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

D* vs. E* HD. Split: What does D* offer in HD that E* doesn't that you really want?

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by jacmyoung, Dec 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 6, 2007 #1 of 105
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I remember back in September D* made a call of "giant leap in HD history" and named a few HD channels to be added soon, and when people asked the heads of those channels about what was going on, they had no idea what D* was talking about.

    Your facts actually proved my point, D* rushed those channels into signing the agreements to beef up it's claim as far back as 9 months ago and they went along, even though they had no real plans to go HD any time soon. Let's face it, they had 9 months to get their acts together, had their intention been sincere as D* wanted us to believe, we would be watching real HD content left and right by now.

    I don't know if any of you still remember when many of those pioneer HD channels made their launch announcements, there was always the mentioning of how many hours of HD programming they had in their library for the kick off? We used to laugh at the sometimes meager inventories, but at least they had some. When was the last time you heard those new HD channels said anything about how much HD they had in their library or what are they working on for the near future? Heck when was the last time we even heard words from those new HD channels at all, other than D* making all the noise for them?

    I am all for D* bringing this HD buzz word to the forefront, but I am also not going to stick my head in the sand either. No doubt some are making the effort but quite many of them are just placeholders for now.
     
  2. Dec 7, 2007 #2 of 105
    msmith198025

    msmith198025 Member of the Year

    1,260
    0
    Jun 28, 2007
    Well that doesnt hold water. If they had NO IDEA you would think that NONE of the channels would have HD on them, or have the HD logo set after their names on the tv screens. They obviously had SOME IDEA.
    Basing info off of what may have spread around some internet message board without verification isnt the best idea in the world:)

    Which ones are you looking forward to them adding jacm?
     
  3. Dec 7, 2007 #3 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    You have no facts to base any of this on as DirecTV being the cause AND the blame for what a content provider did or didn't do.

    I am hard pressed to believe that another multi-billion dollar company like Viacom (as an example) would allow itself to be pressured by DirecTV. Disney was announced as well, but BOTH DirecTV and Disney said that they were launching in 2008 - why was Disney NOT pressured the same way?

    Your theory doesn't fly as I see it.
     
  4. Dec 7, 2007 #4 of 105
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I never said D* is the cause for lack of HD nor blame them for such. But the fact is many of those HD channels went along with D* so they can claim a spot before the bandwidth becomes an issue again, I don't blame them at all, but don't pretend they have a real HD plan in place and even are making good effort.

    So the point is the 100 HDs is much less impressive than it sounds. Nevertheless, the promotional aspect of such plan is brilliant, becasue most people already think they are watching HD when they are not, so it makes no difference if the new HDs are real or not, people will respond by feeding their newly acquired HD sets with the "best HD plan" out there. Not blaming anyone just stating the fact.

    And here comes the benefit we all share, whether we like the half assed HD content or not, D* has turned up a new form of competition, and as a result I got free HD for 6 months from E* so they don't lose me to D*. And I am free to jump ship anytime I wish. In the meantime E* will try its best to offer HD content. I fully expect to ride this wave of new competition and benefit from it, whether I am with E* or D*, knowing full well there still isn't mcuh HD to watch or worth watching:)

    So to answer the OP's question, do I wish E* has all what D* has now and may be more? Of course, but I really have not yet come up with anything I really want in HD that D* has but E* does not.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2007 #5 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    You have presented an argument that it was DirecTV pressuring these companies to put on a HD channel - frankly I don't buy that argument and see no proof that it is in ANY way true.

    As I see it, it is in the content providers BEST INTEREST to sign a HD carriage agreement with the pay providers NOW and here is why - ALL of them (D*, E*, cable) stilll only have limits on number of channels that they can or will be able to carry in HD (whetther its 150, 200, etc.). To guarantee THEMSELVES a place in that group, it is in their own benefit to get on the system as soon as possible. Remember there are many more than 200 SD channels on these systems. Some are not going to have any room.
     
  6. Dec 7, 2007 #6 of 105
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    We are really saying the same thing if you read me carefully. So may be my use of word "rush" was misleading, both sides want to jump on the bandwagon, even though many have no intention to bring ture HD content soon. In a sense D*'s HD plan "rushed" many of the providers into launching their HD channels before they actually can be called an HD channel.
     
  7. Dec 7, 2007 #7 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    I still don't really see it that way - I have to believe that DirecTV would want them all to be broadcasting TONS of HD material - that only increases the value to its subs - doesn't it?

    And it of course is true for DISH, FiOS, cable, as well. If DirecTV just wanted to add HD channels, they would have even more on the system today - geez that would be easy to do.
     
  8. Dec 7, 2007 #8 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    D* would have to have the permission of the content providers.
    Perhaps the other providers are a little less cavalier about their brands?
     
  9. Dec 7, 2007 #9 of 105
    Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    This was split out of the other thread since it quickly went far away from the topic. So feel free to continue this conversation here.... Keep it civil and respect other peoples opinions..
     
  10. Dec 7, 2007 #10 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    Thanks Ron - great idea.

    jac - to repeat my feelings, I have neither heard nor seen any supporting info to support your theory - and to be fair I have heard none on the other side either - that being said, you are only guessing that it is pressure by DirecTV - it very well could be DESIRE on the part of those providers to be on the system while there is still room for them.

    I just don't know or understand the need to even have to point a finger at either right now - for it is more than obvious that one thing DirecTV HAS DONE - is get a lot of these content providrs off their butts and get something going. You can't believe for one second that it is only a coincidnece that this all came to a head just as D10 was launched and lit. Saying that - it is good for ALL HD enthusiasts that this happened - no matter which service you pay for.
     
