EchoStar: 6 More HDTV Channels In 2007

[mike123abc]

I don't think Dish is dumb enough to charge MORE for HD in the future. They already charge the highest.

You are correct. But, they charge this much because they know they can get away with it for now. I would not be surprised that in the future they were forced to lower the added cost on the HD package. But, it will probably happen where they just raise the price of the regular package and reduce the cost of the HD add on and you end up saving nothing.

 

[clrntsqueak]

You are correct. But, they charge this much because they know they can get away with it for now. I would not be surprised that in the future they were forced to lower the added cost on the HD package. But, it will probably happen where they just raise the price of the regular package and reduce the cost of the HD add on and you end up saving nothing.

I agree. Once DirecTV can match Dish's offerings while maintaining their $10 price, Dish will have no choice but to lower the price. This is to fool the customer of course because they sure will raise other prices to subsidize for the price drop. The beauty of competition, huh?

 

[MikeD-C05]

IF Voom was an ala carte add on instead of a forced requirement with the hd pack then DISH could lower the price of their hd pack. HD was always 9.99 and then they added Voom about 2 or 3 years ago for 10 channels at 5.00 extra, or 14.99 for the hd pack. Then last year they added 5 more Voom channels and they jacked the price to 20.00. WE are paying for the Voom channels and the constant repeats that are on them. They might just have to either absorb the price of the Voom channels and add either make them ala carte.

I am sure many people would drop them if it meant saving 10.00 a month. Especially if they start making hd channels like SCi- Fi, Usa,Tbs,etc . Most of the Voom channels I don't watch, but I like Rave, Monsters, hd, World Film channel. I think that as hd becomes the norm many people won't care to watch VOOM , especially since the WOW factor is gone since they down rezz it to 1280 x1080. I would cut them off in order to save 10.00, and I am sure others would too. DISH already has more hidden fees than DIRECTV, so they are already making enough money to pay for the VOOM channels. DISH should consider next year just dropping the hd pack and adding a simple tech fee for the hd receiver uniformaly as DIRECTV did. THat way anyone that gets an hd receiver will pay for the price anyway. HD channels shouldn't cost anymore than the sd ones anyway. IF you buy the sd version you should get the hd one for free.

 

[RandallA]

If I could drop Voom for a price cut, I'd do it.

 

[gadgtfreek]

If I could drop Voom for a price cut, I'd do it.

I record around 10 movies a month on MonHD, so Im stuck.

 

[FitzAusTex]

If I had to pay extra to keep/get Voom, I'd do it.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

I 've had Dish for a week now,And I've got to say I haven't found 1 thing on the voom channels worth watching. Not impressed with the voom package.The HD looks good ,but programming is boring IMO. Not worth the extra $$$

 

[mike123abc]

The VOOM channels are Dish's price of buying the 61.5 slots and Rainbow-1 satellite. They are just getting us to pay for it.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Hopefully since one of the Cable co's is adding Voom, maybe itll get em some more ad revenue and they can produce more programming.

 

[kb7oeb]

IF Voom was an ala carte add on instead of a forced requirement with the hd pack then DISH could lower the price of their hd pack. HD was always 9.99 and then they added Voom about 2 or 3 years ago for 10 channels at 5.00 extra, or 14.99 for the hd pack. Then last year they added 5 more Voom channels and they jacked the price to 20.00. WE are paying for the Voom channels and the constant repeats that are on them. They might just have to either absorb the price of the Voom channels and add either make them ala carte.

I am sure many people would drop them if it meant saving 10.00 a month. Especially if they start making hd channels like SCi- Fi, Usa,Tbs,etc . Most of the Voom channels I don't watch, but I like Rave, Monsters, hd, World Film channel. I think that as hd becomes the norm many people won't care to watch VOOM , especially since the WOW factor is gone since they down rezz it to 1280 x1080. I would cut them off in order to save 10.00, and I am sure others would too. DISH already has more hidden fees than DIRECTV, so they are already making enough money to pay for the VOOM channels. DISH should consider next year just dropping the hd pack and adding a simple tech fee for the hd receiver uniformaly as DIRECTV did. THat way anyone that gets an hd receiver will pay for the price anyway. HD channels shouldn't cost anymore than the sd ones anyway. IF you buy the sd version you should get the hd one for free.

