just like D* does.

As customers in 2004 we were all looking at VOOM and telling our companies to get with it ... but there was still competition between E* and D*. Perhaps VOOM was more in the spotlight in 2004 because they had more HD channels, but E* and D* were still playing a role in the industry of pushing each other.

A wise company would look to all competitors to see what they are up against and where they needed to go. With E*'s 2003 announced capacity for 50 HD channels on a satellite that was up and running and other capacity available there is no way D* would be ignoring E*.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

The last few weeks have been a lot of fun. I particularly like the layout of CNBC-HD. Also, while I hardly ever watched CNN, I'm starting to watch more of it on CNN-HD. Foxnews looks terrible, and needs to launch their HD service soon. All of this for $10 from D*, while E* $20 (really $21 counting the extra dollar they tacked on for the HD box lease). So, D* is a much better value.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jal said:


> So, D* is a much better value.


This depends on how you count your HD. If it is based on claimed HD channels, D* may be ahead. If it is based on hours of HD broadcast, E* may still be a better value.

Remember that the point of HD programming is not to get "enhanced" SD or one or two token programs in HD while the rest is upconverted.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I suspect soon the question will be moot.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Doug, I agree, but from a slightly different take I suspect. 

In the skirmishes, DIRECTV will take the lead, anon. In the long battle, they will exchange the lead several times. And the point becomes moot.

I'm really glad we all get more HD. As Stuart would say: BRING IT!! 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> This depends on how you count your HD. If it is based on claimed HD channels, D* may be ahead. If it is based on hours of HD broadcast, E* may still be a better value.
> 
> Remember that the point of HD programming is not to get "enhanced" SD or one or two token programs in HD while the rest is upconverted.


and like the defense most use for voom, usually the ones that say "claimed" havent seen any of it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> and like the defense most use for voom, usually the ones that say "claimed" havent seen any of it.


Moreso for those who assail VOOM content.

It is pretty easy to tell whether a program is in HD or not. Often all that is needed is to look in a programming guide. Deciding that a program is with or without merit is a considered (and highly subjective) decision.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Moreso for those who assail VOOM content.
> 
> It is pretty easy to tell whether a program is in HD or not. Often all that is needed is to look in a programming guide. Deciding that a program is with or without merit is a considered (and highly subjective) decision.


What programming guide are u looking in.

Ive never really talked bad about voom. Ive seen it, and if D* got it, great. More HD. If not, no big deal.


----------



## lionsrule (Nov 25, 2003)

I am watching THE ohio state in HD. Are you?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

lionsrule said:


> I am watching THE ohio state in HD. Are you?


Nope, watching some real football....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My early Christmas wish is that people be happy with what they have and not need to kick someone else in an attempt to be happy.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> My early Christmas wish is that people be happy with what they have and not need to kick someone else in an attempt to be happy.


that would be nice


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Bah Humbug!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Bah Humbug!


lol. aint gonna happen is it


----------



## JMartinko (Dec 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> My early Christmas wish is that people be happy with what they have and not need to kick someone else in an attempt to be happy.


Geez, that would put just about every forum on the internet out of business. What would people post about????


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> lol. aint gonna happen is it


Kind of hard when s#$t talkers invade your forum.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Blitz68 said:


> Kind of hard when s#$t talkers invade your forum.


Or when certain people seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is talking ****. Especially when said people have nothing to add to the conversation other than complaint that the conversation is occurring! 

D* has eased their boat into the water and lobbed a cannonball across the bow of E*'s ship. There are ripple effects, but no one has been blown out of the water yet.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James, the one blown out of the water is Comcast in my area!


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

James Long said:


> Or when certain people seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is talking ****. Especially when said people have nothing to add to the conversation other than complaint that the conversation is occurring!
> 
> D* has eased their boat into the water and lobbed a cannonball across the bow of E*'s ship. There are ripple effects, but no one has been blown out of the water yet.


No doubt, E* is still blowing D* out of the water in HD college football coverage.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> James, the one blown out of the water is Comcast in my area!


Not in my area, very similar lineups with Comcast having a huge advantage in HD PQ. My problem with Comcast is that they are too expensive, they don't carry BTN, and their dvr is actually much worse than the technologically challenged HR20. So, I guess a 3-1 advantage is at least whipping their butts, but not quite blowing them out of the water.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

heisman said:


> No doubt, E* is still blowing D* out of the water in HD college football coverage.


Only if you care about the Big 10.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Only if you care about the Big 10.


+1
SEC here, and get all i can watch in HD. Would be the same on either though


----------



## Wire Paladin (Sep 19, 2006)

heisman said:


> Not in my area, very similar lineups with Comcast having a huge advantage in HD PQ. My problem with Comcast is that they are too expensive, they don't carry BTN, and their dvr is actually much worse than the technologically challenged HR20. So, I guess a 3-1 advantage is at least whipping their butts, but not quite blowing them out of the water.


The cable companies are definitely behind for at least the rest of this year and probably the first half of next year. I'm not sure how you can say the lineups are the same what with new HD channels like Sci Fi HD and MGM HD now coming from DirecTV and more to come. IMHO the PQ for the new MPEG4 channels is very good and I'm quite happy with them.

All in All, I'm a happy camper with all the new HD channels that we've gotten in last few weeks. Way to go DirecTV.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Only if you care about the Big 10.


You could say the same thing about NFLST, or any of the other channels the OP was claiming to have blown E* out of the water with. I don't care about the NFL as much, and I certainly don't care about most of the other newly added HD channels--most I have never watched, and never will. I care about college football, and E* is blowing D* out of the water right now.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> +1
> SEC here, and get all i can watch in HD. Would be the same on either though


That's a real fan too. I can't imagine how hard it would be to be a sports fan in Miss. All you have is college football and both in state teams are perennial doormats.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> I guess if it happened once or twice - but it is obvious the M.O. of Charlie is to negotiate in the public and leave his customers hanging in the middle. If it was FOX and he turned it off the day before the World Series, I guess playing hardball would be ok also. Look at the ridiculous press releases he puts out when he turns off a channel and later puts it back on - or the press release about the Big Ten, or the one about MLB (BTW cable ALSO signed with MLB, only DISH said no). DISH always plays - POOR ME.
> 
> Seems like the other carriers - cable, FiOS, DirecTV don't get into these same predicaments - why is that?


That is because most E* subs agree with Charlie's way of keeping price down. The Big Ten agreement is a good example, treating it as RSN, only those who watches such sports should bear most of the cost. This is exactly why the E* programming packge costs are lower, and as a result they continue to add more new subs than anyone else.

I must say though for us HD subs, E*'s $20 charge is over-priced compared to D*'s $15. But E* had no competition before, I wonder if now they will feel the presure on the HD pricing.

One intersting thing is I have yet seen one report stating D* MPEG4 HD PQ is visibly better than E* MPEG4 HDs.

I think at this point the HDDVR hardware cost will determine who will sign up more new HD subs. If D* does not begin with a new no-upfront cost HDDVR lease promo, I doubt the new HD additions will have a significant impact.

Of course the exsiting D* HD subs are gloating and deservedly so. But I hope this is not the reason why D* invested so much for HD.


----------



## brugg90 (May 31, 2007)

My tbs hd and Smithsonian hd are really great. Locals arent as good as they used to be earlier this year. But im quite happy with the picture now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> Of course the exsiting D* HD subs are gloating and deservedly so.


That makes me think ...

Perhaps a better statement would be:
*D* subscribers blown out of the water by new HD*

Going from 9 plus PPV to 41 (46 w/24x7 RSNs) plus PPV in the past two weeks would blow someone out of the water. It certainly doesn't blow anyone out of the water who has HAD 30+ channels of HD for 20 months ... but a fourfold increase would blow D* customers out of the water.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

James Long said:


> That makes me think ...
> 
> Perhaps a better statement would be:
> *D* subscribers blown out of the water by new HD*
> ...


Excellent point. Everything is subjective.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heisman said:


> That's a real fan too. I can't imagine how hard it would be to be a sports fan in Miss. All you have is college football and both in state teams are perennial doormats.


Which is why I am a Alabama fan. Grew up in bama, moved here a few years ago. But ive been the fan through the hard years with them too


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

heisman said:


> You could say the same thing about NFLST, or any of the other channels the OP was claiming to have blown E* out of the water with. I don't care about the NFL as much, and I certainly don't care about most of the other newly added HD channels--most I have never watched, and never will. I care about college football, and E* is blowing D* out of the water right now.


I dont think anyone was counting ST in the "blowing" claim. its all the new MPEG 4 stuff thats added that people are bragging about.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

James still refuses to acknowledge better PQ as a desirable quality. Probably worried that E11 will be used to fix problems rather than allow full HD.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

Ed Campbell said:


> James still refuses to acknowledge better PQ as a desirable quality. Probably worried that E11 will be used to fix problems rather than allow full HD.


I agree, not a mention of the superior PQ. Curious why he is here in the D* thread to begin with, IMO that is the real sign of unhappiness.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> That makes me think ...
> 
> Perhaps a better statement would be:
> *D* subscribers blown out of the water by new HD*
> ...


James give it up!!!!! lol

E subs have been doing the same thing for years. now D* has a good bit more ( unless you count E* PPV and 14000000 game only nation wide regionals that you can only get if you are in the region:sure: ) so let em gloat. its all in good fun

Ive had them both, been happy, and am still happy with both for what i use them for. 
But right now, yes D* is where its at for HD


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

brugg90 said:


> My tbs hd and Smithsonian hd are really great. Locals arent as good as they used to be earlier this year. But im quite happy with the picture now.


The only great HD on TBS are the baseball playoffs. The rest of the programming isn't in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ed Campbell said:


> James still refuses to acknowledge better PQ as a desirable quality. Probably worried that E11 will be used to fix problems rather than allow full HD.


Good PQ is desirable. But how many of the posts in this thread have been about PQ? Most seem to be about a magic number that has nothing to do with 1920/1080i. E11 isn't a bug fix for most of the country ... it is replacing E8's ConUS beams. The improvement comes in Alaska and Hawaii where the "ConUS" beams are being improved to give all 50 states strong coverage.

BTW: To repond in the way I was addressed:
"Ed needs to know that improving PQ is fixing a perceived problem."


msmith198025 said:


> so let em gloat. its all in good fun


Gloat all you want, but don't expect others to be as excited as you are about D* catching up.



> But right now, yes D* is where its at for HD


Right now, at this moment? D* is where the activity is at.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> "Gloat all you want, but don't expect others to be as excited as you are about D* catching up.
> 
> .


Now please dont delete half of my comment to make it look like i am a D* fanatic. I was simply saying, E* subs have been saying the same type of stuff for years. So of course D* subs are going to gloat now.
To read the rest, read above a few.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Gloat all you want, but don't expect others to be as excited as you are about D* catching up.


We're DirecTV subs in a DirecTV forum. You're the fish out of water, only coming here to rain on our parade. I don't know about other DirecTV subs, but I never go into the Dish forums for anything. I actually have them disabled through my preferences, I have no need for anything in there.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> We're DirecTV subs in a DirecTV forum. You're the fish out of water, only coming here to rain on our parade. I don't know about other DirecTV subs, but I never go into the Dish forums for anything. I actually have them disabled through my preferences, I have no need for anything in there.


James has also encouraged other Echostar subs to let us cheer the new HD. He's a gentleman allowing us our happiness, gently reminding us of reality from time to time.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> James has also encouraged other Echostar subs to let us cheer the new HD. He's a gentleman allowing us our happiness, gently reminding us of reality from time to time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


That is true.But the reality is D* is putting up or has already put up 6 satellites.One being a backup up(9s) another as a spare(D12).When all are up safe and working I would imagine D12 will launch for more HD bandwith.So of course it just looks like D* will blow E* out of the water.Now E* is not adding Fox Business Network.

E* won the HD battle,but it sure looks like D* is positioning itself to win the HD war.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

vurbano said:


> I agree, not a mention of the superior PQ. Curious why he is here in the D* thread to begin with, IMO that is the real sign of unhappiness.


How did you determine surprior PQ? Did you A/B compare MPEG4 HDs on both E* and D*? I am seriously trying to find out if anyone has done just that, and what HD sets and connections used for the comparison.

If a D* HD sub believes D* is blowing E* out of the water that is just fine with me. From an E* HD sub point of view, I will agree with such senitment if I can found little reason not to switch to D* for HD.

At this point of time, it is not there yet for me:

1) Yes D* has more HDs, but having been able to watch many more HDs in the past year or so on E* has brouhgt most E* HD subs' crazy-for-HD feeling down to a manageble level, no longer getting bend out of shape about not having some obscure new HD channels that carry little HD materials.

2) The E* MPEG4 HD PQ seems very solid, so far I haven't read any A/B comparison to indicate it is lacking behind D*'s, a surprise actually.

3) Still waiting to see if D* can come up with any HD hardware promo to compete with cable and E*.

If D* is to blow cable and E* out of water in terms of stealing HD subs from them, the most important thing they can do is to match the no-upfornt cost HDDVR lease deals. Because unlike the HD early adoptors who were willing to pay $1k or more for the best hardware, the cable, and in a lessor degree E* subs are value oriented HD viewers, and are unlikely to accept the concept of paying upfront for "leased" equipment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> Now E* is not adding Fox Business Network.


Really? You have a press release or other official comment that says that E* will _NOT_ add that channel?

There is a possibility that it won't be on E* today, but that does not mean it won't be on E* later in the week. E*'s channel additions are a mystery recently ... enjoy your channels - I'm sure that E* won't be far behind.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Well, by E*'s counting method D* now has "49" HDs to their "48".
(E* including PPVs but not RSNs in their count last week.)

DirecTV's website is now pushing "over 70" channels ... not quite what they have available.

http://directv.com/ (Loads http://www.directv.com/HD/getdirectv.html at the moment.)

Hmm, E* says 48, 70 with RSNs and D* just says over 70. The number padding continues.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Wah wah wah wah wah. :crying:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"In addition to the channel logos included here, the total channel count includes eight HD Pay Per View channels, and eight HD DNS channels." DirecTV

The channel logos includes all four HD broadcast networks, all nine RSNs (including game only) ... but the Starz HD logo remains absent. Oh well ...

Congrats on the new channels!

SIG changed ... frozen here for future reference!

*Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS!*

My Homepage has some interesting content (Updated October 15th)
E* now has 40 Channels of HD (plus 22 RSNs and 8 PPV). Claiming 48 / 70.
D* now has 47 Channels of HD (plus 9 RSNs and 7 PPV). Claiming "over 70".
- Cartoon Network, Fox Business, Fuel TV, FX, HGTV and Speed added 10/15/07
- Plus RSNs FSN Detroit, FSN Southwest, FSN West, FSN Prime Ticket
- Six HD PPV channels added


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Directv has blown E* out of the water. Just face it, with E*, you pay $20 per month, plus $1 extra for each HD receiver. I have 3. So, for me, it would be $23 vs. $10 per month. E*, with its overpriced smaller package, has just imploded. At least, for now. Get with it, E*


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Good point, price does matter as well as raw counts, adjusted counts, and James' fairly reasonable counts. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JDubbs413 (Sep 4, 2007)

It will be a long while before E* catches up now.


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

richiephx said:


> The only great HD on TBS are the baseball playoffs. The rest of the programming isn't in HD.


That's not true. I am watching a movie right now in HD!


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

Well, I guess I'll eat a little crow. This is the first time I've ever seen them mention E* in any way. It's a pretty big change. But at least when they did, they kicked'em square in the wedding tackle.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Capmeister said:


> E* will catch up, as will cable eventually. That's why competition and capitalism rocks. The reason I've stuck with DirecTV is simple:
> 
> * better prices
> * *better DVRs*
> ...


Care to QUALIFY this?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> Really? You have a press release or other official comment that says that E* will _NOT_ add that channel?
> 
> There is a possibility that it won't be on E* today, but that does not mean it won't be on E* later in the week. E*'s channel additions are a mystery recently ... enjoy your channels - I'm sure that E* won't be far behind.


Your right the source was the USA Today's report on the Fox Business Network,and after negotiating I could see E* adding it in 6 months for the right price.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

mrrydogg said:


> That's not true. I am watching a movie right now in HD!


The movie on TBS right now is *not* HD, despite what the guide says.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

the problem with James' counts is that they've never been flagrantly wrong... it's the little digs. Like now saying that D* has 9 RSNs (which it does) and E* having 22 RSNs (even every single one is game only). At this point though I can admit it has finally turned to comical at least, and maybe that's his intention. But to actually imply that E* has an edge anywhere in this is just.. umm.. misguided.

For the record, my buddy just got E* on Friday. He did want DirecTV but good for E* and their free HD DVR. I will admit that I was LESS than impressed with their SD PQ.. I mean AMC's airings of Young Frankenstein and Fletch were just bad as far as compression artifacts go. I know D* isn't anywhere near DVD quality also, but at least the blocking isn't quite as bad as those two movies were on Friday.

The HD PQ was also only ok from what I saw. Better than notable channels on DirecTV like TNT (ungodly bad), but not as good as the good MPEG2 channels like HDNM, and nowhere near the PQ of the new MPEG-4 channels.

