Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Mike Bertelson, Mar 24, 2012.
Bring on more HD
They are on hallmark (I thought lifetime) and they are 4:3. They were shot on 35mm film. Stuff done on kinescope looks like crap. Desi insisted on film and took a pay cut to offset the higher cost of film. As part of that deal, they got the rights to the reruns.
If Desi weren't a drunken philanderer, he would have been amazing.
Most of those would be good, but you need to delete two to add WE and Universal Sports. My vote would be to leave out GSN and either Style or TV Land to make room for WE and Universal Sports.
Last year when I had Choice Ultimate, I listed additional Encore channels among my wants as well. Not as high as channels like AMC, BBCA, CW HD-DNS, etc., but they still made it.
While I personally still hope it's channels that feature original programming (and since I'm referring to me personally, a channel that I actually care about), I can certainly understand why additional Encore channels would be a much appreciated addition, I was simply explaining that I have no interest in them, so I wasn't trying to insinuate they're coming to DirecTV... I was just passing along information.
I someone would have bet me 3 years ago that as of 6-1-2012 DirecTV would still not have BBCAHD I would have taken that bet all day long. Same with HLNHD.
I still firmly believe that MavTV would rock many DIRECTV's viewer's worlds.
If someone had bet me 3 years ago that HLN was still being broadcast I would have taken that bet. Since HLN moved away from the 30 minute headline news format, I have stopped watching it. The thought of Nancy Grace in HD is more than I can take.
I am with you on this one. Would love to see it added to the line up.
That was the rumor, not so right now from what I'm hearing. There are three Encore channels that are in HD that I'm aware of. Directv carries one of them right now.
Sure you have. Surveys showed many people wanted TruTV and E!. Both were launched recently. Just as many said they wanted more Premiums, and they were added.
More HD is coming this year. Some will be pleased, some will wish for different options. With the remaining HD channels left that haven't launched, you're getting into a spot where there are some people that absolutely desire X channel while others want Y channel and others Z channel. You do the best you can to launch the channels that will appeal to customers, add value to the service and that can be done from a contractual \ business perspective that makes sense and doesn't drive up customer bills.
Just launch those local Lafayette, LA HDLiL's and I'll be a happy camper. And get rid of the ugly Jackson, MS NBC station we are inexplicably forced to have. Ugliest SD station on my service (which is funny, since the channel is in HD in Jackson...)
I would leave out TV Land (its older programming mostly in 4:3 anyway) and instead put We on since they already have an agreement with AMC Networks for AMC HD (and hopefully IFC and Fuse HD in the works).
I think it is ridiculous to be adding channels like E! or TruTV when Nat Geo Wild is practically unwatchable in SD. What is the holdup?
I figured as much...
Considering TV Land is in my Top 5 wants, and WeTV is considerably farther down the list, I'm going to disagree with you...
I couldn't care less about the aspect ratios... just the programming.
It is not ridiculous to many, as very one has their own preferences. I for one could care less about Nat Geo Wild or E!, but loved seeing TruTV in HD, as we watch it, on a daily basis. But I will be glad to see Nat Geo Wild and E!, in HD, for those who want it.
I can change that exact sentence to suit my wants:
"I think it is ridiculous to be adding channels like Nat Geo Wild when BBC America is practically unwatchable in SD. What is the holdup?"
Your statement is true for everyone that wants a channel. I have never watched Nat Geo Wild since I have had DirecTV, and as such don't care about it at all. I do care however about BBC America in HD because I watch that all the time. And so it goes for everyone.... we all have channels we want, and we probably have more channels we don't care much about.
Like SatelliteRacer said: some will be happy, others won't. We have reached the channels that are wanted by a portion of people, small groups of interest. It might even be safe to say that of the top 10 channels missing in HD still, only 1 or 2 will make people happy, while the other 8 or 9 fall in the "I never watch that channel" category.
Of course there are those that are already satisfied with what they have now, and new HD is just a welcome bonus, so they will be happy with any HD.
As far as SatelliteRacer's comments go..... it is 99% certain that they will add the two Los Angeles Lakers RSN's, and they will be added before season start in October. So don't be angry if that is ALL you get for the remainder of the year, because with just those two additions, SatelliteRacer's statement is 100% correct: "There will be more HD this year".
If we stated just what we wanted, and made no comments about what others may want, we'd save a lot of electrons.
You can go round and round and round ...
And for every channel ... there's someone who loves it, and someone who hates it.
Simple as that.
And professionals are employed by the content providers to milk every last dime out of the distributors, while professionals are employed by the distributors to negotiate the best deal possible given the financial parameters from their finance organization.
This is not an easy business, no matter how simple it may appear to a casual TV viewer.
Just because one provider has a channel doesn't mean that another provider could easily have it. It all depends on when the deal was negotiated, what was the landscape at that time, how long the deal is for, many different parameters, and every deal is different.
I know many may try to trivialize the situation, and some may even trivialize this post, but sometimes it's not a easy task, especially when the economy is unpredictable. People get their marching orders and they better live by them.
This also involves selling, and people's paychecks, and bonuses, and different sales people have different strategies and approaches to maximize their income. I've been involved in enough situations to know that the best overall deals are those where both parties benefit but they are VERY tough to negotiate, especially when one side has more leverage then the other.