That was a bad time ... with DirecTV introducing HD Lite to fit more channels into limited space and taking some channels off the air to cover sports. Fortunately those times are long passed.
slice1900 said:
People choose based on price and equipment (i.e. some combination of capacity/reliability/features/performance of set tops) unless there is some missing deal breaker channel. Such deal breakers, like Pac 12 for example, generally have nothing to do with a lack of capacity.
Price and equipment are debatable ... there are people who swear by DirecTV equipment and others who swear at it. But the deal breakers open the door to taking a closer look at what else is wrong. ie: DirecTV doesn't have Pac-12? What else is missing? Esquire Network, Reelz Channel, WE, Logo, The Hub, Centric, Fuse or RFD TV may not be deal breakers for you but they have viewers. When people have to ask "what will I give up by going to DirecTV" the best answer is "nothing" ... not "nothing we consider important (which may include your favorite niche channel or sports network)".
Giving up the reputation for "we have it all" and accepting the mantle of "we have it most" gives more room for people to think about another service. Staying ahead is important ... and if that takes additional satellites that makes their launch important.
Like I've always said, for me it comes down to programming. What good is better equipment/picture/etc if you can't watch what you want? I'm a Yankee fan, so Dish is out of the question.
That was a bad time ... with DirecTV introducing HD Lite to fit more channels into limited space and taking some channels off the air to cover sports. Fortunately those times are long passed.
Price and equipment are debatable ... there are people who swear by DirecTV equipment and others who swear at it. But the deal breakers open the door to taking a closer look at what else is wrong. ie: DirecTV doesn't have Pac-12? What else is missing? Esquire Network, Reelz Channel, WE, Logo, The Hub, Centric, Fuse or RFD TV may not be deal breakers for you but they have viewers.
Directv has these. Just not in HD. But are still available unlike the vast amounts of HD sports MLB and NFL and HD Premiums that dish doesn't carry.
They all have fans too, apparently more, since Directv in the USA alone still has over 6 million more customers.
Let's complain about Directv's line up when they actually have a problem.
You should be more worried about Dish and the multiple channels they don't even carry.
Or one of the largest sports DMA's they just flat out don't serve.
Sent from my Galaxy S5
I don't disagree, but there is a big difference between the urgency for D10/D11/D12 when Directv was behind some cable companies in HD, and today, where all providers are roughly equal - all are missing some set of niche channels that SOMEONE wants, as you say, but all have a pretty wide selection so people can't find more than a few channels that any one provider lacks.
Since DIRECTV is currently under relatively successful attacks from Comcast, Charter and others about their fall from grace with respect to leadership in sports programming and as their pricing is coming in line with many of the same, I think it is relatively important that they maintain some sort of edge to remain viable going forward.
When you pay niche prices, you may rightly expect niche programming.
That the anticipation thread has found life and quite a bit of the discussion centers around DIRECTV 14 isn't an inexplicable coincidence.
Giving up the reputation for "we have it all" and accepting the mantle of "we have it most" gives more room for people to think about another service. Staying ahead is important ... and if that takes additional satellites that makes their launch important.
This is a silly argument. There are exactly zero providers that "have it all", and there always will be. You can name a list of channels that Directv is missing. The same could be done for Dish, for FIOS, for Comcast, for Cox, for TWC and on and on. Most likely some of those channels won't be added even after D14 launches because the issue isn't capacity, it is price/terms. Same reason why Dish didn't have ESPNU in HD until recently. They had the capacity to add it long ago, but didn't have the agreements in place. Who knows which of the channels Directv is missing are for reasons like that, rather than lack of bandwidth? Different providers negotiate different deals at different times, so just because one has a channel in HD, or at all, doesn't mean that those who don't have it lack the capacity to add it.
D14 will allow adding many of the missing channels, but they still won't "have it all", even if they end up with a lot of unused bandwidth and decide to crank up the HD quality as a way of making some use of it.
