Iceman said:
Lately I actually find myself asking that same question. 1 channel in over a year? Common.
Significant Dish Criticism Seems Unfounded
- Thread starter JAL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 5K
Lately I actually find myself asking that same question. 1 channel in over a year? Common.
I think the problem is the long term prospects for Dish.
I am not smarter than any body else but I see D* making a big push in HD. I do not see Dish being as active. I think D* is betting that HD lead will give them a bigger advantage long term, I would not bet against that vision.
I an old enough to remember that Sony was 1st out with a VCR (Betamax format) but lost out to VHS because VHS had better consumer features and look what happened to Sony's Betamax format.
Dish was first out with HD but now D* and even cable is ahead. As a 9+ year Dish customer & now ex-stockholder I feel E* took the short view and could very well lose in the long term.
The higher spending subs have been loyal to Dish but I note some are now moving on - not a good sign. Dish may get some new subs with its local line up but as Digital/HD TV continues to grow, D* could get an even larger share of the Sat market and that will allow them to get better & bigger programming deals (like the NFL) than Dish can.
While I continue hope against it, Dish might ultimately/long term end up just being an also ran in the satellite race. IMO Ergen needs to get the company looking more long term than it is now. That means better hardware, software and being more competative with D* and Cable in the HD area now rather than later.
I am not smarter than any body else but I see D* making a big push in HD. I do not see Dish being as active. I think D* is betting that HD lead will give them a bigger advantage long term, I would not bet against that vision.
I an old enough to remember that Sony was 1st out with a VCR (Betamax format) but lost out to VHS because VHS had better consumer features and look what happened to Sony's Betamax format.
Dish was first out with HD but now D* and even cable is ahead. As a 9+ year Dish customer & now ex-stockholder I feel E* took the short view and could very well lose in the long term.
The higher spending subs have been loyal to Dish but I note some are now moving on - not a good sign. Dish may get some new subs with its local line up but as Digital/HD TV continues to grow, D* could get an even larger share of the Sat market and that will allow them to get better & bigger programming deals (like the NFL) than Dish can.
While I continue hope against it, Dish might ultimately/long term end up just being an also ran in the satellite race. IMO Ergen needs to get the company looking more long term than it is now. That means better hardware, software and being more competative with D* and Cable in the HD area now rather than later.
IMHO, it's a combination of things. I got into DVDs a few years ago...got into home theater because of DVDs. Got a 50" DLP widescreen display mainly because of DVDs. Then the 811 comes out. Cool, I think to myself. I get an 811. HD looks amazing! I watch a lot of HD, but I want more channels now.
I wouldn't exactly consider myself an early adopter, per se, but I am a bit more out there on the leading edge than many people I know personally.
To that end, I've grown to really like HD. It's a lot more interesting to watch and it's easier on the eyes to watch than SD. I think those of us who have gotten into HD have very likely arrived there by different paths, but now that we're there, we all see that we want more of it.
If E* doesn't plan to be the "leader in HD", then I just wish Charlie would come out and say so and then those of us who are really into HD can go where the most HD will be and E* can lead the world in providing local and SD and international channels. My issue at this point is the waiting around to see who's going to do what, and when?
As has been said, 1 new HD channel in a year??? Cable can do (and has done) better than that, despite the fact that I detest cable PQ.
I don't believe that those of us who want more HD (and are paying extra for it) are asking for too much, honestly.
I wouldn't exactly consider myself an early adopter, per se, but I am a bit more out there on the leading edge than many people I know personally.
To that end, I've grown to really like HD. It's a lot more interesting to watch and it's easier on the eyes to watch than SD. I think those of us who have gotten into HD have very likely arrived there by different paths, but now that we're there, we all see that we want more of it.
If E* doesn't plan to be the "leader in HD", then I just wish Charlie would come out and say so and then those of us who are really into HD can go where the most HD will be and E* can lead the world in providing local and SD and international channels. My issue at this point is the waiting around to see who's going to do what, and when?
