1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DIRECTV HD Channel Anticipation (Official Q1 2011 Thread)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Scott Kocourek, Dec 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan 6, 2011 #221 of 4070
    Billzebub

    Billzebub Godfather

    789
    45
    Jan 1, 2007
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I may be dense, but can someone explain to me how this is the business of the United States Congress?
     
  2. Jan 6, 2011 #222 of 4070
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Maybe that's a discussion better had elsewhere. We tend to frown on political discussions unless they can be kept exceedingly polite.
     
  3. Jan 6, 2011 #223 of 4070
    raoul5788

    raoul5788 Guest

    1,481
    0
    May 13, 2006
    That's pretty funny, Stuart!
     
  4. Jan 6, 2011 #224 of 4070
    je4755

    je4755 Godfather

    406
    4
    Dec 11, 2006
     
  5. Jan 6, 2011 #225 of 4070
    erosroadie

    erosroadie Godfather

    389
    0
    Jan 9, 2007
     
  6. Jan 6, 2011 #226 of 4070
    thelucky1

    thelucky1 Icon

    982
    21
    Feb 23, 2009
    While that is true. I don't believe we are the only Directv subscribers of the 18 million that would like to see more new basic HD channel additions ("soon" :lol:).
     
  7. Jan 6, 2011 #227 of 4070
    benwa73

    benwa73 Cool Member

    16
    0
    Jan 7, 2007
    I dont think we'll see AMC in HD anytime soon. The logical reason for this is that AMC is owned by ... wait for it... Cablevision.

    I would think they would like to keep their advantage over DirecTV.
     
  8. Jan 6, 2011 #228 of 4070
    slimoli

    slimoli Hall Of Fame

    1,979
    0
    Jan 27, 2005
    I don't think so. Dish and other providers already have it. The problem is that Directv only wants to tango to their own music.
     
  9. Jan 6, 2011 #229 of 4070
    georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    Well, they've thought this area is part of their business since 1927.
     
  10. Jan 6, 2011 #230 of 4070
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I'm all for them making wise business decisions, rather than unwise ones which may have a negative impact on customers down the road. We've seen how that story turns out and it's one of the primary reasons I am with DirecTV rather than Dish Network.
     
  11. Jan 6, 2011 #231 of 4070
    Jon J

    Jon J Grouch Extrordinaire

    1,226
    8
    Apr 22, 2002
    Music City, USA
    I suspect it will be the latter.
     
  12. Jan 6, 2011 #232 of 4070
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    I can speak for all 18 million customers. :D Video clarity is a good thing. Not one of the 18 million customers has ever said "you know, this video is just too clear". :lol:

    When the few thousand on this site request an HD channel, there's a good chance the other 17+ million would agree. :D
     
  13. Jan 6, 2011 #233 of 4070
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    No, but everything comes at a cost, and DIRECTV subscribers here on this forum are already saying the price is increasingly too high.

    Not to mention, about half of those subscribers don't even have HD and a significant proportion of those might complain about paying extra for something they don't get.
     
  14. Jan 6, 2011 #234 of 4070
    armchair

    armchair Hall Of Fame

    1,188
    0
    Jul 27, 2009

    Good points and this is one subscriber churn survey that I'd like Directv to study hard! I like sports but I'd also watch more of those channels if they were available in HD or SD with improved PQ.

    I agree and placing those duplicate time slots and expanded premiums on the INTERNET connection and pointing subscribers to it may solve more of Directv's observed problem (lack of subs being connected via INTERNET). Bandwidth/PQ could be improved while allowing plenty of room for added HD channels.

    With the price increases and lack of added HD announcements, I might have considered a change in providers but honestly, my choices are limited geographically to TWC (no Comcast to consider), and phone provider is AT&T w/o U-Verse availability (I subscribe to TWC INTERNET only and phone sub is ooma, not AT&T). And those other satellite guys, I switched back in 2008 for a HD only package only to have it locked-out to further HD channel add-ons. They wanted me to change programming packages and pay about $20/month more than my contracted package. So, despite the once-again lack of HD add-ons here, I'm staying but my satisfaction with Directv is dropping.

