I think the idea of ceasing SD broadcast is starting to make some sense. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like every argument to keep SD has been rebutted.
I think the idea of ceasing SD broadcast is starting to make some sense. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like every argument to keep SD has been rebutted.
Correct. Of course Disney would say, "Yes, Dish should pay us twice for the same content." As for john69's assertion of not having an SD backup: We are leaving the page where channels are going to be referred to as HD. Meaning that Dish would offer the Disney channel and you have HD equipment, you get it in HD, and if you have SD equipment, you still get the same feed as the HD, but it is down converted by the box to your SDTV. So, it becomes a situation BEFORE the HD's came into existence. If Dish loses Disney channel, we ALL lose it.
It makes no economic sense for any provider such as Dish, DirecTV, cable, etc, to pay one fee for the SD and another the HD simulcast in the long run. This "double dipping" attempt by the channels is going to come to a head soon as it does become economical to switch everyone over to receiving the HD signal only with its bandwidth saving benifit and my even have to be legislated because these channels are NOT going to give up the "double dipping" dream plan they have to have ever more ways to extrude $$$ money from the providers.
I see the word probably a lot there. It seems like there should be some legalaties involved here. Public domain and all that stuff. Why would/should any carrier pay extra for the SD feed when the HD feed satisfies all subs? If anything it should be the SD channel considered "optional" even though in reality the SD channel is useless for anybody but the provider and that use is totally unjustifiable except for lining their pockets. On moral levels it should be illegal. Double dipping is bad, unless it's on an ice cream cone.Disney is viewing the HD & SD feed as separate channels and wants payment for both. They also probably refuse to sell the HD channel in a package without the SD version. And to get ESPN they probably require all the SD versions. They work the contract so that DBS/Cable has no choice but to carry all the channels in SD and pay again if they want to carry the "optional" HD version.
I see the word probably a lot there. It seems like there should be some legalaties involved here. Public domain and all that stuff. Why would/should any carrier pay extra for the SD feed when the HD feed satisfies all subs? If anything it should be the SD channel considered "optional" even though in reality the SD channel is useless for anybody but the provider and that use is totally unjustifiable except for lining their pockets. On moral levels it should be illegal. Double dipping is bad, unless it's on an ice cream cone.
Morals? These programmers are businesses that are profit driven. They have the right to set pricing on how they sell their product.I see the word probably a lot there. It seems like there should be some legalaties involved here. Public domain and all that stuff. Why would/should any carrier pay extra for the SD feed when the HD feed satisfies all subs? If anything it should be the SD channel considered "optional" even though in reality the SD channel is useless for anybody but the provider and that use is totally unjustifiable except for lining their pockets. On moral levels it should be illegal. Double dipping is bad, unless it's on an ice cream cone.
Shouldn't that be extort $$$ ?
I disagree with that statement. Based on my experience in servicing a huge retirement community the difference between SD and HD is easily noticed on anything designed for HD and 32" and up. They may watch whatever comes on but they sure see the difference between SD and HD. At 40" you'd have to be blind not to see the difference. Anyone buying a new TV 42" thru 65" will demand HD in order to justify the expense of their new display.The mass majority of people in the US that even have HD available on their tvs, do no know the difference and do not care. They blindly watch whatever comes on mindlessly. HD on a screen size of less than 40 inches is not that impressive.
i like having the option to use both SD and HD when it comes to my DVR. an hd broadcast takes up over 6 times as much room on my harddrive as the standered definition version. that would limit my 722 to only 55 hours of recording period. right now i can record up to 350 hours if i did so only in SD. i like having the choice of being able to budget my hours this way.
also, when weather gets bad, first sat i lose every time is 129. with my dish peaked i only get as high as 60 points on various transponders, while my 119 is hitting mid 80's. so when the weather does come in and i lose my hd channel, i can always flip over to the SD feed and pull off of 110 119 .
If the fcc has its way, ota hd will go bye-bye. They want to free spectrum by putting all tv's in one city on one transmitter and mux them into the bandwidth of one. That will kill things as some stations run the full bandwidth for HD, others already cramp HD and 1, 2 , 3 or more SD's and below into one band. You can't do 2 full quality OTA's in one channel.