Of course I didn't say any of this to him. He just got off our local cable system so he's still sitting 1,000,000 times better than he was on Thursday. Hopefully E* works a little bit at bumping up PQ before or while they are increasing their channel counts. With as long as E* has been at MPEG-4, there might even be an infrastructure upgrade they can do that has nothing to do with bandwidth.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

borghe said:


> the problem with James' counts is that they've never been flagrantly wrong... it's the little digs. Like now saying that D* has 9 RSNs (which it does) and E* having 22 RSNs (even every single one is game only). At this point though I can admit it has finally turned to comical at least, and maybe that's his intention. But to actually imply that E* has an edge anywhere in this is just.. umm.. misguided.


 Or blindly apologetic.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ShawnL25 said:


> Or blindly apologetic.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


I list every channel and make it clear what I prefer to count. If you want to count more or less that is easy looking at my lists. (The HD page was updated this morning ... I'll update the DirecTV page as soon as I can.)

Look at D*'s HD website ... they list 9 RSNs. We all know the five 24/7 RSNs that were added last week ... now they have added four more RSN and D* wants to count them. Those four are "game only". E* has 22 game only RSNs. Is anyone arrogant enough to say that D* game only RSNs should be counted and E*'s should not? E* has 22 HD RSNs, one customer doesn't get them all. The same TRUTH applies to D*'s 9 HD RSNs.

Count what you want. Add an extra 30 for the promised but not delivered HD channels (mostly unnamed) if you want. It doesn't change the list.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> Look at D*'s HD website ... they list 9 RSNs. We all know the five 24/7 RSNs that were added last week ... now they have added four more RSN and D* wants to count them. Those four are "game only". E* has 22 game only RSNs. Is anyone arrogant enough to say that D* game only RSNs should be counted and E*'s should not? E* has 22 HD RSNs, one customer doesn't get them all. The same TRUTH applies to D*'s 9 HD RSNs.


Game only? The new RSN's that were added today are broadcasting HD, it's exactly the same as the SD counterpart, but pillar boxed. They are 24/7 HD signals, so whatever HD content is aired, you see it. If the only HD content so far is game content, so be it, but as other HD content is aired, we'll get it as these are not turned on and off depending on whether or not a game is being aired. Using your thinking, no one should count many of the new HD networks as they do not air HD programming 24/7 but instead mix in SD content to fill the schedules. These RSN's are broadcasting an HD signal 24/7 via DirecTV and count. If Dish airs RSN's 24/7 count them, if they only turn the HD signal on for games, then don't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So D* is faking HD on those channels?
FSN is only uplinking HD for the games.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> now they have added four more RSN and D* wants to count them. Those four are "game only". E* has 22 game only RSNs.


None of the HD RSNs DirecTV has added are game only. They are all 24x7. That was my issue. I've already let drop our differences in channel accounting as I really don't care. But again you equate 22 game only RSNs to 9 24x7 RSNs and decide to leave that footnote out of your signature. More power to you but you have to know you'll be called on it sooner than later.



James Long said:


> So D* is faking HD on those channels?
> FSN is only uplinking HD for the games.


Quite a bit of FSN studio derived content is HD also. It's not just games.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> James has also encouraged other Echostar subs to let us cheer the new HD. He's a gentleman allowing us our happiness, gently reminding us of reality from time to time.


Believe me, I have 24 years of online flaming experience. I've been gentle on James.

And every time I mention PQ - or some aspect of PQ - he goes silent. I don't consider that adequate to discussion. And it's avoiding reality.

I'm Posting on HDTV and DirecTV at the blog where I'm senior contributing editor, this morning. It's a very generalized Post. I'll put up a link here at dbstalk when it goes live - ~10:30AM MDT. You'll be amazed how many tech geeks are Luddites when it comes to HiDef.

Folks will be as critical of some of them - as I am of James - when they avoid questions or leap into logical fallacies to defend their fanboy priorities.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I respond to those posts ... but without having both systems how do you expect me to give my opinion of which is better?


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

James Long said:


> I respond to those posts ... but without having both systems how do you expect me to give my opinion of which is better?


If you don't have both systems, why post in the forums of the system you don't have?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you're not posting about the system, why post?

Let's talk about DBS, not each other!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

So... how long until DishNetwork and Comcast have "counter" ads out?
Or TimeWarners files a "suit" claiming false advertising

Comcast is still pushing their "carring the BEST of the BIG TEN ads" even the season is now half over... and anyone wanting the BTN has already switched.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

There are so many variables in deciding the "Channel Count" it is basically impossible to make a valid count. All that really counts is which channels you want to watch. D* has rolled out the "high viewership" channels. Most, of course, are primarily upconvert. So again, we could haggle all day over who has most. 

All I can say is that I am very happy with the progress D* has made in both quality and content of HD offerings. Hopefully the quanitity of programming will catch up with the quantity of channels soon.

E* fanboys can moan and wring hands all day. D* just obliterated E*. Much to the dismay of all of the posters with the "D* broke another promise" who have been thread crapping in D* forums. I'm enjoying the hollow rejoinders.

There is now a compelling reason to switch from almost any provider configuration to D*. There is no compelling reason to switch to E*. That's my opinion on DBS.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

ShawnL25 said:


> Or blindly apologetic.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=103235


I get CSN PHILA HD, YES HD and SNY HD (no blackouts) with my Verizon subscription as 24/7 HD channels. All I ever watch are the HD games. With my E* subscription, I get to see the HD RSN games on NHL CI and next month on NBA LP (when the season starts). I am confused about the HD RSN claims. I am reading posts here that D* CI is not providing HD games. E* has had five HD CI games a night. Generally when I have multiple HD games available, I pick the one that I am most interested in, switch among the others (during station breaks) using my A/V receiver remote (I have E* HD, Verizon HD and Comcast HD) or satellite or cable remote, watch the end of the other games and record one or two other games that I am interested in and watch the last period or last half of the period depending on how late it is.

The nine D* HD RSNs channels are only providing HD games if you live within
the team's blackout area?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... how long until DishNetwork and Comcast have "counter" ads out?
> Or TimeWarners files a "suit" claiming false advertising
> 
> Comcast is still pushing their "carring the BEST of the BIG TEN ads" even the season is now half over... and anyone wanting the BTN has already switched.


I like their other football ad better when they talk about how they broadcast so many NFL games:



> _Comcast's own words_*
> Comcast--THE place for football*


(Emphasis original.)

I think not.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

jal said:


> Directv Just Blew E* Out of the Water


yes, yes they did


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> ...
> 
> There is now a compelling reason to switch from almost any provider configuration to D*. There is no compelling reason to switch to E*. That's my opinion on DBS.


While I will not insist on the count method James is using, I must say his observation of the D* HD subs' blowing-out-of-water feeling is just their own, not the feeling of cable or E* subs, was very true.

Because just read the above quote, and then look at the reality. When you actually read those stories of switches lately, I have so far read a few, they were either cable subs shocked by how much they have to lay out to get two or three HDDVRs from D*, and decided to stay put, or instead switched to E* because of the free HDDVRs and one HDDVR supports two or three TVs arrangement.

I think D* is making a big mistake if they think by adding all the HDs they can get people to gladly open up their wallets and sign on with them, what I am afraid may happen is if a cable HD sub starts to hear all the HD news, and get excited by it, then begin to look at D*'s hardware costs, he will have some initial shock, thinking how would he ever be able to justify this to his wife or GF, then he remembers their is E* also have some HDs, and still a great leap compared to his cable, best yet it will be an easy sell to the other half. So they end up getting E* instead. If you don't believe me I have read more than a few of such on various sites.

I hope D* is listening. You have invested so much and worked so hard on this HD plan, don't let your greedy bean counters stop it in its track, give out free HDDVRs with only monthly fees, and on your way to really blow cable and E* out of water.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... how long until DishNetwork have "counter" ads out?


Dish already states comparable HD offerings (this one from coverage of their addition of TBS-HD)



> DISH said it now carries more than 70 HD channels....


To the consumer that does not investigate further - that lineup looks to be on par with Directv.

Excluding the keyword "*national*"


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

jacmyoung said:


> While I will not insist on the count method James is using, I must say his observation of the D* HD subs' blowing-out-of-water feeling is just their own, not the feeling of cable or E* subs, was very true.
> 
> Because just read the above quote, and then look at the reality. When you actually read those stories of switches lately, I have so far read a few, they were either cable subs shocked by how much they have to lay out to get two or three HDDVRs from D*, and decided to stay put, or instead switched to E* because of the free HDDVRs and one HDDVR supports two or three TVs arrangement.
> 
> ...


What you say is very true. When E* lost MLB EI, I considered D*. But it was
easier to hook Comcast back up as a second service with no commitment (cancel at any time) limited basic service $14.80 per month and an HD box for $6.95
per month. Also my Comcast, which was Patriot Media, provided the MLB HD
channel which had double and triple headers in HD every day. A lot of D*s HD
MLB EI content was YES HD and SNY HD which I already had as 24/7 HD channels
with Verizon. I canceled E* and looked again at D* for this fall, but the $500 price for two HD DVRs, which the subs do not own, and the 2 year commitment put me off. Also, the specific sports HD content that I wanted on NHL CI and NBA LP does
not seem to be offered by D*. I was able to go back to E* with no commitment,
because I already owned my HD DVR, and E* is providing the HD content that
I wanted.

However, I am sure there are many subs with different viewing interests than mine who would glad sign up for the new D* HD, and make D* their main
provider.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I like their other football ad better when they talk about how they broadcast so many NFL games


I love this one also. NFL 24/7 .... lol

What a joke.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> While I will not insist on the count method James is using, I must say his observation of the D* HD subs' blowing-out-of-water feeling is just their own, not the feeling of cable or E* subs, was very true.
> 
> Because just read the above quote, and then look at the reality. When you actually read those stories of switches lately, I have so far read a few, they were either cable subs shocked by how much they have to lay out to get two or three HDDVRs from D*, and decided to stay put, or instead switched to E* because of the free HDDVRs and one HDDVR supports two or three TVs arrangement.
> 
> ...


I would be all for free DVRs. But, I think you overstimate how much impact that will have on account transfers. Who knows though. Should be an interesting six months in TV land. I've said before that this is a win for everyone. It is forcing all providers to rethink their offerings and speed change. We all win.


----------



## raven56706 (Jan 17, 2007)

Voom channels sucks... when i was at my cousins house for 1 week, i felt like they played a loop over and over of the same thing on the channels

its a good thing i convinced them to change to directv.... within the week, they had the Nation's leader in HD


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> I would be all for free DVRs. But, I think you overstimate how much impact that will have on account transfers. Who knows though. Should be an interesting six months in TV land. I've said before that this is a win for everyone. It is forcing all providers to rethink their offerings and speed change. We all win.


I totally agree we all win!.But especially DirecTV!!.:lol:


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> I love this one also. NFL 24/7 .... lol
> 
> What a joke.


The funny thing is Reggie Bush does their commercials, and he has D*.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> I would be all for free DVRs. But, I think you overstimate how much impact that will have on account transfers. ...


I only need to point out two stats:

Back in early 2003 when Comcast finally rolled out its HDs, they were a few years behind D* and E* already, but one and a half years later, they claimed to have 1.5 million HD subs, and D* had reached only 500k.

At the time the only difference between Comcast and DBS is that cable provided "free" HDDVR boxes, while DBS charged an upfront fee to buy. Only after that period E* started to lease, but with a fee, then started to offer "free" HDDVR leases a little less than a year ago, and D* followed with their own leases, but still have that fee.

Secondly, while D* traditionally had on average added more net new subs than E*, started from the last two quarters, the trend reversed, E* managed to get ahead on the net new subs addition.

I am not going by wishful thinking, rather hard data. When you continue to read members telling the same stories in actual decision-making about who to switch the service to, ended up staying with cable or going to E*, then the above data begin to make sense.

Please keep in mind that the advantage in sports on D* while a very important issue for your exsiting D* subs, are of little impact to the prospective D* HD subs, they don't care, had they cared they would have arleady been D* subs. So yes the blow-out-of-water feeling is a bit self-serving.

There is no doubt in my mind with this new on-slaught of D* HDs, D* is becoming more attractive everyday, but until D* begin to match the same hardware offer, they are not really out swinging. They will gain more new subs, but to reach the kind of gain that the 1 billion dollar HD investment should deserve...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> Secondly, while D* traditionally had on average added more net new subs than E*, starting from the last two quarters, the trend reversed, E* managed to get ahead on the net new subs addition.


Actually, E*'s lead in gaining customers has been going on for years. The numbers are posted earlier in this thread. IIRC since 2000 E* has (net) added 1.5 million more customers than D*.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1207135#post1207135


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> Actually, E*'s lead in gaining customers has been going on for years. The numbers are posted earlier in this thread. IIRC since 2000 E* has (net) added 1.5 million more customers than D*.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1207135#post1207135


My obsevation was quite recent, I could be wrong but I recall noticing E*'s numbers were higher than D* only in the most recent quarters, compared to the year or two before 2007. I did not consider anything prior to 2004. In that sense the word "tradditionally" was a bad choice.

I would love to see a detailed quarterly breakdown of stats betwen D* and E*, even if it underminds my above theory


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

Just wait until D* starts it's advertisement blitz. Right now it takes about 397$ for a three room HD package with one of the three receivers being a DVR. At 197$ or less, with reduced programing charges for the first few months, quite a few will convert from E* and cable.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

techrep, The DIRECTV advertising blitz started yesterday during NFL games.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

techrep said:


> Just wait until D* starts it's advertisement blitz. Right now it takes about 397$ for a three room HD package with one of the three receivers being a DVR. At 197$ or less, with reduced programing charges for the first few months, quite a few will convert from E* and cable.


I will be checking out this new promo, but it does not sound any different than the previous ones.

Give you an example, I have two 622s supporting a total of 6 TVs, two of which are fed by HD, the other four by TV2 connections, one for each two TVs. This works because not all TVs are watched at the same time. By my estimate to get a similar arrangement from D* I will need two HDDVRs and at least two more SDDVRs.

I am even willing to build the hardware up over time, but that will still require that I get at least one HDDVR and one SDDVR at first, then count my luck how soon they will give me the other HDDVR and SDDVR, for free.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Actually, E*'s lead in gaining customers has been going on for years. The numbers are posted earlier in this thread. IIRC since 2000 E* has (net) added 1.5 million more customers than D*.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1207135#post1207135


That is true - but it has also been pointed out that since end of 2002 the gains have actually been similar by both. DISH had outstanding years of gaining market in 1999-2002. The actual 2003-2006 numbers don't lie.

Here is the comparison - chart taken off of Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Satellite_tv_subscribers.jpg


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I only need to point out two stats:
> 
> Back in early 2003 when Comcast finally rolled out its HDs, they were a few years behind D* and E* already, but one and a half years later, they claimed to have 1.5 million HD subs, and D* had reached only 500k.
> 
> ...


I am not joining the debate. I just want to point out that HD-DVR was not the only difference. There was no HD locals from D* until late 2006.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

There's another major reason why DirecTV's growth slowed the last few years, but it's a reason on which I do not wish to elaborate too much. Hint: "Avast! Ye mateys!"


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> techrep, The DIRECTV advertising blitz started yesterday during NFL games.


Hey, I am only a day late! That's pretty good for me.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Dusty said:


> I am not joining the debate. I just want to point out that HD-DVR was not the only difference. There was no HD locals from D* until late 2006.


Totally incorrect. DirecTV had HD locals starting in October of 2005 (Detroit) and they had 12 markets lit by end of 2005. All prior to DISH launching HD lils BTW.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=783972&highlight=
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=794545&highlight=
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=799206&highlight=
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=799205&highlight=


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ScoBuck said:


> Totally incorrect. DirecTV had HD locals starting in October of 2005 (Detroit) and they had 12 markets lit by end of 2005.
> 
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=783972&highlight=


And I'll confirm... that I had HD-Locals in Chicago in Early Juanuary 2006...


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

ScoBuck said:


> Totally incorrect. DirecTV had HD locals starting in October of 2005 (Detroit) and they had 12 markets lit by end of 2005. All prior to DISH launching HD lils BTW.
> 
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=783972&highlight=
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=794545&highlight=
> ...


I meant to say late 2005. My bad. I vividly remembered waiting for my DMA to get launched. Still, I was trying to say that HD-DVR is not the only difference in 2003.


----------



## hombresoto (Sep 10, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> I would be all for free DVRs. But, I think you overstimate how much impact that will have on account transfers. Who knows though. Should be an interesting six months in TV land. I've said before that this is a win for everyone. It is forcing all providers to rethink their offerings and speed change. We all win.


From personal experience with my new HD installs, 1 out of 10 get the HD DVR. This may be because of the cost, but talking to customers, most are not interested in a DVR, believe it or not. Very few say they didn't get it because of the upfront cost. We have to remember, people in these forums generally do not represent D*'s average customer. Most DVR upgrades are the result of a call from D* selling a DVR, albeit for free, to an existing customer as an incentive to sign another 2 year commitment.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Dusty said:


> I meant to say late 2005. My bad. I vividly remembered waiting for my DMA to get launched. Still, I was trying to say that HD-DVR is not the only difference in 2003.


I did not say HDDVR was the only difference, but the stats I used were strictly related to HDDVRs, nothing else. The upfront cost of leasing an HDDVR (or the lack of it) is a major factor in Comcast quickly gaining HD subs in 2003 and 2004, while not having any advantage in HD content than DBS. When E* began to match such lease deals in 2006 was when they seemed to have gained a lot of traction on HD front.

