From the dept of "you don't say" "DirecTV slow to add important HD channels"

[justlgi]

I think this pretty much sums it up.

http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/directv-slow-to-add-important.html

DirecTV slow to add important HD channels
8:20 PM Wed, Oct 01, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Andrew Smith E-mail News tips

Yes, DirecTV has more HD channels than any of its competitors -- 130 if you include PPV, a bunch of regional sports channels, many variants of the pay-movie channels -- but it still lacks some major names.

There's no AMC HD, no Fox News HD and no PBS HD.

I have no idea if DirecTV has been slow to negotiate deals with these channels or whether it doesn't have satellite space to add them.

If this is just a matter of negotiations, I say get these deals sealed. Fox News is easily the top rated news channel. AMC airs the show that just won the Best Drama Emmy. And PBS has great documentaries.

If this is a matter of sheer space, DirecTV should make way by dropping some of its more obscure channels. I'd suggest Altitude HD, Biography HD, Fuel HD and Planet Green HD.

If space is really at a premium, I'd even suggest dropping the HD feeds from MTV and VH1. I'm not arguing that they're obscure channels but I have never once seen a single bit of HD content on either of them, so there's really no point.

Being HD king isn't just a matter of numbers. It's about offering the stuff that people actually want to see.

[studdad]

I think this pretty much sums it up.

http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/directv-slow-to-add-important.html

DirecTV slow to add important HD channels
8:20 PM Wed, Oct 01, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Andrew Smith E-mail News tips

Yes, DirecTV has more HD channels than any of its competitors -- 130 if you include PPV, a bunch of regional sports channels, many variants of the pay-movie channels -- but it still lacks some major names.

There's no AMC HD, no Fox News HD and no PBS HD.

I have no idea if DirecTV has been slow to negotiate deals with these channels or whether it doesn't have satellite space to add them.

If this is just a matter of negotiations, I say get these deals sealed. Fox News is easily the top rated news channel. AMC airs the show that just won the Best Drama Emmy. And PBS has great documentaries.

If this is a matter of sheer space, DirecTV should make way by dropping some of its more obscure channels. I'd suggest Altitude HD, Biography HD, Fuel HD and Planet Green HD.

If space is really at a premium, I'd even suggest dropping the HD feeds from MTV and VH1. I'm not arguing that they're obscure channels but I have never once seen a single bit of HD content on either of them, so there's really no point.

Being HD king isn't just a matter of numbers. It's about offering the stuff that people actually want to see.Space is not a problem, money is, i.e. how cheap can they get it.

[teebeebee1]

How about we drop JVille locals to make room for real channels


Ya, i thought so

[jlafount]

How about we drop JVille locals to make room for real channels


Ya, i thought so

I agree. Go one further. Drop all locals.

- The man from DMA 200+ says

[DCSholtis]

LOL@dropping Altitude HD. Dropping an HD RSN would go over like a lead balloon.

[Jared701]

I think this pretty much sums it up.

http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/directv-slow-to-add-important.html

DirecTV slow to add important HD channels
8:20 PM Wed, Oct 01, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Andrew Smith E-mail News tips

Yes, DirecTV has more HD channels than any of its competitors -- 130 if you include PPV, a bunch of regional sports channels, many variants of the pay-movie channels -- but it still lacks some major names.

There's no AMC HD, no Fox News HD and no PBS HD.

I have no idea if DirecTV has been slow to negotiate deals with these channels or whether it doesn't have satellite space to add them.

If this is just a matter of negotiations, I say get these deals sealed. Fox News is easily the top rated news channel. AMC airs the show that just won the Best Drama Emmy. And PBS has great documentaries.

If this is a matter of sheer space, DirecTV should make way by dropping some of its more obscure channels. I'd suggest Altitude HD, Biography HD, Fuel HD and Planet Green HD.

If space is really at a premium, I'd even suggest dropping the HD feeds from MTV and VH1. I'm not arguing that they're obscure channels but I have never once seen a single bit of HD content on either of them, so there's really no point.

Being HD king isn't just a matter of numbers. It's about offering the stuff that people actually want to see.


It's only one show so not that important but mtv now is showing new episodes of the island in HD.... but thats an hour a week lol


I say drop like 10 HD PPV channels... we don't need 30-40 or however many there are.

[Steve615]

It's only one show so not that important but mtv now is showing new episodes of the island in HD.... but thats an hour a week lol


I say drop like 10 HD PPV channels... we don't need 30-40 or however many there are.

IIRC,I read somewhere within the forums that some of the recently added PPV HD channels were basically placeholders,meaning that some of them will go away when more HD channels/networks are added to the lineup.

[DanER40]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

[Skooz]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

Awesome.

Er, I mean +1

[capegator]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

I'm shocked. People come to a forum devoted to satellite TV and they talk about watching TV and requests for programing that they desire. :eek2:

Requesting or even demanding a particular service from a service provider is not whining if the request is reasonable. Requests for some of the most popular programming to be provided in HD from the "HD leader" is not unreasonable.

[Lee L]

Space is not a problem, money is, i.e. how cheap can they get it.

Right, so at the same time that DirecTV is trying to position themselves as a premium brand and talk that crap up to shareholders and analysts, they are trying to be cheap. Nice. Premium brands do not keep willing customers waiting for services they desire.

And sure, I could fill my DVR up with HD content, however, there are shows and channels that I do watch now that are in SD. I choose to watch things based on content, not whether they are in HD or not. IT is just Irksome that some cable systems are getting channels we are not.

[QuickDrop]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

I've never understood this argument. Yes, if you don't care what you watch, you could easily fill up your DVR. Heck, with only a few movie channels, you could do that in weekend. Most people aren't complaining that D* hasn't added ESPNU HD, FoxNews HD, AMC HD, Travel HD etc. because they want HD channels for the sake of HD channels. They want those channels because they have content they watch and often, for them, content that is preferable to the content with which they could now fill 10 DVRs.

[sigma1914]

People like the author are wanting AMC HD for 2 shows, one of which isn't currently airing new episodes, yet want to do away with Planet Green HD (which carries a lot of HD content) and Altitude (which carries NBA & NHL in HD). He also says to drop MTV HD...They have 1 hour a week in HD, kind of like AMCs 1 hour of Mad Men each week.....seems about equal.

IMO, AMCHD is just as unimportant as MTVHD...and I love Mad Men & Breaking Bad.

[man_rob]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

Your kids must be a mess then, with you whining about people discussing satellite TV on a forum dedicated to discussions about satellite TV.

[man_rob]

People like the author are wanting AMC HD for 2 shows, one of which isn't currently airing new episodes, yet want to do away with Planet Green HD (which carries a lot of HD content) and Altitude (which carries NBA & NHL in HD). He also says to drop MTV HD...They have 1 hour a week in HD, kind of like AMCs 1 hour of Mad Men each week.....seems about equal.

IMO, AMCHD is just as unimportant as MTVHD...and I love Mad Men & Breaking Bad.

I'm not for dropping national HD channels that have little, to no HD content. SD shows look a heck of a lot better when upscaled, but I think we could do with a few less PPVs in trade for some new HD national networks. DirecTV should have had contracts ready long before now.

[Azdeadwood]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.
Actually I spend a lot more time on the internet than I do watching TV. I'm into the technology of the TV.

As to the content, I want HD content that I like, more science, technology and PBS in HD. I've seen most of the offerings that keep being repeated on the current HD channels that Directv has right now.

[jwt0001]

Not to being too picky, but do you think that complaining about it on a forum that only includes a SMALL portion of the total D* subscriber base does any good? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just suggesting that this isn't the best place to get Directv moving. Will they respond if you email and call and request more channels? I'm not sure.

I'm shocked. People come to a forum devoted to satellite TV and they talk about watching TV and requests for programing that they desire. :eek2:

Requesting or even demanding a particular service from a service provider is not whining if the request is reasonable. Requests for some of the most popular programming to be provided in HD from the "HD leader" is not unreasonable.

[man_rob]

Not to being too picky, but do you think that complaining about it on a forum that only includes a SMALL portion of the total D* subscriber base does any good? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just suggesting that this isn't the best place to get Directv moving. Will they respond if you email and call and request more channels? I'm not sure.

It's called a discussion. People present their opinions on this discussion board.

[sigma1914]

I'm not for dropping national HD channels that have little, to no HD content. SD shows look a heck of a lot better when upscaled, but I think we could do with a few less PPVs in trade for some new HD national networks. DirecTV should have had contracts ready long before now.

I agree 100%

[mhking]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.

If the channels you want aren't carried in HD, then asking for them is not out of line. The OP makes a solid point -- MTV, CMT and VH1 are NOT carrying any HD content on their HD signals. Additionally, the viewership on the sheer number of HD PPV channels cannot warrant not carrying some of the other requested channels.

Logically, adding the HD signals of other channels that DirecTV already carries is not out of line. And asking about it is certainly not being "whiny." Quite frankly, I am still wanting ESPNU HD, Travel Channel HD and Fox News HD -- and with all three of those channels being available for carriage, no one has been able to give a realistic reason why those channels along with others that garner decent viewership have not been made available.

[upnorth]

It's called a discussion. People present their opinions on this discussion board.

You are so correct and others may have a different opinion than yours.;)

[man_rob]

You are so correct and others may have a different opinion than yours.;)

And I'm fine with others expressing those opinions, unlike certain others who try to dissuade anyone from stating opinions that are critical of DirecTV.

[justlgi]

How about we drop JVille locals to make room for real channels


Ya, i thought so

You do realize that locals are carried on spot beams and nationals are not ... right? I get mine from antenna anyway since D can't seem to add those with any amount of constant quality (or PBSHD) but that's for a different thread.

I'm assuming you just came here to be an ass, so I'll let you be.

Ya, I thought so too.

[justlgi]

Not to being too picky, but do you think that complaining about it on a forum that only includes a SMALL portion of the total D* subscriber base does any good? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just suggesting that this isn't the best place to get Directv moving. Will they respond if you email and call and request more channels? I'm not sure.