You are leaving out the channels that were added besides Voom that are not in the $10 HD pack

 

[MikeD-C05]

Okay besides the premium movie channels that are not included in the price of the hd pack, which ones in specific are you talking about?

 

[BobaBird]

Universal and ESPN2 were added at the same time as the extra 5 Vooms on 2-1-06. Since then they've also added A&E, NFL, Natl Geographic, HGTV and Food.

 

[MikeD-C05]

So do you think it is acceptable to charge extra for the hd versions of the existing sd channels we already pay for in the basic packs ? I don't . Just like they don't charge you for the hd versions of the premium movie channels like Hbo/SHowtime/Cinemax/Starz , they shouldn't charge you for the national duplicates of sd channels in hd. We are paying $10.00 more for the reptitious VOOM channels in our $20.00 hd pack.

 

[gadgtfreek]

So do you think it is acceptable to charge extra for the hd versions of the existing sd channels we already pay for in the basic packs ? I don't . Just like they don't charge you for the hd versions of the premium movie channels like Hbo/SHowtime/Cinemax/Starz , they shouldn't charge you for the national duplicates of sd channels in hd. We are paying $10.00 more for the reptitious VOOM channels in our $20.00 hd pack.

To play devils advocate:

Do you think its fair HGTVHD should spend the money to go all HD without recouping its startup and continuing costs. Everyone has to be digital by 2009, but not HD. Id rather everyone charge a little more and go all HD sooner rather than later. Once everything is HD, they have to revamp the packages anyways.

Also, E* is spending money too.

With that being said, I would like one flat rate to give me all the HD and be done with it. It still irritates me I have to sub to the at250 just to get natgeohd.

 

[bowens]

...Everyone has to be digital by 2009...

All OTA broadcast channels have to be digital. This has nothing to do with satellite.

 

[gadgtfreek]

All OTA broadcast channels have to be digital. This has nothing to do with satellite.

Youre right, Im still so used to cable. Doesnt cable have to have all offerings on digital like sat by 2009?

My point was that channels dont have to go HD, they choose to. I dont think its fair for us to expect them to pay for it all out of pocket.

As I said, I want everyone to be HD, would make me plenty happy.

 

[navychop]

Doesnt cable have to have all offerings on digital like sat by 2009?

My point was that channels dont have to go HD, they choose to.

No. Cable would like to go all digital, to recover spectrum, but there is no requirement. I've read that most cable boxes in use today are still analog only. That's a huge capital expense to replace. CableCard 2 might be a partial answer.

 

[mike123abc]

My point was that channels dont have to go HD, they choose to. I dont think its fair for us to expect them to pay for it all out of pocket.

Why not? If they want me to continue to watch them, they probably better consider HD soon. It is part of being competative. If they want to sell their product they need to produce a product people want. Part of most companies budgets go towards R&D and new equipment. It is considered a continued cost of doing business. Yes in a way it is built into the price we pay for everything.

Just like local channels have to pay to upgrade equipment to digital. It is the price they pay to use the "free" airwaves. HBO is upgrading all their channels to HD, do you think subs would be happy if they suddenly charged a new HD upgrade fee? They may have a price hike in the future but if it went too high for the perceived value, people would simply drop it.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Why not? If they want me to continue to watch them, they probably better consider HD soon. It is part of being competative. If they want to sell their product they need to produce a product people want. Part of most companies budgets go towards R&D and new equipment. It is considered a continued cost of doing business. Yes in a way it is built into the price we pay for everything.

Just like local channels have to pay to upgrade equipment to digital. It is the price they pay to use the "free" airwaves. HBO is upgrading all their channels to HD, do you think subs would be happy if they suddenly charged a new HD upgrade fee? They may have a price hike in the future but if it went too high for the perceived value, people would simply drop it.

Like I said, there's two ways to look at it.

And actually, if you followed what Sinclair did to some of tghe cable co's, they are actually charging for rebroadcast rights of OTA now. So they are making their money back

 

[gadgtfreek]

No. Cable would like to go all digital, to recover spectrum, but there is no requirement. I've read that most cable boxes in use today are still analog only. That's a huge capital expense to replace. CableCard 2 might be a partial answer.

Ah, for some reason I thought they had to go digital.