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

Thoughts on Future HD Channels and their Numbering in the Guide

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by bsmithFX4, Jan 11, 2007.

How should D* group future HD channels?

  1. Duplicate channel numbers (like locals over the sat can be)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Group SD and HD separately, with no correltation between channel numbers (like current ESPNHD = 73,

    22 vote(s)
    56.4%
  3. Similar numbers (ESPN SD = 206, HD = 1206)

    17 vote(s)
    43.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bsmithFX4

    bsmithFX4 AllStar

    76
    0
    Dec 7, 2006
    On a lighter note than most posts...

    I don't know if anyone has posted this before, or if anyone has really thought about it here yet, but I was just wondering how D* might present us with the future HD channels down the road...

    For instance, currently, there are multiple methods:
    A. Locals (over the sat) may be presented in the Guide with the same channel number as their SD version (at least here in the LA market). 2 KCBS = HD, 2 LA2 = SD; 4 KNBC = HD, 4 LA4 = SD; etc...

    B. Locals (over the sat) may be presented in the Guide with a differet channel number than their SD version (at least here in the LA market). 2 LA2 = SD, 81 CBSW = HD; 4 LA4 = SD, 83 NBCW = HD; etc...

    C. National Networks (ESPN, TNT, etc.) really have no rhyme or reason to how they are numbered when comparig HD to SD channel numbers. 73 = ESPNHD, 206 = ESPN (SD); 75 = TNTHD, 245 = TNT (SD).

    I am assuming that some of this disparity may be coming from legacy systems/methods of mapping the channels to their numbers - maybe trying to keep all HD channels in the 70's through the 90's, etc.

    What I am curious about is how D* will handle all of their promised new HD channels later this year. Will the HD's be grouped together, with no correlation to the existing SD channels? Will they be given the same number as their current SD equivalent, similar to how my locals over the sat can be listed? Will they have the same channel number as their SD equivalent, but be in the 1000's? etc...

    Personally I'd prefer to have duplicate channel numbers, like I have my locals set-up (A, above). I'm sure others may have a different preference. I'd find it hard to believe someone at D* hasn't started to think about this (I know it's kind of pathetic that I am sitting here thinking about it). So if anyone has heard, I'd appreciate knowing. Otherwise, maybe we could come to some sort of concensus on this forum and maybe push D* in one way or another.

    Any thoughts???
     
  2. Crystal Pepsi Ball

    Crystal Pepsi Ball Godfather

    254
    0
    Jun 29, 2004
    West Valley...
    The HD Locals I dont see them going anywhere. The national HD Channels will probably go to channel range of 1000s or 3000s. I am guessing at this however.
     
  3. islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    2,670
    1
    Oct 18, 2006
    Nevada
    I'm hoping for the opposite. Since they seem to have no intention of enabling CIR, I would at least hope to see the HD channels default to the lower number than their SD counterpart. That way, if you use a keyword autorecord, it will get the HD version rather than the SD version.
     
  4. Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    Was thinking about this the other day ...

    Would much prefer to have all of the HD channels somewhat together, maybe just put them all in the 1000's.

    CNN would be 202. CNN-HD would be 1202. If 1000's were set aside for HD then all HD would be together.

    Seems like they always need to let the user decide if they want to record SD or HD so you can't use the same number.
     
  5. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    I can answer part of the question. The VOD channels will be 1000 higher than their corresponding normal channels. 70 HBO HD's VOD will be 1070, at least that's according to the press conference.

    Beyond that, they didn't say where all the new HD would go.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  6. RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,414
    122
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    Hell, I'd like to see D* completly redo their numbering system, group like program content together vs. the current all over scheam.
     
  7. mitchrc

    mitchrc New Member

    5
    0
    Nov 28, 2006
    They're beginning to hint at new ways to organize all of this. Hopefully they'll rethink the whole thing.

    For me, I have no interest in SD channels. The moment an HD version of anything comes along, I stop watching the SD version of it. I would hope they'd come up with a way for people like me to eliminate the SD channel as it's HD simulcast comes along.
     
  8. Coffey77

    Coffey77 Cutting Edge: ECHELON '07

    2,533
    0
    Nov 12, 2006
    Having the numbers the same is one of my searching for recordings complaints. It takes a few tries to find out which one is the HD channel when you find them on the list. My wife, which is the most important part of this whole deal, doesn't like it one bit.
     
  9. jediphish

    jediphish Godfather

    450
    0
    Dec 3, 2005
    Why not do what D* does with Channel 101. If you can receive the HD version, then that's what you see. If not, then you see the SD version. That way, we don't have to learn any new channel numbers, and the issue of duplicate channels in the guide is irrelevant.

    This is definitely the way true simulcasts should be done in my opinion. Start by doing it with HBO, Sho, ESPN, ESPN2, and TNT.
     
  10. islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    2,670
    1
    Oct 18, 2006
    Nevada
    The problem there is file size. If there is a SD program on both an HD channel and a SD channel, then you might as well record the SD version, as it will use much less space on the drive. I prefer as many options as possible, and let each user make the choices he wants to make.
     
  11. Steveknj

    Steveknj Icon

    932
    0
    Nov 14, 2006

    That's my choice, I don't like any of the above choices really. I would organize them by content. News together, sports together, etc. Then I would group like channels together within that content groups. So for instance, lets say that ESPN SD is channel 206. Then ESPN HD would be 207. ESPN2 SD is 208, ESPN2 HD is 209.
     
  12. carl6

    carl6 Moderator Staff Member DBSTalk Club

    12,435
    929
    Nov 15, 2005
    Seattle, WA
    I voted for option C, but would be happy with either A, or C.

    Carl
     
  13. Radio Enginerd

    Radio Enginerd New Member

    2,913
    2
    Oct 5, 2006
    I don't really care what the "actual" channel number is.

    However I would like to see the HD channel grouped with the SD channel within the guide. Kinda like what they're doing with Showtime and HBO. The channels are located in the 70's, but they alias them so they appear with the regular Showtime and HBO channels in the 500's.

    Not sure why they don't do that with ESPN.
     
  14. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    I'm betting it was to highlight the HD channels when the first came out. When the world shifts again and they do a renumber, perhaps they will do the duplicate numbering, HD on top, SD next to it.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page