This forum get a lot more exposure than you think. I was actually reading an article at politico this morning that linked back here http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_Obama_channel.html ;) More to the point DirecTV pays attention and I felt that the person who wrote that blog summed up the angst I'd seen around here for quite some time. I'm sorry some feel differently and do not want more HD channels, or if some feel that I watch too much :rolleyes: TV.

Give me a break. As if it's not ok for me to post my opinion on the HD offerings of a service I'm paying for but it is ok for you to post your opinions on the amount of TV you think I watch.

[Doug Brott]

If the channels you want aren't carried in HD, then asking for them is not out of line. The OP makes a solid point -- MTV, CMT and VH1 are NOT carrying any HD content on their HD signals. Additionally, the viewership on the sheer number of HD PPV channels cannot warrant not carrying some of the other requested channels.

HD PPV today doesn't necessarily mean that those channels will be HD PPV tomorrow .. well, at least the slots those channels occupy on the Satellite. As more agreements are reached, more channels will be added.

[Lee L]

People like the author are wanting AMC HD for 2 shows, one of which isn't currently airing new episodes, yet want to do away with Planet Green HD (which carries a lot of HD content) and Altitude (which carries NBA & NHL in HD). He also says to drop MTV HD...They have 1 hour a week in HD, kind of like AMCs 1 hour of Mad Men each week.....seems about equal.

IMO, AMCHD is just as unimportant as MTVHD...and I love Mad Men & Breaking Bad.


I know nothing about what the author was thinking. Myself, I am in favor of having any channel's HD version that is available, regardless of what amount they show. THere is no reason to exclude oen channel or another. DirecTV has the capacity to do it, why not do it? That way, we can direct our useless whining toward the network for not showing enough. And of course, part of this is a chicken and egg scenario as some of these networks have little real cable/sat penetration with their HD service, so they are not exactly going to spend tons of money to get it filled with true HD.

[mbuser]

I've never understood this argument. Yes, if you don't care what you watch, you could easily fill up your DVR. Heck, with only a few movie channels, you could do that in weekend. Most people aren't complaining that D* hasn't added ESPNU HD, FoxNews HD, AMC HD, Travel HD etc. because they want HD channels for the sake of HD channels. They want those channels because they have content they watch and often, for them, content that is preferable to the content with which they could now fill 10 DVRs.

Totally agree, and also agree with the channels you elected to identify. Those are the four channels I would like to see in HD. A few more movie channels would be nice, but really there are plenty of HD movies available right now. I watch Fox News regularly and I want it to be HD. I don't watch Travel right now, but would definitely watch it if it was HD. AMC and ESPNU would be nice also, although they're not as important to me as the other two.

[ziggy29]

There's no AMC HD, no Fox News HD and no PBS HD.

I have no idea if DirecTV has been slow to negotiate deals with these channels or whether it doesn't have satellite space to add them.

If this is just a matter of negotiations, I say get these deals sealed. Fox News is easily the top rated news channel. AMC airs the show that just won the Best Drama Emmy. And PBS has great documentaries.

I believe we already know there's a deal in place to carry PBS in HD, yes? So I think in that case it's a matter of priorities and bandwidth.

[Grentz]

AMC, Fox News, PBS?

I dont need any of those (PBS is of interest but I get it via OTA), I want the Travel Channel! ;)


Different people have different desires, thus it is hard to please everyone at once!

[man_rob]

AMC, Fox News, PBS?

I dont need any of those (PBS is of interest but I get it via OTA), I want the Travel Channel! ;)


Different people have different desires, thus it is hard to please everyone at once!

It's not like DirecTV couldn't add all of the channels you mention.

[capegator]

HD PPV today doesn't necessarily mean that those channels will be HD PPV tomorrow .. well, at least the slots those channels occupy on the Satellite. As more agreements are reached, more channels will be added.

So you are saying more HD programming tomorrow?

[justlgi]

So you are saying more HD programming tomorrow?

http://www.packerpalace.com/palace07/poster-free-beer-tomorrow.jpg

/hotlinked :grin:

[capegator]

http://www.packerpalace.com/palace07/poster-free-beer-tomorrow.jpg

/hotlinked :grin:

That's what I'm talking about!

[LarryFlowers]

There seems to be no end to the endless discussion about this channel and that...

Reality check:
1. "some cable channels are getting channels that we are not"... And all cable systems are missing many many HD channels that we get.
2. You should let DirecTV know what channels you want.. it has to help.
3. You can't cheery pick HD channels to "replace" with the ones you want... I doubt very seriously that VIACOM who owns many channels and negotiates with DirecTV as a unit would tolerate arbitrarily axing MTV or VH1 because their HD offerings are relatively minor. Nor would GE take kindly to suggestions of abandoning Biography or any of the other channels they represent. These channels are no longer individual entities, they are parts of large conglomerates that own many channels.
4. I keep reading the complaints about FOX News HD and I continue to ask the question.. who has made Fox News HD available on any system nationally? Yes there are a few geographic areas that have them on National cable systems.. but not Nationally. Verizon has said they plan to have it on all their systems in October, but it hasn't happened yet and all their systems together don't add up to a hill of beans.

Is there something going on here with Fox News HD that we just aren't privy to? Is it a cost renegotiation? Is Fox itself limiting transmission while they work some problems of their own out? I understand the desire to have this channel but does anyone honestly believe that DirecTV doesn't understand it as well? There has to be a reason why DirecTV, Dish, Comcast and Time Warner have not rolled this channel out Nationally. If even one of them had this channel on a National basis, then we would have a reason to be seriously concerned.

5.The same thing applies to ESPNUHD as applies to Fox News HD and ESPN itself has stated in the media that they expect most of their carriage agreements for that channel to take place for the 2009-2010 season. No explanation was given as to why that was, that's just what they said.

6. When D11 was fired up, I expected as did most of you for it to be like the "Christmas" party we had when D10 went on line and that increased our disappoinment level when it didn't happen. However, it didn't take long for anyone to see what DirecTV was doing.. it is blatantly obvious. They first made sure that everything was set for the college and professional football seasons.. this is a major DirecTV button... and shouldn't have come as a surpirse to anyone.. I couldn't care less if there was a single sports broadcast of any kind on any channel... but I DO understand it. The next thing DirecTV did was attack a major weakness in their structure.. the major holes in local channels. It is easy for those of us in major markets to overlook this, but there are a whole lot of subscribers out there who have been waiting a long long time. I get this as well and find it hard to begrudge it.

I hear a lot of calls for the "other" premium channels, the ones missing from HBO, Cinemax, etc., but I have premium channels and I haven't noticed that we have missed a movie in HD. All of the big movies have been shown on the channels we do have. Is there anything going to the channels we are missing that hasn't been on the ones we get?

Summing this up, I understand the frustration some of you are exhibiting but we have alot of year left and a lot that can happen between now and January 1st... and I suspect there will be a lot of people wondering what all the fuss was about come Jan 1st.

In the meantime, I will continue to expect and look forward to new offerings from DirecTV in HD and know without a shadow of a doubt that right now in spite of a few holes here and there, we are ahead of the pack.

[QuickDrop]

AMC, Fox News, PBS?

I dont need any of those (PBS is of interest but I get it via OTA), I want the Travel Channel! ;)


Different people have different desires, thus it is hard to please everyone at once!

Given limited space and numerous channels, I think you have to prioritize additions based on the likelihood that the additions would please the greatest number of subscribers. I personally have no interest in watching either Fox News HD or Lifetime HD, but believe they should be among the first of the "real" HD channels to replace the allegedly temporary HD PPVs. They are usually among the top rated "cable networks" and are almost always tiered to the middle of the road (price wise) consumer, either in a basic cable or choice package. This is also why I believe AMC HD and Travel HD, both containing programming I do watch, should be added. Next, I would add the HD simulcasts of the HBOs/Cinemax D* currently carry in SD, along with ESPNU HD. This would make all the movie packages equal, at least in the way D* has always structured them (D* has never been the best place if you wanted "all" the HBOs and I don't expect that to change with less room for HD channels than they had for SD.) ESPNU is a given simply because sports is D* primary focus. Afterward, I would focus on the more "niche" channels, such as Outdoor HD and Lifetime Movies HD, but always with an eye toward reserving space for more popular channels, such as Comedy Central and E!, which will likely launch HD channels before D12 is ready. DirecTV can't please everyone completely, but the can do their best to please the broadest number of people.

There seems to be no end to the endless discussion about this channel and that...

Reality check:

4. I keep reading the complaints about FOX News HD and I continue to ask the question.. who has made Fox News HD available on any system nationally? Yes there are a few geographic areas that have them on National cable systems.. but not Nationally. Verizon has said they plan to have it on all their systems in October, but it hasn't happened yet and all their systems together don't add up to a hill of beans.

Is there something going on here with Fox News HD that we just aren't privy to? Is it a cost renegotiation? Is Fox itself limiting transmission while they work some problems of their own out? I understand the desire to have this channel but does anyone honestly believe that DirecTV doesn't understand it as well? There has to be a reason why DirecTV, Dish, Comcast and Time Warner have not rolled this channel out Nationally. If even one of them had this channel on a National basis, then we would have a reason to be seriously concerned.


This is another argument I don't quite understand. What HD channels that have launched in the past year can be said to be carried "nationally" on most cable systems? Cable has limited space for new channels, so it shouldn't be surprising when in many locations, where there's only room for 25 or so channels, that they all don't carry the same ones. There's beginning to be more conspiracy theories about why Fox News HD isn't carried on DirecTV than there are for the JFK assassination.