    It seems that the free HD for two years that many of us got was due to Dish's offering and like others have suggested, the increase this year kind of balances that discount back to a even par for some. So I guess I'm sort of neutral on price increase but the lack of HD channel announcements and PQ comparisons are my concerns, ATM.

    I'd prefer the higher PQ quality and HD nationals added. I wouldn't mind using my INTERNET connection to have those duplicate time slots but honestly, I'm also one that doesn't subscribe to premiums and PPV but the INTERNET connection is used frequently for the free stuff.
     
  15. Jan 6, 2011 #235 of 4070
    je4755

    je4755 Godfather

    406
    4
    Dec 11, 2006
    You make a valid point but I don’t understand how DirecTV and many of its competitors can reach diametrically-opposed conclusions about the business utility of basic HD networks. Surely Dish, Comcast and other major cable/telco companies must address the interrelationship of rising programming costs and subscriber retention and, moreover, have a substantial number of SD-only customers.
     
  16. Jan 6, 2011 #236 of 4070
    sunking

    sunking Godfather

    415
    0
    Feb 17, 2004
    My belief is that Direct would rather focus more on specialty sports packages than nationals. It's the one thing they can dangle to draw people from cable and they blow their allocated capital wad to acquire sports, not nationals. At least they are committed to a strategy I guess, not that I really care for it.

    The only reason I have Direct (and have for almost 10 years) is because I live a 1 mile over the MA/CT border and thus don't have YES offered by local cable. Through creative means I can get it from Directv. As soon as there is a viable option to easily get the Yanks through other means it's adios. Directv simply doesn't offer me much and in fact I have crappy dsl over much faster cable internet because of lack of bundling savings.
     
  17. Jan 6, 2011 #237 of 4070
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    For the record, I don't know the business strategy in place, only the results and a little bit of the inner workings. Personally if I were Mike White I might say, you know... in five years the majority of people will get their entertainment on demand over the internet. This gives land-based providers a huge advantage. They can put server farms in every city and town and they often own the lines.

    So what can't you get over the internet? Well for many people anyway, the answer is that you can't get a pristine 1080p/24 or 1080i picture. Even so-called HD from Netflix or Hulu is garbage compared to a Blu-ray.

    What to do, then, if I were Mike White? I'd concentrate on putting all my bandwidth toward high-quality picture and sound and start dropping SD channels slowly. I'd encourage my SD subs to upgrade to MPEG4 receivers. I'd set a goal that on January 1, 2013, all programming on DIRECTV would be MPEG4 and I would only carry the HD versions when there were two versions of a channel.

    I'd market DIRECTV as the high-quality alternative to video streaming. But that's me. Mr. White is in his office in Manhattan making a gadzillion dollars and I'm... not. So maybe I'm not so smart as I think ;)
     
  18. Jan 6, 2011 #238 of 4070
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Just like the sports extra pack, DIRECTV should offer the HD everything pack. I'd buy it! This way the SD only peeps are not obligated to shell out more cash.
     
  19. Jan 6, 2011 #239 of 4070
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    By charging for HD Access, they kind of do that. I'm led to believe that Dish's HD only offering didn't do well in the market, either.
     
  20. Jan 6, 2011 #240 of 4070
    retired flyer

    retired flyer Cool Member

    26
    0
    Nov 12, 2007
    I have 2 homes(since 1996 with DTV) with the Plus HD DVR packages which were downgraded from the Premier package last year only because of price. I don't think DTV understands the financial stress families have encountered in the past 5 years. I do not know one DTV customer that hasn't downgraded their DTV package. The best quality IS DTV . The streaming alternatives such Netflix, network sites, and peer to peer sites have dramatically improved their quality in the past 2 years. Using the Bluray Netflix service makes HBO,Starz, etc. a total waste of money. Computer operating systems and chips inside have made giant strides in playing internet video. If DTV thinks they can entice me to upgrade by constantly raising prices, not giving new HD to lower tier customers, or requiring a flawed autopay system to get a lower price(autopay screwed up my invoice too many times and I now do internet billpay through Bank of America with great results), if DTV thinks these are "incentives", they're wrong. I once thought DTV was a good deal, not any more. The quality and diversity of internet options is getting better every day.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page