Last I checked the D* HDDVR is still a $299 piece of leased equipment.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> There's another major reason why DirecTV's growth slowed the last few years, but it's a reason on which I do not wish to elaborate too much. Hint: "Avast! Ye mateys!"


Finding Nemo?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hombresoto said:


> From personal experience with my new HD installs, 1 out of 10 get the HD DVR. This may be because of the cost, but talking to customers, most are not interested in a DVR, believe it or not. Very few say they didn't get it because of the upfront cost. We have to remember, people in these forums generally do not represent D*'s average customer. Most DVR upgrades are the result of a call from D* selling a DVR, albeit for free, to an existing customer as an incentive to sign another 2 year commitment.


I have talked to people I know who signed up to D* or E* in the past few years, almost all of them went with at least one DVR, though most only with SDDVRs since up until now HD was not that big a deal. The same should apply to HD subs, people are not likely to admit that cost is an issue. Though I would admit for those who never used a DVR, it is easy to go with a free HD receiver for the HD part, and live with a SDDVR for the tivo like convenience.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

hombresoto said:


> From personal experience with my new HD installs, 1 out of 10 get the HD DVR. This may be because of the cost, but talking to customers, most are not interested in a DVR, believe it or not. Very few say they didn't get it because of the upfront cost. We have to remember, people in these forums generally do not represent D*'s average customer. Most DVR upgrades are the result of a call from D* selling a DVR, albeit for free, to an existing customer as an incentive to sign another 2 year commitment.


I never figured a DVR was a big deal until I got one. Now I realize how dumb I was. My thinking was "I don't watch TV, why do I need a DVR". Now, I watch too damn much TV BECAUSE of the DVR. I'm about to send it back, so I can have my life back(kidding). Anyhow, a DVR is probably a hard sell to people simply because if you think VCR, you miss the point completely.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

I prefer D* over E*. However, I also like the superstation package on E*. The bottom line comes down to this. The whole argument is subjective. If you like the Superstations and VOOM, E* wins. If you live in the Northeast and like YES, prefer Sunday Ticket or MLB, D* wins. It's nice to have the two companies try to outdo each other. It's win-win for us.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

purtman said:


> I prefer D* over E*. However, I also like the superstation package on E*. The bottom line comes down to this. The whole argument is subjective. If you like the Superstations and VOOM, E* wins. If you live in the Northeast and like YES, prefer Sunday Ticket or MLB, D* wins. It's nice to have the two companies try to outdo each other. It's win-win for us.


Don't we have the superstations covered on D* now?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

purtman said:


> I prefer D* over E*. However, I also like the superstation package on E*. The bottom line comes down to this. The whole argument is subjective. If you like the Superstations and VOOM, E* wins. If you live in the Northeast and like YES, prefer Sunday Ticket or MLB, D* wins. It's nice to have the two companies try to outdo each other. It's win-win for us.


Yeah, NFL-ST makes it no contest for me regardless of other offerings. The HD LiL the past year has been awesome and played a major role in me seeking out the HR20 in the first place. The new HD is icing on the cake - not to mention that DBSTalk.com has become a second home .


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

JMCecil said:


> Don't we have the superstations covered on D* now?


Some. We don't have KTLA out of Los Angeles, WPIX or WWOR out of New York, nor WSBK out of Boston. Being from the northeast, I miss those last three.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

KTLA is covered on a spotbeam local for LA though... One of the few CW networks up and running.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Well, now that the CW is a national network, KTLA is not that important outside LA. Everyone with Directv either gets CW through their local channel packgage, or the national feed. So, E* doesnt really have any advantage there.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> There's another major reason why DirecTV's growth slowed the last few years, but it's a reason on which I do not wish to elaborate too much. Hint: "Avast! Ye mateys!"


If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, time to walk the plank.

That has been "over" with D* for a few years.

E* has chosen a court-based solution over improved security so it continues there relatively unabated.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jal said:


> Well, now that the CW is a national network, KTLA is not that important outside LA. Everyone with Directv either gets CW through their local channel packgage, or the national feed. So, E* doesnt really have any advantage there.


Very few people get CW through their locals package and where is it on the nationals? I think most D* subs with the hardware are getting it OTA if they're getting it at all.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

KurtV said:


> Very few people get CW through their locals package and where is it on the nationals? I think most D* subs with the hardware are getting it OTA if they're getting it at all.


you can get it as a DNS. Not sure where it is out of, but i have it


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> you can get it as a DNS. Not sure where it is out of, but i have it


Channel 14 is out of Baltimore. I also get a CW OTA, so it is redundant, plus they are SD, so I don't watch them.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

James Long said:


> "In addition to the channel logos included here, the total channel count includes eight HD Pay Per View channels, and eight HD DNS channels." DirecTV
> 
> The channel logos includes all four HD broadcast networks, all nine RSNs (including game only) ... but the Starz HD logo remains absent. Oh well ...
> 
> Congrats on the new channels!


I'm not sure why you wouldn't count all 9 RSNs .. They are available to all for a fee. If you're not counting the RSNs, then why count HBO? I can't get HBO.

As for counting 12 vs 8 vs 4 vs 0 for the LiL/DNS channels. My personal view is that 4 of those are fair game. In this case, I personally receive 8, but I believe that anyone could make a fair case for including 4 of these channels. PPV is an anomaly, IMHO, but even that is available to everyone for a fee.

So, by my count:

38 + 9 (Legacy) + 9 (RSN) + 8(PPV) + 4(LiL) = 68

DIRECTV is saying over 70, but not really giving a number .. If you count technically what is shown then you would also add 8 for the HD DNS and come up with 76.

Now .. we still have to wait until the end of October to get an official count. Maybe DIRECTV will back off of the 8 HD DNS at some point, but likely it will stay there to float the HD number just a tad higher .


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I see nothing wrong with counting at least 4 DNS in lieu of counting HD (MPEG4) locals.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

I have lost count, and I'm loving it!! D* did blow E* out of the water! The picture quality is better than E*'s, and the number of HD channels just keeps going UP! The title of this thread is right on!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

paulman182 said:


> If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, time to walk the plank.
> 
> That has been "over" with D* for a few years.
> 
> E* has chosen a court-based solution over improved security so it continues there relatively unabated.


D* ended their long security nightmare when they discontinued the P3 in April 2003. Ironically, their lax security was one of the main reasons why people flocked to D*. What most folks don't realize is that many, many pirates maintained some sort of subscription to D* for logistical reasons. When D* finally secured their signal--and they did get it right with the introduction of the P4 card--many pirates decided to turn to E*, who to this day is still fighting a large piracy problem. There's more to it than this--and no, I was never involved in any of that crap--but I don't wish to elaborate much further; and of course, I do not advocate it at all.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

:backtotop 

While discussing sat-tv pirates may be interesting, it is certainly not on topic for this thread and it becomes a slippery slope that could drive the conversation into areas that are not appropriate for this site.

Thanks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure why you wouldn't count all 9 RSNs .. They are available to all for a fee. If you're not counting the RSNs, then why count HBO? I can't get HBO.


You can't get HBO or you have chosen not to subscribe?

RSNs fall in to the category of "can't" ... except for D* Premier I have not counted them at all (even in SD counts ... and even though E* customers can also add SD RSNs via a sports pack). On the SD side I'll grudgingly add them to the count, since D* seems to insist on it in their advertising.

But on HD? RSNs have blackouts ... often. One might be able to catch a highlights show or other HD content on one of the five 24/7 HD RSNs but all you are likely to see on the new four HD RSNs in HD is game content ... pregame/game/postgame at best. The rest of the time it's SD upconvert. What is the point in that?

Unless Fox has started producing it's highlight shows in HD and are _actually transmitting HD versions_ of the shows via D*'s "HD" channels it seems to be a fraud to label them HD. Plus there is a lot of repetitive content ... at best you're timeshifting programs by watching them on a different RSN.

Without getting into the details of "FSN Detroit counts and FSN Midwest doesn't" arguments based on how much original in market coverage is available nationwide it seems to be easiest to either count them all or count none of them. Period. I have chosen the none route. As always I'm not the boss of you so you can choose a different path.

BTW: I suspect that E* customers see the same amount of HD on their 22 game only feeds as they would if the feeds were on 24/7. The only difference would be the 24/7 networks (like CSNCHI) that are "game only" on E*.

There is a difference between what I count and what the companies count. Lots of nasty posts in this thread complaining about counting PPVs ... yet now D* has 8 HD PPVs they count them! Plus they "count" locals in HD ... even though a fair number of their customers have no HD LIL ... and they count the 8 "distants"? Practically criminal fraud to count channels as unavailable as distant networks. I'm surprised D* isn't counting HD backhauls to their uplinks.

It's only a number ... count what you want. What is important is that people have the channels THEY want ... not some obtuse and argued number.


----------



## old7 (Dec 1, 2005)

James Long said:


> RSNs fall in to the category of "can't" ... except for D* Premier I have not counted them at all (even in SD counts ... and even though E* customers can also add SD RSNs via a sports pack). On the SD side I'll grudgingly add them to the count, since D* seems to insist on it in their advertising.


Not only can you get the RSNs with Premier on DirecTV you can also get them in a sports pack, very similar to Dish Network's sports pack. If you count the RSNs for SD I can see no reason not to count them in HD. The blackouts are the same.

DirecTV - Sports Pack



James Long said:


> But on HD? RSNs have blackouts ... often. One might be able to catch a highlights show or other HD content on one of the five 24/7 HD RSNs but all you are likely to see on the new four HD RSNs in HD is game content ... pregame/game/postgame at best. The rest of the time it's SD upconvert. What is the point in that?


There are many channels that don't have 24/7 HD content. HD is relatively young, in time there will be more content and maybe even 24/7 HD content. For some channels 24/7 HD content will never happen.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

old7 said:


> The blackouts are the same.


That is why I draw the line ... the blackouts don't have the same effect. On SD you still get the local sports shows and other filler (some of it just time shifted) but on HD the blackouts have the effect of wiping out all the HD content of the channel.

Why count a channel as a national HD if there is zero HD content available outside of the region?


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

When I turned on both NESN and SNY this morning they both had local themed sports shows in HD. It may not be HD content you're interested in but it is HD content none the less.

Here's NESN's TV schedule for today.

12:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
12:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
1:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
1:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
2:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
2:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
3:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
3:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
4:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
4:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
*5:00 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
5:30 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
6:00 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
6:30 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
7:00 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
7:30 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
8:00 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
8:30 AM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} *
9:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
9:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
10:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
10:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
11:00 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
11:30 AM PAID COMMERCIAL PROGRAM 
*12:00 PM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
12:30 PM NESN SPORTSDESK {HD} 
1:00 PM W.B. MASON EXTRA INNINGS {HD} (R) 
1:30 PM GRANITE CITY EXTRA INNINGS EXTRA {HD} (R) *
2:00 PM 2007 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (R) 
PRINCETON VS. BROWN 
4:00 PM NORTHEAST ANGLING (R) 
4:30 PM NORTHEAST JOURNAL (R) 
5:00 PM GOLF DESTINATION (R) 
*5:30 PM THE GLOBE 10.0 {HD} (DB) 
6:00 PM THE BUZZ {HD} (R) 
6:30 PM THE GLOBE 10.0 {HD} (R) 
7:00 PM OLYMPIA SPORTS PRESENTS THE {HD} (L) 
BOSTON GLOBE PRE-GAME SHOW *
8:00 PM BRUINS CLASSICS (R) 
KESSEL SCORES 1ST CAREER GOAL VS. TB (11/30/06) 
9:00 PM MATT LIGHT CELEBRITY SHOOT OUT (DB) 
*10:00 PM THE BUZZ {HD} (R) *10:30 PM BRUINS CLASSICS (R) 
HUGE BRAWL VS. WASHINGTON (11/21/98) 
*11:30 PM W.B. MASON EXTRA INNINGS {HD} (L) *

Lot's of HD content there that won't be blacked out. If I was a Boston transplant living in NC this would benefit me greatly.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

James Long said:


> That is why I draw the line ... the blackouts don't have the same effect. On SD you still get the local sports shows and other filler (some of it just time shifted) but on HD the blackouts have the effect of wiping out all the HD content of the channel.
> 
> Why count a channel as a national HD if there is zero HD content available outside of the region?


I think you have this wrong. On full time HD RSNs, there's lots of HD besides the blackouts.


----------



## old7 (Dec 1, 2005)

James Long said:


> That is why I draw the line ... the blackouts don't have the same effect. On SD you still get the local sports shows and other filler (some of it just time shifted) but on HD the blackouts have the effect of wiping out all the HD content of the channel.
> 
> Why count a channel as a national HD if there is zero HD content available outside of the region?


That is not true. I just watched (Saturday) several college football games live in HD from RSNs out of my area.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I certainly would choose to count the RSNs because it is what it is. I think EchoStar should count them as well if they're in HD and available nationally. My only beef with the DNS being counted is that they are not easily available to most people. LiL are easily available to most people.

As for me not getting HBO, no I don't pay for it, but it should still be counted .


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

purtman said:


> Some. We don't have KTLA out of Los Angeles, WPIX or WWOR out of New York, nor WSBK out of Boston. Being from the northeast, I miss those last three.


What types of exclusive programming do they have?


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Why count a channel as a national HD if there is zero HD content available outside of the region?


as has been said NUMEROUS TIMES which you fail to acknowledge, the RSNs have HD content outside of the games. I realize you are not aware of this with access to only game-only HD RSNs, but there is some HD content outside of the games. And in the off chance that you get access to an HD game on the channel it only adds to the available HD.

I actually don't think it's possible to watch any of the current 9 RSNs over a 24 hour period without seeing a single block of HD. You will catch at least one or two shows in HD, not to mention the possibility of a game or two.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

borghe said:


> as has been said NUMEROUS TIMES which you fail to acknowledge, the RSNs have HD content outside of the games. I realize you are not aware of this with access to only game-only HD RSNs, but there is some HD content outside of the games. And in the off chance that you get access to an HD game on the channel it only adds to the available HD.
> 
> I actually don't think it's possible to watch any of the current 9 RSNs over a 24 hour period without seeing a single block of HD. You will catch at least one or two shows in HD, not to mention the possibility of a game or two.


The 2 RSNs I receive SNY and Yes are full of HD programming, from highlight shows to pre and post game shows to sports roundtable disscussion shows.

Man I get the feeling of Deja Vu all of a sudden.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

Hound said:


> I get CSN PHILA HD, YES HD and SNY HD (no blackouts) with my Verizon subscription as 24/7 HD channels. All I ever watch are the HD games. With my E* subscription, I get to see the HD RSN games on NHL CI and next month on NBA LP (when the season starts). I am confused about the HD RSN claims. I am reading posts here that D* CI is not providing HD games. E* has had five HD CI games a night. Generally when I have multiple HD games available, I pick the one that I am most interested in, switch among the others (during station breaks) using my A/V receiver remote (I have E* HD, Verizon HD and Comcast HD) or satellite or cable remote, watch the end of the other games and record one or two other games that I am interested in and watch the last period or last half of the period depending on how late it is.
> 
> The nine D* HD RSNs channels are only providing HD games if you live within
> the team's blackout area?


correct what does this have to do with channel counts


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

borghe said:


> as has been said NUMEROUS TIMES which you fail to acknowledge, the RSNs have HD content outside of the games.


There are five 24/7 HD RSNs of D* ... on those feeds I have no dispute that there is something else available that may be in HD. But what seems to fail the grasp of those reading this thread is the four new feeds are NOT 24/7 HD RSNs. Unless Fox recently changed their schedule the ONLY thing that is produced in HD for those feeds are pre/game/post feeds.

So post all the schedules you want for the 24/7 RSNs .. they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is counting feeds where the ONLY HD content is the game and said game is blacked out in most of the country.

As far as the college football in HD, if it was on one of the 22 HDs that E* carries the game would have been available nationwide. There are 8 RSNs E* doesn't carry in HD. Perhaps it was on one of those?


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

James Long said:


> I list every channel and make it clear what I prefer to count. If you want to count more or less that is easy looking at my lists. (The HD page was updated this morning ... I'll update the DirecTV page as soon as I can.)
> 
> Look at D*'s HD website ... they list 9 RSNs. We all know the five 24/7 RSNs that were added last week ... now they have added four more RSN and D* wants to count them. Those four are "game only". E* has 22 game only RSNs. Is anyone arrogant enough to say that D* game only RSNs should be counted and E*'s should not? E* has 22 HD RSNs, one customer doesn't get them all. The same TRUTH applies to D*'s 9 HD RSNs.
> 
> Count what you want. Add an extra 30 for the promised but not delivered HD channels (mostly unnamed) if you want. It doesn't change the list.


I only count the NINE RSNs because at the Highest package without extras I can reasonably expect to tune to and watch something in HD on those channels excluding blackout periods. This is true no matter where you live. I don't know of any location in which you can expect the same from the 22 part-time RSN's. Why are these game only channels so important to you? If I were a potential customer I would look at what I could expect to get in my area from the different providers. This TOTAL will be different everywhere but based on the current state on things D* will win in channel counts, price, and arguably content every time. That said I really must question your constant defending of E* and their HD lineup. If you are happy with your current programming then say "hey D* has channels that we don't we have channel they don't and I'm ok with that" but going on and on about your ability to watch FSN Detroit outside of Detroit is a little silly. I like that your list includes all available options, I just don't get how your so shock that people count real 24/7 channels but not ones that come on every fifth Wednesday. But I digress.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are five 24/7 HD RSNs of D* ... on those feeds I have no dispute that there is something else available that may be in HD. But what seems to fail the grasp of those reading this thread is the four new feeds are NOT 24/7 HD RSNs. Unless Fox recently changed their schedule the ONLY thing that is produced in HD for those feeds are pre/game/post feeds.
> 
> So post all the schedules you want for the 24/7 RSNs .. they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is counting feeds where the ONLY HD content is the game and said game is blacked out in most of the country.
> 
> As far as the college football in HD, if it was on one of the 22 HDs that E* carries the game would have been available nationwide. There are 8 RSNs E* doesn't carry in HD. Perhaps it was on one of those?