[RobertE]

Way to go Larry, you just had to go a throw logic, reason and common sense into yet another typical piss and moan thread. Nice job. :p


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Piratefan98]

6. When D11 was fired up, I expected as did most of you for it to be like the "Christmas" party we had when D10 went on line and that increased our disappoinment level when it didn't happen. However, it didn't take long for anyone to see what DirecTV was doing.. it is blatantly obvious. They first made sure that everything was set for the college and professional football seasons.. this is a major DirecTV button... and shouldn't have come as a surpirse to anyone.. I couldn't care less if there was a single sports broadcast of any kind on any channel... but I DO understand it. The next thing DirecTV did was attack a major weakness in their structure.. the major holes in local channels. It is easy for those of us in major markets to overlook this, but there are a whole lot of subscribers out there who have been waiting a long long time. I get this as well and find it hard to begrudge it.


Yes, some people did expect something along the lines of a Christmas party, and it was because of DirecTV's own press release on D11. The headline for that press release, in bold print, said "DIRECTV Satellite Launch Sets the Stage for Delivery of Up To 150 National HD Channels" With that being the headline for the D11 press-release, it was only natural to think that a BIG part of D11 would be for National HD. Further, the first/lead paragraph of that story played up the National HD aspect that was going to be made possible by D11.

I know they planned on doing locals, PPVs and RSNs ..... but it would have been nice if THAT was the focus of the press release, since that seems to be where most/all of the focus is. So yes, national HD expectations were high ... but they were high because of DirecTV's own press release.


Jeff

[RobertE]

Yes, some people did expect something along the lines of a Christmas party, and it was because of DirecTV's own press release on D11. The headline for that press release, in bold print, said "DIRECTV Satellite Launch Sets the Stage for Delivery of Up To 150 National HD Channels" With that being the headline for the D11 press-release, it was only natural to think that a BIG part of D11 would be for National HD. Further, the first/lead paragraph of that story played up the National HD aspect that was going to be made possible by D11.

I know they planned on doing locals, PPVs and RSNs ..... but it would have been nice if THAT was the focus of the press release, since that seems to be where most/all of the focus is. So yes, national HD expectations were high ... but they were high because of DirecTV's own press release.


Jeff

They have focused on HD locals SO FAR, nationals are comming. Patience grasshoper.

[TheRatPatrol]

They have focused on HD locals SO FAR, nationals are comming. Patience grasshoper.
Oh, is there something you know we don't? ;)

[mreposter]

I've seen most of the offerings that keep being repeated on the current HD channels that Directv has right now.

Yeah, as beautiful as that Universe series is on SCI-HD, you can only watch it so many times.

[studdad]

How much TV do you people watch? There is more than enough HD content to fill your DVR ten times over. Be patient will you!!! No wonder America's kids are so spoiled, look at their whiny parents.Hmmmm, because if its in HD I should be satisfied and fill my DVR with it? Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I will start with planet green, hopefully with a show showing the dire need to save the southeast Yugoslavian crap ant,,,,,good times.

[Shades228]

In a perfect world there would only be HD equipment and HD programming. My guess is right now HD carriers are getting premium $$ for those channels because of the lack of HD content out there. So while we all want the HD now we wouldn't want it if they signed up 10 new channels and announced a price increase for the hd access package. I'll take them doing better negotiating now to impulse buying and bigger price increases.

[fikuserectus]

I'm sure this will all get worked out in the next 6-12 months. It is not worth getting upset over.

We have plenty of HD and I'm very happy with Directv. Would I like more national HD channels? Sure! Who wouldn't?

With all the things going on in this country and the rest of the world I think we all have more important things to complain about.

[Lee L]

However, it didn't take long for anyone to see what DirecTV was doing.. it is blatantly obvious. They first made sure that everything was set for the college and professional football seasons.. this is a major DirecTV button... and shouldn't have come as a surpirse to anyone.. I couldn't care less if there was a single sports broadcast of any kind on any channel... but I DO understand it. The next thing DirecTV did was attack a major weakness in their structure.. the major holes in local channels. It is easy for those of us in major markets to overlook this, but there are a whole lot of subscribers out there who have been waiting a long long time. I get this as well and find it hard to begrudge it.




Just as an FYI, the main reason I expect ESPNU HD to be carried on "The Clear HD Leader" is because of the College football that is on each and every week on ESPNU.

[LarryFlowers]

Just as an FYI, the main reason I expect ESPNU HD to be carried on "The Clear HD Leader" is because of the College football that is on each and every week on ESPNU.

They are available, just not in HD, a problem that I expect will be eliminated in good time, but ESPN itself has stated they don't expect carriage agreements with DirecTV, Comcast, Dish.. etc until the next football season... so clearly there is something else at work here.. whether financial or otherwise.

[man_rob]

They are available, just not in HD, a problem that I expect will be eliminated in good time, but ESPN itself has stated they don't expect carriage agreements with DirecTV, Comcast, Dish.. etc until the next football season... so clearly there is something else at work here.. whether financial or otherwise.

Could you link to your source?

[Hutchinshouse]

There seems to be no end to the endless discussion about this channel and that...

Reality check:
1. "some cable channels are getting channels that we are not"... And all cable systems are missing many many HD channels that we get.
2. You should let DirecTV know what channels you want.. it has to help.
3. You can't cheery pick HD channels to "replace" with the ones you want... I doubt very seriously that VIACOM who owns many channels and negotiates with DirecTV as a unit would tolerate arbitrarily axing MTV or VH1 because their HD offerings are relatively minor. Nor would GE take kindly to suggestions of abandoning Biography or any of the other channels they represent. These channels are no longer individual entities, they are parts of large conglomerates that own many channels.
4. I keep reading the complaints about FOX News HD and I continue to ask the question.. who has made Fox News HD available on any system nationally? Yes there are a few geographic areas that have them on National cable systems.. but not Nationally. Verizon has said they plan to have it on all their systems in October, but it hasn't happened yet and all their systems together don't add up to a hill of beans.

Is there something going on here with Fox News HD that we just aren't privy to? Is it a cost renegotiation? Is Fox itself limiting transmission while they work some problems of their own out? I understand the desire to have this channel but does anyone honestly believe that DirecTV doesn't understand it as well? There has to be a reason why DirecTV, Dish, Comcast and Time Warner have not rolled this channel out Nationally. If even one of them had this channel on a National basis, then we would have a reason to be seriously concerned.

5.The same thing applies to ESPNUHD as applies to Fox News HD and ESPN itself has stated in the media that they expect most of their carriage agreements for that channel to take place for the 2009-2010 season. No explanation was given as to why that was, that's just what they said.

6. When D11 was fired up, I expected as did most of you for it to be like the "Christmas" party we had when D10 went on line and that increased our disappoinment level when it didn't happen. However, it didn't take long for anyone to see what DirecTV was doing.. it is blatantly obvious. They first made sure that everything was set for the college and professional football seasons.. this is a major DirecTV button... and shouldn't have come as a surpirse to anyone.. I couldn't care less if there was a single sports broadcast of any kind on any channel... but I DO understand it. The next thing DirecTV did was attack a major weakness in their structure.. the major holes in local channels. It is easy for those of us in major markets to overlook this, but there are a whole lot of subscribers out there who have been waiting a long long time. I get this as well and find it hard to begrudge it.

I hear a lot of calls for the "other" premium channels, the ones missing from HBO, Cinemax, etc., but I have premium channels and I haven't noticed that we have missed a movie in HD. All of the big movies have been shown on the channels we do have. Is there anything going to the channels we are missing that hasn't been on the ones we get?

Summing this up, I understand the frustration some of you are exhibiting but we have alot of year left and a lot that can happen between now and January 1st... and I suspect there will be a lot of people wondering what all the fuss was about come Jan 1st.

In the meantime, I will continue to expect and look forward to new offerings from DirecTV in HD and know without a shadow of a doubt that right now in spite of a few holes here and there, we are ahead of the pack.

There seems to be no end to the endless discussion about this channel and that...

Reality check:
1. "some cable channels are getting channels that we are not"... And all cable systems are missing many many HD channels that we get.

So, what is your point? It's not OK to expect more for your buck?

2. You should let DirecTV know what channels you want.. it has to help.

DIRECTV reads this site, that is what we're doing.

3. You can't cheery pick HD channels to "replace" with the ones you want... I doubt very seriously that VIACOM who owns many channels and negotiates with DirecTV as a unit would tolerate arbitrarily axing MTV or VH1 because their HD offerings are relatively minor. Nor would GE take kindly to suggestions of abandoning Biography or any of the other channels they represent. These channels are no longer individual entities, they are parts of large conglomerates that own many channels.

No need to replace, just add more. :D

4. I keep reading the complaints about FOX News HD and I continue to ask the question.. who has made Fox News HD available on any system nationally? Yes there are a few geographic areas that have them on National cable systems.. but not Nationally. Verizon has said they plan to have it on all their systems in October, but it hasn't happened yet and all their systems together don't add up to a hill of beans.
Is there something going on here with Fox News HD that we just aren't privy to? Is it a cost renegotiation? Is Fox itself limiting transmission while they work some problems of their own out? I understand the desire to have this channel but does anyone honestly believe that DirecTV doesn't understand it as well? There has to be a reason why DirecTV, Dish, Comcast and Time Warner have not rolled this channel out Nationally. If even one of them had this channel on a National basis, then we would have a reason to be seriously concerned.

Who cares what the next guy is doing. Period! Is it too much to ask that the self proclaimed "leader in HD" offers a channel before the next guy?


5.The same thing applies to ESPNUHD as applies to Fox News HD and ESPN itself has stated in the media that they expect most of their carriage agreements for that channel to take place for the 2009-2010 season. No explanation was given as to why that was, that's just what they said.


6. When D11 was fired up, I expected as did most of you for it to be like the "Christmas" party we had when D10 went on line and that increased our disappoinment level when it didn't happen. However, it didn't take long for anyone to see what DirecTV was doing.. it is blatantly obvious. They first made sure that everything was set for the college and professional football seasons.. this is a major DirecTV button... and shouldn't have come as a surpirse to anyone.. I couldn't care less if there was a single sports broadcast of any kind on any channel... but I DO understand it. The next thing DirecTV did was attack a major weakness in their structure.. the major holes in local channels. It is easy for those of us in major markets to overlook this, but there are a whole lot of subscribers out there who have been waiting a long long time. I get this as well and find it hard to begrudge it.