As has been said, 1 new HD channel in a year??? Cable can do (and has done) better than that, despite the fact that I detest cable PQ.
I don't believe that those of us who want more HD (and are paying extra for it) are asking for too much, honestly.
I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting more HD, nor is there anything foolish about telling a company what you want and going to whatever company best meets your needs. I'm just saying that Charlie is focusing on what will bring him the most customers now. Locals and price are his selling points.
This is not to say he has not made huge errors. The whole idea of Charlie Chats is stupid. He has no business brain storming on the air. He is the CEO. What does he know about technical issues? And no one is in a position to promise things to customers way down the line.
Phrases like "HD leader" are just slogans. "Nothing gets your whites as bright as White Bright laundry detergent". Those things are meaningless, though they make good fodder. But saying there are plans to bring NBR to all recievers? Dumb. Maybe there were plans, but that sort of stuff should stay internal until they know they can actually do it.
This is not to say he has not made huge errors. The whole idea of Charlie Chats is stupid. He has no business brain storming on the air. He is the CEO. What does he know about technical issues? And no one is in a position to promise things to customers way down the line.
Phrases like "HD leader" are just slogans. "Nothing gets your whites as bright as White Bright laundry detergent". Those things are meaningless, though they make good fodder. But saying there are plans to bring NBR to all recievers? Dumb. Maybe there were plans, but that sort of stuff should stay internal until they know they can actually do it.
Well, you would be wrong - period.
As others have mentioned, the issue here is renewalls AND new subs. That means future revenue. The single largest growth area in television is HD. Again, the future. Let's talk about competition. Cable is growing more HD content - including LOCALS day by day, at lower costs. You are considering the technology that people had yesterday, and have today. You are NOT considering the factors of market competition and the forced obselescense of analog TV. You're also ignoring the ever increasing marketing and hype of HD advertising. I have a friend who has only OTA TV. So what? That has absolutely no relevance. I also know literally dozens of people with DVRs, and lots of people with HD. Further, EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED ME AND WATCHED MY HD SETUP LEFT AND STARTED LOOKING AT HOW TO GET IT THEMSELVES!
Your argument puts Dish in a reactive and soon to be end of life position in the relativley near future. The required infrastructure to support dishnet is far too expensive for them to be financially successful unless they are able to get new HIGH COST SUBSCRIPTIONS!!!! People like me (who had 921, 510, 2 508s, and Americas Everything) pay subscriptions with the highest profit margins for Dish. Without us, Dish cannot survive long term. I agree that locals are important. HD locals are just as important for Dish to survive long term. Waiting two years or more to get them just doesn't cut it. Adelphia gives me everything Dish does - plus a lot more - for less.
Do you remember C and Ku band sats? That's what Dish will become if Charlie doesn't recover from his lobotomy.
As others have mentioned, the issue here is renewalls AND new subs. That means future revenue. The single largest growth area in television is HD. Again, the future. Let's talk about competition. Cable is growing more HD content - including LOCALS day by day, at lower costs. You are considering the technology that people had yesterday, and have today. You are NOT considering the factors of market competition and the forced obselescense of analog TV. You're also ignoring the ever increasing marketing and hype of HD advertising. I have a friend who has only OTA TV. So what? That has absolutely no relevance. I also know literally dozens of people with DVRs, and lots of people with HD. Further, EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED ME AND WATCHED MY HD SETUP LEFT AND STARTED LOOKING AT HOW TO GET IT THEMSELVES!
Your argument puts Dish in a reactive and soon to be end of life position in the relativley near future. The required infrastructure to support dishnet is far too expensive for them to be financially successful unless they are able to get new HIGH COST SUBSCRIPTIONS!!!! People like me (who had 921, 510, 2 508s, and Americas Everything) pay subscriptions with the highest profit margins for Dish. Without us, Dish cannot survive long term. I agree that locals are important. HD locals are just as important for Dish to survive long term. Waiting two years or more to get them just doesn't cut it. Adelphia gives me everything Dish does - plus a lot more - for less.