I see college football in HD on channel 647 on D* for this Saturday - A FSN channel.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ShawnL25 said:


> I only count the NINE RSNs because at the Highest package without extras I can reasonably expect to tune to and watch something in HD on those channels excluding blackout periods.


On the four new FSN HDs, is it ever in HD outside of the blackout period?



ScoBuck said:


> I see college football in HD on channel 647 on D* for this Saturday - A FSN channel.


647 is Fox Sports Midwest (channel 418 on E*).
Our EPG shows two games, one at 12:30pm (Teams TBA) and one at 7:30pm (N Iowa vs W Illinois). At the moment no college games are on any of E*'s HD channels on Saturday.


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

James Long said:


> So post all the schedules you want for the 24/7 RSNs .. they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is counting feeds where the ONLY HD content is the game and said game is blacked out in most of the country.


I understand your point about the 4 newest RSNs if indeed they don't show any HD content outside of games that are blacked out. But what I think I'm understanding from you is that you don't want to count the first 5 RSNs either. Those 5 do have non game content in HD that justifies counting them as legitimate national HD channels.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are five 24/7 HD RSNs of D* ... on those feeds I have no dispute that there is something else available that may be in HD. But what seems to fail the grasp of those reading this thread is the four new feeds are NOT 24/7 HD RSNs. Unless Fox recently changed their schedule the ONLY thing that is produced in HD for those feeds are pre/game/post feeds.
> 
> So post all the schedules you want for the 24/7 RSNs .. they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is counting feeds where the ONLY HD content is the game and said game is blacked out in most of the country.
> 
> As far as the college football in HD, if it was on one of the 22 HDs that E* carries the game would have been available nationwide. There are 8 RSNs E* doesn't carry in HD. Perhaps it was on one of those?


But lets face it, its fox. They aren't going to upgrade to HD until there is an audience out there for it, which requires people having access to it, enter D*. So with the channels available now to a much wider audience, I expect Fox to move towards all HD programing in the future (1 to 5 years) So I must ask, at what point will you consider an RSN, or for that matter any channel an HD channel? What % of the programming in any given day must be in HD? And what must the programing be? I could care less about my local teams press conferences in HD.....

I believe that D* should count any channel that is broadcasting 24/7 that can show all HD programing that can be provided by the content provider. Its not there fault more true HD programs aren't available, but as the HD programing increase they are ready to show it.

How much HD programing was available when Digital broadcasts started for the networks? It was about 5% for a while as I recall, with fox being the biggest holdout only broadcast 480P for the first few years, but we still counted then as HD capable channels.....

Maybe everyone should change the wording to HD capable channels...... Because of all the HD channels, including every network (LIL), only a couple actually show HD24/7.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

I just watch the at night, and everything has been true HD 720p or 1080i. 

The only problem I have had is more than two good HD programs on at the same time.

And even when I was on Comcast a little upconvert didn't bother me.

What did bother me was SD Discovery... and now the channel selection in HD is awesome!

I hope it comes your way soon!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ScoBuck said:


> I see college football in HD on channel 647 on D* for this Saturday - A FSN channel.


As noted yesterday, 647 is Fox Sports Midwest (channel 418 on E*).

See http://msn.foxsports.com/name/HD#FSMidwest

The section for Fox Sports Midwest shows the Predators at Blues plus pre/post/final score last Wednesday and Avalanche at Blues plus pre/post/final last Friday. The Saturday games are NOT shown as being in HD.

Also, D* added 647-1 FSN Midwest this morning (along with 628 FSN Pittsburgh) ... were you looking at a legacy channel ScoBuck?


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

ShawnL25 said:


> correct what does this have to do with channel counts


E*'s 22 HD RSNs are available to all E* subs if they sub to NBA LP or NHL CI for game only HD . I did not understand the channel counts. I now understand that
the channel counts include 9 D* HD RSNs that are available to D* Premier subs for non game HD programs. I already have three 24/7 HD RSNs with Verizon that provide non game HD programs.

I have been reading posts that HD RSNs game only content was not available to D* CI subs. So if I am going to decide who to go with, E* or D*, (which I just
did last month because Verizon does not have NHL CI or NBA LP), I want to go
with the provider who is going to give me the most game HD content for the
2007-08 season.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hound said:


> E*'s 22 HD RSNs are available to all E* subs if they sub to NBA LP or NHL CI for game only HD . I did not understand the channel counts. I now understand that
> the channel counts include 9 D* HD RSNs that are available to D* Premier subs for non game HD programs. I already have three 24/7 HD RSNs with Verizon that provide non game HD programs.
> 
> I have been reading posts that HD RSNs game only content was not available to D* CI subs. So if I am going to decide who to go with, E* or D*, (which I just
> ...


Ah .. that's what you guys mean about "game only." DIRECTV does not have a package like that that I am aware of. What DIRECTV does have is a package that allows you to subscribe to all of the RSNs. Normally, you only receive your local RSN (or two). This is called the sports pack. Also, if you have premier, the sports pack is included.

Once you have the sports pack, you have access to whatever those channels offer 24/7 and it comes to you in HD now. The content, however, may be up converted at times, but that remains true for every other HD station out there. IMHO, DIRECTV should not be penalized for offering a channel just because the channel source hasn't stepped up their content yet. It still comes to us in MPEG4 and uses the High Definition amount of disk space on our HDD.

CI and NBALP are packaged separately and available on different channels as games are viewed. One could argue that some number of these types of channels should be included, but I'm in agreement that we should not count the HD channels from CI, NBALP, MLB, and NFLST despite the fact that there is a lot of content in HD from these sources as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

At the moment RSNs boil down to what the providers are providing. There are five networks that have 24/7 HD feeds that are now passed by D*. (There is one 24/7 HD feed that is not passed but that is an issue of an RSN not sharing, not a choice by D* or E* not to carry the feed.) The other 6 RSNs that D* have added are not produced in HD except for the game feeds linked in my message above.

If you're going to count upconverts then E* and D* have both provided 24/7 feeds of every RSN they carry ... but instead of using satellite space for the upconversion they have it built into their receivers. I get the same results on my E* receiver as a D* customer watching one of the six newest "HD" RSNs. SD upconvert plus the occasional game in HD which is likely blacked out unless one is in the region.

The season pass packages are basically repackaged RSNs with different blackout rules. If you want to get into super high inflated channel counts (as both D* and E* appear to want) they could be counted ... but they certainly should NOT be counted in addition to RSNs or any other season pass. They are mirrors ... the companies should not get credit for the number of times they can resell the same signal.


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> Well, by E*'s counting method D* now has "49" HDs to their "48".
> (E* including PPVs but not RSNs in their count last week.)


Which as I walked in on my dad watching a talk show on one of the RSN's the other day, after I earlier had watched about 3 hours on a different RSN find completely ridiculous.

Not counting real channels the other guy has that are legitimate full-time channels with content, because you have fallen woefully behind is at best sour grapes and poor sportsmanship. Tell Chuck to buck up and add some more High-Definition channels.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I love that this has turned into a 28 page pi$$ing match over how to count channels!  LOL


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> But on HD? RSNs have blackouts ... often. One might be able to catch a highlights show or other HD content on one of the five 24/7 HD RSNs but all you are likely to see on the new four HD RSNs in HD is game content ... pregame/game/postgame at best. The rest of the time it's SD upconvert. What is the point in that?


Bottom line is there IS non-game HD content on these channels.

I know you want to cling on to your E* Woobie blanket with all your might, but your constant erroneous insistence that these are somehow not real channels has gone beyond all reasonableness at this point. You would be much better off just not talking about them in any way shape or form at this point. It potentially negatively taints everything else you might have to say.


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> But lets face it, its fox. They aren't going to upgrade to HD until there is an audience out there for it, which requires people having access to it, enter D*. So with the channels available now to a much wider audience, I expect Fox to move towards all HD programing in the future (1 to 5 years) So I must ask, at what point will you consider an RSN, or for that matter any channel an HD channel? What % of the programming in any given day must be in HD? And what must the programing be? I could care less about my local teams press conferences in HD.....
> 
> I believe that D* should count any channel that is broadcasting 24/7 that can show all HD programing that can be provided by the content provider. Its not there fault more true HD programs aren't available, but as the HD programing increase they are ready to show it.
> 
> ...


This is the most coherent posting on this entire thread.

"HD capable" channels is what we should be counting. D* can count ALL channels that can provide HD content as should E*. Whether or not the content is there. If tomorrow Fox decided to make all RSN's 24/7 HD programming channels...D* would have no issues with handling the feed.

These number counts are stupid. By the end of the year if/when D* reaches their 100 channel goal, it won't really matter. The bar is finally being raised. Its good for everyone.


----------



## mrrydogg (Sep 15, 2007)

braven said:


> :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


Second most coherent post!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

marksman said:


> Bottom line is there IS non-game HD content on these channels.
> 
> I know you want to cling on to your E* Woobie blanket with all your might, but your constant erroneous insistence that these are somehow not real channels has gone beyond all reasonableness at this point. You would be much better off just not talking about them in any way shape or form at this point. It potentially negatively taints everything else you might have to say.


While James and I disagree from time to time, this kind of ranting seems to more negatively impact you than what James supposedly does or does not do.

What James does: very consistently count channels across providers;
patiently and accurately describes *his* method of counting;
shares even more information to help others who might choose a different strategy for counting;
makes fun of both Dish and DIRECTV for their methods to "count" channels; 
and upholds the highest standard for gentlemanly behavior in these discussions. (And continues to share information at every turn.)

I started on the RSNs should be counted. After reviewing the guides for them, I'm now agnostic. DIRECTV and Dish both have done a great job getting more HD out there! 

And James has been an awesome resource for us all.

Thank you, James.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

braven said:


> :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


My 2 year old son pointed at this post and asked....what is that? :lol:

I say put up two or three more satellites! Or buy Echostar.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MikeR said:


> Or buy Echostar.


AT&T is already busy with that one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

marksman said:


> Bottom line is there IS non-game HD content on these channels.


Really? The first five HD RSNs added are 24/7 from the source but these recent six have no sign of HD coverage other than games per the channel provider itself.

Upconverting SD and giving it HD bandwidth will improve the picture ... but it does not make the channel HD for anything more than the channel provider gives in HD.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

James Long said:


> At the moment RSNs boil down to what the providers are providing. There are five networks that have 24/7 HD feeds that are now passed by D*. (There is one 24/7 HD feed that is not passed but that is an issue of an RSN not sharing, not a choice by D* or E* not to carry the feed.) The other 6 RSNs that D* have added are not produced in HD except for the game feeds linked in my message above.
> 
> If you're going to count upconverts then E* and D* have both provided 24/7 feeds of every RSN they carry ... but instead of using satellite space for the upconversion they have it built into their receivers. I get the same results on my E* receiver as a D* customer watching one of the six newest "HD" RSNs. SD upconvert plus the occasional game in HD which is likely blacked out unless one is in the region.
> 
> The season pass packages are basically repackaged RSNs with different blackout rules. If you want to get into super high inflated channel counts (as both D* and E* appear to want) they could be counted ... but they certainly should NOT be counted in addition to RSNs or any other season pass. They are mirrors ... the companies should not get credit for the number of times they can resell the same signal.


If you are correct that that do not have any HD other than game content then I will for now consider them game only HD and remove them from the list. Which ones are they?

Bear in mind that if next week they go hd 24/7 they will be on the list.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ShawnL25 said:


> If you are correct that that do not have any HD other than game content then I will for now consider them game only HD and remove them from the list. Which ones are they


List what you want ... I've got them listed AFTER the 24/7 RSNs on my list as an aid to counting. (It makes it easy to draw the line depending on what one wants to count.)


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

I asked this once before but, (we should all personally care about the total number of channels that are offered), why? Can someone give a concise and meaningful answer?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Because we can.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

Because it's fun


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Why not?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Can't be anymore concise than that :lol:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> If you're going to count upconverts then E* and D* have both provided 24/7 feeds of every RSN they carry ... but instead of using satellite space for the upconversion they have it built into their receivers. I get the same results on my E* receiver as a D* customer watching one of the six newest "HD" RSNs. SD upconvert plus the occasional game in HD which is likely blacked out unless one is in the region.


Am I reading this right? You are saying that an SD signal upconverted on your box is the same as an SD source upconverted at the station?

If that is what you are writing and mean, then, no, you are incorrect. The picture quality is like night and day.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Am I reading this right? You are saying that an SD signal upconverted on your box is the same as an SD source upconverted at the station?
> 
> If that is what you are writing and mean, then, no, you are incorrect. The picture quality is like night and day.


You don't have a ViP-622 DVR or ViP-211, do you? 

Yes, upconverting at the source would eliminate the PQ loss of satellite encoding. But one is eliminating the PQ loss AFTER upconversion that the satellite leg (even via MPEG4). My HD set is forgiving enough that it doesn't matter which end the conversion is on.


----------



## gashog301 (Sep 14, 2006)

D* could have 500 Hd channels, but all that matters to me are they showing anything in HD???? Some of these new channels have NOTHING!!!! I know its good when they do start showing, we will be ready. BUT, theres not really anyway to say D* blew E* out of the water yet. Maybe D* has E* in a fullmount position and is raining elbows but the fight is not over yet.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gashog301 said:


> Some of these new channels have NOTHING!!!!


I may be forgetting some, but I believe that the only new channels that have yet to show any HD content are FX, Speed, and Fuel.


----------



## bullitt (Apr 27, 2002)

jal said:


> D* New Hd channels are stunning. Absolutely perfect picture. There's no way Charlie can compete with what Directv just did at this time. This is a major step forward for Directv! Congrats!


You guys have short memories, this is a very competitive industry and no one sits back. If AT&T buys Echostar, it will be a whole new ballgame. The better cable companies are ahead of us in a few ways - Video on Demand, Local HD, etc. A few years ago E* had distant locals with no waivers, more channels and now its DTV's turn but it won't last more than 3 months or so. By the way, just having more is not necessarily better. Quality over Quantity.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

bullitt said:


> By the way, just having more is not necessarily better. Quality over Quantity.


We have always had the quality (NFL, MLB, Mega Madness, YES network, HD-RSNs for a longer time than DISH had, more markets with Hd lils) as opposed to VOOM. It's always been the DISH argument the quantity is what counted, now that's changed also.

Now we just have BOTH.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bullitt said:


> just having more is not necessarily better. Quality over Quantity.


When you have *every* national HD channel, the whole "quality over quantity" argument is meaningless. We've got it all, with room for more. Since DirecTV started their HD rollout, every new HD channel that has come online in that time has been on DirecTV first. Every single one. We still have a bunch of channels that aren't available anywhere else.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

bullitt said:


> You guys have short memories, this is a very competitive industry and no one sits back. If AT&T buys Echostar, it will be a whole new ballgame. The better cable companies are ahead of us in a few ways - Video on Demand, Local HD, etc. A few years ago E* had distant locals with no waivers, more channels and now its DTV's turn but it won't last more than 3 months or so. By the way, just having more is not necessarily better. Quality over Quantity.


with DirecTV on all my channels especially HD, and your points are true to, if Echostar is purchased by DirecTV, Cable company, or Phone company, then that may change the ballgame a bit. I don't think it is fair that one carrier is permitted to have locals while another is not. That is anti-competitive, and I still can't figure out why Comcast in Massachusetts can have Boston locals all over Massachusetts, but DirecTV and Dishnetwork cannot. It's screwed up. When I talk about a carrier, I'm referring to DirecTV, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T etc. How can it be alright for one over another if they are licensed to conduct business in the same market to allow competition? Corporate counsel in for each carrier obviously are not educated to the FCC laws. I really think DirecTV, Verizon FiOS, Dishnetwork, AT&T are allowed to carry identical programming so long they have been licensed in the community they are serving, and pay for the programming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> When you have *every* national HD channel, the whole "quality over quantity" argument is meaningless.


You don't have _every_ national HD channel.  (And no, I'm not referring to Voom.)


> Since DirecTV started their HD rollout, every new HD channel that has come online in that time has been on DirecTV first.


It has been a good three weeks, but that statement is wrong too.

Still missing a few channels that were available before September 26th, and missing NHL Network HD which appeared nationally _FIRST_ on E*'s satellite service, certainly not first on D*.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

It's every national channel that I watch, minus a few ( Husband watched military channel and all of the different discovery's)


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> You don't have _every_ national HD channel.  (And no, I'm not referring to Voom.)


Yeah yeah, NHL Network HD. I know.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> Yeah yeah, NHL Network HD. I know.


Plus Lifetime HD, Wealth TV HD, The Movie Channel West ... and Mojo (which is unavailable to non-cable companies - so no foul on that one).