  11. Dec 7, 2007 #11 of 105
    rcoleman111

    rcoleman111 Guest

    Most of the new channels have at least some HD content on them. If you like "Stargate: Atlantis" and "Battlestar: Galactica", you can now watch them in HD, whereas you couldn't before those new channels were added. What does it really matter if a lot of content you don't watch anyway is SD?
     
  12. Dec 7, 2007 #12 of 105
    msmith198025

    msmith198025 Member of the Year

    1,260
    0
    Jun 28, 2007
    Thats the point I have been TRYING to make for a while. People seem to be hung up on the fact that some of the content isnt in HD and miss the fact that nearly all of the Original series content and movies are.
     
  13. Dec 7, 2007 #13 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    Another point is that with over 80 HD channels now on the system, at all times it seems there are 30-50 or MORE different HD programs to choose from - that is awesome considering that a little over 2 months ago there were only about 10 total channels.
     
  14. Dec 7, 2007 #14 of 105
    msmith198025

    msmith198025 Member of the Year

    1,260
    0
    Jun 28, 2007
    Yes, it is amazing, and good for BOTH companies in the long term
     
  15. Dec 7, 2007 #15 of 105
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    Do I have a theory? If so let me try to figured it out now.

    Let’s see fact one, in the last year or two D* was pretty much the only one making all the announcements and claims of the big HD plan, and making agreements with all the providers, the lack of enthusiasm from those “HD” providers was pretty obvious;

    Fact two, in September when D* announced some more HD channels to launch in the conference call and when people asked the heads of those providers they either did not know what was it about or had no comments, at a minimum a show of lack of enthusiasm again in my view;

    Fact three, many of those channels worked on the agreement with D* 9 months before the launch still today simply un-convert SD and called it an HD channel, providing no plan of their own what will be true HD content in their arsenal or in the near future to come.

    So yes I would say many of the channels were dragged into the frenzy, I never said it was a bad thing, just that many of them have no real intention or care to make much effort to bring true HD content to their supposed new HD channels.

    It is of course not the fault of D* that those channels do not have real HD content, what needs to be pointed out is the so called “100 HD’s” are not what general public who just purchased their new HD sets, really getting what they think they are getting. But since most people are happily convinced they are watching HD just because they have an HD set, whether connected to an HD source or not, it matters very little anyway.

    The HD revolution D* has brought about, at least at this very moment, and for me personally, is not the abundance of HD content, rather the perception of it, that benefits me from E* doing more than usual to keep me happy as their customer, if not adding HD, at least giving more programming discounts, and likewise make D* do the same to attract people like me, when they already have the lead in HD count, but still can sweeten the HDDVR deals more to match E*.

    So yes I am nothing but happy to see it evolve, not for the reason I thought it was, but still...
     
  16. Dec 7, 2007 #16 of 105
    msmith198025

    msmith198025 Member of the Year

    1,260
    0
    Jun 28, 2007
    It still doesnt hold up to me.

    For the first fact, what makes you think they didnt show enthusiasm? That sounds more like an opinion on your part than based on fact.

    For the second, which particular channels are you talking about? And can you show links where they were asked about this. The only one that comes to mind for me is the weather channel. I recall them saying something to the effect that the majority of their HD programming would be done in 08, however they do have HD content now. In no small part because D* gave them a way to get it out.

    For the third point, i simply say that it takes time to convert the studio, or even build a new one to get the HD broadcasts to where they want them. This doesnt happen overnight. This has been the case with most all channels that have converted to HD.
     
  17. Dec 7, 2007 #17 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    Yes, you have a theory, and I repsect it even though I don't really agree with it.

    Facts? No unless you can show me PROOF. Without PROOf, it is only theory, that's the difference. You support your facts with speculation and inneuendo, but NO PROOF.

    It is OPINION, and thus valid as such.

    BTW, mine is OPINION ALSO.
     
  18. Dec 7, 2007 #18 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The questions to answer are:
    1) Would the provider have a "HD" channel if it were not for D*'s carriage?
    2) When will there be regular HD content on each channel?
    3) Does any other carrier carry the "HD" version of the channel?

    Based on the past I have no problem blaming TBS for their non-HD channel. TBS and TNT were the first of the worst for upconverting SD content and calling it "HD". But there are channels that I can not imagine taking that leap without considerable "encouragement" from D*. What that was is left to our imagination.

    BTW: Voom has positive answers to the three questions. The provider originally created the channels for their own system, not for E* or D*. The provider is regularly providing HD on their channels. The provider has their channels on another carrier (Cablevision).

    The answers would vary per network ... one can't blanket state that every channel D* has in "HD" that isn't carried elsewhere exists as a result of undue pressure from D*. But there are channels that don't seem to have any reason to exist other than to fill bandwidth and add to a count without adding HD content.
     
  19. Dec 7, 2007 #19 of 105
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Exactly my theory, and I have provided three facts repeatedly to support such theory, I don't know how to find PROOF to a fact.

    Of course no one has to agree with my theory based on the facts I provided.
     
  20. Dec 8, 2007 #20 of 105
    ScoBuck

    ScoBuck Banned User

    1,100
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    Then I guess VOOM DIDN'T qualify until THIS AUGUST - after all they were NOT on Cablevision for the time period of May 2005 thru August of 2007. Yep, even the company that owns VOOM didn't have them on for OVER 2 YEARS.

    Nice try. Good spinning.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page