Do you remember C and Ku band sats? That's what Dish will become if Charlie doesn't recover from his lobotomy.
Sapient said:
How about agreeing to disagree.
Whether everyone likes it or not there is going to be more than one group of people who have a view about satellite tv and each group's values are valid.
I am not going to prevent people for asking for more HDTV, but frankly I couldn't care less about it. I go look at the sets at the electronics store and think about it, and then I decide it isn't worth it to me now. I am also not the only one as I see other people doing the same thing.
This is not a wrong or right issue.
Whether everyone likes it or not there is going to be more than one group of people who have a view about satellite tv and each group's values are valid.
I am not going to prevent people for asking for more HDTV, but frankly I couldn't care less about it. I go look at the sets at the electronics store and think about it, and then I decide it isn't worth it to me now. I am also not the only one as I see other people doing the same thing.
This is not a wrong or right issue.
Nope - can't agree!
It doesn't matter if you get HD now or not. What matters is building a growth patter of new subs, maintaining existing subs, and increasing the number of high margin subs. Whether you or your friends want it or not, the fact is that it is the highest growth sector without exception. And, costs are dropping dramatically every day. You can now get a new 26" HD CRT at BestBuy for $350! I COMPLETELY agree that Dish provides some pretty good quality for people. The problem is that their market is being increasingly penetrated and they are not competing. This is a financial situation and Dish is losing at a faster and faster pace. The group that does not care about HD has some great points of view. However, they are meaningless with respect to the future status of Dishnet - the FCC is taking care of that - on top of consumer demand. It isn't right or wrong, it's just reality. Let me describe why...
If Dish continues to lose HD users, Charlie will be increasingly left with legacy users or only those who cannot get cable in their area. Those are the lowest margin customers, which will again decrease the profitability of E*. As these margins decrease, Charlie will have to increase fees (again, like the VOD fee) in order to maintain profits. However, those very cost increases will only serve to make E* yet less competitive, resulting in yet more lost subs. In order to stay in business, Charlie will be then forced to make massive improvements in terms of content and features. But, the problem he'll have is that making those changes are far more expensive for him than for his cable competition. Because Charlie can't use two way addressable systems like Cable, he's got to invest far more into "anti-hacking", replacement of smart cards, encryption, and hardware design. Again, more cost.
Let's not forget that you can get multiple tuner DVR with no purchase, no contract, and less overall lower cost with cable than Dish at this point.
I don't want to be misunderstood here. I REALLY wish that Dish were not taking the low road. I REALLY want true competition. That makes it better for everyone. However, that just isn't the case any more. The tables have turned. Now, Dish just isn't in the picture. Their customer service just plain sucks!!!! I can't believe I'm calling the same number now that I called up to about a year ago. I used to get GREAT service. Now, all I do is wait on hold and get crappy, clueless people. Can't believe that Adelphia Cable has better service than than Dish, but they do.
Finally, Cable also has the advantage of providing broadband. Dish does not! OK, they've got an agreement with a DSL provider, but way too many people will NEVER be able to get DSL because of the distance from local CO's (really needs to be w/i 12000ft, but lower speeds at up to 18000feet) and they're not building new COs.
So, again - this is a commercial viability issue that speaks to what will happen to Dish going forward. It has nothing to do with whether or not you personally, or a whole bunch of people in general, are intersted in HD. I mean, certainly you've got a choice and a valid opinion. Not trying to alienate you. But, that won't help Dish remain as a viable solution if they don't change.