Probably a couple more. I have not checked Nick's list.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Plus Lifetime HD, Wealth TV HD, The Movie Channel West ... and Mojo (which is unavailable to non-cable companies - so no foul on that one).


Lifetime HD... I'll grudgingly give you that one, although it ranks even lower than "don't care" for me.

Wealth TV HD... may as well be a Voom channel. Completely worthless, I hope DirecTV never picks it up. I won't count it.

TMC West... I wasn't aware of that one. DirecTV should pick it up.

MOJO... like you said, doesn't count.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From Nick's list:
Chiller HD, Playboy Hot HD, Spice HD.

Nothing compelling there either. 

D* is doing great ... but I wouldn't say _every_ yet.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Chiller HD, Playboy Hot HD, Spice HD.


I have to call BS on those channels. I'm not aware of them being available on any provider. And if nobody carries them, they might as well not exist.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Yeah yeah, NHL Network HD. I know.





James Long said:


> Plus Lifetime HD, Wealth TV HD, The Movie Channel West ... and Mojo (which is unavailable to non-cable companies - so no foul on that one).
> 
> Probably a couple more. I have not checked Nick's list.


So D* is missing a channel devoted to a sport that might not even draw better ratings than a WNBA game at this point, a network devoted to male hating movies, Wealth TV, which sounds like it is 24/7 get rich quick schemes infomercials, and TMC West.

I would rather *NOT* waste bandwidth on those channels.

BTW, aren't all the Dish fanboys saying the West versions of premium movie channels don't count? Why does TMC West count all of a sudden?


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

guys i got a thing in the mail trying to get me to sub to E* and it said they have the most HD channels still :lol: i guess that advertiser/company that sells dish didnt get the memo.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

NYSmoker said:


> So D* is missing a channel devoted to a sport that might not even draw better ratings than a WNBA game at this point, a network devoted to male hating movies, Wealth TV, which sounds like it is 24/7 get rich quick schemes infomercials, and TMC West.
> 
> I would rather *NOT* waste bandwidth on those channels.
> 
> BTW, aren't all the Dish fanboys saying the West versions of premium movie channels don't count? Why does TMC West count all of a sudden?


D* won't be missing that channel but for a few more days. E* will be missing many for a few more months or more.


----------



## fl panthers (Sep 19, 2007)

does anybody know how much area a spot beam covers or does it vary


----------



## gashog301 (Sep 14, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I may be forgetting some, but I believe that the only new channels that have yet to show any HD content are FX, Speed, and Fuel.


USA,FoxB,SciFi,very little on CNN.Im tried maybe wrong or maybe theres more.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

fl panthers said:


> does anybody know how much area a spot beam covers or does it vary


It varies greatly. Spaceway 1 and 2 can do a spotbeam as small as about 200mi and almost as big as CONUS.

D10/D11 are fixed, I believe but I don't know the size.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

gashog301 said:


> USA,FoxB,SciFi,very little on CNN.Im tried maybe wrong or maybe theres more.


you are saying these HAVENT shown HD????? or am i missing something. If so, you are very very wrong


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> You don't have _every_ national HD channel.  (And no, I'm not referring to Voom.)It has been a good three weeks, but that statement is wrong too.
> 
> Still missing a few channels that were available before September 26th, and missing NHL Network HD which appeared nationally _FIRST_ on E*'s satellite service, certainly not first on D*.


Not all, but most. Want to compare lists of the two?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Not all, but most. Want to compare lists of the two?


Nahh ... I've got enough lists and counts. I was just responding to a claim.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Nahh ... I've got enough lists and counts. I was just responding to a claim.


haha, yes as do i. For some reason didnt think anyone would take me up on that


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

> USA,FoxB,SciFi,very little on CNN.Im tried maybe wrong or maybe theres more.





msmith198025 said:


> you are saying these HAVENT shown HD????? or am i missing something. If so, you are very very wrong


I agree, that statement is very wrong. USA has shown a ton of HD. Tons of Law and Order and a bunch of movies too. SciFi has shown Flash Gordon, Stargate Atlantis, Bionic Woman and some other stuff too. Fox Business shows nothing but HD. Some of CNN studio programs are in HD.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

uncrules said:


> I agree, that statement is very wrong. USA has shown a ton of HD. Tons of Law and Order and a bunch of movies too. SciFi has shown Flash Gordon, Stargate Atlantis, Bionic Woman and some other stuff too. Fox Business shows nothing but HD. Some of CNN studio programs are in HD.


exactly, not sure where that came from. He must have been VERY tired.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Well, as of the 23 just launched yesterday, there's no question anymore about the validity of the title of this thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps if the thread title was "DirecTV will over the next seven weeks blow E* out of the water". 
(And that assumes that they have reached the "blown" level today.)

Impressive count ... a lot of mostly upconvert channels but still a good start.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> a lot of mostly upconvert channels


When you're not relying on 3-hour loops of HD content to pad your channel count, those are the channels you tend to get.

:lol:

But seriously, if you take out the Voom channels, the counts aren't even close. They're not even all that close with the Voom channels, but excluding them just highlights DirecTV's lead even more.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

I would say E* has more 24hr HD programming than D*
Alot of D* HD channels have NO HD whatsoever........................they might as well up convert all channels and say all their channels are HD and will have HD programming on it some day.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rkr0923 said:


> I would say E* has more *worthless* 24hr HD programming than D*


Fixed.


rkr0923 said:


> Alot of D* HD channels have NO HD whatsoever


A lot? I haven't done a count, but I believe the number of channels that have never shown HD is less than ten.

And once again, this isn't DirecTV's problem. They are giving the channels a platform for their HD content. It's up to the channels to provide that content. DirecTV has done their part. I don't see Dish or any of the cable companies stepping up to the plate. I lost count of how many of the new HD channels debuted on DirecTV. A lot of them still aren't carried anywhere but on DirecTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Unfortunately E* got sucked into the TBS HD lie ... A&E and History's upconverts are not exactly thrilling television. But it seems to be the ultimate lie to take an SD source from the provider and sell it as an HD feed to the customer. Sure, the PQ is better than the SD satellite channel (which isn't saying much) - but it isn't HD.

It would be nice if D* actually got HD from the programmer before claiming to offer a HD channel. But alas they would rather create their own "filler channels" and wait for the content to eventually be produced. And the public buys it.

BTW: It isn't an issue of the fee (currently $9.99) but the overall cost of the service (including the required SD base package). People sign up for a service expecting to get what is advertised ... which is HD not better quality SD with a hope that in the future there will be real HD there.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

How long before there is an ad out that says....

D* can show up to 107 DIFFERENT HD programs at the SAME TIME, and that's not counting VOD... How many can you provider squeak out?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> How long before there is an ad out that says....
> 
> D* can show up to 107 DIFFERENT HD programs at the SAME TIME, and that's not counting VOD... How many can you provider squeak out?


The problem with a campaign like this is that someone is going to rightfully ask how many different HD programs are _actually being shown_ at the same time. The weekly "why is TNT shut down this Sunday" will certainly create confusion.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> The problem with a campaign like this is that someone is going to rightfully ask how many different HD programs are _actually being shown_ at the same time. The weekly "why is TNT shut down this Sunday" will certainly create confusion.


I don't see that as a problem at all, because there is nothing fabricated in the imagined campaign ("DIRECTV can show up to 107 DIFFERENT HD programs at the same time ... Can your provider do that?"). No one else can currently offer this capacity.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I believe D*, and E* for that matter, are selling the resolution of the feed, not the programming. (E* promotes TNT, and TBS as hd choices.) A show produced in SD broadcast on a 720p or 1080i feed looks a whole lot better than on the 480i version. When I want to watch a show that was produced in SD, I always choose the HD feed. I'm glad I have the choice to get the best possible picture of SD programs on my HDTV. In time, the channels will start adding more and more HD, but as it is now, I have access to more true HD programming than I have time to watch.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> No one else can currently offer this capacity.


I thought that I had established that DIRECTV couldn't do it either. One of the big advantages of announcing part time and SD upconverts as "national HD channels" is that you can fit quite a few of them in a relatively small space.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Even the upconvert on Nick looks great. They are avoiding strech-o-vision, so the picture really looks good.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> Unfortunately E* got sucked into the TBS HD lie ... A&E and History's upconverts are not exactly thrilling television. But it seems to be the ultimate lie to take an SD source from the provider and sell it as an HD feed to the customer. Sure, the PQ is better than the SD satellite channel (which isn't saying much) - but it isn't HD.
> 
> *The "ultimate lie". Talk about hyper-rhetoric. *
> 
> ...


I really don't understand your D* bashing, especially on price. E* charges twice as much for significantly less content (by any resonable measure). As far as content goes, I'm glad they're pushing the envelope. That's how we're going to get more HD content sooner.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Even if D* did that, HD is a chicken and egg kind of thing. You have to start somewhere.


So what's the point in arguing over it ... You really don't care if the claim is true or not - you SUPPORT the activity of D* making their own HD channels. The BEST place to start (IMHO) is to tell the providers to get off the stick, provide quality HD, and when provided their channels will be distributed.

The fee comment was in response to a previous message excusing the quality of the new channels (upconvert SD instead of real HD) because they were added at no extra cost. There sure seems to be a lot of excuse for these channels ...


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

So, of the channels not offered by both, but only by DirecTV, which are you particularly upset about ??

For reference:http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pqSkLhRl_wme3oSpPNLfecQ


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

KurtV said:


> I really don't understand your D* bashing, especially on price. E* charges twice as much for significantly less content (by any resonable measure). As far as content goes, I'm glad they're pushing the envelope. That's how we're going to get more HD content sooner.


He is an E* sub. He needs to do something to take his mind off the lack of HD channels.

:eek2:


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

NYSmoker said:


> He is an E* sub. He needs to do something to take his mind off the lack of HD channels.
> 
> :eek2:


Especially since he's watched all the Voom content 50 times.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> I thought that I had established that DIRECTV couldn't do it either. One of the big advantages of announcing part time and SD upconverts as "national HD channels" is that you can fit quite a few of them in a relatively small space.


if im not mistaken they are sending them out at the same rez and bit rate as what the complainers would call true HD, so where is the savings?


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> So what's the point in arguing over it ... You really don't care if the claim is true or not - you SUPPORT the activity of D* making their own HD channels. The BEST place to start (IMHO) is to tell the providers to get off the stick, provide quality HD, and when provided their channels will be distributed.
> 
> The fee comment was in response to a previous message excusing the quality of the new channels (upconvert SD instead of real HD) because they were added at no extra cost. There sure seems to be a lot of excuse for these channels ...


I don't accept your premise that D* is "making their own HD channels" let alone "SUPPORT" the activity (whatever that's supposed to mean). You apparently have little factual support for that assertion as you have provided none.

You think it's the satellite and cable companies' responsibility to make the content providers "get off the stick"? That's so silly it's hardly worth arguing about. How would they do that in a competetive environment without collusion?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

There is no incentive or drive for programmers to provide HD content on channels that are active and designated as HD. Once the channel is added and, based upon many comments here where people state they are extremely happy with the upconverted SD stuff (many consider it HD too), why should they. Look at TBS. Other than the playoff games, there hasn't been any HD programming (at least I haven't seen any). I think James makes a valid point. People are seeing D* ads about all the HD channels and are paying for HD access only to find there is little or no HD content. Time will tell but, they are still paying more for less. I don't excuse E* either because they are doing it too. Both provider and programmer are gaining from the HD explosion at the expense of the consumer. Programmers now have another avenue to get product advertising to viewers who might otherwise not watch their programming; but, since it's tagged as HD, people will now watch it. Providers are gaining new HD subscribers who are paying extra for something they perceive is HD but really isn't. The consumer has no real choice because if they want HD they have to pay for all of it or not get it at all. Like I said, time will tell how fast programmers will add more content. I see it happening later than sooner, because there's no one out there that will push them to make it happen faster.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> There is no incentive or drive for programmers to provide HD content on channels that are active and designated as HD. Once the channel is added and, based upon many comments here where people state they are extremely happy with the upconverted SD stuff (many consider it HD too), why should they. Look at TBS. Other than the playoff games, there hasn't been any HD programming (at least I haven't seen any). I think James makes a valid point. People are seeing D* ads about all the HD channels and are paying for HD access only to find there is little or no HD content. Time will tell but, they are still paying more for less. I don't excuse E* either because they are doing it too. Both provider and programmer are gaining from the HD explosion at the expense of the consumer. Programmers now have another avenue to get product advertising to viewers who might otherwise not watch their programming; but, since it's tagged as HD, people will now watch it. Providers are gaining new HD subscribers who are paying extra for something they perceive is HD but really isn't. The consumer has no real choice because if they want HD they have to pay for all of it or not get it at all. Like I said, time will tell how fast programmers will add more content. I see it happening later than sooner, because there's no one out there that will push them to make it happen faster.


Again, people are taking one or two channels and using it as a basis for their argument about every channel added. Little or no HD content? Several of the channels are HD 24/7. Many of the others are in primetime, when most people watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

man_rob said:


> NYSmoker said:
> 
> 
> > He is an E* sub. He needs to do something to take his mind off the lack of HD channels.
> ...


Personally, I have not even made it through Voom the first time ... but it isn't about me and it isn't about you. So let's not get personal.


msmith198025 said:


> Again, people are taking one or two channels and using it as a basis for their argument about every channel added. Little or no HD content? Several of the channels are HD 24/7. Many of the others are in primetime, when most people watch.


Start with one or two and work our way out ... Speed HD - finally in HD. MTV, VH1, CMT ... any HD yet that isn't available on MHD? Nick HD? Even some of the channels that E* has have problems - TBS? TNT? A&E?

Show me the backhaul to D* and I'll shift the blame to the providers for failing to provide HD - that was done for Sci-Fi HD - there has to be a backhaul. Otherwise the only proof is HD ... non upconvert HD. That can't be faked.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Start with one or two and work our way out ... Speed HD - finally in HD. MTV, VH1, CMT ... any HD yet that isn't available on MHD? Nick HD? Even some of the channels that E* has have problems - TBS? TNT? A&E?
> 
> Show me the backhaul to D* and I'll shift the blame to the providers for failing to provide HD - that was done for Sci-Fi HD - there has to be a backhaul. Otherwise the only proof is HD ... non upconvert HD. That can't be faked.


Thats a stretch James. Ill give you MTV, VH1 and CMT , and a few of the others you mentioned. Most(not all) of those just launched, so im willing to give them time. But out of (depending on how you count) 40 or so channels added, MOST of them show a considerable amount of HD. Plain and simple.


----------



## swirl5 (Jun 16, 2007)

The way I look at these new channels is even if they broadcast one show in HD that I watch then its worth it. An example is FX. They don't have a lot but Nip/Tuck is one of my favorite shows. I don't think any of these channels will be watched 24/7 by anyone. Another example is Stargate on SciFi. 

Most people have specific shows they like to watch. When those shows are in HD that is a great thing. The fact that TBS is showing an 80's comedy in a 16x9 stretched format doesn't bother me because I'm most likely not going to record it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Again, people are taking one or two channels and using it as a basis for their argument ...





msmith198025 said:


> Ill give you MTV, VH1 and CMT , and a few of the others you mentioned.


And then move the cheese? 
You're giving me three plus a few and complaining about one or two. :lol:

Yes, of D*'s 54 national channels there are a few I would like to see on E* that are not already there ... namely the premium movie channels, CNN HD and TWC HD. Otherwise ... I'm happy.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Only thing I watch on SciFi right now is Atlantis and BSG. Both are in HD. Thus SciFi is 100% HD as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> And then move the cheese?
> You're giving me three plus a few and complaining about one or two. :lol:
> 
> Yes, of E*'s 54 national channels there are a few I would like to see on E* that are not already there ... namely the premium movie channels, CNN HD and TWC HD. Otherwise ... I'm happy.


If you will look at the post i quoted you will see the ONE(tbs) or TWO(tnt) that i was referring to. Which are the two that most people use to complain about the whole slate of newly added channels(even though one has been on for a while). You mentioned the others, and i agreed on THOSE

Of E*'s 54 nationals there are a few that you would like to see on E*?????


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> Of E*'s 54 nationals there are a few that you would like to see on E*?????


Ooops! Fixed.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Ooops! Fixed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Certain people should take note that I do admit my mistakes. :lol:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Certain people should take note that I do admit my mistakes. :lol:


nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! that takes all of the fun out of it james!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

this thread again??? :nono2:

... we all know d* is better.... let's just leave it at that....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> Show me the backhaul to D* and I'll shift the blame to the providers for failing to provide HD


This argument is garbage. Show me the backhaul for FX HD. You won't be able to find it anywhere, and yet we know for a fact that this is a real HD channel. You really need to drop this whole "DirecTV is upconverting SD channels" argument unless you can show some real evidence. You're a mod, you should be above blatant trolling.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

James Long said:


> Certain people should take note that I do admit my mistakes. :lol:


Including subscribing to E* forever and a day?

I've been checking them out every couple years [once they started up] since I started with D* - Feb.'94 - and never found a worthwhile or timely reason to switch.

That wasn't the case in computer operating systems, phone systems or motor vehicles - over the same time period. I believe in change when it's truly productive.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> I thought that I had established that DIRECTV couldn't do it either. One of the big advantages of announcing part time and SD upconverts as "national HD channels" is that you can fit quite a few of them in a relatively small space.


