DIRECTV: 100 HDTV Channels In 2007

[Newshawk]

I wasn't aware cable and broadband services had to launch satellites to expand programming (the same cable and broadband services direct claims to beat in terms of hd capacity in their latest commercials).

You got me there, Questioner... or is that TVBob? You're right... cable services don't have to launch satellites to expand programming. They have to replace hundreds (or thousands) of miles of copper cables with an equal number of miles of fiber optic lines-a much more expensive, time consuming and labor intensive proposition. Or, cable companies could just shut down all their analog channels and go all digital... forcing the vast majority of their customers into renting digital STBs when they never had to before.

As for broadband services, they are still building out their fiber optic networks, and their impact on the subscription TV is minimal right now, outside of the buzz factor.

And while dish may not have capacity to launch a slew of new channels, they are already leading directv in the hd wars so they may not need new sats to hold that lead or at least stay equal.

Hmmm... 30 channels vice 70.... 29 HD LiL markets vice 49 increasing to 100... E* will have to have a LOT of spare capacity they're not using right now to even "stay equal", much less "hold thier lead."

I don't think you understood the 2nd part of that, I have no doubt CNN and other major networks will be launching in hd later this year, but it won't be on directv exclusively. Meaning if they are on many different providers, that doesn't exactly help directv become the hd leader.

Whether or not they do, what other provider is going to have the dedicated HD capacity first? D*.

 

[Questioner]

TVBob...drinking the scobuck kool aid it seems?

I agree cable and broadband providers will be in big trouble if directv actually launches dozens of hd channels they don't have by the start of the 3rd quarter, but no realistic observer of the industry really expects that to happen. Hd will expand in drips and drabs, albeit probably more quickly than we have seen so far, giving all types of providers time to slowly expand.

Capacity is only as good as how effectively and quickly you are able to use it. I think directvs marketing plan is fatally flawed if they want viewers to switch based on capacity and promises 6 months out. Most subs will make their decisions based on what providers are offering now. It may be a better strategy for keeping customers however.

 

[rad]

LOL, you make it sound like launching a satellite is an easy thing to do.

Compared to what the cable companies and telco's need to do, yep, easy in comparison.

 

[Newshawk]

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.

You obviously have no idea of how complicated it is to do an expansion of cable infrastructure. Having worked for a cable company for 11 years, I've seen first hand how complicated, time consuming and downright maddening it can be! Six months? When planning any infrastructure upgrade, cable talks in years, not months.

 

[Questioner]

Compared to what the cable companies and telco's need to do, yep, easy in comparison.

Well, sure when you actually pay other people to do all the work then I guess launching something into outer space is easier, but it's still easier to find people capable of rewiring cabling and even dealing with the government's regulations (as annoying as that is) than it is finding those who are nasa qualified.

 

[Questioner]

You obviously have no idea of how complicated it is to do an expansion of cable infrastructure. Having worked for a cable company for 11 years, I've seen first hand how complicated, time consuming and downright maddening it can be! Six months? When planning any infrastructure upgrade, cable talks in years, not months.

You obviously are no longer in the cable company loop if you do not know there is already work being done now to expand hd and broadband offerings....it's just not being done fast enough to launch 150 hd channels in 6 or 8 months, but it likely won't need to be that rapid. It's indeed a painstaking process, but one that is already underway and has been for quite some time to meet the demands of the future. No provider is dumb enough to have been completely ignoring the future all this time.

 

[rad]

You obviously are no longer in the cable company loop if you do not know there is already work being done now to expand hd and broadband offerings....it's just not being done fast enough to launch 150 hd channels in 6 or 8 months, but it likely won't need to be that rapid. It's indeed a painstaking process, but one that is already underway and has been for quite some time to meet the demands of the future. No provider is dumb enough to have been completely ignoring the future all this time.

Since you appear to be in the loop, can you please let us know by what date all the cable companies will have the upgraded infrastructure to match that capacity? If not then please don't comment if you don't know.

