DBSTalk Forum banner

Disney Junior debuts on DirecTV Saturday July 14

23K views 115 replies 50 participants last post by  tonyd79 
#1 ·
Here's some good news for some in the midst of the Viacom dispute. Disney Junior is coming to DirecTV. Hopefully Disney Junior will add more classic Playhouse Disney shows like Bear in the Big Blue House in the near future.

It will be interesting to see what DirecTV packages get Disney Junior. Hopefully grandfathered Choice Xtra Classic customers will see the addition as well.


Disney Junior will Launch Saturday, July 14 to Millions of DIRECTV Customers Nationwide


BURBANK and EL SEGUNDO, Calif., July 13, 2012 - DIRECTV and Disney have reached a new agreement to add Disney Junior, a 24-hour channel expressly for kids age 2-7 and their parents/caregivers, to DIRECTV's programming lineup beginning tomorrow on channel 289. Disney Junior launched in 2011 as a daytime programming block on Disney Channel and expanded to a 24/7 channel in 2012. It is one of the most sought after channels by DIRECTV customers and will be permanently added to their programming options as a basic channel.

Disney Junior's animated and live action programming blends Disney's unparalleled storytelling and beloved characters with learning components, including early math and language skills, as well as healthy eating and lifestyles, with an emphasis on social and emotional development. The original series include "Jake and the Never Land Pirates," "Doc McStuffins," "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse," "A Poem Is…," "Handy Manny," "Little Einsteins" and "Special Agent Oso." Disney Junior also airs Walt Disney Studios' and Pixar's classic and contemporary animated films, as well as Disney's many non-theatrical sequels so popular with children and parents.

"When it comes to children and families, nobody has the tremendous programming to compare with Disney," said Derek Chang, executive vice president of Content Strategy and Development for DIRECTV. "Our customers have been clamoring for us to add Disney Junior since they first heard about the concept, and DIRECTV is happy to place our trust in Disney as a partner in building this exciting new family service."

"We are pleased to reach this agreement with DIRECTV to provide Disney Junior's high quality, valuable and family-friendly programming to their customers," said David Preschlack, executive vice president, Disney & ESPN Affiliate Sales and Marketing. "We know parents are passionate about having top quality television options for their families, and now millions will be able to watch outstanding preschool programming on a 24/7 channel unlike any other on television. With the addition of DIRECTV, the 24-hour Disney Junior channel has distribution agreements that cover approximately 55 million U.S. households." Disney Media Networks' flagship Disney Channel is fast becoming the most popular programming service among DIRECTV homes. The number of children viewers aged 2 through 11 has surged more than 19 percent in the past year alone, and total viewership has increased 15 percent during those same 12 months. Disney Junior will now take a place in the DIRECTV channel guide directly adjacent to Disney Channel at channel 289.

http://news.directv.com/2012/07/13/...-to-millions-of-directv-customers-nationwide/
 
See less See more
#52 ·
JoeTheDragon said:
open to all subs for now and will be placed in a pack when Viacom is over?
that's how i read what they say on twitter too, but then there's the whole press release:

It is one of the most sought after channels by DIRECTV customers and will be permanently added to their programming options as a basic channel.

which i lifted directly from:

http://news.directv.com/2012/07/13/...-to-millions-of-directv-customers-nationwide/

I guess... what is the definition of a basic channel and what tier does that translate to?
 
#53 ·
Araxen said:
Not in HD what a waste.
Yup.

mitchflorida said:
If that is how your kids think about SD it is only because you have prompted them to feel that. You are taking orders from a 5 year old?
When a 3 year old says the picture is "fuzzy", it's an observation at a critical point in their visual development. No prompting is required.

People without kids have no idea what kids can or cannot observe. :nono2:
 
#54 ·
Skyboss said:
Yup.

When a 3 year old says the picture is "fuzzy", it's an observation at a critical point in their visual development. No prompting is required.

People without kids have no idea what kids can or cannot observe. :nono2:
Perhaps this could be a good lesson for kids that in life you don't always get everything you want. Yes the channel would be nice in HD, but SD is better than nothing and perhaps they should be thankful that they have it at all. Or are we raising up a bunch of spoiled brats who have to have everything all the time? If my kids were young enough to enjoy that channel I'd tell them either watch it in SD or don't watch it at all. It's their choice.
 
#55 ·
Skyboss said:
Yup.

When a 3 year old says the picture is "fuzzy", it's an observation at a critical point in their visual development. No prompting is required.

People without kids have no idea what kids can or cannot observe. :nono2:
It's amazing we all survived before HD. However I'm not quick to dismiss science so I'd be interested to see what causes a 3 year olds visual development to be critical at that stage when watching TV.
 
#56 ·
"Shades228" said:
It's amazing we all survived before HD. However I'm not quick to dismiss science so I'd be interested to see what causes a 3 year olds visual development to be critical at that stage when watching TV.
When a 3-year-old says it's fuzzy, I'm guessing the aspect ratio is stretched. Also, the parent needs to turn off the TV.
 