Ahh, sorry, no you did not establish anything. Any SD up convert is done by the broadcaster (not D*) before it heads to space and back down to us, so it still uses the capacity. As for the part time rsns, yeah they may save bandwidth when they are turned off, but they will be turned on at the same time, in the evenings when games are being played and broadcast...


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> The rule is clear, and neither E* nor D* can attempt to get around it, the former of which is very good at flaunting the law.


OK, I'm telling you also - you do NOT understand this law at all. ALL it says is, that in a given DMA, IF a provider chooses to carry that same DMA's local channels, ALL of those same local channels MUST be receivable on ONE dish - NOT the ENTIRE programming lineup the provider offers.

Case in point - D* has at least 24+ DMA's (of which mine IS one of them) that requires a 2nd 18" dish JUST for the local channels. You then still need the appropriate MAIN dish for the national prog you need. (round dish if all you have is basic national prog, oval if you need Spanish, or the 5LNB for HD prog) Everyone in my market w/D* has TWO D* dishes on their roofs - & D* is in COMPLETE compliance with the single dish for locals law.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

dishrich said:


> OK, I'm telling you also - you do NOT understand this law at all.


*I understand it very well.*


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Does anyone remember what happened when OTA HD first was broadcast? Most shows were sd, and it took several years to get to today where most prime time is in HD. It will take some time for companies to actually fill their lineups with actual HD programing, although I predict the rate of HD shows will increase at an astronomically hirer rate than OTA did many years ago. This is because many companies have shot material in HD but aren't using it yet. But no producers really broad casted or planned to broadcast anything in hd until the hd channels existed and were receivable by a major portion of the country. Some shows never went HD even though it would have been easy for them to do so. And it is possible that didn't happen because of contracts and copyright protections and the parinoid entertainment industry. Most HD came from new series rather than up converting existing shows. Many existing shows decided not to go HD (i.e. friends). I suspect Cable channels will not be in the same boat. But I also suspect they will roll out hd shows when seasons begin, rather than in the middle of repeat season... wait till TBS and USA shows start their new seasons. I'll bet most if not all is in HD, and that is only going to happen because D* made the channel accessible to a majority of the country. They aren't going to spend the money to distribute their shows in HD if only a couple cable companies are going to show it. Now with D* active, they're spending the money. Hollywood doesn't spend money if only a few people could benefit from it. They spend money when many people could benefit. The golden rule in Hollywood is to never use your own money to finance a movie. That translates well to don't spend money on hd till someone can actually receive it.... Well now they can, and after a short lag time (6 months to a year, unlike the 5 years for OTA) I believe we will all see the fruits of D* efforts. That includes all the E* subs too. I believe E* has a sat going up in the next year so by the time all these channels are really pumping out the HD, they will probably be getting the channels too.... Everyone should just be happy that more and more hd is becoming available. And I believe its important for every channel to go HD, so that all equipment will slowly be transitioned, and we will see HD every where, and then we can all have arguments about why D*'s MRV isn't steam able to your laptop anywhere in the world, or something like that.....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> This argument is garbage. Show me the backhaul for FX HD.


Try reading the rest of the post you snipped: "Otherwise the only proof is HD ... non upconvert HD. That can't be faked." It would also be helpful if the alleged HD channels would themselves claim to be in HD (in advertising and marketing).

You can't prove that the signal is coming from the provider. Name calling won't change that.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

We can all understand the game being played by E*, D*, and cable here, right? 

D* - "We have the most HD channels." But a lot of them don't have much or any HD content. Doesn't change that they have the most HD channels, though. Big marketing plus.

E* - "We have all the HD channels that you care about." Probably true, with a couple one-offs depending on what you like to watch. This doesn't carry much marketing weight, though.

Cable - "We have the most HD content." True in some markets, if you count HD VOD. Will work for some people, marketing-wise. And may be a decent solution for some people.

So all we're really doing here is arguing each company's marketing line. Lets just all be happy that we all have more HD and there's more HD, both channels and programs, for all of us on the way.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> You can't prove that the signal is coming from the provider.


And you can't prove that it isn't. I remember reading an article where DirecTV specifically said that they were getting fiber feeds for the new HD channels. Those would never show up on LyngSat.

You're the one making the serious claim that DirecTV is lying about these HD channels, with absolutely zero proof to back it up. *Zero. Proof.* I'm sorry, that's trolling as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how it could be anything else.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Does anyone remember what happened when OTA HD first was broadcast? Most shows were sd, and it took several years to get to today where most prime time is in HD. It will take some time for companies to actually fill their lineups with actual HD programing, although I predict the rate of HD shows will increase at an astronomically hirer rate than OTA did many years ago. This is because many companies have shot material in HD but aren't using it yet. But no producers really broad casted or planned to broadcast anything in hd until the hd channels existed and were receivable by a major portion of the country. Some shows never went HD even though it would have been easy for them to do so. And it is possible that didn't happen because of contracts and copyright protections and the parinoid entertainment industry. Most HD came from new series rather than up converting existing shows. Many existing shows decided not to go HD (i.e. friends). I suspect Cable channels will not be in the same boat. But I also suspect they will roll out hd shows when seasons begin, rather than in the middle of repeat season... wait till TBS and USA shows start their new seasons. I'll bet most if not all is in HD, and that is only going to happen because D* made the channel accessible to a majority of the country. They aren't going to spend the money to distribute their shows in HD if only a couple cable companies are going to show it. Now with D* active, they're spending the money. Hollywood doesn't spend money if only a few people could benefit from it. They spend money when many people could benefit. The golden rule in Hollywood is to never use your own money to finance a movie. That translates well to don't spend money on hd till someone can actually receive it.... Well now they can, and after a short lag time (6 months to a year, unlike the 5 years for OTA) I believe we will all see the fruits of D* efforts. That includes all the E* subs too. I believe E* has a sat going up in the next year so by the time all these channels are really pumping out the HD, they will probably be getting the channels too.... Everyone should just be happy that more and more hd is becoming available. And I believe its important for every channel to go HD, so that all equipment will slowly be transitioned, and we will see HD every where, and then we can all have arguments about why D*'s MRV isn't steam able to your laptop anywhere in the world, or something like that.....


The difference is that OTA does not designate a channel as SD or HD, it's either CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc and it shows both SD and HD. Both D* and E* create separate channels called HD that shows more SD than HD. There is a difference IMO. Networks sell a channel (which just happens to be free) but D* and E* sell a separate HD channel that you pay extra for.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

richiephx said:


> Both D* and E* create separate channels called HD that shows more SD than HD.


DirecTV and Dish aren't creating anything. The networks are the ones sending out two different channels. What are the service providers supposed to do? Keep the HD channel turned off unless it's actually broadcasting HD content? That's asinine.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Now, I have to say that there are several very good HD channels with HD content; but, most of the newer channels that both D* and E* recently added leave much to be desired. People are paying extra for HD based upon all the marketing hype that both providers spew. Their expectation is to see 70 or 100 channels of HD. The reality is, they aren't. Both the programmers and providers are capitalizing on the HD revolution. Subscribers are paying extra for improved quality SD which they are already paying for and should be getting now, but they aren't on the SD channels. The consumer is being duped into thinking they are watching hd but they aren't in many instances. No wonder non-technical people are so confused. People are just being blinded by the euphoria they call HD. Until people can pick and choose what hd channels they want to pay for, I don't see programmers moving fast in providing a lot of HD content on many of these channels. Just like network programming, I don't believe they make any more money offering HD content, so where's the incentive?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

So you hate HD and everyone and everything having to do with it. Got it.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

richiephx said:


> Just like network programming, I don't believe they make any more money offering HD content, so where's the incentive?


I know I watch the local ABC affiliate news over NBC because their news programs are shot in HD. While I skip all commercials, some must not. If people watch the channel because it is HD, there is the advantage.

Because of the quantity of HD channels available now, I rarely watch SD channels, and often guide filter for HD channels only.

If two HD channels are showing the same program, but one is being shown in HD, and the other is an upconvert (letterbox or stretch)...I watch the "true" HD channel.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV and Dish aren't creating anything. The networks are the ones sending out two different channels. What are the service providers supposed to do? Keep the HD channel turned off unless it's actually broadcasting HD content? That's asinine.


Well that's what E* subscribers want so E* has the time to catch up.First D* subscribers had to listen that what they were watching was HD Lite because of
bandwith restrictions,now we get to listen to aw it's just a upconvert channel.Sounds like a little bit of E* envy if you ask me.

But facts are facts and the facts are the HD channel is there on D* for the benefit
of the HD viewers.If the programmer isn't showing a HD program that's not D*'s fault.

So unless you want to watch the most HD programs from DirecTV the new HD leader on satellite.I would guess you will just have a wait.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

richiephx said:


> The difference is that OTA does not designate a channel as SD or HD, it's either CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc and it shows both SD and HD. Both D* and E* create separate channels called HD that shows more SD than HD. There is a difference IMO. Networks sell a channel (which just happens to be free) but D* and E* sell a separate HD channel that you pay extra for.


Ahh, actually, OTA is absoulutly defining what type of broadcast they are sending out, and currently all stations in most markets (all of them in LA) are sending out at least 2 channels for all their programing. One is there old analog signal, the other is their digital signal. Everyone in LA is using their full spectrum all the time, how they split it up is different though. Some are showing multiple channels, others 1 HD and one or two SD... (with plenty of up convert during non prime time viewing, including many channels using full bandwidth for one channel but showing ONLY up converted material!!!)) But they are all doing the same thing as D* is doing today with only advertising dollars, not with any subscription fees (sub fees make it easier to spend money when its on top of growing revenue from advertisers because of growing viewer ship, the opposite to what is happening to network TV). And by the way, the big difference is that the analog gets turned off in a little over a year because the government says they have to, D* will have to support SD and HD for a while or risk loosing millions of customers... The government figures it would be nice to sell these frequencies for a couple dollars... :lol:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

richiephx said:


> The difference is that OTA does not designate a channel as SD or HD, it's either CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc and it shows both SD and HD. Both D* and E* create separate channels called HD that shows more SD than HD. There is a difference IMO. Networks sell a channel (which just happens to be free) but D* and E* sell a separate HD channel that you pay extra for.


Yes they do designate the channel as HD. I have seen many many times the logo on the networks i watch say NBC hd, CBS hd, ect.


----------



## GutBomb (Jun 17, 2004)

richiephx said:


> Both D* and E* create separate channels called HD that shows more SD than HD. There is a difference IMO.


You do understand that aside from The 101 and pay per view (both of which are most likely outsourced) that DirecTV doesn't "create" any channels right? They are in the business of passing on feeds, and they have no means of upconverting anything.

These channels are provided to DirecTV in the form of a video feed which DirecTV then passes on to us for a fee.

Your "O" in this case is ill informed, and thusly flawed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> If the programmer isn't showing a HD program that's not D*'s fault.


But it is D*'s fault if they pushed the programmer into going live before they were ready. As an example, TWC was pushed up five months or so.


> So unless you want to watch the most HD programs from DirecTV the new HD leader on satellite.


I'm thinking that DISH has more HD programming than DIRECTV does. I remember hearing that Smithsonian, one of the few 24 hour HD channels that DIRECTV has added, having just over three days worth of programming available.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

harsh said:


> But it is D*'s fault if they pushed the programmer into going live before they were ready. As an example, TWC was pushed up five months or so.


I would imagine that any network/channel would welcome the opportunity to get their broadcast facilities up and running and get the bugs worked out before they actually have all content set to broadcast in HD. At least it makes more sense to me to get the delivery system on-line and the kinks worked out before/while they switch over all the equipment and programming to the HD format.

More of a pipeline in place with stuff flowing and the ability to add the new HD to the flow rather than adding all the HD content to a water tower and then wait until the pipeline structure is all in place before they can turn on the spiggot and release it. Just my opinion, though.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

D* can't force an outside network to start an HD feed, nor do they have say over what another company passes over that feed. And, lets be honest. If E* could add those channels, they would, and they'd call them HD as well.

Then there is the fact that the vast majority of the new channels _do_ have true HD programming each day, and that is expanding every month. They could be like Voom, and just repeat the same tired HD programs, and movies over and over, month after month, to fill a 24/7 HD schedule, but that is a bit deceptive as well.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> But it is D*'s fault if they pushed the programmer into going live before they were ready. As an example, TWC was pushed up five months or so.


It's a simple choice that you have to make. You either get the channel after it has a great deal of content or you get it after you've missed their first HD content. So we end up complaining about lack of content or about missing the real launch.

At this point, there are very few shows I watch that aren't in HD. My one major complaint is my local CW affiliate. It is a subchannel and an SD broadcast. That doesn't have a very good solution and I understand that. For the one CW show I watch (Smallville), it is a minor irritation.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Also. for years people have complained about the decline of SD signals on DirecTV. If you want a silver lining, your upconverted SD now looks gorgeous. If you want it to be real HD, press the content providers as they are the only group that can accomplish this.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

harsh said:


> But it is D*'s fault if they pushed the programmer into going live before they were ready. As an example, TWC was pushed up five months or so.I'm thinking that DISH has more HD programming than DIRECTV does.


But from the first week TWC-HD was added they show several hours a day of HD programming plus the "local on the 8s" is in HD. And they are ramping up more HD shows starting in January.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> And you can't prove that it isn't. I remember reading an article where DirecTV specifically said that they were getting fiber feeds for the new HD channels. Those would never show up on LyngSat.


So (without dropping into name calling) we move into the second level of proof ... actual HD on the channels. Seen any? Are you claiming that EVERY "HD" channel on D* has actual HD programming at some point in their programming (not "someday in the future" but current schedule)?



Jeremy W said:


> What are the service providers supposed to do? Keep the HD channel turned off unless it's actually broadcasting HD content? That's asinine.


No. That's honest. Don't tell your customers that you have Speed in HD until you have HD on the channel. I'm not suggesting that the channel go dark between HD programs (that would leave a lot of dark broadcasts). What I expect is channels NOT be presented and advertised as "HD" unless and until they have HD shows on those channels.

Be honest. That's all I ask of either company.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> So (without dropping into name calling) we move into the second level of proof ... actual HD on the channels. Seen any? Are you claiming that EVERY "HD" channel on D* has actual HD programming at some point in their programming (not "someday in the future" but current schedule)?
> 
> No. That's honest. Don't tell your customers that you have Speed in HD until you have HD on the channel. I'm not suggesting that the channel go dark between HD programs (that would leave a lot of dark broadcasts). What I expect is channels NOT be presented and advertised as "HD" unless and until they have HD shows on those channels.
> 
> Be honest. That's all I ask of either company.


What is happening now is that you have to parse every single word that D*or E* says or advertises any more. The proper way that D* should have been adverstising is 70 HD-"Capable" channels which is more accurate. But saying it as they did would lead a reasonable-thinking person to assume the channels are in "HD" currently. A pattern is developing that doesn't fare well for D* or E*.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

~yawn~  


:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

braven said:


> ~yawn~
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:


Let's end the thread. Braven is tired of it, and of course we all know the sun rises and sets over him. The nerve of us thinking he should just not read the thread.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Let's end the thread. Braven is tired of it, and of course we all know the sun rises and sets over him. The nerve of us thinking he should just not read the thread.


I'm glad someone agrees with me.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

man_rob said:


> If E* could add those channels, they would, and they'd call them HD as well.


E* has usually demonstrated a much more discriminating approach in the past with the exception of TBS. I think it is safe to say that D* is looking for channel count and little else matters.


> Then there is the fact that the vast majority of the new channels _do_ have true HD programming each day, and that is expanding every month.


More than a handful of the new national HD channels aren't even full-time, much less showing HD every day. Even the premium channels show their share of upconverts.


> They could be like Voom, and just repeat the same tired HD programs, and movies over and over, month after month, to fill a 24/7 HD schedule, but that is a bit deceptive as well.


No more deceptive than showing L&O reruns twice a day for a net schedule of own or two new hours of HD programming per week.

I think the insistence that VOOM's library is non-expanding is wearing a little thin. Of course the fact that they are selling it to other providers like NGC may make it seem like you've seen it before.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

harsh said:


> But it is D*'s fault if they pushed the programmer into going live before they were ready. As an example, TWC was pushed up five months or so.I'm thinking that DISH has more HD programming than DIRECTV does. I remember hearing that Smithsonian, one of the few 24 hour HD channels that DIRECTV has added, having just over three days worth of programming available.


   

With a post like this,Where do you live where the provider can tell the programmer
what to do?.:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## MIMOTech (Sep 11, 2006)

What counts is How well you fill your HD pipeline with HD programing! For those of us that have been into HD since 1999 we have seen a remarkable increase in HD programing, and it does not matter what the source is Sat, Cable or OTA or even IP. In 1999 the high light of the day for HD programing was waiting for the daily HD test loop to appear on your local OTA station. Now there is more then one can possibly watch. Especially if you own a DVR and capture all HD. I have 1TB hard drive and it is full of unwatched HD waiting for viewing. When VOD is fully up on D* this will provide an extraordinary amount of programing. The war now between providers should now be based on quality of programing not perceived quantity.


----------



## RealityCheck (Apr 3, 2007)

The bottom line is there is not a single ECHOSTAR customer that would be *****ing about these channels if they had their new satellites up and had tons of bandwidth, and had all of the same HD channels turned on.