It doesn't matter if you get HD now or not. What matters is building a growth patter of new subs, maintaining existing subs, and increasing the number of high margin subs. Whether you or your friends want it or not, the fact is that it is the highest growth sector without exception. And, costs are dropping dramatically every day. You can now get a new 26" HD CRT at BestBuy for $350! I COMPLETELY agree that Dish provides some pretty good quality for people. The problem is that their market is being increasingly penetrated and they are not competing. This is a financial situation and Dish is losing at a faster and faster pace. The group that does not care about HD has some great points of view. However, they are meaningless with respect to the future status of Dishnet - the FCC is taking care of that - on top of consumer demand. It isn't right or wrong, it's just reality. Let me describe why...
If Dish continues to lose HD users, Charlie will be increasingly left with legacy users or only those who cannot get cable in their area. Those are the lowest margin customers, which will again decrease the profitability of E*. As these margins decrease, Charlie will have to increase fees (again, like the VOD fee) in order to maintain profits. However, those very cost increases will only serve to make E* yet less competitive, resulting in yet more lost subs. In order to stay in business, Charlie will be then forced to make massive improvements in terms of content and features. But, the problem he'll have is that making those changes are far more expensive for him than for his cable competition. Because Charlie can't use two way addressable systems like Cable, he's got to invest far more into "anti-hacking", replacement of smart cards, encryption, and hardware design. Again, more cost.
Let's not forget that you can get multiple tuner DVR with no purchase, no contract, and less overall lower cost with cable than Dish at this point.
I don't want to be misunderstood here. I REALLY wish that Dish were not taking the low road. I REALLY want true competition. That makes it better for everyone. However, that just isn't the case any more. The tables have turned. Now, Dish just isn't in the picture. Their customer service just plain sucks!!!! I can't believe I'm calling the same number now that I called up to about a year ago. I used to get GREAT service. Now, all I do is wait on hold and get crappy, clueless people. Can't believe that Adelphia Cable has better service than than Dish, but they do.
Finally, Cable also has the advantage of providing broadband. Dish does not! OK, they've got an agreement with a DSL provider, but way too many people will NEVER be able to get DSL because of the distance from local CO's (really needs to be w/i 12000ft, but lower speeds at up to 18000feet) and they're not building new COs.
So, again - this is a commercial viability issue that speaks to what will happen to Dish going forward. It has nothing to do with whether or not you personally, or a whole bunch of people in general, are intersted in HD. I mean, certainly you've got a choice and a valid opinion. Not trying to alienate you. But, that won't help Dish remain as a viable solution if they don't change.
blkhouse said:
I'd still like to have my local area launch. I'm like in the 2% of the US that neither Dish or Direct covers. There's only 2 measly channels... the PQ is shoddy anyway, so noone will notice the compression.
As for HD... I'm in the P-Whipped demographic where I'd have to have more channels in order to justify the purchase of the television. I currently have an ED-TV, which works nicely for now... every so often I go "ooh" and I'm happy. The missus doesn't see it. As long as she get to watch her CSI she doesn't care. Took a year to sell the DVR to her.. you have to give us ammo for HD.
As for HD... I'm in the P-Whipped demographic where I'd have to have more channels in order to justify the purchase of the television. I currently have an ED-TV, which works nicely for now... every so often I go "ooh" and I'm happy. The missus doesn't see it. As long as she get to watch her CSI she doesn't care. Took a year to sell the DVR to her.. you have to give us ammo for HD.
Just for consideration -
If HD channels & programming are not going to be a major facture in the near future why is Directv & Cable pushing it so hard in their plans and advertising and getting it up and running first . Even Ergen has to talk about it - its just sometime in the future for Dish.
I do not know the business models for satellite & cable but it does seem the D* and cable are making major investments in HD asap for a reason - while only Dish lags behind. This does not seem to bode well for Dish.
If HD channels & programming are not going to be a major facture in the near future why is Directv & Cable pushing it so hard in their plans and advertising and getting it up and running first . Even Ergen has to talk about it - its just sometime in the future for Dish.
I do not know the business models for satellite & cable but it does seem the D* and cable are making major investments in HD asap for a reason - while only Dish lags behind. This does not seem to bode well for Dish.
Sats losing their edge...Need something big to keep subs
I am a Dish sub and went with them due to better programming, better picture and better services than cable.