#57 ·
"Shades228" said:
It's amazing we all survived before HD. However I'm not quick to dismiss science so I'd be interested to see what causes a 3 year olds visual development to be critical at that stage when watching TV.
Well, there was a point where I thought a 32" TV was large. SD doesn't look too bad on a small set. Especially when it's the only thing you know.
 
#58 ·
I was very disappointed to see SD as well. We will go back to what we were doing before ... record all of the HD showings on the Disney Channel and replay.:nono2:
 
#59 ·
Barmat said:
My kids have been totally spoiled by technology. They are 5 and 7 and have problems watching anything that is SD or has commercials. I appreciate the effort by D* but see it for what it is. Another channel added that My family and myself will just skip over because it's in SD.
What ?? NO HD/DVR in your Kids Rooms!! I am suprised they have not reported you to childrens services for child abuse.

They learn habits from You.
 
#61 ·
"TheRatPatrol" said:
If I owned networks today in 2012 I would be offering HD only feeds to the providers. I would want all eyes on my networks with the best possible picture. No SD crap! :Nono2:
Then you lose a ton of ratings. A big chunk still has SD only TVs or SD only service.
 
#62 ·
I think the main deal for me is that DTV SD is terrible. I was waiting since last year for this channel and they bring it out in their crappy SD. We have one TV it's a 50" panny and channels like this look terrible, they give me headaches and I can't watch them. My kids will only watch them for a short time so I wonder if they have the same issue? Adding this in SD was like a slap in the face. I have been with DTV since the mid 90's and this last year has not been good. The companies that will win out in this day will be the ones who will be moving forward with technology, not backwards. New SD channels are backwards IMO. Very disappointed.
 
#63 ·
Shades228 said:
It's amazing we all survived before HD. However I'm not quick to dismiss science so I'd be interested to see what causes a 3 year olds visual development to be critical at that stage when watching TV.
When DirecTV first started up, SD programming didn't look bad. Over the years, DTV has over-compressed the signal to the point where it looks fuzzy even to a three year old. It got to the point where I would avoid any SD programming on DirecTV unless it was something that I absolutely wanted to watch.

I compare SD channels on DirecTV to watching a tape on an old VCR.
 
#65 ·
TheRatPatrol said:
True but a big chunk of those SDTVs are hooked up to some sort of receiver that could downrez the HD signal so it can be viewed.
If DirecTV does indeed have bandwidth problems preventing it from adding more HD channels, maybe replacing SD-only receivers with down-rezing HD receivers and eliminating SD duplicate channels is a good idea. I'll bet that many of the of the SD-only receivers are obsolete and due for replacement anyway. If that were done then maybe DTV could use the extra bandwidth to add more HD. Gotta be cheaper than launching a new satellite.
 
#66 ·
"TheRatPatrol" said:
True but a big chunk of those SDTVs are hooked up to some sort of receiver that could downrez the HD signal so it can be viewed.
Not enough to make it business wise yet.
 
#67 ·
TheRatPatrol said:
If I owned networks today in 2012 I would be offering HD only feeds to the providers. I would want all eyes on my networks with the best possible picture. No SD crap! :Nono2:
Then you wouldn't be very smart in business since half the country wouldn't see your programming and even those with HD normally have a few SD televisions in the house, too.

Leaving a ton of money on the table. :nono2:
 
#68 ·
tonyd79 said:
Not enough to make it business wise yet.
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of DirecTV's customers still have SD sets, especially considering that they tend to cater to a more affluent customer base. Do installers even put in SD receivers any more? You can't even buy a SD TV any more. I know I've replaced all of my SD TVs with HD. The 720p sets are not very expensive and are fine for a kid's room...
 
#69 ·
skierbri10 said:
I think the main deal for me is that DTV SD is terrible. I was waiting since last year for this channel and they bring it out in their crappy SD. We have one TV it's a 50" panny and channels like this look terrible, they give me headaches and I can't watch them. My kids will only watch them for a short time so I wonder if they have the same issue? Adding this in SD was like a slap in the face. I have been with DTV since the mid 90's and this last year has not been good. The companies that will win out in this day will be the ones who will be moving forward with technology, not backwards. New SD channels are backwards IMO. Very disappointed.
People's eyes deceive them. SD channels are meant to be viewed on SD televisions. Watch SD picture on a SD television and they look fine. Watch a SD channel on a HD television, especially a large one, and they don't look good. They were never intended to look good on a HD television.
 
#70 ·
"jimbo56" said:
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of DirecTV's customers still have SD sets, especially considering that they tend to cater to a more affluent customer base. Do installers even put in SD receivers any more? You can't even buy a SD TV any more. I know I've replaced all of my SD TVs with HD. The 720p sets are not very expensive and are fine for a kid's room...
Has nothing to do with what I posted, which was in response to the idea that a channel sell only HD and not SD to satellite and cable.
 
#71 ·
jimbo56 said:
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of DirecTV's customers still have SD sets, especially considering that they tend to cater to a more affluent customer base. Do installers even put in SD receivers any more?
You guys view this stuff through the lens of being new or early adopters. Yes, DTV still installs SD receivers for new customers but not much, something like 15% from what I have heard. There are still many people in this country where $50 per month is what they can handle so when you add HD and box fees, HD is out of the question. Let's not assume the good lives we have translates to everyone else. When you read earnings calls about things like Subscriber Acquisition Costs, the hardware is included in there. I'm sure DTV could force all new customers into HD today but those SAC numbers would go up because HD boxes are more expensive than SD. Eventually they will do this, but at a time of their choosing.

From the industry reports I have seen, most tv providers are about 50% HD and 50% SD in terms of their customer base (this was through end of 2011). However, that only means a customer is receiving HD service but could also have SD televisions in the home. Friends I have at DTV, Dish and Comcast all say the majority of the boxes out there are still hooked up to SD televisions but the gap is closing. Almost impossible to buy a SD television anymore and as those break and the costs for HD come down, people switch. But, there are many SD televisions alive and well.

Let's not forget that HD televisions were still $2000+ in 2008, that was only 4 years ago. SD televisions dominate the American landscape.

Everytime I read someone here complain about SD launches or why everything isn't HD it reminds me how little people truly understand the 115 million television households in this country. I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just stating it that most people here (and you guys are educated) have no idea what is truly out there. Ask a few installers here how many SD televisions they still see out there. The number is huge, especially for lower income level folks.
 
#72 ·
jimbo56 said:
If DirecTV does indeed have bandwidth problems preventing it from adding more HD channels, maybe replacing SD-only receivers with down-rezing HD receivers and eliminating SD duplicate channels is a good idea. I'll bet that many of the of the SD-only receivers are obsolete and due for replacement anyway. If that were done then maybe DTV could use the extra bandwidth to add more HD. Gotta be cheaper than launching a new satellite.
DTV is already starting to replace the older SD boxes as announced here a few weeks ago, but the cost of replacing all SD boxes would be in the mulitple billions of dollars. Easily.

Let's do the numbers. 20 million customers assuming each customer has 3 receivers (or let's be conservative and say 2.5). That's 50 million receivers.

Let's assume 20 million are HD and 30 million are SD. 30 million SD receivers that you would need to exchange, some DVRs some not. Some would require an installer and a new dish, SWM, etc.

Even if you assumed only $50 per box cost to trade out, that would be $1.5 billion. It is, of course, higher than $50 because of the installation, HD DVRs cost a ton more than $50, etc. At $100 the cost is $3 billion. At $150 it is $4.5 billion.

You're talking insane money.
 
#73 ·
ChicagoBlue said:
You're talking insane money.
But what does it cost to purchase and launch a new satellite? I'm guessing that it's over a billion dollars, at the minimum. If replacing SD receivers now can delay the launch of a satellite by a few years it might be a viable idea. Most of these SD receivers are outdated and will have to be replaced in the future anyway.

I do see your point. It's insane money either way.
 
#74 ·
jimbo56 said:
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of DirecTV's customers still have SD sets, especially considering that they tend to cater to a more affluent customer base. Do installers even put in SD receivers any more? You can't even buy a SD TV any more. I know I've replaced all of my SD TVs with HD. The 720p sets are not very expensive and are fine for a kid's room...
The majority of customers still have SD receivers active on their accounts. A significant portion of DIRECTV customer's are still SD only. SD receivers are still installed en mass today.
 
#75 ·
jimbo56 said:
But what does it cost to purchase and launch a new satellite? I'm guessing that it's over a billion dollars, at the minimum. If replacing SD receivers now can delay the launch of a satellite by a few years it might be a viable idea. Most of these SD receivers are outdated and will have to be replaced in the future anyway.

I do see your point. It's insane money either way.
Actually doesn't cost a billion. The satellites have to launch anyway because they don't have an infinite life due to fuel and such. So new satellites are going to be launched because the lifespan of some of DTV's early satellites will be winding down. Consider that a sunk cost. I suspect the newer satellites may only support HD but who knows. Probably safe to assume DTV will support SD for a number of years due to the number of SD receivers that are still out there. I don't know if that is 5 years, 7 years, 10 years.

Costs: About $450 million per including launch and insurance. See snipped below. As a result, the numbers are pretty easy, don't exchange those SD receivers because the numbers aren't there. Let customers upgrade on their own and pay the freight.

DirecTV has the equivalent of four satellites under construction that will cost a total of $1.729 billion including launch and insurance, plus $74 million paid already in 2011, the company said in its SEC filing. Future payments will total $83 million in 2011, $343 million in 2012, $334 million in 2013, $145 million in 2014, $116 million in 2015 and $708 million in subsequent years.

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html
 
#76 ·
ChicagoBlue said:
DirecTV has the equivalent of four satellites under construction that will cost a total of $1.729 billion including launch and insurance, plus $74 million paid already in 2011, the company said in its SEC filing. Future payments will total $83 million in 2011, $343 million in 2012, $334 million in 2013, $145 million in 2014, $116 million in 2015 and $708 million in subsequent years.

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html
Added to the fees DirecTV is paying the programmers, kind of explains why our bills are so high...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top