 

[Questioner]

It is probably correct to say that major cable and broadband companies will be behind directv in terms of hd capacity for a while, I don't see them being able to provide that many channels until well into 2008, but that doesn't mean directv will be offering more channels just because they have the capacity to. Thus, cable and broadband executives aren't exactly shaking in their boots.

Because of the slower and more ongoing nature of cable expansion, you can't really make a huge event out of it like switching on a satellite's capacity all at once, so I don't expect any sexy announcements about huge increases in capacity.

One thing I can tell you that I learned from a source yesterday is many comcast branches fully intend to carry cnn hd and several of the other major stations directv mentioned...when they go live later this year.

 

[GaryPen]

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?

A lot of it is financial. Think Charlie is cheap? Cable companies throw coins around like manhole covers.

Some of it, of course, is related to bandwidth. But, they have been working to upgrade the older antiquated systems, which needed it anyway regardless of HD. And, in the renovated systems, they have been doing things to free up bandwidth. The first was to change from QAM64 to QAM256. That was similar to dbs systems going from mpeg2 to mpeg4. They are also removing unnecessary PPV channels in areas served by OnDemand. (A vastly superior VOD service to anything dbs has to offer currently, and their biggest advantage over dbs.) Finally, they are converting channels from analog to digital, eventually only leaving the "lifeline" channels as analog, if any. (Remember, OTA will be going completely digital soon, removing the old analog channels completely. Why wouldn't cable follow?) Once analog is gone (or at least a huge chunk of it), cable will have incredible bandwidth. (Each snowy, ghosty analog SD channel uses about the same bandwidth as an HD digital channel, or multiple SD digital channels.)

Right now, it seems to me that the only real advantage dbs has over the better cable systems is price. But, that is only D*. For higher end packages, E* is just as expensive as Comcast in my area. FiOS and U-Verse may just pass them all. They will at least provide viable alternatives for many. Just their presence will add the kind of competition that stirs things up, and usually ends up adding value to the consumer, either by causing lower prices, higher quality, or increased quantity.

This next year will see some big changes in the TV service provider industry, despite a totally lackluster CES. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Questioner]

Thank you for providing some more technical details about what cable and broadband companies have been doing.....that is not my strong suit. But I can confirm what you describe has been going on, albeit slowly.

 

[ScoBuck]

You obviously are no longer in the cable company loop if you do not know there is already work being done now to expand hd and broadband offerings....it's just not being done fast enough to launch 150 hd channels in 6 or 8 months, but it likely won't need to be that rapid. It's indeed a painstaking process, but one that is already underway and has been for quite some time to meet the demands of the future. No provider is dumb enough to have been completely ignoring the future all this time.

A complete turnaround from your post the other day that the VAST MAJORITY OF CABLE COMPANIES ALREADY have quantity and quality? I knew you WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BACK THAT UP. Again, you post, you retreat, you excuse your ridiculous comments. And we ALL know you are TVBob, I don't need any kool aid!

 

[jpn]

Capacity is only as good as how effectively and quickly you are able to use it. I think directvs marketing plan is fatally flawed if they want viewers to switch based on capacity and promises 6 months out. Most subs will make their decisions based on what providers are offering now. It may be a better strategy for keeping customers however.

I doubt anybody is naiive enough to expect masses of new subscribers to jump on the D* bandwagon just b/c of its HD offerings, but it will probably lure-in a moderate number of new subscribers. It's probably a better strategy to get some existing D* subscribers to upgrade to HDTV.

 

[ScoBuck]

I beg to differ as far as hd. I would say the vast majority of the major cable companies offer either more hd channels and/or better quality hd than directv, and equal or better hd dvrs than the hr20. Even the mediocre hd dvrs some cable companies give you you can at least hack moreso than the hr20, to enable some sort of video sharing that directv will probably not deliver for months, if not years.

I would say directv does have an edge more often when it comes to comparing non-hd channels.

here was your quote (before you can edit it and change it)

How about some SPECIFICS on this - what is the VAST MAJORITY?

