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

DIRECTV Has the HD 'Capacity' to Bamboozle

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by markrw58, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. Dec 3, 2009 #61 of 119
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    How many DIRECTV Cinema HD movies have you "purchased" recently versus getting them by other means?
     
  2. Dec 3, 2009 #62 of 119
    Milkman

    Milkman Hall Of Fame

    2,055
    2
    Dec 6, 2006
    I have a real dumb question/observation here.

    IF, all of the PPV was not needed, because there wasn't such a demand for it, wouldn't D* cut down on the amount of PPV channels that are being broadcast, and route that bandwidth to other desired HD channels that ARE in demand??

    Instead it seems that they are launching a brand new satellite (which isn't cheap BTW), to provide the bandwidth for the new HD channels.

    I don't get the argument. As much as I don't like all the PPV channels, it must be working for them that they are paying all that money to launch a new satellite.
     
  3. Dec 3, 2009 #63 of 119
    CJTE

    CJTE Hall Of Fame

    2,345
    0
    Sep 17, 2007
    Thats a weird way to state your question/observation.

    If DirecTV was flat-out losing money on PPVs then yea, they would cut down on them. PPVs are almost a direct profit, and the way they're running, DirecTVs obviously making some money on them.
    I'm not a fan of PPV earlier. I'm actually watching Dexter on Netflix on demand right now (the contrast is that I'm a netflix fan). But apparently it's working for DirecTV.

    However, if it wasn't working, that doesnt mean they would throw it all out and bring in new channels. New channels cost money, and take time to negotiate. While this new satellite will give DirecTV the capacity for more, that doesn't mean they have negotiations for more (yet).
     
  4. Dec 3, 2009 #64 of 119
    Milkman

    Milkman Hall Of Fame

    2,055
    2
    Dec 6, 2006
    That is a fair observation. Here is a question.

    If D* broadcasts the Travel channel in SD, and they want to broadcast it in HD, does that require additional negotiations? Since it is the same channel, with the same content, I am wondering if there is additional negotiations.
     
  5. Dec 3, 2009 #65 of 119
    GregLee

    GregLee Hall Of Fame

    1,702
    19
    Dec 28, 2005
    That is also true in Honolulu of TW cable. No extra charge for the HD locals, and TWC carries all of them, while DirecTV only carries some. In fact, if you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of keeping track of the local cable channel numbers and your TV has a capable tuner, you don't even have to rent a box to get local HD channels over cable.
     
  6. Dec 3, 2009 #66 of 119
    BudShark

    BudShark New Member

    3,192
    3
    Aug 11, 2003
    Short answer - yes.

    The ESPN negotiations were a good indicator of that because a lot of press came out. They wanted more money if you carried the HD channel.
     
  7. Dec 3, 2009 #67 of 119
    BudShark

    BudShark New Member

    3,192
    3
    Aug 11, 2003
    Suffice it to say, based on comments, press releases, and other information that has floated around, DirecTV could add several new channels fairly rapidly - including the HBOs.

    Its a business decision and a direction. As Milk pointed out, they didn't put these on to lose money. And considering DirecTV makes their billions off selecting the right channel mix to attract the most lucrative customers - I'll make the wild assumption they've put a lot more thought into this than any of us. And the results speak for themselves. :D
     
  8. Dec 3, 2009 #68 of 119
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    How much do they charge, then? How many HD channels (aside from locals) do they carry? How much do they charge to rent their boxes? How do their DVRs work and what is the recording capacity? And to address the OTA issue, you do realize that not everyone lives in a metro area with a giant extinct volcano handy to put their broadcast towers on, right? A good number of us live in hilly terrain. :)
     
  9. Dec 3, 2009 #69 of 119
    GregLee

    GregLee Hall Of Fame

    1,702
    19
    Dec 28, 2005
    I guess what D* is doing works for them. But it's reasonable to discuss whether it works for us, too, isn't it? The welfare of D* is sort of interesting to me, but I'm more interested in my own welfare. The last satellite that D* sent up had very disappointing results for me -- for HD channels that I would ever want to watch, I got zilch. What can I expect when the next satellite goes up? Apparently, nothing. Looking past the deceptions of the D* ads, they make no commitments about carrying any HD channels that will have any interest for me. So I am fully in support of what Swanni says in the linked article.
     
