I don't think which hd receiver the hd subs have is germaine to the issue. The H20 requires the 5 lnb dish just like the HR 20 does. The H20 is (mostly) installed by D* techs, just like the HR20. Why does the type of box matter?
DIRECTV: 100 HDTV Channels In 2007
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 178
- Views 28K
- Status
I don't think which hd receiver the hd subs have is germaine to the issue. The H20 requires the 5 lnb dish just like the HR 20 does. The H20 is (mostly) installed by D* techs, just like the HR20. Why does the type of box matter?
Your numbers ARE way off. We are talking about a long-term plan to transition from the legacy system to the newer 5lnb, Ka MPEG4 system, and its a plan that had to be conceived YEARS ago. It actually has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how many HD subs there are today, or how many have a HD-DVR. The new system is for ALL HD programming upcoming - regardless of DVR or NOT.
Maybe SYLVAN is right for you, as your limiting of this discussion to current HD-DVR subs is lrrelevant really, as it CERTAINLY INCLUDES ALL HD subs, as well as the needs that would have occurred with current SD subs that want to go HD when they light add'l programming. They really had to go market by market to ease problems that would happen if they went nationwide all at the same time. This plan has enabled them to have a great headstart in getting subs infraqstructure in place BEFORE launch of nationals.
You don't have to offer the most, or the best-quality, in order to be a leader. Leadership manifests itself in many different ways.
Channels like CNN, SciFi, and others have been delaying their transition to HD due to lack of sufficient providers. Of course D* will not have an exclusive, they're not premium-tier content and there is no financial incentive.
Sounds hokey, but D* gets to call itself a leader b/c they will have it first; and in having some channels first, will drive more channels to offer HD content in order to compete for viewership.
No it does not apply, not all subs are going to adopt MPEG4 right out of the gate. Only geeks like us adopt on "day 1", other trickle in as did the entire subscriber base. I was wrong to break it into a DVR demographic as it is does not apply. However, even if every single "fourm member" adopted that is still less than 250, 000 people, break out the 45% that are dish subs and another 25% for cable you are looking at less than 75,000 people to address. 1/2 of a percent of DirecTV's total customer base are a factor.
My point is, and I maintain it to be, DirecTV poorly address and executed utilization of SW1&2.
My point is, and I maintain it to be, DirecTV poorly address and executed utilization of SW1&2.
But you know TVBob (Questioner) - he ALWAYS yaps WITHOUT facts, just to bash D* (just remember back to his rants about NESN going HD from avsforum). Its like his quote about the 'vast majority' of cable companies having superior HD offerings - I'm waiting for how he came to this conclusion, and frankly any specific information to back it up. My local cable companies (and ths is a big market) do not have a superior (either equal or a couple of add'l channels) HD line-up. In fact, CABLEVISION doesn't even carry its OWN VOOM programming (they OWN RAINBOW MEDIA). That's kind of interesting isn't it? Frankly, once DIRECTV10 is online, the capacity for D* will be 4x greater than my local cable companies, and they have already updated their fiber network - without dropping SD channels I don't see ANY WAY they will be able to substantially increase their HD offering to keep up.
And yes Questioner, I know you will respond to my comment, but I also know you WILL NOT respond with specific info regarding the 'vast majority' of cable companies. You don't have this info. But you like to talk like you do. To make a statement like that, you would need to have a published report or study, or have read it in a reputable publication. Just point us to it please. Thanks. If you need to learn how to post a link - just ask.
Last edited:
FIOS' biggest challenge is regulatory. It's an expensive rollout. The telco's want to rollout FIOS service in affluent areas first, and haven't committed to any plans to rollout in less affluent areas. The regulators want to see equal access for everybody, they don't want to see FIOS as a priviledged-only service.
I would expect that the Democrats controlling Congress would only make it tougher on the telco's to do small-scale rollouts in affluent areas.
The fact remains that MOST cable companies DO NOT have capability NOW to increase their HD offerings.
If they did, why DON'T they do it? I mean there are LOTs of HD channels NOW AVAILABLE and NOT OFFERED by MOST CABLE COMPANIES. Question - Why is that?
After DIRECTV10 is lit up, I can hardly imagine the trolling that will go on if they don't add HD in a significant way - once their bandwidth issues are resolved. Why NO CLAMOR regarding the cable companies NOW doing the same?
If they did, why DON'T they do it? I mean there are LOTs of HD channels NOW AVAILABLE and NOT OFFERED by MOST CABLE COMPANIES. Question - Why is that?
After DIRECTV10 is lit up, I can hardly imagine the trolling that will go on if they don't add HD in a significant way - once their bandwidth issues are resolved. Why NO CLAMOR regarding the cable companies NOW doing the same?
Uh, I didn't actually say that. Of course you're free to apply your interpretation, but I did not take a stand regarding market-speak.
FWIW, I generally ignore market-speak whether it's a company/product that I like or not. It's all BS.