 

[Questioner]

A complete turnaround from your post the other day that the VAST MAJORITY OF CABLE COMPANIES ALREADY have quantity and quality? I knew you WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BACK THAT UP. Again, you post, you retreat, you excuse your ridiculous comments. And we ALL know you are TVBob, I don't need any kool aid!

What are you talking about? I never said other providers have the number of channels directv fanboys seem to expect to have later this year, but in most cases, they do have both better hd quantity and quality than directv right now. No, it's not an insane difference, but there is a difference nonetheless.

 

[ScoBuck]

What are you talking about? I never said other providers have the number of channels directv fanboys seem to expect to have later this year, but in most cases, they do have both better hd quantity and quality than directv right now. No, it's not an insane difference, but there is a difference nonetheless.

no you said VAST MAJORITY. What I am asking is give me some examples - not generalities. C'mon Bob step up to the plate.

 

[Questioner]

here was your quote (before you can edit it and change it)

How about some SPECIFICS on this - what is the VAST MAJORITY?

I believe some specifics about typical cable company hd lineups were already mentioned earlier in this thread. Please just look some websites yourself and stop denying that there are better hd packages out there. Otherwise, I will be more than happy to do some research later today when I have more free time.

 

[Questioner]

no you said VAST MAJORITY. What I am asking is give me some examples - not generalities. C'mon Bob step up to the plate.

Yes, but I never said the vast majority are offering 10 times the number of channels as directv or 3 times the resolution....way to manipulate my posts.

 

[ScoBuck]

Yes, but I never said the vast majority are offering 10 times the number of channels as directv or 3 times the resolution....way to manipulate my posts.

Ok one last time. I did NOT manipulate your post, I just quoted the ENTIRE DAMN THING.

To make a statement that the VAST MAJORITY have this or that, you HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS or can reference a specific article or something to that effect. My belief is that you have NO SPECIFIC way to back up this claim (as expected.).

And to answer you, your wrong. In fact TODAY, DISH has more HD channels, and more full rezz HD channels (geez everyone knows that). As far as cable, there is no way a VAST MAJORITY have more channels (some do for sure), or higher quality (some do for sure). In fact, its ALL OVER THE RANGE with cable companies.

You need to have some facts behind you when you make these outrageous claims - geez, when DirecTV makes an outrageous claim, your among the FIRST TO COMPLAIN.

 

[Questioner]

Ok one last time. I did NOT manipulate your post, I just quoted the ENTIRE DAMN THING.

To make a statement that the VAST MAJORITY have this or that, you HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS or can reference a specific article or something to that effect. My belief is that you have NO SPECIFIC way to back up this claim (as expected.).

And to answer you, your wrong. In fact TODAY, DISH has more HD channels, and more full rezz HD channels (geez everyone knows that). As far as cable, there is no way a VAST MAJORITY have more channels (some do for sure), or higher quality (some do for sure). In fact, its ALL OVER THE RANGE with cable companies.

You need to have some facts behind you when you make these outrageous claims - geez, when DirecTV makes an outrageous claim, your among the FIRST TO COMPLAIN.

Well, I would suggest just typing in zip codes on comcasts or coxs channel lineup pages, just now to confirm what I observed before I would say about 80 percent of the areas I looked at offered at least 25-35 percent more hd channels than directv does now. All over the range? Perhaps, but overall it's clear directv is lagging beind in both quality and quantity.

 

[ScoBuck]

Well, I would suggest just typing in zip codes on comcasts or coxs channel lineup pages, just now to confirm what I observed before I would say about 80 percent of the areas I looked at offered at least 25-35 percent more hd channels than directv does now. All over the range? Perhaps, but overall it's clear directv is lagging beind in both quality and quantity.

Of course, still nothing specific. But I'll drop that one and agree with you (you will never admit your wrong of course). Now you say 25 - 35% more HD channels. I see that D* offers 9 HD nationals. So, if they offer 25% more thats a WHOPPING 2 channels, if its 35% a OVERWHELMING 3 more channels. Guess what Bob, they are gonna get blown out when BOTH satcos light up the sky.