I applaud DIRECTV for their sports and local channels! However, I expect this from the "leader in HD".


I hear a lot of calls for the "other" premium channels, the ones missing from HBO, Cinemax, etc., but I have premium channels and I haven't noticed that we have missed a movie in HD. All of the big movies have been shown on the channels we do have. Is there anything going to the channels we are missing that hasn't been on the ones we get?

Summing this up, I understand the frustration some of you are exhibiting but we have alot of year left and a lot that can happen between now and January 1st... and I suspect there will be a lot of people wondering what all the fuss was about come Jan 1st.

In the meantime, I will continue to expect and look forward to new offerings from DirecTV in HD and know without a shadow of a doubt that right now in spite of a few holes here and there, we are ahead of the pack.

I too am looking forward to more HD. And yes, I want it ASAP. I pay over $125 a month to DIRECTV. I believe we all have a right to expect and demand more. I look at it this way, if the self proclaimed "leader in HD" has the bandwidth, the cash AND the channel is available; it is inexcusable for the "leader in HD" to not offer the channel. I realize DIRECTV is currently rolling out locals. That is awesome!! However, it's not a bad thing to want your favorite channel. For me, I want the Travel Channel HD.


Peace

[Lee L]

OMG Hutchinshouse, that is crazy talk. ;) ;) ;) :D

[justlgi]

capegator, sweet apparatus! Where was that taken?

[harsh]

How about we drop JVille locals to make room for real channelsHD LIL have absolutely nothing to do with national HD channels and giving up one will not facilitate delivery of the other. Jacksonville HD LIL are beamed from an exclusively spotbeamed satellite.

[Piratefan98]

Actual D11 Launch Photo, or just Photo-Shopped??

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/360577~Turtle-with-Rocket-Posters.jpg

:lol:
TGIF, and a happy weekend to all !

Jeff

[yuppers519]

Actual D11 Launch Photo, or just Photo-Shopped??

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/360577~Turtle-with-Rocket-Posters.jpg

:lol:
TGIF, and a happy weekend to all !

Jeff

Actually that is D12

[JDubbs413]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I will say it one more time.

Like satelliteracer confirmed...

It takes two companies to bring channels to DirecTV. I can assure you that DirecTV is more than willing to add new national HD channels. But the channels themselves and their companies are not cooperating. Complain to them.

[JayPSU]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I will say it one more time.

Like satelliteracer confirmed...

It takes two companies to bring channels to DirecTV. I can assure you that DirecTV is more than willing to add new national HD channels. But the channels themselves and their companies are not cooperating. Complain to them.

Where is your proof of that? Sounds like complete and utter BS to me.

[warriorking]

I am still hoping October will be the month of new HD, if not D is going to have to make some kind of a a statement, Lots of people have been saying to be patient and wait till October, Fair enough....But if nothing appears this month I am going to to be a little concerned....Of course some will still say " just wait till November, Oh wait!!!December is going to be the Month, ect,ect...I am going to watch D very closely this month for some kind of movement other than just more locals, which in my case means nothing since WV will see nothing till 2009..If then !!!!!!

[Jhon69]

Where is your proof of that? Sounds like complete and utter BS to me.


So you don't believe that maybe Rupert Murdoch might be bitter about losing DirecTV?.;)

[harsh]

Actually that is D12You're assuming that D12 is complete and ready to launch.

[Ken S]

So you don't believe that maybe Rupert Murdoch might be bitter about losing DirecTV?.;)

Murdoch didn't LOSE DirecTV...he called it a "turd bird (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950090.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1)" and sold (traded) it away.

[LarryFlowers]

You're assuming that D12 is complete and ready to launch.

And it is... the satellite was pictured on the Boeing page where it had been stored in a plastic shell with a tarp when its status was as a "backup" bird. It has since been moved to from backup status to prep for launch. Per Sixto's thread at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=134248

FCC Filings and Press Releases:2/28/2008 - DirecTV Investor Meeting Presentation:
"Will launch D12 because the growing importance of HD warrants its use to expand national capacity. Launch expected late 2009. Capacity for more than 200 HD national channels"

The launch "vendor" has not as yet been announced, but I would expect it to be one of the 2 usual suspects, Sea Launch and Baikonur.

I imagine that the satellite will go thru considerable prep once the launch vendor is determined but the physical satellite is complete.

[LarryFlowers]

Where is your proof of that? Sounds like complete and utter BS to me.

Really?... ever heard of the LIN Network...

You have a product, you invested considerable monies in improving the product (HD). You want to recover those costs by increasing your price to your buyer (DirecTV among others).

DirecTV has millions of subscribers, they want to add new HD channels, they want to carry those channels with the least effect possible on the fees they pay to carry those channels.

It's called negotiations and is usually presented in Economics 101.

[ROVER123]

It still doesn't change the fact that D* had months prior to the launch of D11 and the months since to finalize these contracts. Of the 25+ channels that could be launched, they were only successful on 4 ? I think they made need a new negotiator.

[LarryFlowers]

It still doesn't change the fact that D* had months prior to the launch of D11 and the months since to finalize these contracts. Of the 25+ channels that could be launched, they were only successful on 4 ? I think they made need a new negotiator.

Perhaps, but to put some real world information to these negotiations... the negotiations to deliver the Mountain Sports Network to DirecTV took 2 years, and Comcast spent over 2 years on the negotiations to handle ESPNU SD.

Make no mistake... .10 cents spread across 18 million customers is $1.8 million dollars per month or $21.6 million dollars per year for any channel that affects the basic tier.

[ROVER123]

Perhaps, but to put some real world information to these negotiations... the negotiations to deliver the Mountain Sports Network to DirecTV took 2 years, and Comcast spent over 2 years on the negotiations to handle ESPNU SD.

Make no mistake... .10 cents spread across 18 million customers is $1.8 million dollars per month or $21.6 million dollars per year for any channel that affects the basic tier.

That's a valid point. I agree that some mules are tougher to skin than others and that even a small amount can have huge consequences. But this is not the first contract negotiation process for either side. Neither can benefit from no agreement at all. The examples you quote represent the truly tough ones. Where are the easy ones?

The key to negotiation is knowing what makes it work for the other side to say yes. All I'm saying is that their success rate, if contract negotiations are truly causing a delay, is very low.

[Jhon69]

Murdoch didn't LOSE DirecTV...he called it a "turd bird (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950090.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1)" and sold (traded) it away.


Right because John Malone acquired enough NewsCorp stock to scare him to trade DirecTV's stock to him.As for the turd bird comment when some people get rid of something they sure don't call it a golden goose.:rolleyes: ;)


Anyways to get back on topic I believe that might be part of the issue concerning adding Fox News HD.;)

[slacker_x]

It still doesn't change the fact that D* had months prior to the launch of D11 and the months since to finalize these contracts. Of the 25+ channels that could be launched, they were only successful on 4 ? I think they made need a new negotiator.

While they did have the time to negotiate who says they did until they knew the satellite launched successfully. If you sign a contract you start paying, and if the satellite dies and you're not able to use the new HD signals it'd be a pretty bad situation to be in. Just food for thought.

[Ken S]

Right because John Malone acquired enough NewsCorp stock to scare him to trade DirecTV's stock to him.As for the turd bird comment when some people get rid of something they sure don't call it a golden goose.:rolleyes: ;)


Anyways to get back on topic I believe that might be part of the issue concerning adding Fox News HD.;)

He made the "turd bird" comment well before he got rid of the company.

[mgtr]

The bottom line is simply whether you can perform or you cannot. So far, Directv cannot. While I am a diehard Directv customer since 2000, I don't see switching to another source. But I may cut way, way back on my Directv subscriptions as a form of protest. I am miffed. I want additional HD choices. As far as I am concerned, they can drop SD altogether. If it weren't for upscaling, it would be unwatchable.

[Paul A]

I encourage everyone to drop HBO as I did. Actually I downgraded from Premium.
I think that would hit both sides of the negotiating table in the pocketbook and send a message to both to get the contracts signed, and pronto.
I will upgrade back to premium once they figure it out.

[LarryFlowers]

The bottom line is simply whether you can perform or you cannot. So far, Directv cannot. While I am a diehard Directv customer since 2000, I don't see switching to another source. But I may cut way, way back on my Directv subscriptions as a form of protest. I am miffed. I want additional HD choices. As far as I am concerned, they can drop SD altogether. If it weren't for upscaling, it would be unwatchable.

Interesting idea, but since the large majority of DirecTV customers are NOT HD dropping SD is probably not an option...:lol:. Cutting back on your subscription will also have no affect as the majority of the so called "missing" channels are in the basic tier... in other words you would have to completely cancel your subscription for it to mean anything to anyone but you.

I encourage everyone to drop HBO as I did. Actually I downgraded from Premium.
I think that would hit both sides of the negotiating table in the pocketbook and send a message to both to get the contracts signed, and pronto.
I will upgrade back to premium once they figure it out.

Again, this has virtually no impact on anything except HBO.

You could switch to Comcast... that would show them how unhappy your are with DirecTV's HD channel status and you will probably get all those channels you are missing here over at Comcast... of course there might be one or two channels missing over at Comcast too so.. Or maybe you could subscribe to Comcast and DirecTV and then you would have probably everything out there, even the Fishing Network in HD!!!

[tds4182]

Murdoch didn't LOSE DirecTV...he called it a "turd bird (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950090.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1)" and sold (traded) it away.


I don't believe Rupert Murdoch EVER made that statement. It was originally reported by a female reporter for Variety, not exactly a paragon of news accuracy.

Do a google search and see if you can ever find the quote in the Wall Street Journal or ANY other reputable financial news source.

It's been quoted so much, over and over again, that it's achieved a "patina" of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

[Ken S]

I don't believe Rupert Murdoch EVER made that statement. It was originally reported by a female reporter for Variety, not exactly a paragon of news accuracy.

