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

DIRECTV and HDNet Settle Lawsuit

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by tfederov, Dec 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 7, 2007 #1 of 124
    tfederov

    tfederov Well-Known Member

    4,779
    64
    Nov 18, 2005
    I guess Cuban is right about win-win, but I'll catch a movie on HDN Movies every once in a while. No biggie because I upped for the HD Extra.

    http://www.tvpredictions.com/hdsuit120707.htm
     
  2. Dec 7, 2007 #2 of 124
    Sirshagg

    Sirshagg Hall Of Fame

    4,922
    0
    Dec 29, 2006
    If this is the case AND DirecTv does not raise the HD access fee as a result this is VERY good news. I like HDnet but don't really care about HDnet Movies.
     
  3. Dec 7, 2007 #3 of 124
    newsposter

    newsposter Hall Of Fame

    1,429
    1
    Nov 12, 2003
    so what are the people in the other threads gonna talk about now that it's been resolved?

    I just wish i had the time/space to watch those extra channels. That's my gripe :)
     
  4. Dec 7, 2007 #4 of 124
    jal

    jal Icon

    761
    0
    Mar 3, 2005
    This is a good result, but I don't think Directv should have an extra hd tier for just a few channels. After all, who would pay $5 for HDNet movies or Smithsonian? Perhaps this will stop Directv from jacking up the pricing.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2007 #5 of 124
    Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,060
    154
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Agree. I'm happy for HDNet, but not happy that the principal has been upheld that somehow those channels still in the "premium" tier automatically deserve extra value, without identifying which ones actually do.

    I think the way to drive this home is to institute "a la carte" pricing for these 4-5 channels at maybe $1/month each, so DirecTV can establish which ones the viewers actually might value on a subscription basis, rather than just lump them all together. This will also give these networks an opportunity to learn the same lessons some of the formerly "pay" websites did. That is, they may need to make their money through eyeballs and ad revenue, not subscription fees.

    Just my .02. /steve
     
  6. Dec 7, 2007 #6 of 124
    NYSmoker

    NYSmoker Icon

    657
    0
    Aug 19, 2006
    I have enough movie channels to not need HDNet Movies. I am happy that HDNet will remain where it is.

    Art Mann for all! Don't forget to record the late showing. :)
     
  7. Dec 7, 2007 #7 of 124
    JFHughes08088

    JFHughes08088 Godfather

    295
    0
    Mar 24, 2007
    I think everyone is forgetting the bigger issue. D* will do whatever it can to increase revenue (both by gaining new subscribers and raising what it collects from existing customers). HDNet was nothing more than a prop to deflect our attention away from the bigger picture, which is to first establish a "premium" HD tier. From there, nothing stops them from shifting current HD offerings into the higher tier and/or placing any new HD channel it wants into whatever tier makes better financial sense.

    Don't think keeping HDNet where it is was much of a victory. It seems more like a diversion...

    I would like to see the numbers on D* cost to launch the new satellites and the added customers it gains by doing so. Most of the HD channels do NOT cost D* more as they negotiated distribution agreements that had the channels include HD programming when available.

    I do not have an issue with D* charging whatever it can get for its service. If the price gets to high, we will consider other options. If they raise rates and we keep paying it, we are getting what we believed is fair. IF not, we can go to cable, Dish, whoever.
     
  8. Dec 7, 2007 #8 of 124
    liverpool

    liverpool Legend

    171
    0
    Jan 29, 2007
    Until they bring out a la carte pricing they are not getting another penny out of me. I want to choose what I pay for not be forced to pay for channels I never watch.
     
  9. Dec 7, 2007 #9 of 124
    man_rob

    man_rob Hall Of Fame

    1,439
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    My prediction, DirecTV's Extra package will go the way of Voom. (The channels they've put in it are about as interesting as Voom, and that's not saying much)

    Didn't Dish at first offer Voom as a second tier package? Then when not enough people were signing up for it, they upped the base HD price, and included Voom in the package?
     
