- Apr 24, 2004
I currently receive my HD channels from the satellites 148 and 110. I live on the west coast. Charlie has several birds orbiting above. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to devote broader bandwidth for HD now by converting. By converting the transponders/spot-beams to HD bandwidth, say a channel or two a month, he would have happier HD customers. More HD and less SD which would make it more appealing for consumers and providers to upgrade sooner. For the few HD channels that are currently available , the monthly rate is high. If HD is going to become the standard, I think that the price should more fairly fit the current SD pricing structure. During Charlie's last chat, he did state that there wasn't much of anything out there for HD that is different (more or less). This also applies to what is available in in SD. SD has lots of channels that are duplications, repeats, and same type programming. If something is in HD, get it to us in HD. Keep the current HD package cost the same, make fewer SD, so by 2006, a fairly priced HD package is standard. For those that still have SD, who don't want to upgrade to HD, can then pay more a month for the remaining SD channels. Also, I think that caution is in order for compression. It sounds like it may be necessary for the HD with the amount of beams available. I'm afraid that like SD the compression of HD will degrade the quality of the picture. More orbiting satellites may be a better solution.