Do a google search and see if you can ever find the quote in the Wall Street Journal or ANY other reputable financial news source.

It's been quoted so much, over and over again, that it's achieved a "patina" of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

tds4182,

So, female reporters aren't accurate? If he said it once and the only reporter there was from Variety...that would be the only source of the quote. I don't think Murdoch/News Corp. issued a press release with the term. More importantly, there's no mention of him or News Corp. ever denying the quote.

In reality though...whether he used the term or not...Murdoch wasn't thrilled with being owner of DirecTV and was seeking to get out fairly soon after taking control.

[tds4182]

tds4182,

So, female reporters aren't accurate? If he said it once and the only reporter there was from Variety...that would be the only source of the quote. I don't think Murdoch/News Corp. issued a press release with the term. More importantly, there's no mention of him or News Corp. ever denying the quote.

In reality though...whether he used the term or not...Murdoch wasn't thrilled with being owner of DirecTV and was seeking to get out fairly soon after taking control.


Ken, I wasn't implying that female reporters aren't capable of being accurate. Let's put that canard to bed right now. The reporter who wrote the Variety article happened to be female, that's all I meant to state.

The so called "quote" from Rupert Murdoch allegedly occurred during an earnings conference call. Don't you think it a bit odd that only the Variety reporter heard this statement and all the other reporters from the WSJ,Financial Times, etc., etc. never heard it (maybe they were all in the restroom at the time)?

[Ken S]

tds,

Why then was it important to mention the reporter was female? I also looked...Murdoch supposedly said this to David Faber of CNBC and it was reported by the reporter for Variety Business. Neither Murdoch or CNBC has ever denied it happened. Nowhere does it say it happened during an earnings call. If you look back at my first post I have a link to the original story.

Once, again...it's not important. If you don't want to believe it happened...that's fine. It is obvious though that Murdoch wanted out of DirecTV. Would it be all that shocking for him to say something like that? To me it wouldn't.

Anyway...this was all in response to someone who thought that DirecTV had been taken from Murdoch and he was somehow holding back some of the News Corp HD properties because of that. I don't think you disagree that Murdoch was more than willing to get rid of his controlling interest in DirecTV.

So...why is it that DirecTV doesn't carry Fox News HD? My guess is the asking price is more than DirecTV is willing to pay or they're asking for something else that DirecTV is unwilling to do (channel carriage, etc.).

[ROVER123]

While they did have the time to negotiate who says they did until they knew the satellite launched successfully. If you sign a contract you start paying, and if the satellite dies and you're not able to use the new HD signals it'd be a pretty bad situation to be in. Just food for thought.

There are certainly ways in a contract to get around the possibility of the catastrophic scenario that you mention. Almost all contracts have a "subject to" or "provided that" clause(s) involved. There is absolutely no reason that at least an agreement in principal could not have been in place.

I am mainly concerned that out of all of these negotiations, so few have been concluded.

By the way, do they still have the turkey processor factory in Longmont? (CU grad 75)

[Piratefan98]

There are certainly ways in a contract to get around the possibility of the catastrophic scenario that you mention. Almost all contracts have a "subject to" or "provided that" clause(s) involved. There is absolutely no reason that at least an agreement in principal could not have been in place.

I am mainly concerned that out of all of these negotiations, so few have been concluded.

Exactly. It is approaching mind-boggling that D11 has been lit for this long, with almost nothing to show for it (as it pertains to national hd).

Maybe they overestimated how long it would take to get the satellite operational. Or maybe they underestimated how long it would take to hammer out the contracts. Or maybe new ownership is taking a different direction, etc. etc. Maybe a combination of things. Either way, there's a satellite floating around up there that's been lit up for quite some time ..... and nearly no national hd has been turned on. The Undisputed Leader in HD seems to be lagging a bit.

Jeff

[Calculon]

People like the author are wanting AMC HD for 2 shows, one of which isn't currently airing new episodes, yet want to do away with Planet Green HD (which carries a lot of HD content) and Altitude (which carries NBA & NHL in HD). He also says to drop MTV HD...They have 1 hour a week in HD, kind of like AMCs 1 hour of Mad Men each week.....seems about equal.

IMO, AMCHD is just as unimportant as MTVHD...and I love Mad Men & Breaking Bad.AMC HD is still primarily a movie channel that gasp, airs movies in HD. So yes a lot of people want the channel added because of the high quality original programming but it already has more to offer than MTV because they air movies throughout the day in HD.

I'd say it's ridiculous that they still have not added this channel months after the satellite went live.

[ActiveHDdave]

For us pluggers like me this is our premium movie network because we don't pay for premium movie networks. So bring on AMC HD

[paulman182]

For us pluggers like me this is our premium movie network because we don't pay for premium movie networks. So bring on AMC HD

TCM, IFC, HDNet Movies, MGM HD. Those are my channels since dropping the Premier package.

Even movies on UHD are unedited, although you do have to FF thru the commercials.

Some of those channels are in the $5 HD Extra package, but that's not much of a premium.

I haven't watched anything on AMC in years due to their total lack of respect for movies, but I do hope it gets added for those who want it. I want them all!

[liverpool]

why on earth is fox news the top news channel. it is totally republican biased and because of that I would not waste my time watching it. Cnn is far superior.

[man_rob]

I have been around D* since 9/13/1995 and I can't understand why Ropert Murduch had satellite's all around the world except the U.S. and he started trying to buyout D* about 10 or 11 yrs. ago, he tried ever deal in the books and the FTC wouldn't let him in, and then he finaly got it. I would like to know why he sold off the controling stock, does anybody know the reason why?

From what I read, Murdoch thought that satellite TV wouldn't fare so well in the competition with "triple play" offers from cable co's and telcoms. More recently, he been quoted as saying he regrets the sale because DirecTV has done quite well.

[tunce]

why on earth is fox news the top news channel. it is totally republican biased and because of that I would not waste my time watching it. Cnn is far superior.

:nono2:

Maybe because more people watch that then the other sided networks. Simple logic.

That's all I watch!

No political rants please. This stuff is getting real old.

It's a TV channel that a lot of people watch and would like to see carried in HD since other networks carry it already. Can't you understand that?

[dshu82]

286

[Richierich]

I just wish DIRECTV would EXPLAIN to us why we can't have The TRAVEL Channel!!!

Is it because Directv would have to pay too much for it. I know an awful lot of people in this forum and others who have constantly been asking for it and frankly I can not believe at this point that Directv hasn't provided it for us. They can't say it is because of space requirements now that they have D11 up and running.

[man_rob]

I just wish DIRECTV would EXPLAIN to us why we can't have The TRAVEL Channel!!!

Is it because Directv would have to pay too much for it. I know an awful lot of people in this forum and others who have constantly been asking for it and frankly I can not believe at this point that Directv hasn't provided it for us. They can't say it is because of space requirements now that they have D11 up and running.

But we have Nickelodeon HD!!! ...Granted, kids would be quite happy just watching SpongeBob on a Gameboy, but we have it upscaled to 1080i!!!

[HJJ]

:nono2:

Maybe because more people watch that then the other sided networks. Simple logic.

That's all I watch!

No political rants please. This stuff is getting real old.

It's a TV channel that a lot of people watch and would like to see carried in HD since other networks carry it already. Can't you understand that?

I agree that Fox News should be available in HD if it is available elsewhere. However without getting too political, I definitely would beg to differ on it being the top news channel. But just like most people, I like options. I like to hear differing opinions. When the spin and bias gets to be too much to take on either of the top three news channels I move to another. One of my favorite features on Directv during this political season is the New Mix channel.

....on a side note, is there some blonde female hiring requirement on Fox? :rolleyes: I am sure that is why many like to watch I guess.

[Vinny]

I agree that Fox News should be available in HD if it is available elsewhere. However without getting too political, I definitely would beg to differ on it being the top news channel.

FNC is the highest rated cable news channel. In addition, if you go to ACTIVE and look at Whats Hot on DirecTV; under the news tab; FNC is usually first.

Just sayin!

[mbuser]

I agree that Fox News should be available in HD if it is available elsewhere. However without getting too political, I definitely would beg to differ on it being the top news channel. But just like most people, I like options. I like to hear differing opinions. When the spin and bias gets to be too much to take on either of the top three news channels I move to another. One of my favorite features on Directv during this political season is the New Mix channel.

....on a side note, is there some blonde female hiring requirement on Fox? :rolleyes: I am sure that is why many like to watch I guess.

If the definition of "top news channel" is the channel you watch, then you can decide which one is on top.

If the definition of "top news channel" is the one watched by the most viewers, then Fox News is indisputably the top news channel, according to the ratings.

[Jhon69]

From what I read, Murdoch thought that satellite TV wouldn't fare so well in the competition with "triple play" offers from cable co's and telcoms. More recently, he been quoted as saying he regrets the sale because DirecTV has done quite well.



The way I understood it was Murdoch wanted to consolidate NewsCorp for his family.
Malone had acquired enough NewsCorp stock to make him nervous which is the reason I believe Malone acquired the stock in the first place.So they traded stock.;)

[LarryFlowers]

I was doing a little research the past couple of days regarding how much of the monthly bill is accounted for by Sports programming and in the process stumbled upon quite a bit of information: (please note that most of the information came from cable operations as DirecTV from what I can tell never discusses channel pricing, however I would suspect that the numbers would be similar). These items are not in any particular order, just things I discovered.