  10. Dec 7, 2007 #10 of 124
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I'm glad this is over because I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cuban and I honestly could see both sides of the argument.
     
  11. Dec 7, 2007 #11 of 124
    raoul5788

    raoul5788 Guest

    1,481
    0
    May 13, 2006
    What about Katie Daryl! :heart: :heart:
     
  12. Dec 7, 2007 #12 of 124
    JLucPicard

    JLucPicard Hall Of Fame

    3,985
    0
    Apr 27, 2004
    And who would pay $9.99 a month for years for just a handful of HD channels?

    Maybe I'm alone in this, but it seems like people are looking at this thing in kind of a vacuum. The HD expansions is what, all of a couple months old? DirecTV has established a tier of HD channels that do not have SD equivalents. All of the discussion to this point identifies the X number of channels currently in there (and maybe rightly so as that is all that is concrete right now). But it seems peoples' arguments are pretty much based on that being all the channels that will ever be there.

    I have no idea as the area of HD broadcast TV grows how many HD only networks might develop. At some point I would think the "HD with SD counterparts" market will max out, but I can see there being new channels developed that may be HD only. As it appears where DirecTV is headed with what they're doing, those channels would be added to the Extra Pack.

    If that's the way they choose to go (which does make sense to me if there is an assumption or even evidence that more and more HD-only channels may develop over time), they have to step in at some point and make the split. I think it will be much better in the long run for them to do this at the "birth" of the expansion than to wait, continue adding new HD-only channels to the HD Access package and THEN split ("take them away from me") even more HD-only channels into a new tier - especially given that in very recent history people were paying $9.99 for a limited number of HD channels for years.
     
  13. Dec 7, 2007 #13 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Has anyone found any additional information about the length of this "settlement" ?

    Is it till the end of the current contract 12/2008?
    Or did the settlement include an extension of some type?
     
  14. Dec 7, 2007 #14 of 124
    EdK99

    EdK99 Mentor

    34
    0
    Feb 26, 2007
    So now it will be HDNET Movies, Universal, Smithsonian, MGM and MHD for $4.99. Now I'm 1000% sure I'm going pass on signing up now. Good Job D*!
     
  15. Dec 7, 2007 #15 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    And the problem is?

    You wanted them for nothing?

    If you were not going to watch them... then was is the big deal about them being in a tier you won't pay for?

    I dont' say: "Good Job D*" for making HBO $12 a month....
    If you as a consumer don't find the value in it, then you have a choice.

    Would you have found it better if they increased HD-Access to $14.99 and included them, without a choice?

    Or did you mean it in a positive way?
     
  16. Dec 7, 2007 #16 of 124
    cforrest

    cforrest Icon

    840
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    No surprise on the out of court settlement. I don't expect the terms of the deal to be made public either, so who knows for how long HDNet stays part of the HD Access package. Regardless, it only makes the HD Extra Package less appealing. Good outcome & I am sure Cuban is happy.
     
  17. Dec 7, 2007 #17 of 124
    NYSmoker

    NYSmoker Icon

    657
    0
    Aug 19, 2006
    I would think it is a positive for him since he was considering paying for the package because of HDNet (D* knew that was the channel that would draw people to the package in the first place) and now he does not need to pay for that package to continue watching HDNet.
     
  18. Dec 7, 2007 #18 of 124
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Well I am going to be a stand up guy and admit I was right :D

    Anyone on the other side going to be stand up as well?????
     
  19. Dec 7, 2007 #19 of 124
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    What did you guess that HDNet would go to the base package, and HDMovies would stay in the HD Extra Pack?

    Or were you right that a settlement would be made (Which most people reasonable assumed would happen).

    Or were you right that the HD Extra Pack wouldn't be going away?

    So what line are we talking about so we know which side to stand up on?
     
  20. Dec 7, 2007 #20 of 124
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    If this is true, it is not reflected on the directv website yet. Both HDnet products are still listed on the HD Extra packaging. But if true, I would think it would have to be until the end of the current contract in 08.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page