And it sounds like the quality you want is going to require a wire for the forseeable future. The vast majority of the viewing public simply are not discriminating in issues of audio or video quality. The mission of any company like D* or E* has to be to make money, and that requires a huge viewing public -- not catering to the relatively few who are discriminating.
There is always going to be a decision to be made in the tradeoff between quality and quantity. Not everyone is going to agree with you, so companies are going to lean toward maximizing their revenues.
You can live with it, or find another provider. It's that simple.
Please explain.
They aquired SW1&2 late stages of them being built and they were both built as spotbeam only sats. What else would you have them do with SW1&2? Just sit on them and do nothing?
SW1&2 work in my market. ABC is not avail but thats because of LIN. I dont think it was a bad use for them at all delivering spotbeam HD LIL. I think most the delays have to do with local market negotiations and are not technical limitations of the satellites.
Obviously, the biggest part of the outcry is simple frustration IMO. That frustration leads to EVERY imaginable sort of scenario being presented - even those without any possibility. To ignore the transition from Hughes to New Corp and what that meant in terms of SW1/2 (and ground stations, etc.) is impossible. I think you are pretty much on target with your thoughts, they did a pretty amazing job of re-configuring those 2 birds for DBS use exclusively in a pretty short time actually. BTW, SW3 (for Hughes) is set to launch for Broadband use in May 07.
But, I ask again, under the REAL-WORLD situations, and bandwidth limitations, and need to get the sub base infrastructure in place (5lnb - MPEG4 - Ka), this really WAS the best way to roll it out. You can't just focus on one little piece of this maze and think you have a better solution, its just way more complex than that. Now ALL of that being said, it would have been nice to get this done sooner, but reality is that this is the time-frame established over 2 1/2 years ago, and its moving right along.
Don't forget, DISH just started offering its HD-DVR for free. My 'free-market' knowledge tells me that if you are pushing items out the door
(and getting some money for them as well)at a rate that is hitting your goals, you don't just become a nice-guy and give it away for free.
My instinct tells me that this is a pre-emptive marketing strategy (and possibly a good one for them) to sign up as many HD subs as they can before mid-year when the HUGE D* HD advantage takes hold. Think about it before you respond - its NOT a knock on E*, rather its praise for them in advance of DIRECTV10 lighting up. If you think the D* ads are STRONG now, wait for the ones that air AFTER the birds are turned on.
(and getting some money for them as well)at a rate that is hitting your goals, you don't just become a nice-guy and give it away for free.
My instinct tells me that this is a pre-emptive marketing strategy (and possibly a good one for them) to sign up as many HD subs as they can before mid-year when the HUGE D* HD advantage takes hold. Think about it before you respond - its NOT a knock on E*, rather its praise for them in advance of DIRECTV10 lighting up. If you think the D* ads are STRONG now, wait for the ones that air AFTER the birds are turned on.
Why does their have to be a clamor for a tv provider to add channels? Dish may be an exception, as you have to launch a new sat to add much space, but while it is not that simple of a process either, cable and broadband companies can add capacity much more quietly, either by acquiring smaller providers or making use of ground infrastructures that already exist and are being further developed. You are fooling yourself if you think comcast, voom etc aren't making plans as we speak to be able to carry the very same package of hd channels directv has announced. They just don't need to make a huge pr event out of it.
Last edited:
I think it's foolish to expect any provider to completely dominate other providers in terms of hd offerings, most likely providers will be adding capacity at a relatively equal pace. That said though, there still be may better hd providers than others, like there are now, but it's not going to a cut and dry choice where one company offers 10 times the number of channels as any other. Keep dreaming about your directv empire though.
No, they just have to find a ton of money to do upgrades and a bunch of time. While a DBS company can expand capacity by launching a new satellite and using new transponder licences, cable companies need to do physical plant upgrades on all their systems to expand capacity. That could be as simple as changing all digital channels from QAM to QAM256, to dropping all analog channels and going completly digital to changing their infrastructure from broadband to switched video. This is something that will take time and a bunch of money. You can be sure that the cable companies will cherry pick which systems get upgraded just like the telco's are doing with their plant upgrades to allow them to provide video services.
LOL, you make it sound like launching a satellite is an easy thing to do.
Costly for cable companies, yes, but my point was feasible, and probably required in the minds of their execs to keep up with technology and the competition and for long term revenues. But again, the pace they need to expand will depend entirely on what their competition is doing, they will all be watching each other closely and will not allow another provider to get a 6 month jump on them, whether they lose money in the short term or not.
Costly for cable companies, yes, but my point was feasible, and probably required in the minds of their execs to keep up with technology and the competition and for long term revenues. But again, the pace they need to expand will depend entirely on what their competition is doing, they will all be watching each other closely and will not allow another provider to get a 6 month jump on them, whether they lose money in the short term or not.
- Status
Similar threads