1. Sports Programming charges represent a whopping 35-40% of the total cost of what is generally referred to as the "expanded basic tier".
2. LIN local stations were demanding .30¢ per subscriber per month for their HD feed justifying it as just a penny a day.. of course that penny a day represents $365,000 per 100000 subscribers.
3. ESPN is the single most costly package at around $3.65 per subscriber per month. If DirecTV's number is the same it means that ESPN is receiving over 3/4 of a BILLION dollars a year frm DirecTV alone.
4. ESPN is apparently seeking a .75¢ bump for ESPNU-HD on the basis of the SEC addition for 2009 and a weekly prime time game of college football.
5. FOX News is said to be pursuing a "substantial" bump for the Fox News HD feed and in many instances is using it to renegotiate their entire package.
6. The FCC is pursuing a rule that would allow cable and satellite operators to ignore expanded basic carriage agreements for any channels that costs more than .75¢ per sub per month.
7. The Travel Channel is apparently now owned by Cox Communications (it was news to me though apparently that has been the case for a while now).
8. BBC America is "looking at the HD opportunities" but "has no plans to move until 2010".
9. There is a lot of chatter about some preview or ad for an upcoming project airing on Chiller HD in late October obviously leading to speculation about the Chiller channel going to HD before Halloween, HOWEVER, I see no indication of this on the Chiller web site and as such may be nothing but speculation and wishful thinking on the fanboys part.

[sundude90]

Believe me people. Directv is working as hard as they can to get need HD channels launched. Just be patient. Doug Brott is completely right and I have heard the exact same thing from my resources.

[capegator]

Believe me people. Directv is working as hard as they can to get need HD channels launched. Just be patient. Doug Brott is completely right and I have heard the exact same thing from my resources.

And your resources are???

[nitty316]

Nobody should list their sources, because chances are if they do they won't be a source anymore.

[man_rob]

Believe me people. Directv is working as hard as they can to get need HD channels launched. Just be patient. Doug Brott is completely right and I have heard the exact same thing from my resources.

I doubt that many people think that DirecTV isn't working hard to get new channels. The question is why did they wait to this late date to start working? Somebody dropped the ball.

[Richierich]

Believe me people. Directv is working as hard as they can to get need HD channels launched. Just be patient. Doug Brott is completely right and I have heard the exact same thing from my resources.

My Sources tell me that Directv can get The Travel Channel in HD but they just don't want to pay the price for it at this time. It's Available but they just don't want to pony up for it.

[bwaldron]

I doubt that many people think that DirecTV isn't working hard to get new channels. The question is why did they wait to this late date to start working? Somebody dropped the ball.

None of us know when they started working, or what the specific issues involved are. So while it may be disappointing that we aren't yet seeing more national HD from the new bird, I don't know enough to accuse anyone of dropping any balls.

If I were to make such accusations, I could say the same about any provider (though the specific balls that are dropped would be different).

The balls that are most important to me haven't been dropped.

[capegator]

Nobody should list their sources, because chances are if they do they won't be a source anymore.

Although he did say resources though. Would that be like natural resources? :lol:

Now sources are more like a friend of his sister's boyfriend who delivers packages to a business that installs satellite dishes.

[man_rob]

None of us know when they started working, or what the specific issues involved are. So while it may be disappointing that we aren't yet seeing more national HD from the new bird, I don't know enough to accuse anyone of dropping any balls.

If I were to make such accusations, I could say the same about any provider (though the specific balls that are dropped would be different).

The balls that are most important to me haven't been dropped.

So you're arguing that while DirecTV has been working on getting channels, (HBO/Cinemax HD have been on since last June, Travel HD last January to name just a few. Not to mention that Dish got Encore HD, owned by the same company as DirecTV, first.) DirecTV is so inept at negotiating (even within their own company) that they just haven't been able to get any of these channels? I don't know which scenario would be worse.

[LarryFlowers]

So you're arguing that while DirecTV has been working on getting channels, (HBO/Cinemax HD have been on since last June, Travel HD last January to name just a few. Not to mention that Dish got Encore HD, owned by the same company as DirecTV, first.) DirecTV is so inept at negotiating (even within their own company) that they just haven't been able to get any of these channels? I don't know which scenario would be worse.

You know what... if DirecTV takes years to negotiate for these channels, it suits the hell out of me... everyone wants a new and bigger slice of the pie.. which means higher prices for me.. the subscriber.. If ESPNU-HD wants more money than ESPN... the most expensive package on the system... is already getting, then I don't care if we ever see it. Same goes for Cox and the Travel Channel and Fox and Fox News HD.

I'm glad that everyone thinks they could negotiate these deals overnight... took 2 years to negotiate the deal for the MTN sports Network for DirecTV, almost 2 years for Comcast to negotiate their ESPN deal, so I guess everyone must be right, the negotiators are incompetent.

'Course.. if everyone would just send DirecTV $200 every month, we could probably have it all overnight.

[Piratefan98]

So you're arguing that while DirecTV has been working on getting channels, (HBO/Cinemax HD have been on since last June, Travel HD last January to name just a few. Not to mention that Dish got Encore HD, owned by the same company as DirecTV, first.) DirecTV is so inept at negotiating (even within their own company) that they just haven't been able to get any of these channels? I don't know which scenario would be worse.


My take. They either:

a) they ARE inept at negotiating, or

b) they underestimated how quickly D11 could be lit up, or

c) new ownership = a new direction/strategy when it comes to negotiating for, and adding new national HD's.

d) they are trying to figure the best way to package the new National offerings in order to pass the costs along to us.

e) some combination of the above


Regardless ...... IMHO, they HAVE proven to be inept as it pertains to PR.


Jeff

[studdad]

My take. They either:

a) they ARE inept at negotiating, or

b) they underestimated how quickly D11 could be lit up, or

c) new ownership = a new direction/strategy when it comes to negotiating for, and adding new national HD's.

d) they are trying to figure the best way to package the new National offerings in order to pass the costs along to us.

e) some combination of the above


Regardless ...... IMHO, they HAVE proven to be inept as it pertains to PR.


JeffI am very pro business, and not one to deny that a company needs to make a fair profit, but I have to tell you, I have seen rates rise astronomically over the last 10 years.

I think ALL of this comes down to DOLLARS, and quite frankly, I would like to see what every channel costs per subscriber per month, and how those numbers have changed over the last 10 years.

I have a feeling that directv's increases in price have far outweighed the increases in subscriber fees, but I would like proof one way or another. Why?? Because I, like you, have a strong impression that as we start getting more HD channels, Directv will start increasing prices, implimenting additional HD tiers, etc., and I would just like to know how badly I am being screwed. If I had it my way, we would be able to pick and choose which HD channels we get, which would eliminate a huge number of HD channels I get now that I would never watch. For me, it is more a question of quality (i.e. channels I like to watch) than quantity, and being able to choose my channels would make me one satisfied customer.

[Richard L Bray]

why on earth is fox news the top news channel. it is totally republican biased and because of that I would not waste my time watching it. Cnn is far superior.

In TV, top rated means the most viewers. FNC accomplishes this with ease versus the other cable news channels.

Your post, all emotion--no facts, doesn't speak highly for the intellectual base for "your side".

[Richierich]

Fox News Channel is the news channel for younger male viewers who want to see Hot Blonde Hotties read off the news. They are just beautiful readers of the news and Fox must have a Beauty Pageant every year and the Winner gets a job Reading News on the FNC!!! LOL!!!

[Albie]

Regardless ...... IMHO, they HAVE proven to be inept as it pertains to PR.
Jeff

Do you honestly believe that, or are you just extremely disappointed that your interpretation of their PR has not come about as hoped? Their financials and subscriber numbers would certainly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how you, I, or every subscriber to this board feels about their PR prowess, until the financials say it isn't working they will keep on using the same messages in the same manner until profitability/growth start to slow/decline.

Now as for those that think Directv's planning and or negotiating skills are inept, well why don't you go try to "negotiate", and I do use that term very loosely as you don't really negotiate as much as accede to their demands, a deal of any kind to distribute any of the Disney family's products/services.

[GLJones]

I personally would love to see total al-a-carte selection of the channels I want to watch. The problem is, there are many channels that could not survive if they weren't forced on everyone in the basic tier or some package with channels everyone wants.

I think all the providers (cable, DirecTV, U-verse) are all struggling with the paradyme they helped create. The channel owners will package their high-value stuff with no-value stuff and refuse to unbundle it.

I for one hope DirecTV is taking a hard stance on this. Let the channel owners sweat while a large number of potential viewers are not able to see their channel because DirecTV won't give in. It doesn't take very long for their advertising revenue to suffer due to lack of viewers and they will be forced to lower the price, unbundle, or allow their channel to be in a higher (non-basic) tier.

[HJJ]

On the subject of news channels in HD, I would love to see MSNBC in HD as well. I am all about options and when I choose it is great to have it in HD. I know it is not popular with the Fox crowd but that Keith Olberman is oh so entertaining. :lol: I used to not understand what his bit was but I see his goal in life is to be the anti-Hannity/Orielly. It is always good for one side to see how riddiculous the other can be at times.

[bwaldron]

It is always good for one side to see how riddiculous the other can be at times.

I guess. I think clowns are clowns on all "sides" and don't find a lot of entertainment therein. But that is just me, of course.

[Piratefan98]

Do you honestly believe that, or are you just extremely disappointed that your interpretation of their PR has not come about as hoped? Their financials and subscriber numbers would certainly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how you, I, or every subscriber to this board feels about their PR prowess, until the financials say it isn't working they will keep on using the same messages in the same manner until profitability/growth start to slow/decline.


I'm not suggesting that their PR isn't effective at raising $$. I AM saying that it's somewhere between shifty and downright dishonest on many subjects. The total HD count is silly. The silence on their earlier messages regarding PBS is disappointing. There are plenty of examples where there were indications that something was coming soon (i.e. Travel-HD, ESPNU-HD), and there is silence. And the March press release screaming National HD from the mountaintops, and thusfar delivery only a thimble-full is pretty sad. I think they are still the best game in town, but this part of the company is a laughing stock.

Lots of used car dealers make plenty of money with their shady PR .... but the fact that money is coming in doesn't make the PR and salesmanship honest, honorable, or client-focused.

Jeff

[DarinC]

I doubt that many people think that DirecTV isn't working hard to get new channels. The question is why did they wait to this late date to start working?