I have not seen this mentioned recently but we cant forget that some of the capacity being launched over the next couple years will be needed to replace capacity on satellites reaching EOL. It is not all for new channels by any stretch...
Since DIRECTV is currently under relatively successful attacks from Comcast, Charter and others about their fall from grace with respect to leadership in sports programming and as their pricing is coming in line with many of the same, I think it is relatively important that they maintain some sort of edge to remain viable going forward.
When you pay niche prices, you may rightly expect niche programming.
That the anticipation thread has found life and quite a bit of the discussion centers around DIRECTV 14 isn't an inexplicable coincidence.
Yes, I can. And others can come up with a list as well. Even people who are not members of DBSTalk can come up with a list of channels DirecTV doesn't carry or doesn't carry in HD. And while you and others may discard the argument with "nobody has everything" and try to take the topic even further off in the weeds by discussing other providers THIS THREAD is about DirecTV ... and what people expect of DirecTV.
For years DirecTV had and cultivated the reputation if you wanted it they had it. Their advertising pushed that they were the "Best TV". Why even look at another provider? They were able to back up that reputation by having more channels - especially more sports. And if they didn't have it, don't worry - DirecTV will launch a new satellite and have that content as well. Just be patient.
As documented in this thread, the expected launch has slipped back. And that leaves DirecTV with the choice of riding out the year hoping to recover in 2015 or finding other ways to improve. "Best TV" is not stagnant.
Lets see the next satellite launch - and hope the capacity brings content.
You can play the "as long as they have NFLST" card or the Yankees card too many times. The NASCAR card went away.
In and around my area it is more about the Portland Trailblazers and the PAC-12 network (University of Oregon Ducks). PAC-12 is carried by everyone BUT DIRECTV and Comcast and Charter both carry the Blazers. All three are running advertising on TV and radio regarding DIRECTV's bygone status as "the sports leader". Other areas have different tastes and I suspect that Philly customers wan't some lovin' and aren't getting it. The CSN Houston thing got some pretty good play in the press recently
The SEC network is also showing some play in advertising as DIRECTV "negotiates".
If they haven't fallen, people are certainly questioning their resolve.
DIRECTV has never had philly so that's not at all something to hang your hat on. And they haven't had the blazers in years. They also as I recall are missing something in Sacramento area. These few teams don't mean much to their overall offerings, and forget nflst. What about MLB and NHL and nba? Other than dish getting close from what I understand who else even comes close to offering as many games total?
MLB.com I believe was partly born when it was because most cable companies can not have that many feeds going at once. DIRECTV can usually.
The Dodgers is a channel no one is picking up. Same with Huston.
And until the sec is missing lets not bother worrying about it, but even if it was, then you'd have an argument for some football fans in a few areas of the south.
The PAC 12 is a bit of a joke unfortunatly. You can't call that station a sports me a by any strech. Missing it is less important than missing either the Dodgers or Huston. Its more liek missing the west coast feed of a channel we already get the east coast feed for.
Until you can point to someone who has anywhere near as much sports and total games available to everyone this really isn't something anyone can say is the sign that DIRECTV isn't the leader in sports anymore. They still are clearly overall. One or two markets alone doesn't make them or break them. Frankly I've always thought dish was number two overall and they have not had ny sports in years.
And I don't know anyone who's questioning their resolve. They are taking a stand against ridiculous pricing and greed from sports franchises like the Dodgers. I don't know anyone who's upset the Dodgers aren't on their TV screens who know about the reason why they aren't on their TV. Not one. In fact most people are saying, that's fine, I'll watch the Angels and I'll catch the Dodgers in the playoffs if they make it. It's had zero impact on how peope, feel about DIRECTV being better at sports than most from anyone I have talked to about it. And most people don't even know that the pac12 carries games they might watch because they pretty much dont!
salo updated his schedule yesterday and it would appear that DIRECTV 14 lost its ride (VA221).
The quickest turnaround in recent history was 35 days but this year's launches are averaging closer to 57 days apart (ranging from 44 to 76).
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
DBSTalk Forum
3.6M posts
112K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!