150 Channels HD which is just local HD not major Networks like FoodHD so forth.. Direct TV is just behind the times and their CEO is not in tuned with their customers.. Dish is blowing them away.. They dont want to invest to stay up to date with everyone else. I can see Dish being the Sat leader in the near future..
http://www.tvpredictions.com/murdochhd091906.htm
Is HDTV Too Expensive For Rupert Murdoch?
The media mogul looks to swap ownership of DIRECTV to John Malone's Liberty Media.
By Phillip Swann
Washington, D.C. (September 19, 2006) -- News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch has wanted to own a satellite TV service in the United States for 10 years.
So, why is he now negotiating to swap his controlling interest in satcaster DIRECTV to John Malone's Liberty Media?
News reports suggest that Murdoch is frustrated that DIRECTV doesn't have the technical capacity to offer wireless and Broadband services. Studies have recently indicated that cable TV operators may be stealing customers from satellite because they can offer those services.
However, another reason that Murdoch may be contemplating the swap is the high cost of High-Definition TV.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp.
DIRECTV has committed to launching four new satellites so it can expand its high-def programming lineup. The satcaster now offers just nine national HD channels, far less than its satellite rival EchoStar and most cable TV systems. With the new satellites, all of which should be operational next year, DIRECTV says it can provide local HD signals in most markets and up to 150 national HD channels.
But the satellites -- and the supporting infrastructure -- are enormously expensive, perhaps costing up to a billion dollars (if not more than that.).
In addition, DIRECTV has hinted in the past that it will offer free upgrades to new MPEG 4 receivers, which high-def owners will need to display the new channels in 2007. While the exchange program would add cost, it might be necessary to ensure that all DIRECTV high-def owners purchase the new HD programming packages.
Interestingly, Eric Shanks, DIRECTV's executive vice president of entertainment, told TVPredictions.com last week that DIRECTV has yet to make a decision on next year's upgrade policy. The remark might suggest that DIRECTV is rethinking the free upgrade plan.
Add it all up and it's abundantly clear that DIRECTV will have to spend a small fortune to expand its high-def lineup and stay competitive with EchoStar and cable TV.
With satellite TV's subscriber growth slowing, the cost may be too much for Murdoch to bear.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/alper091806.htm
DIRECTV, I Just Don't Get It
By Ken Alper
HD Observer
Editor's Note: DIRECTV's Eric Shanks told TVPredictions.com last week that the satcaster will likely not add any national HDTV channels until 2007. Instead, DIRECTV will focus this year on adding local HD channels across the country. The revelation has provoked numerous negative comments from our readers, including this one from HD Observer Ken Alper.
Washington, D.C. (September 18, 2006) -- I seriously just don’t get what they’re thinking (when they say they will focus on local HD in 2006).
Every DIRECTV receiver and DVR (well, at least the Tivo branded ones; I don’t know about their new ones) lets you painlessly connect the roof antenna you most likely already have right to the box, and it seamlessly integrates those signals into your tuner. So here in the NYC area, if I start at channel 2, which is the local CBS affiliate in standard definition via DIRECTV, and click the “channel up” button, I go to 2-1, the HD signal being broadcast over the air. It’s uncompressed, and it’s painless – it’s not like I have to get up and flick an A/B switch or something.
They’re wasting all this time and money launching new satellites to carry local affiliates that PEOPLE CAN ALREADY RECEIVE OVER THE AIR, and they’re NOT putting up national HD feeds of existing cable networks, which is what people (well, me at least) actually want.
Even worse, if they move the existing national HD networks to the new Mpeg-4 satellites, people like me, who paid around $600 for our HD DIRECTV TiVos, are going to have to do a swap, possibly paying money, to get the vastly inferior DIRECTV branded DVR, which no one actually wants. The ONLY thing keeping me from switching to cable right now is that with cable, you CAN’T connect an antenna to the box. You get stuck watching the badly overcompressed local HD signals they send you on the wire.
Just one annoyed consumer’s perspective.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/murdochhd091906.htm
Is HDTV Too Expensive For Rupert Murdoch?
The media mogul looks to swap ownership of DIRECTV to John Malone's Liberty Media.
By Phillip Swann
Washington, D.C. (September 19, 2006) -- News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch has wanted to own a satellite TV service in the United States for 10 years.
So, why is he now negotiating to swap his controlling interest in satcaster DIRECTV to John Malone's Liberty Media?
News reports suggest that Murdoch is frustrated that DIRECTV doesn't have the technical capacity to offer wireless and Broadband services. Studies have recently indicated that cable TV operators may be stealing customers from satellite because they can offer those services.
However, another reason that Murdoch may be contemplating the swap is the high cost of High-Definition TV.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp.
DIRECTV has committed to launching four new satellites so it can expand its high-def programming lineup. The satcaster now offers just nine national HD channels, far less than its satellite rival EchoStar and most cable TV systems. With the new satellites, all of which should be operational next year, DIRECTV says it can provide local HD signals in most markets and up to 150 national HD channels.
But the satellites -- and the supporting infrastructure -- are enormously expensive, perhaps costing up to a billion dollars (if not more than that.).
In addition, DIRECTV has hinted in the past that it will offer free upgrades to new MPEG 4 receivers, which high-def owners will need to display the new channels in 2007. While the exchange program would add cost, it might be necessary to ensure that all DIRECTV high-def owners purchase the new HD programming packages.
Interestingly, Eric Shanks, DIRECTV's executive vice president of entertainment, told TVPredictions.com last week that DIRECTV has yet to make a decision on next year's upgrade policy. The remark might suggest that DIRECTV is rethinking the free upgrade plan.
Add it all up and it's abundantly clear that DIRECTV will have to spend a small fortune to expand its high-def lineup and stay competitive with EchoStar and cable TV.
With satellite TV's subscriber growth slowing, the cost may be too much for Murdoch to bear.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/alper091806.htm
DIRECTV, I Just Don't Get It
By Ken Alper
HD Observer
Editor's Note: DIRECTV's Eric Shanks told TVPredictions.com last week that the satcaster will likely not add any national HDTV channels until 2007. Instead, DIRECTV will focus this year on adding local HD channels across the country. The revelation has provoked numerous negative comments from our readers, including this one from HD Observer Ken Alper.
Washington, D.C. (September 18, 2006) -- I seriously just don’t get what they’re thinking (when they say they will focus on local HD in 2006).
Every DIRECTV receiver and DVR (well, at least the Tivo branded ones; I don’t know about their new ones) lets you painlessly connect the roof antenna you most likely already have right to the box, and it seamlessly integrates those signals into your tuner. So here in the NYC area, if I start at channel 2, which is the local CBS affiliate in standard definition via DIRECTV, and click the “channel up” button, I go to 2-1, the HD signal being broadcast over the air. It’s uncompressed, and it’s painless – it’s not like I have to get up and flick an A/B switch or something.
They’re wasting all this time and money launching new satellites to carry local affiliates that PEOPLE CAN ALREADY RECEIVE OVER THE AIR, and they’re NOT putting up national HD feeds of existing cable networks, which is what people (well, me at least) actually want.
Even worse, if they move the existing national HD networks to the new Mpeg-4 satellites, people like me, who paid around $600 for our HD DIRECTV TiVos, are going to have to do a swap, possibly paying money, to get the vastly inferior DIRECTV branded DVR, which no one actually wants. The ONLY thing keeping me from switching to cable right now is that with cable, you CAN’T connect an antenna to the box. You get stuck watching the badly overcompressed local HD signals they send you on the wire.
Just one annoyed consumer’s perspective.
Last edited:
