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

Any Anticipation Of New HD Channels (09/17th or 18th)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Cable_X, Sep 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cable_X

    Cable_X Godfather

    280
    0
    Nov 12, 2007
    Mods, if this isn't proper; please delete. :)

    Does anyone care to go out on a limb and say what HD channels might show up tomorrow or Thurs., besides PPVHD or locals?
     
  2. man_rob

    man_rob Hall Of Fame

    1,439
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    According to people who appear to be in the know, don't hold your breath. Incredibly, DirecTV hasn't worked out the contracts yet. I.E. DirecTV is holding ESPNU HD for ransom, because DirecTV is insisting that the channel be put in a pricier tier, (so they can charge us more) while ESPN wants in in basic.
     
  3. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,846
    7
    Aug 4, 2006
    Maybe they want to put ESPNU in a pricier tier so it will cost less to add, since they probably pay a per-subscriber rate?
     
  4. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Well, we'll have to see in two days.
     
  5. BlueGuy

    BlueGuy AllStar

    92
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    I think ESPN has a legit beef. ESPNU is in the Sportspak while Big 10 Network negotiated themselves into the mid level base package. I can understand ESPN wanting similar treatment.
     
  6. merchione

    merchione Godfather

    279
    0
    Apr 28, 2008

    maybe a "hint hint" without a hint?
     
  7. dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,761
    27
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    ill say...........none.........& it feels more like im on a redwood branch than a limb.
     
  8. Sirshagg

    Sirshagg Hall Of Fame

    4,922
    0
    Dec 29, 2006
    Yes, if it's going to make the price go up please put ESPNU HD in the HD Extra Pack so that those of us who don't care about everything sports will not have to pay for yet another channel we don't care about.
     
  9. Kdiddy

    Kdiddy AllStar

    63
    0
    Jan 1, 2008
    Maybe ESPN can take the extra money earned from this ESPNU deal and hire some decent MNF broadcasters. The current crew is horrendous. :nono:
     
  10. pilot305

    pilot305 AllStar

    79
    0
    Oct 10, 2005
    Here we go again............ :nono2:
     
  11. dhines

    dhines Godfather

    398
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    i actually enjoyed the broadcast and the announcers . . . oh, did i mention i had the game on mute?

    :D
     
  12. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,321
    34
    Aug 17, 2006
    Satracer said a few more weeks, would not get my hopes up.
     
  13. evan_s

    evan_s Hall Of Fame

    2,136
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    Neither company is looking out for the customers interests. They are both looking out for their own interest. ESPN wants the channel in a lower package so they can get more viewers for the channel and more money for their advertising slots. DirecTV wants to avoid putting a potentially pricey channel in it's common package that may not be wanted by most of those customers.

    Having espnu in the choice like ESPN, ESPN2 etc means that DirecTV has to pay what ever cost espn is asking for the channel for every customer with that package or better. If you have that package and want it great but if the customers don't want ESPNU it is adding a cost to a lot of subscribers for a channel they may not want and it might be a pretty high cost. On the other hand putting it in the sports pack will definitely lower the number of subs but definitely have a higher percentage of customers who get the channel that are interested in it.

    Given the more regional nature of college sports I think the general appeal of ESPNU might be fairly low to most Choice subs and DirecTV putting it in the sports pack is best for it's over all customer base.
     
  14. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    .. Or perhaps ESPN is holding DIRECTV hostage requiring that DIRECTV move it from an existing tier (which was already negotiated) .. Odds are, with more eyes (in basic tier), ESPN will want more money and DIRECTV will have to pay more for the channel .. So, should DIRECTV NOT try to save money that would be passed on to it's customers?
     
  15. bwaldron

    bwaldron Impossible Dreamer

    5,525
    0
    Oct 24, 2005
    Absolutely.
     
  16. BlueGuy

    BlueGuy AllStar

    92
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    Maybe I'm dead wrong but it seems to me that if you pulled ESPNU off the sportspak D* would lose many sportspak subscribers who keep it largely for ESPNU.....With blackout rules there isn't a whole lot of other stations on sportspak worth subscribing to it for. I'll also say again that i can't blame ESPN for wanting equal treatment to BTN who is in a basic programming package and offers much the same product. So again, I think D* is more worried about losing Sportspak subscribers if ESPNU was on a base package then they are about what the cost impact may be to the base package itself. Seems to me D* wouldn't have this issue today had BTN been put in the Sportspak 14 months ago.
     
  17. evan_s

    evan_s Hall Of Fame

    2,136
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    Hmm good point. Either way I still say both companies are just looking out for themselves =)
     
  18. bruinfever

    bruinfever Godfather

    414
    0
    Jul 19, 2007
    We'll see but doesn't The Shadow always know?? :D
     
  19. DarinC

    DarinC Hall Of Fame

    1,183
    0
    Aug 31, 2004
    But you can't really determine what "similar treatment" is without knowing what Big 10 charges vs. what ESPN charges, and what, if any, other requirements Big 10 has which are similar to the ones ABC/Disney/ESPN have as far as carrying other channels, etc.
     
  20. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,506
    99
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    But more eyes can also mean more advertising revenue for ESPN, so maybe they shouldn't have to charge more for the channel.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page