  10. Dec 3, 2009 #70 of 119
    Milkman

    Milkman Hall Of Fame

    2,055
    2
    Dec 6, 2006
    Understood Greg, and I actually largely agree... I offer a great adage appropriate to the situation:

    The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few - Spock

    While I completely agree that I would rather see more normal HD channels (i.e. NON-PPV), I would say that we are probably in the minority, as they must be making lots of money on the PPV.
     
  11. Dec 3, 2009 #71 of 119
    Milkman

    Milkman Hall Of Fame

    2,055
    2
    Dec 6, 2006
    I could be wrong, but I don't know if I would classify ESPN negotiations as a indicator of the rest of the market. With HD Sports being in such HUGE demand, I don't know if that would be the same as say, The Travel Channel.

    BTW I consider that the biggest ripoff going. The same that I do Superfan. What a joke.
     
  12. Dec 3, 2009 #72 of 119
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    The new satellite will also help future proof themselves with more bandwidth as more channels go HD.
     
  13. Dec 3, 2009 #73 of 119
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I agree. Why pay twice for a channel? Broadcasters and providers need to start doing away with SD channels altogether "sooner than later" and just have all HD channels. Those with SDTVs could receive a downrezed HD channel.
     
  14. Dec 3, 2009 #74 of 119
    GregLee

    GregLee Hall Of Fame

    1,702
    19
    Dec 28, 2005
    TWC's web site gives $13.52/month as their rate for basic cable, and with the right tuner, that is enough to get local HD, though it is not very convenient. A cable box and subscription to digital cable that lets you tune to the locals using the cable channel numbers is $67.53. Local HD is no extra, as I said.

    I wasn't saying anything about OTA, only about cable. Actually, I am in a hilly area, too, and I can receive no TV OTA at all. I'm not aware that the local TV broadcast towers in Honolulu are on extinct volcanoes (though of course all the mountains on Oahu are ancient lava flows), but at any rate there are tall cliffs between me and them.

    Did you really want to know about cable DVRs and recording capacities? I don't see the relevance.
     
  15. Dec 3, 2009 #75 of 119
    Piratefan98

    Piratefan98 Icon

    685
    0
    Mar 11, 2008

    Yes, it was used more for locals, but that was in direct conflict with what DirecTV SAID it would be used for in their D11 press release. National HD was clearly and undeniably the focus of that press release, and on national HD, D11 delivered next to nothing.

    Not arguing the need for locals, RSN's, etc., but to suggest the company "did what they said they would" is silly.
     
  16. Dec 3, 2009 #76 of 119
    HarleyD

    HarleyD Hall Of Fame

    1,357
    62
    Aug 31, 2006
    If they weren't buying it, DirecTV wouldn't keep selling it.

    Ultimately, corporations act in their own best interests. Wasting valuable quantums on endeavors that are not profitable won't be tolerated long.
     
  17. Dec 3, 2009 #77 of 119
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    And I'm not quite sure that's a bad thing. Certainly you have to offer value, not just suck profits, but clearly a lot of people see the value in PPV.
     
  18. Dec 3, 2009 #78 of 119
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    When I lived 15 miles out in the sticks and in the days before widespread adoption of DVDs and the advent of Netflix, my wife and I used to order one or two PPVs per week. It was a sensible, cost efficient (about $1.99 as I recall) way to watch movies for us. It's less so now, since we do have a Netflix account (and streaming through both our Macs and PCs as well as XBox Live to the big TV), but on occasion it's still an option for spur-of-the-moment viewing. It's still certainly WAY cheaper and more convenient than a night at the movies with the whole family (the cost of which can easily push $100 even out here in small city suburbia).

    Clearly, enough people find value in it for Directv to offer it, whether any of us would prefer the bandwidth be used for something else.
     
  19. Dec 3, 2009 #79 of 119
    kevinwmsn

    kevinwmsn Hall Of Fame

    1,355
    3
    Aug 19, 2006
    I don't know about future proof, it does give more bandwidth. If you look at the list of available HD channels they could add with D12, they could fill up D12
     
  20. Dec 3, 2009 #80 of 119
    gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    In short, Swanni needed more hits on his site. When he finds himself in that position, he dredges up old news or makes inflammatory statements.
     

Share This Page