What would it all matter than? When you have the bandwidth, it makes sense to add as many new channels as you can, when you are hurting for bandwidth, the real answer is you CAN'T do that.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> With a post like this,Where do you live where the provider can tell the programmer
> what to do?.:lol: :lol: :lol:


Here on planet Earth, Debra Wilson, the president of TWC, announced some months back that they would be ready to do HD in earnest in 2008 and if DIRECTV wanted an HD version, they were going to have to do it themselves. Full-time HD programming from TWC wasn't expected (and may not arrive) until mid 2008.

I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV was seething from losing one or two of the HD debuts that they had been promising; the motivation to do something extraordinary was there.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> E* has usually demonstrated a much more discriminating approach in the past with the exception of TBS. I think it is safe to say that D* is looking for channel count and little else matters.More than a handful of the new national HD channels aren't even full-time, much less showing HD every day. Even the premium channels show their share of upconverts.No more deceptive than showing L&O reruns twice a day for a net schedule of own or two new hours of HD programming per week.
> 
> I think the insistence that VOOM's library is non-expanding is wearing a little thin. Of course the fact that they are selling it to other providers like NGC may make it seem like you've seen it before.


In other words, E* doesn't have a way of adding the new HD channels right now, so they are "discriminating".

That is why when E* added a channel or two, (while removing a PPV) they upped their count by 10 or 12, but E* isn't just interesting in the channel count. That is _really_ honest.

Most of the new HD networks do have true HD programming on the schedules everyday.

Voom does repeat the same stuff over and over and over in order to have a "24/7" schedule of HD programming.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

All this thread is turning into is a bunch of E* envy.Trying to stop E* subscribers from switching.Well I see HD therefore it is!!.Good Luck!!.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

man_rob said:


> In other words, E* doesn't have a way of adding the new HD channels right now, so they are "discriminating".
> 
> That is why when E* added a channel or two, (while removing a PPV) they upped their count by 10 or 12, but E* isn't just interesting in the channel count. That is _really_ honest.
> 
> ...


Oh that's a good one.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RealityCheck said:


> The bottom line is there is not a single ECHOSTAR customer that would be *****ing about these channels if they had their new satellites up and had tons of bandwidth, and had all of the same HD channels turned on.


It seems like the E* complaints seem to be limited to a couple of channels; neither of which show much new HD content. It comes down to wanting a familiar channel in the hopes of new content as opposed to adding lots of HD content to the plate.

On the E* side, it is possible to archive HD programming without having to jump through hoops, so the rerun thing is something you can do yourself.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

man_rob said:


> . . . They could be like Voom, and just repeat the same tired HD programs, and movies over and over, month after month, to fill a 24/7 HD schedule, but that is a bit deceptive as well.


That is EXACTLY why I jumped ship from E* to D*. I got tired of the VOOM channels in less than a month. There was never any new programming on there. I'd rather have CNBC-HD and CNN-HD than all of the VOOM Channels. BTW - one of my favorite HD Channels that D* has and E* doesn't is CNBC-HD, or as my GF likes to call it CNBC-ADD - there's too much info there for her to keep up with. I put it on every afternoon and let it run in the background while I'm working.

I figure most HD subscribers don't even take advantage of the HD service they pay for. My Boss is a perfect example. He upgraded to an E* ViP622 receiver to get their HD service. I was over his house few months ago and his TV was on. He had the local ABC affiliate on, and the picture looked horrible. When I played around with his setup, I figured out he was watching the SD feed, and had it stretched to fill the screen. I flipped through the menus, changed the setup to the HD feeds, changed the aspect ratio / stretching options - everything looked MUCH better IMO. He didn't even realize he was getting HBO-HD, HDNet, etc., etc., they'd had it for months and had never watched any of the HD Channels. Two days later he called me asking how to change it all back, because his wife didn't like those black bars on the sides of the screen during the soaps she watched and she didn't like all the "extra stuff on the sides during the news" - the "extra stuff" being the logos, graphics, etc. from the HD News broadcast.

Then you have people like my younger sister - 3 HDTVs in their house - NO HD SERVICE at all! Not even an OTA hooked up to any of them! They have SD E* Service hooked up to all 3. When they're over my house, they don't think my picture looks any better than theirs. Their Plasma pixelates, and smears almost constantly. The only thing they have that is HD hooked up to any of them is a Wii. They paid a small fortune for all those TVs, but then complain that they can't afford the monthly HD Service.


----------



## RealityCheck (Apr 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> It seems like the E* complaints seem to be limited to a couple of channels; neither of which show much new HD content.


On the outside chance your observation is correct - to complain about a 'couple of channels', when about 50 or more total national channels, all the sports, etc. was put on - seems trivial - you have to admit that.

No matter what any of these companies do there will always be someone saying they could have done it a different way and so on.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

RealityCheck said:


> The bottom line is there is not a single ECHOSTAR customer that would be *****ing about these channels if they had their new satellites up and had tons of bandwidth, and had all of the same HD channels turned on.
> 
> What would it all matter than? When you have the bandwidth, it makes sense to add as many new channels as you can, when you are hurting for bandwidth, the real answer is you CAN'T do that.


Yes you can but what you get is HD Lite!.So now the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

RealityCheck said:


> The bottom line is there is not a single ECHOSTAR customer that would be *****ing about these channels if they had their new satellites up and had tons of bandwidth, and had all of the same HD channels turned on.
> 
> What would it all matter than? When you have the bandwidth, it makes sense to add as many new channels as you can, when you are hurting for bandwidth, the real answer is you CAN'T do that.


Actually it can hurt to just add anything. Now imagine a year down the road, You've added all you can including junk channels that most subs do not watch to add to your HD count. You've signed aggreements to carry them for X years. Now a channel with compelling content becomes available.

The is one of the reasons that neither E* or D* carries all the SD channels available.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Actually it can hurt to just add anything. Now imagine a year down the road, You've added all you can including junk channels that most subs do not watch to add to your HD count. You've signed aggreements to carry them for X years. Now a channel with compelling content becomes available.
> 
> The is one of the reasons that neither E* or D* carries all the SD channels available.


True, and it's not like D* has been adding a bunch obscure HD channels. We have been getting established networks, with solid companies behind them.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

I find this amusing.....

Inmates will have more HD than Dish subscribers. :grin:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

James Long said:


> No. That's honest. Don't tell your customers that you have Speed in HD until you have HD on the channel. I'm not suggesting that the channel go dark between HD programs (that would leave a lot of dark broadcasts). What I expect is channels NOT be presented and advertised as "HD" unless and until they have HD shows on those channels.


So when people from D* and Speed sit across from each other and Speed says, "We'd like to enter into an agreement in which DirecTV carries our HD channel." Is DirecTV supposed to then grill them about how much HD content they actually have? How many hours in a day do you provide actual High-Definition content? Only three hours during prime-time? "Oh, sorry. We can't help you because you won't actually be providing us ENOUGH HD content to consider you HD. Oh, you're moving toward adding more HD content all the time? Fine. Then give us a call when you have X hours per day instead of just three."

Or, "Great, we'd love to give you an outlet for your HD channel! But I see here you only have HD content three hours a day right now? Well, I'll tell you what. We'll carry your HD channel, but we can't agree to actually advertise or present it as an HD channel until you're providing 13 hours a day of HD content. Anything less would most definitely be DECEPTIVE MARKETING on both our parts."

I can just see that conversation going really well. Because short of telling them that can't advertise as HD until they have enough HD content, D* doesn't really have any say in the content that Speed actually provides to D* on their HD feed. So are they then supposed to tell them to take a hike until they meet certain people's standards for actually being called "HD"?

Oy!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Can't believe this is still going.

With all the new HD channels, 99% of all our TV watching is now in HD. Nuff said.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Can't believe this is still going.
> 
> With all the new HD channels 99% of all our TV watching is not in HD. Nuff said.


I'd say about 80% of my tv watching is in true HD.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

man_rob said:


> In other words, E* doesn't have a way of adding the new HD channels right now, so they are "discriminating".


The spin from the Dish customers is just astounding. It must hurt them so badly to see DirecTV snatch away the HD crown so quickly, after they had it for so long. They can feel free to continue living in denial, with their "discriminating" provider, while I enjoy all of the HD that they don't have.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Can't believe this is still going.
> 
> With all the new HD channels 99% of all our TV watching is not in HD. Nuff said.


id say around 80-85 percent for me


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> With all the new HD channels 99% of all our TV watching is not in HD. Nuff said.


not sure what you're watching.... bout the only thing that I watch that isn't in HD is my local news... so 99% of what I watch IS in HD...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> not sure what you're watching.... bout the only thing that I watch that isn't in HD is my local news... so 99% of what I watch IS in HD...


Pretty sure he meant to say "now" instead of "not" which would make much more sense.

And even my local news (2 out of 3 stations that have newscasts) is in HD.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Pretty sure he meant to say "now" instead of "not" which would make much more sense.
> 
> And even my local news (2 out of 3 stations that have newscasts) is in HD.


yeah... "now" makes a lot more sense.... no local stations do their newscasts in HD around here... would be very cool though...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Yea, now.

In other words there is one program on BBC America we watch that is SD. Everything else is HD.
And since BBCA is going HD in 2008 then I'd say we'll be at 100% HD soon enough.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The spin from the Dish customers is just astounding. It must hurt them so badly to see DirecTV snatch away the HD crown so quickly, after they had it for so long. They can feel free to continue living in denial, with their "discriminating" provider, while I enjoy all of the HD that they don't have.


They don't have any HD to watch so they spend their time trolling the D* forums instead.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> Actually it can hurt to just add anything. Now imagine a year down the road, You've added all you can including junk channels that most subs do not watch to add to your HD count. You've signed aggreements to carry them for X years. Now a channel with compelling content becomes available.
> 
> The is one of the reasons that neither E* or D* carries all the SD channels available.


Don't know.Only know that D* carrys alot more basic national channels than E*.
And I'm talking about ones that are not PI channels or shopping networks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

KurtV said:


> They don't have any HD to watch so they spend their time trolling the D* forums instead.


That could be said about the D* folks that can't stay out of the E* forum. 54-111 channels of HD and nothing on?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> That could be said about the D* folks that can't stay out of the E* forum. 54-111 channels of HD and nothing on?


Believe it or not.I watch and post at the same time.Guess you could say I'm a multi
tasker.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> That could be said about the D* folks that can't stay out of the E* forum.


I don't do it, and I certainly don't support those who do.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Well one of those channels that doesnt show any HD(tbs) had several hours of stand up comedy on last night. Just like the baseball playoffs TBS HD is breathtaking. I really cant wait until they start showing more, looks great!


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

Everyone has there own opinion of counting HD channels. So my point is some of the new channels that have no HD programming now have announced HD programming for 2008 and some for late 2007. So why not add the channels now and be ahead of the curve after all upconverted material is way better than SD.
If a channel only has 1 program on it in HD and you watch it that channel should be counted as an HD Channel.
Its no different than having a 24/7 HD channel and watching only one program on it.
So that being said I only count the the channels that have programming I watch in HD. So everyones count will be different who cares about the way D* or E* count theres they are counting for everyone.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> That could be said about the D* folks that can't stay out of the E* forum. 54-111 channels of HD and nothing on?


"54-11," huh? Nice sarcastic swipe at D*. I trust you're doing the same for E*.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

upnorth said:


> So why not add the channels now and be ahead of the curve after all upconverted material is way better than SD.


Unless it is modified from OAR in which case, it is worse than SD (for those who aren't into plasma HDTVs anyway).


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

harsh said:


> Unless it is modified from OAR in which case, it is worse than SD (for those who aren't into plasma HDTVs anyway).


True 
Then watch the SD version if you prefer it's a matter of personal choice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> "54-11," huh? Nice sarcastic swipe at D*. I trust you're doing the same for E*.


It is 54-111 (or 54 to 111) channels on D* ... 54 being what I consider national feeds and 111 being the absolute maximum following the counting rules on D*'s website.

For E* it would be 42-82 ... but I wouldn't say "nothing on" since most E* subscribers seem to be spending more time watching HD or discussing other topics than complaining about their service. Most of the time seems that there are actually more D* customer's complaining about E*'s lineup than E* customers - including those who like to visit the E* forums to complain/gloat/etc.

So much for good sportsmanship.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Too many people complaining about the _*other *_ guy, as if that's going to change things with their own provider.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

WOW!! What a way to introduce yourself to the forum. Insult the people and mods that run it....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> WOW!! What a way to introduce yourself to the forum. Insult the people and mods that run it....


I don't think he'll have to worry about staying around for very long if he doesn't change his attitude.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The person in question was a duplicate account created by a member.
That's not allowed under our forum rules, so yes, he's gone.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> ...
> but I wouldn't say "nothing on" since most E* subscribers seem to be spending more time watching HD or discussing other topics than complaining about their service. Most of the time seems that there are actually more D* customer's complaining about E*'s lineup than E* customers - including those who like to visit the E* forums to complain/gloat/etc...


Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

You must be trying to be facetious. If not, ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just an observation. There seems to be a lot more "nanny nanny boo boo you don't have it" and "I've got something you don't have" coming from D* subscribers than E* subs complaining about channels they don't get yet.

Everyone wants more HD ... even D* subs want more HD channels plus more HD content on the channels that have been added. E* subs just seem less upset about the issue than D* subs.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I think that's because for some time, D* subscribers felt that E* subs were shoving all _their _ HD down our throats. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, some D* folks are getting their revenge.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I think that's because for some time, D* subscribers felt that E* subs were shoving all _their _ HD down our throats. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, some D* folks are getting their revenge.


Add to that the fact that there's no shortage of Dish subs stirring up trouble, and you've got the current situation.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Seems to be A LOT of Kool-Aid drinking going on.


Oh and my dad can beat up your dad.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm just amused that hardly anyone has mentioned the subject of this thread recently. "Directv Just Blew E* Out of the Water". With the number of HD channels offered by DIRECTV, I just don't see any way this thread subject is even debatable.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

I was kind of surprised to see people still posting there.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> For E* it would be 42-82 ... but I wouldn't say "nothing on" since most E* subscribers seem to be spending more time watching HD or discussing other topics than complaining about their service. Most of the time seems that there are actually more D* customer's complaining about E*'s lineup than E* customers - including those who like to visit the E* forums to complain/gloat/etc.
> 
> So much for good sportsmanship.


Going by the percentages, I would assume most of us Directv customers are also too busy watching our HD channels to worry about how our service provider's channel count affects our manhood.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I'm just amused that hardly anyone has mentioned the subject of this thread recently. "Directv Just Blew E* Out of the Water". With the number of HD channels offered by DIRECTV, I just don't see any way this thread subject is even debatable.


I think the case can be made the Directv's number lead is somewhat deceptive since many channels have launched before the content was ready, but on the whole I agree. It comes down to if you had a friend or family member who wanted to switch to satellite for HD which provider would you suggest. Right now, it's hard not to say the answer is not Directv.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Just an observation. There seems to be a lot more "nanny nanny boo boo you don't have it" and "I've got something you don't have" coming from D* subscribers than E* subs complaining about channels they don't get yet.
> 
> Everyone wants more HD ... even D* subs want more HD channels plus more HD content on the channels that have been added. E* subs just seem less upset about the issue than D* subs.


So you don't think Dish subscribers are suffering from "DirecTV envy"?


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> So you don't think Dish subscribers are suffering from "DirecTV envy"?


I think E* subs. want the HD channels too. They are just committed to their service provider and are willing to wait it out until Dish has the bandwidth.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Revenge = stupidity


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

braven said:


> Seems to be A LOT of Kool-Aid drinking going on.
> 
> Oh and my dad can beat up your dad.


Well to be totally honest he can and he did. :lol:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> So you don't think Dish subscribers are suffering from "DirecTV envy"?


Not anymore than normal.

Actually I think we are both on the road to be taken over by AT&T.First Echostar then DirecTV.Reason John Malone has been talking consolidating DirecTV which would make it easier to sell if the right offer comes along.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

richiephx said:


> Revenge = stupidity


*Oh?*


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

Today's DIRECTV ads said Over 80 channels.

Of course Dish will have an annoucement tomorrow that they instantly have 80 as well.

- Craig


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Spike said:


> I think E* subs. want the HD channels too. They are just committed to their service provider and are willing to wait it out until Dish has the bandwidth.


I suspect you could be right on the money there. How many D* subs waited without jumping ship until they had more HD channels?

For some it will come down to equipment, for a some LOS issues, For others in the same camp I'm in it comes down to not wanting to hear the noise if they change services and channel numbers have to be relearned. The noise I got when I changed services many years ago means that I won't be changing services unless it disappears. I got enough static when the old DVR died and I replaced it.

FWIW I had both E* & D* + USSB running side by side for almost a year. I even thought about getting P* as a third service and running all three until I decided. Does that give a time span or what.

Some of the new channels I haven't watched in years, Things like SciFi. The Only SciFi watcher is quite happy with her SDTV & DVR.

What I watched over this past weekend was Mythbusters, Holmes on Homes, and the previous weeks Networks shows. Nothing off of the permium movie channels. I'm thinking of droppiing them since they aren't being watched. My brother was over last night as I was looking to see what was on the Movie channels and was underwhelmed too. Bad news bears remake. Your's Mine and ours remake, The Preachers Wife remake and so on. They are remaking movies that were not that good to start. Or were good and the remake is so bad.... That's why I watch movies off of channels that show the old classic movies.