I'm not so sure "working hard" is the best phrase to use. My best guess is that they are simply playing poker with the various content providers. Each one is doing their best poker face, with DirecTV saying "at that price, we don't need your channel", while the owners are saying "that's what it's worth, if you want it, pay it". If your goal is to appear that you really aren't interested until they meet you at your price, the best tool you have to express that is time. Until D11 went active, there was no reason for the content owners to believe DirecTV's bluff. Now that it is live, and every day that passes means another day that their HD channel is robbed market share because it's not carried on one of the largest distributors, DirecTV's bluff has a little more weight. DirecTV knows that for most of the market, they still have the lead. Not many people are going to be cancelling due to their lack of HD content. So they are in a posistion to hold tight to their demands, at least for the time being.

I bet they aren't so much "working hard" as they are just sitting around waiting for the providers to cave. They are probably working through different offers here and there, but I doubt they are burning a lot of midnight oil over it.

[flyingtigerfan]

Well, I just got a surprise when I went to my father's house to help him fix something....and saw ESPNU HD on the TV. D* is starting to get outclassed by Time Warner here in my market, and that's kinda scary. I'm waiting for that great hole in the ground to open up and swallow us all.

[bwaldron]

Not many people are going to be cancelling due to their lack of HD content. So they are in a posistion to hold tight to their demands, at least for the time being.

Sure, if subscriber growth stopped or went negative -- and people were leaving for another provider due to a particular channel (or channels) being unavailable, that would be noticed and acted upon.

But if DirecTV simply carried all channels that providers wanted to package together, at whatever price that was demanded, then rates would assuredly rise -- and that would undoubtedly have an impact on subscriber numbers (not to mention complaints here in the forums).

It's a competitive market, and they will do what they need to in order to maintain (or hopefully improve) their position. That doesn't mean that each of us, with our own wants and entertainment budget, will be completely satisfied at any one time.

DirecTV has made some moves in the past that I haven't liked. There are things I'd like to see them do differently now. But they've been successful, so I can't call them incompetent. And, overall, they are still the best option for me and my family -- and not by a small margin. If that changes, I will look elsewhere. It is good to have options.

[bubba gump]

Must be nice to have SD or HD locals. The state of WV can't get signals from a rooftop antenna or satellite locals .If everyone in this forum lived in WV you would appreciate what Directv or DishNetwork could offer and be happy.

[Piratefan98]

Must be nice to have SD or HD locals. The state of WV can't get signals from a rooftop antenna or satellite locals .If everyone in this forum lived in WV you would appreciate what Directv or DishNetwork could offer and be happy.

I'd move. lol :lol:

Jeff

[inkahauts]

Anyone else notice the Comcast is raising rates in a couple months by % or more dollars for many of their services... Maybe thats partially because they sign contracts to et channels at higher rates than if they just wait and drag out negotiations like Directv is doing... Frankly, at this point, with all the HD we do have, I'd rather them take plenty of time and get the contracts that don't raise my rates by over $5 a year... Directv already raises rates every year just to keep up... No reason to make it more if they can avoid it by dragging out negotiations...

[LarryFlowers]

Anyone else notice the Comcast is raising rates in a couple months by % or more dollars for many of their services... Maybe thats partially because they sign contracts to et channels at higher rates than if they just wait and drag out negotiations like Directv is doing... Frankly, at this point, with all the HD we do have, I'd rather them take plenty of time and get the contracts that don't raise my rates by over $5 a year... Directv already raises rates every year just to keep up... No reason to make it more if they can avoid it by dragging out negotiations...

My research indicates DirecTV will have to pay an additional $162,000,000.00 annually just for ESPNU-HD (cable operators have indicated that ESPN is seeking a bump of .75/sub/month for the HD channel). I don't think they will "eat it".

[studdad]

My research indicates DirecTV will have to pay an additional $162,000,000.00 annually just for ESPNU-HD (cable operators have indicated that ESPN is seeking a bump of .75/sub/month for the HD channel). I don't think they will "eat it".I have my doubts as well. But they could always add channels to the $5 HD tier that would generate additional revenue (as a lot of people don't buy it). I currently have it, but really don't think it is worth it. I bought it with the understanding that additional HD channels would be added to this tier, but if they start adding additional tiers prior to adding more channels to this tier, then I will assume they have no intention of adding more, and will get rid of it, as will many others I am sure.

[LarryFlowers]

I have my doubts as well. But they could always add channels to the $5 HD tier that would generate additional revenue (as a lot of people don't buy it). I currently have it, but really don't think it is worth it. I bought it with the understanding that additional HD channels would be added to this tier, but if they start adding additional tiers prior to adding more channels to this tier, then I will assume they have no intention of adding more, and will get rid of it, as will many others I am sure.

Unfortunately, ESPN carriage agreements call for being part of the basic tiers, not likely they will change it, but maybe..

[flipptyfloppity]

My research indicates DirecTV will have to pay an additional $162,000,000.00 annually just for ESPNU-HD (cable operators have indicated that ESPN is seeking a bump of .75/sub/month for the HD channel). I don't think they will "eat it".

Right there is the #1 reason for A La Carte.

I do not want to pay $9/year (before profit margins are accounted for!) for ESPNU-HD.

[LarryFlowers]

Right there is the #1 reason for A La Carte.

I do not want to pay $9/year (before profit margins are accounted for!) for ESPNU-HD.

Wish it was that simple, you see we (the collective we of the American People) have stood by and let business get away with a lot of things for a long time. Let's look at Just the Walt Disney company.. they own the following...

Television:
Cable Television

ABC Family
The Disney Channel
Toon Disney
SoapNet
ESPN Inc. (80% - Hearst Corporation owns the remaining 20%) includes ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Now, ESPN Extreme
Classic Sports Network
A&E Television (37.5%, with Hearst and GE)
The History Channel (with Hearst and GE)
Lifetime Television (50%, with Hearst)
Lifetime Movie Network (50% with Hearst)
E! Entertainment (with Comcast and Liberty Media)
ABC Television NetworkOwning all this gives Disney enormous power and you will note that not one of these networks is missing from any of the DirecTV packages and that is part of their negotiations.. they collect a fee for each and every channel times every one of DirecTV's clients. If you want one of those channels you have to take them all and you will put them in all your basic tiers.

I firmly believe that all sports programming, which has now reached the level of 35-40% of the cost of the expanded basic tier of programming should be a separate package and as I have no interest I don't like paying for it.

However the cure may be worse than the disease.. Disney might be willing to sell the whole package for $x but if they have to sell it one channel at a time, 2 or 3 of the channels could end up costing as much as the current package.

If you think Disney is bad, look at what GE owns... it's worse.
So, many people are screaming for Fox News HD and ESPNU-HD. DirecTV knows people want these channels.. or at least think they can't live without them... so it is going to have to add them at some point.. I expect that DirecTV will negotiate hard to get the best possible price they can get and I also suspect that it will end up costing me a few more dollars every month for channels I won't ever watch.

We really have no power here... except the power to just stop doing business with DirecTV and unfrotunately that isn't an answer as all the other programming sources are just as bad... only giving up TV entirely would accomplish anything.

[evan_s]

If the 75 cents a sub figure is accurate I can see why directv is really working, so to speak, to keep espnu in the sports pack and not in the choice tier with the rest of the espn channels. Honestly epsnu fits in the sports pack IMO.

[inkahauts]

Right there is the #1 reason for A La Carte.

I do not want to pay $9/year (before profit margins are accounted for!) for ESPNU-HD.

A La Carte would be a complete and total disaster, and we will never see it...

[Shades228]

A La Carte would be a complete and total disaster, and we will never see it...

I wouldn't say never but I know it won't be as appealing as people think. The only way it would be possible is to have people sub to the programming packages by carrier not channel. I think that would open some eyes of people to see what they would still have to get in order to get the prime channels they want.

The only demographic I could see that would benefit from this would be retired people on a fixed income.

[paulman182]

A la carte would spell the end for some of my favorite channels and I'll bet it would for most of you, too.

[man_rob]

People keep throwing out figures, and saying it's fact. I'd like to see some credible sources.

[Jhon69]

People keep throwing out figures, and saying it's fact. I'd like to see some credible sources.


http://www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm :eek2: ;)

[hdtvfan0001]

At the end of the day...DirecTV has been saying for years that HD LIL channels and new HD channels have equally been priorities for deployment. With the February 2009 advent of the National digital "age" conversion...local HD LIL channel availability is critical to those markets who are pending before the conversion date.

Since about 88% of all viewers will have local HD LIL channel access by year end...that goal will be pretty much on target.

On the national channel front...we've grown from 10 HD channels up to over 125 inside of 24 months because of the major bandwidth expansion from 2 new sats. Another new sat goes up next year.

I'd love to see more National HD channels as much as anyone.

That said, I think that based on where we will be at the end of 2008 on both the HD LIL and HD National channel fronts, the level of urgency for new HD channel additions has been significantly reduced from the beginning of this year.

Competitive needs will continue to fuel further HD channel expansion, but I'm just saying that the urgency level that may have been seen 1/1/08 is not anywhere as high on 10/10/08.

[man_rob]

http://www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm :eek2: ;)


That's a la carte pricing to the end user, but it doesn't provide the cost to the provider.

[bwaldron]

A La Carte would be a complete and total disaster, and we will never see it...

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it definitely would change the market dramatically and I would say that for most people rates would not go down dramatically and likely would increase.

It does seem appealing at first, until you think through the implications (not all of them being bad).

I don't like what content providers are doing, but I trust that there is now enough competition in the market to work things out more effectively than any government mandates would ever be.

[BillyT2008]

You know... ultimately, personally I do not care for shopping, religious, news or sports channels, porn channels or even family friendly channels. I also think with the amounts of repeat programming on the premium movie channels, we probably have enough of those to.

At this point, beyond what I already get, I ultimately just want my locals (Bangor - Yay! They are coming...) in HD, the Chiller Channel in HD and maybe a martial arts movie channel and a western channel in HD.

[Jhon69]

That's a la carte pricing to the end user, but it doesn't provide the cost to the provider.


Don't know if you would find that unless it would be a reseller's request.Besides it's not like you would get that price anyways.

[JoeTheDragon]

You know... ultimately, personally I do not care for shopping, religious, news or sports channels, porn channels or even family friendly channels. I also think with the amounts of repeat programming on the premium movie channels, we probably have enough of those to.

At this point, beyond what I already get, I ultimately just want my locals (Bangor - Yay! They are coming...) in HD, the Chiller Channel in HD and maybe a martial arts movie channel and a western channel in HD.

next year MLB TV HD likely is a Lock as well D* has part owner ship of it as well.

[Albie]

People keep throwing out figures, and saying it's fact. I'd like to see some credible sources.

Here's one

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2003/12/07/comcast_departs_from_the_script_on_rate_hikes/

In 2003, five years ago ESPN was getting $2.61 per sub, per month, from one of the top 5 cable companies. Now if anyone believes that rate has gone up less than $1.00 per sub, per month, since they acquired the Monday Night Football contract to the tune of $1.1 billion per year, I've got a bridge in New York, beachfront property in Yuma, AZ, and prime real estate in south-cenral Florida for sale real cheap.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/b3931050_mz011.htm

[mreposter]

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it definitely would change the market dramatically and I would say that for most people rates would not go down dramatically and likely would increase.

It does seem appealing at first, until you think through the implications (not all of them being bad).

I don't like what content providers are doing, but I trust that there is now enough competition in the market to work things out more effectively than any government mandates would ever be.

One difficulty with the current system is that the consumer only sees the overall cost increase coming from the cable/sat company. When Directv raises rates we don't know if that's because ESPN charged them another 20% this year, or maybe the new Oprah Winfrey Network is going to be an extra 50 cents a month. Who knows? D* gets the blame, rather than the real source of the cost increases.

If channels were available alacarte or in smaller programming packages, it would be easier for the consumer to understand these costs and make more informed choices. We'd also be able to complain directly to the service providers that are charging higher rates for their channels.

[DarinC]

When Directv raises rates we don't know if that's because ESPN charged them another 20% this year, or maybe the new Oprah Winfrey Network is going to be an extra 50 cents a month.

Programming is just one part of their overall operating expenses. I would suggest that there isn't any direct correlation between a price increase, and a recent jump from one of the networks. DirecTV charges what the market will bear. The price increases probably have more to do with the fact that Dish and Comast have also increased prices in the past 1-2 years, rather than what their vendors have done. They've been raising prices nearly every year, yet still gaining customers every year. There's no reason for them NOT to raise prices as long as that trend continues, regardless of what happens to their costs.

[jpl]

I'll provide my 2 cents, for what they're worth. Are cable rates going up? Yes. Why? There are lots of reasons. One of which is all those cool new channels that people keep demanding. For example, I have fios, and they just added some 70 HD channels, and people on various fios forums are shocked that their bills are going up! WE demand these changes, and these companies comply, and they we get outraged because we want all this stuff for free. These companies are not charities - they're businesses. They don't eat these costs - if they add a channel, they have to pass that cost onto the consumers or they go out of business, it's just that simple. But new channels are only part of the equation. Look at recent changes to the industry - everything from the implementation of the DVR, to VOD, to HD, to games on your system, to interactive capabilities have been added in recent years. Think about what kind of pay TV service you had just 6 or 7 years ago. Did it include ANY of those things? It didn't for me.

Also, for all the carping I hear about things like religious and shopping channels, realize one thing - religious channels are free, and shopping channels actually PAY the provider to carry their channel. Having those religious channels costs nothing, and having those shopping channels actually reduces your bill. Ditto for things like PPV. Let's say someone like ESPN ups their charge per customer, DirecTV has a couple choices - eat it on a per subscriber base (which they may do for a while), reducing their profit margin; up all subscriber fees to compensate; or find alternate sources of revenue to offset the additional cost; or a combination of all the above.

Next, I'm not a big fan of ala carte. Don't get me wrong, I don't watch most of the channels I get, but I also realize that ala carte will significantly increase the cost per channel per subscriber. It has no choice. Look, let's take a specific example - let's say that 50% of DirecTV's subscribers have no desire to take ESPN, so they drop it. What does that do to DirecTV's bargaining power to accept that channel? It cuts it in half. Instead of some 18 million customers that DirecTV can use at the bargaining table, they bring, instead, 9. That makes it much harder for them to negotiate a better price for the channel per subscriber.

Also, for all those channels that no one cares about, also realize that they're frequently added to the mix by the cable channel companies. For example, most people probably don't care about, say, Fox Reality, but Fox isn't stupid - they want to promote their channels. So they tell providers 'you want FNC? Fine, you need to take Fox Reality. If you don't we'll still give you FNC, but it'll cost you.' If ala carte were to go into effect, then channels that really don't have a market go away (e.g. Fox Reality - not sure if this really falls into that category - it's just one that I picked off the top of my head). Providers like DirecTV get discounts for popular channels by carrying these 'loss leader' channels as part of the mix. Institute ala carte, and those loss leader channels basically go away, and the negotiating power for companies like DirecTV go right along with them.

Now, that's not to say that ala carte can't ever work. It can. I just don't think it can work in the US. It's not in our make-up. Look at how many threads are devoted to spitting contests between providers. My provider has more HD cooking channels than your provider! US consumers want more - period. We want more channels, more HD, more options, more functionality... more. Why else would you need something like 14 HBOs? In order for ala carte to work, consumers would have to be willing to settle for far fewer channels, for more money per channel. People who want everything would be paying ALOT more. Mainly because they would be largely floating the bill for these channels - due to the reduced discount that cable/dbs companies could get because of reduced bargaining power. It's all a balance. If cable/dbs companies could find enough US customers to accept a much higher price per channel, and take only a handful of channels, then ala carte could work here. I just don't think that market is large enough to be workable in the US.

[mreposter]

jpl thanks for your well-reasoned examination of the bundled-vs-alacarte issue. Just one quick question and a comment:

1. Doesn't the current system as you've outlined in paragraph 4 only encourage programmers with strong channels to create more spinoff/secondary channels and use the leverage of the prime channel to force these other products onto carriers?

2. The growing distribution of programming via services such as Hulu and iTunes in some ways is creating an alacarte market. Of the people I know in their teens and twenties, this (and file trading networks) is an increasingly common method of getting programming. In a few years this may have a significant impact on the traditional distribution business.


PS - we still all want more HD ;)

[jpl]

jpl thanks for your well-reasoned examination of the bundled-vs-alacarte issue. Just one quick question and a comment:

1. Doesn't the current system as you've outlined in paragraph 4 only encourage programmers with strong channels to create more spinoff/secondary channels and use the leverage of the prime channel to force these other products onto carriers?

2. The growing distribution of programming via services such as Hulu and iTunes in some ways is creating an alacarte market. Of the people I know in their teens and twenties, this (and file trading networks) is an increasingly common method of getting programming. In a few years this may have a significant impact on the traditional distribution business.


PS - we still all want more HD ;)

1) Absolutely. That's why we have all this spin-off channels today. I used the example of 14 HBOs. There's only so many that the market can support, though, so eventually you're going to hit a point of diminishing returns.

2) Again, totally agree with you. The internet is a major paradigm shift in the industry which hasn't been felt yet. I think that these providers are trying to offer services/channels to compensate for that. For example, Verizon is starting to include a service which will provide internet feeds to your TV via services like Hulu. It's hard to know where it all will end up. It's hard to know if that will be a real long-term market. Yeah, it's sort of ala carte today, but will it be for long? There's nothing to tell me that IP won't move in the same direction that these tv providers have. The tv providers haven't moved to this location on a whim - they respond to consumer demand. If consumers demand 300 channels, then tv providers will find ways to provide it - but so will IP providers.

And I want more HD too :)

[je4755]

Query whether the economic meltdown may compel DirecTV to change its cavalier attitude toward adding new national HD channels. As individual financial wherewithal contracts precipitously, the willingness of many customers to spend $100 -$200/month may decline as well. This, in turn, could mandate that DirecTV furnish new, compelling HD programming (instanced by the Travel Channel and FNC) in an effort to maintain viewer excitement – and attendant revenue – regarding its product.

[mreposter]

Query whether the economic meltdown may compel DirecTV to change its cavalier attitude toward adding new national HD channels. As individual financial wherewithal contracts precipitously, the willingness of many customers to spend $100 -$200/month may decline as well. This, in turn, could mandate that DirecTV furnish new, compelling HD programming (instanced by the Travel Channel and FNC) in an effort to maintain viewer excitement – and attendant revenue – regarding its product.

Or the inverse could occur - economic turmoil causes customers to cut back on Directv services, so rather than invest in more expensive programming, Directv delays rolling out more national HD. The LIL-HD rollout continues, as it directly correlates to new customer acquisition.

[Piratefan98]

Or the inverse could occur - economic turmoil causes customers to cut back on Directv services, so rather than invest in more expensive programming, Directv delays rolling out more national HD. The LIL-HD rollout continues, as it directly correlates to new customer acquisition.

Agreed. I think this is the more likely scenario. Especially in light of the direction the company seems to be taking. National HD just doesn't seem to be much a priority now, glossy press-releases notwithstanding.

Jeff

[je4755]

Mreposter and Piratefan98: I hope my scenario holds but suspect you are correct. Piratefan98, I also strongly agree with your post #37 in this thread. The more sanguine among us suggest we (1) stop hyperventilating as access to preferred channels eventually will be gained, (2) carefully read DirecTV’s earlier press releases stressing “up to 150” and “fall,” or (3) already have sufficient HD programming and shouldn’t complain. As you observed, the clear impression DirecTV’s marketing campaign endeavored to generate was a D10-like flood of broadly-desired national networks. This, in turn, serves to exacerbate our frustrations at the glacial pace embraced by DirecTV in augmenting its national HD lineup.