The Studios wonder why movies aren't doing as good as they think they should. They should watch them in a multiplex with sticky floors, small screens and noisy audience. Enough editorializing


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> Today's DIRECTV ads said Over 80 channels.
> 
> Of course Dish will have an annoucement tomorrow that they instantly have 80 as well.
> 
> - Craig


Or Dish could do a D* type ad compaign touting 200 Channels of HD coming soon. Sooner or later they'll have 200 channels


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Or they could say that AT&T will be buying out E* and using all profits to keep their UVerse service going and there will be no new HD on E*


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Not sure I understand all this brand loyalty for multi-mega-gazillion-dollar companies.
Why do you have to pick sides?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Not sure I understand all this brand loyalty for multi-mega-gazillion-dollar companies.
> Why do you have to pick sides?


Like cars, if our Dishes had wheels, we'd drag race 'em...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Not sure I understand all this brand loyalty for multi-mega-gazillion-dollar companies.
> Why do you have to pick sides?


It's all in good fun .. as for me, NFL ST says it all .. only one brand has it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's all in good fun .. as for me, NFL ST says it all .. only one brand has it.


With you there... 100%
I know its been hashed and rehashed. It would help if you could pick one or two teams in the ST also. To save some money - hypothetically.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Not sure I understand all this brand loyalty for multi-mega-gazillion-dollar companies.
> Why do you have to pick sides?


Basic human need for validation; it's is old as time. People want to think they made the "right" choice when they purchase things so they either build up their side or tear the other one down or both. Think Cave v. Lean-to, Ford v. Chevy, Pepsi v. Coke, Apple v. IBM, Beta v. VHS, and countless others.

I don't know what the size of the companies invloved has to do with it or why you bought that up.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

KurtV said:


> Basic human need for validation; it's is old as time. People want to think they made the "right" choice when they purchase things so they either build up their side or tear the other one down or both. Think Cave v. Lean-to, Ford v. Chevy, Pepsi v. Coke, Apple v. IBM, Beta v. VHS, and countless others.
> 
> I don't know what the size of the companies invloved has to do with it or why you bought that up.


"I don't know what the size of the companies invloved has to do with it or why you bought that up."

I brought up the size of the companies in an attempt to understand the fierce loyalty that's expressed regarding the thread subject, especially E* and D*. It's easy to understand the allegiance or loyalty to a small local mom and pop store (although there are less and less of them); the shop might be located down the street and/or you may even know Mom or Pop personally. I suspect very few posters here are on D* or E*'s CEO's fave five.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> "I don't know what the size of the companies invloved has to do with it or why you bought that up."
> 
> I brought up the size of the companies in an attempt to understand the fierce loyalty that's expressed regarding the thread subject, especially E* and D*. It's easy to understand the allegiance or loyalty to a small local mom and pop store (although there are less and less of them); the shop might be located down the street and/or you may even know Mom or Pop personally. I suspect very few posters here are on D* or E*'s CEO's fave five.


OK, but unless you did indeed know Mom or Pop personally, it doesn't seem any more or less illogical to be loyal to any company because of their relative market capitalization or sales.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

KurtV said:


> OK, but unless you did indeed know Mom or Pop personally, it doesn't seem any more or less illogical to be loyal to any company because of their relative market capitalization or sales.


Perhaps then, loyalty was not the correct word choice.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Perhaps then, loyalty was not the correct word choice.


I think it was and I think it's a fair and interesting point/question you make/ask. Brand loyalty is a funny thing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Loyalty can be given for any reason ... perhaps one respects small businesses even if they don't know mom and pop. The choice to go to a local store instead of the mega chain is one of these decisions. While Echostar has far outgrown their "mom and pop" beginnings, they still have that feel ... with the folksy "Charlie Chat" and "Tech Forum" programs and primary ownership maintained from it's creation by the same couple.

While Rupert Murdoch is associated with DirecTV it isn't the same feel. For him, it is a simple investment (one that John Malone will be assuming). There is no ma and pa remaining. There are no Rupert chats - he is just an identified owner.

Given the choice, if one were to favor "mom and pop" E* would be the closest match. Even if they all are billion dollar businesses. The "homespun" way of running the business seems to work it's way down as if you're doing business with Charlie when you do business with E*.

Loyalty is a good word ... and a good attitude. It generally isn't needed when everything is going your way - when the prices are right and offerings are 100% what you need. Loyalty comes in to play when the company does not deliver - perhaps the mom and pop store charging double the chain's prices or waiting a long time for something to come in stock to purchase it. Loyalty calls for decisions that may not be 100% logical.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> Loyalty can be given for any reason ... perhaps one respects small businesses even if they don't know mom and pop. The choice to go to a local store instead of the mega chain is one of these decisions. While Echostar has far outgrown their "mom and pop" beginnings, they still have that feel ... with the folksy "Charlie Chat" and "Tech Forum" programs and primary ownership maintained from it's creation by the same couple.
> 
> While Rupert Murdoch is associated with DirecTV it isn't the same feel. For him, it is a simple investment (one that John Malone will be assuming). There is no ma and pa remaining. There are no Rupert chats - he is just an identified owner.
> 
> ...


That's fair.
And D*'s?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are many examples of loyalty to D* ... those who held on for the past two years on a promise of HD. Those customers were not given everything they wanted when they wanted it, yet they remained loyal.

Loyalty to a company without DLB ... or who introduces a new HDDVR without OTA. Sometimes illogical but loyal.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I stayed with D* because they were willing to cut me a deal on the DVR. They didn't charge me the upfront fee. I was seriously considering switching before that. D* did what it took to keep me as a customer.

I'm glad I didn't switch now, as I would be regretting not having all the new HD channels.

Neither company is perfect, but right now D* has more of what I want. My service from them has been virtually trouble free. That is what keeps me a customer, not some intangible quality, or blind loyalty. I will continually reevaluate my choices as a customer, and if say, FiOS becomes more attractive, I'd have no problems switching to that.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

OFF TOPIC

Can we have a new forum called D vs E*?????


----------



## djstough (Nov 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are many examples of loyalty to D* ... those who held on for the past two years on a promise of HD. Those customers were not given everything they wanted when they wanted it, yet they remained loyal.
> 
> Loyalty to a company without DLB ... or who introduces a new HDDVR without OTA. Sometimes illogical but loyal.


sarcasm on/ DLB? What's that? /sarcasm off

I haven't had this since I replaced the last TIVO unit. But to be honest, I don't miss it. I know there are those that are almost fanatical about it. But I could care less. I have my own workflow that it doesn't impede.

Why is having no OTA illogical? If you are going to carry the locals via satellite, in HD, who needs em? The sub-channels? Wow, a secondary feed of some old SD shows. I can honestly say that when I had OTA hooked up, I never watched a sub-channel. If there isn't a market for them on ALL recievers, why go to the expense of designing and building it in?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> There are many examples of loyalty to D* ... those who held on for the past two years on a promise of HD. Those customers were not given everything they wanted when they wanted it, yet they remained loyal.
> 
> Loyalty to a company without DLB ... or who introduces a new HDDVR without OTA. Sometimes illogical but loyal.


I dont see why the last part would be an issue. Sure they introduced a box without OTA, but they are still making the HR-20 too. So who cares?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> It's all in good fun .. as for me, NFL ST says it all .. only one brand has it.


Then you haven't heard the Comcast commercials touting them as the "home of NFL football" or their new HD commercials that say they have "210 HD channels at any given time," blowing away DirecTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

msmith198025 said:



> I dont see why the last part would be an issue. Sure they introduced a box without OTA, but they are still making the HR-20 too. So who cares?


Would your opinion change if the HR-20 ceased production entirely? (Not a prediction, just a question.)

The answer isn't really the point ... the point is that people will overlook deficiencies out of loyalty. Do you not want your receiver to be the best it can be? Isn't it loyalty that allows you to consider a multi-billion dollar company saving a few bucks on design and parts as being more important than providing a feature that would keep it on par (or better) than similar receivers?

Some of the best HD in the world is available OTA ... and it isn't wrung through another compression level and squeezed on a satellite feed. People spend hundreds of dollars on getting a good OTA antenna so they can get this better HD. By not having an OTA tuner D* is denying access to the best quality HD there is (not to mention the HD local channels that are not available via satellite).

All to save a buck? It takes loyalty to accept that!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> Some of the best HD in the world is available OTA ... and it isn't wrung through another compression level and squeezed on a satellite feed. People spend hundreds of dollars on getting a good OTA antenna so they can get this better HD. By not having an OTA tuner D* is denying access to the best quality HD there is (not to mention the HD local channels that are not available via satellite).
> 
> All to save a buck? It takes loyalty to accept that!


So to save a buck the reason that E* has put only 1 ATSC tuner in their HD DVR's limiting their customers to be able to record only one channel of the best quality HD out there?

Earl, one of your fellow mods, has said that D* has NOT stopped producing the HR20's just the model 700, the 100 still is being produced, there's just a shortage of HR20's at the moment, if you scream loud enough for a new install you can get one. The three closest CC's to me in Austin all show they have HR20's available in store.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Would your opinion change if the HR-20 ceased production entirely? (Not a prediction, just a question.)
> 
> The answer isn't really the point ... the point is that people will overlook deficiencies out of loyalty. Do you not want your receiver to be the best it can be? Isn't it loyalty that allows you to consider a multi-billion dollar company saving a few bucks on design and parts as being more important than providing a feature that would keep it on par (or better) than similar receivers?
> 
> ...


Well it wont, but i will humor you. Id love to have it intergrated into the box, sure, but i have one built into both of my plasmas, plus a seperate set top digital tuner, so life would go on.

And i dont see it as overlooking a deficiency in the way you were using it. Sure ONE box doesnt have it in the HR model line, however the ONE does.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

RAD said:


> So to save a buck the reason that E* has put only 1 ATSC tuner in their HD DVR's limiting their customers to be able to record only one channel of the best quality HD out there?
> 
> Earl, one of your fellow mods, has said that D* has NOT stopped producing the HR20's just the model 700, the 100 still is being produced, there's just a shortage of HR20's at the moment, if you scream loud enough for a new install you can get one. The three closest CC's to me in Austin all show they have HR20's available in store.


And the main reason (i have heard, have no numbers to back it up) that there is a shortage of the 20s is that there was a sudden increase in HD subs in the past few months(cant imagine why... ). Those new subs signed up before the HR-21 was released, so they got....you guessed it a HR-20. Then D* decided to stop production of the hr-20 700 for Pace to make the hr-21. Which is why in some areas you see people getting 21s instead of 20s. The situation will correct itself given time.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> The answer isn't really the point ... the point is that people will overlook deficiencies out of loyalty. Do you not want your receiver to be the best it can be? Isn't it loyalty that allows you to consider a multi-billion dollar company saving a few bucks on design and parts as being more important than providing a feature that would keep it on par (or better) than similar receivers?
> 
> Some of the best HD in the world is available OTA ... and it isn't wrung through another compression level and squeezed on a satellite feed. People spend hundreds of dollars on getting a good OTA antenna so they can get this better HD. By not having an OTA tuner D* is denying access to the best quality HD there is (not to mention the HD local channels that are not available via satellite).
> 
> All to save a buck? It takes loyalty to accept that!


Loyalty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. People will also overlook the deficiencies of one provider because they don't consider them as bad as the deficiencies of the other providers.

Also, most HDTVs nowadays have tuners in them. It's not like D* is keeping people from using those.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Then you haven't heard the Comcast commercials touting them as the "home of NFL football" or their new HD commercials that say they have "210 HD channels at any given time," blowing away DirecTV.


yeah, I heard that commercial .. nearly spit out all of my soda when I heard it :lol: Besides, it's still not Sunday Ticket and that's not the only reason I stick with DIRECTV. The lack of Comcast customer service will keep me away from them forever if at all possible.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

QuickDrop said:


> Loyalty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. People will also overlook the deficiencies of one provider because they don't consider them as bad as the deficiencies of the other providers.


Ah yes, the lesser of two evils theory .. nothing wrong with that. Also, in some cases, it's go with the enemy you know rather than the one you don't.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Would your opinion change if the HR-20 ceased production entirely? (Not a prediction, just a question.)
> 
> The answer isn't really the point ... the point is that people will overlook deficiencies out of loyalty. Do you not want your receiver to be the best it can be? Isn't it loyalty that allows you to consider a multi-billion dollar company saving a few bucks on design and parts as being more important than providing a feature that would keep it on par (or better) than similar receivers?
> 
> ...


But the HR21 will be getting an OTA tuner:
http://www.satelliteguys.us/1109227-post1.html


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jjohns said:


> I suspect very few posters here are on D* or E*'s CEO's fave five.


Of course I'm not on Charlie's fave five, I hate that guy. But Chase and I are tight. :lol:


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

OTA is very important to many customers.

Not all of us have locals in SD. So when HD locals are available is anyone's guess. And then when they are we might not get all networks via DirecTV. In my case. NBC and The CW aren't available OTA. And MyNetwork is on a subchannel. I can get ABC, CBS, Fox and PBS via OTA, (with pixelation). I have DNS waivers. 

Back on topic, TWC here has a pathetic HD lineup, so they aren't even in the running against DirecTV.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> Loyalty can be given for any reason ... perhaps one respects small businesses even if they don't know mom and pop. The choice to go to a local store instead of the mega chain is one of these decisions. While Echostar has far outgrown their "mom and pop" beginnings, they still have that feel ... with the folksy "Charlie Chat" and "Tech Forum" programs and primary ownership maintained from it's creation by the same couple.
> 
> While Rupert Murdoch is associated with DirecTV it isn't the same feel. For him, it is a simple investment (one that John Malone will be assuming). There is no ma and pa remaining. There are no Rupert chats - he is just an identified owner.
> 
> ...


E*, a publically traded company with 20,000+ employees, is a mom and pop operation (or the "closest match to one")? Please. Does the E* subscriber get that "homespun" feeling when a CSR from India answers their call for help? That assertion couldn't be any more ridiculous.

As to the rest of your drivel, I never suspend logic to be loyal to a local merchant and neither, I believe, do most other people. I'm willing to pay higher prices to local businesses than I would at a big box retailer or internet seller when they offer superior service, a better atmosphere, a better product, or when they have really good looking employees. For me, those things are part of the value I receive from those transactions. This is quite often the case for me, so I and my family do much of our business with small merchants. On the other hand, locals who couple higher prices with poor service can't go out of business quickly enough for me.

Most of what you wrote has little to nothing to do with brand loyalty. That's a completely different animal. While brand loyalty is certainly a function of quality, it's also a psychological phenomenon driven by people wanting to believe they made the right choice.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> There are many examples of loyalty to D* ... those who held on for the past two years on a promise of HD. Those customers were not given everything they wanted when they wanted it, yet they remained loyal.
> 
> Loyalty to a company without DLB ... or who introduces a new HDDVR without OTA. Sometimes illogical but loyal.


trolling?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nope. Responding to a thread I am participating in ... on topic for where the thread was at the moment of my reply. The issues listed are valid complaints of D* subscribers.

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


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> Nope. Responding to a thread I am participating in ... on topic for where the thread was at the moment of my reply. The issues listed are valid complaints of D* subscribers.
> 
> Trolling would be skimming all the threads in the forum looking for a place to insert my viewpoint, and trying to entice others to post in anger. I'd prefer that people not post in anger.


You're more of the passive aggressive type.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:backtotop


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> :backtotop


which was....oh yeah, Directv just blew E*.........out of the water i mean


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Or more accurately, one poster and a few supporters are happy that D* began to add new HD channels two months ago.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

If these aren't symptoms of a thread that has totally run it's course, I don't know what is.

of course, if it's left open, we can all revisit it six or twelve months from now when someone finds it in some search and responds to it as if it was current.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Or more accurately, one poster and a few supporters are happy that D* began to add new HD channels two months ago.


That is more or less correct, and if they happen to leapfrog their major competition by a large margin in the process is just an added bonus for them(D*)


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> If these aren't symptoms of a thread that has totally run it's course, I don't know what is.
> 
> of course, if it's left open, we can all revisit it six or twelve months from now when someone finds it in some search and responds to it as if it was current.


bah, its still fun from time to time


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> bah, its still fun from time to time


The irony is especially entertaining.



James Long in the Dish HD forum said:


> And once again the trolls have invited themselves into the E* forum.


Apparently, it's trolling when a Directv subscriber posts a comment in a Dish Network forum, but somehow, it's _okay_ when it's the other way around?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Of course!


----------



## old7 (Dec 1, 2005)

man_rob said:


> The irony is especially entertaining.
> 
> Apparently, it's trolling when a Directv subscriber posts a comment in a Dish Network forum, but somehow, it's _okay_ when it's the other way around?


I've been wondering about that myself.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Do you folks realize you're doing a little trolling yourselves, baiting another user here (a moderator, even) with your most recent posts?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Do you folks realize you're doing a little trolling yourselves, baiting another user here (a moderator, even) with your most recent posts?


You are right, but it is case of what goes around comes around.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> The irony is especially entertaining.
> 
> Apparently, it's trolling when a Directv subscriber posts a comment in a Dish Network forum, but somehow, it's _okay_ when it's the other way around?


Looks like it to me - and I guess many others as well.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Since this thread has aged greatly and we're talking about trolling more than we're talking about DBS, I'm closing this thread.

Let us remember to be ladies and gentlemen in our discussions in true DBSTalk'er fashion. Thanks!

Tom


----------