I think they lived by this and gained subs from it.
Now I think they will be losing subs (including myself) because they have no edge at all.
- Picture quality has dimished to cable level
- Price is not that low anymore
- Service has dwindled down to poor
- Cable has more HD now than Dish
- There is no reason to stay with them (at least D* has the NFL plug). What do they offer that cable does not. (only Sirius now)
I need someone to help me not to jump to cable.
I am a Dish sub and went with them due to better programming, better picture and better services than cable.
I think they lived by this and gained subs from it.
Now I think they will be losing subs (including myself) because they have no edge at all.
- Picture quality has dimished to cable level
- Price is not that low anymore
- Service has dwindled down to poor
- Cable has more HD now than Dish
- There is no reason to stay with them (at least D* has the NFL plug). What do they offer that cable does not. (only Sirius now)
I need someone to help me not to jump to cable.
You haven't been keeping up with the Bells lately. They have been installing "remote terminals" out in the field to enable DSL beyond the 18,000-foot limit, as well as to increase speeds to existing DSL customers in the fringes of direct-from-CO service.wmhjr said:
Also, now that the Bells are finally moving forward on FTTC/FTTH, within a few years those kind of limitations will be as dead as the old DOS 640K limit. (But then the Bells will be able to do video themselves, which will be bad news for E*--and all other cable and satellite providers. Though it's been rumored that SBC may end up using E* dishes at the CO's to feed its fiber.)
I have been keeping up with the Bells lately. I'm in that business. First of all, the "remote terminals" do not give full ADSL (not to mention VDSL, SDSL, or SHDSL) but are pretty much restricted currently to IDSL speeds (slow). Second, the 18,000 foot limit is really a hacking of the real 12,000 foot limit which certainly expands the footprint, but at significantly reduced performance parameters. It's far more likely that a complete replacement for DSL will come along well before this situation is improved.
Of greater significance is the fact that so much of the country is simply without fiber - a situation which regardless of the initial FCC rulings is unlikely to change in the next 18 months. The bread and butter of Dish and Direct started out with those who could not get cable service due to infrastructure limitations. Those same (often rural) areas also don't have fiber, and are typically well beyond even 25,000 feet from any CO. Cable, however, has increasingly penetrated those environments.
What that really means is that cable is eating away at the rural areas, is competitive on price, is delivering more content day by day, is providing at least relatively equivelant hardware, and can delivery multiple products. In virtually every one of these categories, Dish is falling behind further every day.
As for the Bells "finally moving forward on FTTC/FTTH", Hogwash. I don't believe we'll see FTTH in ANY kind of reasonable time frame. They've all universally backed off on that promise. Now, they're even backing away from FTTC (have you been watching the status of Lafayette, LA?). Will it ever happen? Yes, probably. However, it's very likely that Dish will be but a memory like Ku before that happens if Charlie doesn't get some medical attention to pull his head from his posterior.
Of greater significance is the fact that so much of the country is simply without fiber - a situation which regardless of the initial FCC rulings is unlikely to change in the next 18 months. The bread and butter of Dish and Direct started out with those who could not get cable service due to infrastructure limitations. Those same (often rural) areas also don't have fiber, and are typically well beyond even 25,000 feet from any CO. Cable, however, has increasingly penetrated those environments.
What that really means is that cable is eating away at the rural areas, is competitive on price, is delivering more content day by day, is providing at least relatively equivelant hardware, and can delivery multiple products. In virtually every one of these categories, Dish is falling behind further every day.
As for the Bells "finally moving forward on FTTC/FTTH", Hogwash. I don't believe we'll see FTTH in ANY kind of reasonable time frame. They've all universally backed off on that promise. Now, they're even backing away from FTTC (have you been watching the status of Lafayette, LA?). Will it ever happen? Yes, probably. However, it's very likely that Dish will be but a memory like Ku before that happens if Charlie doesn't get some medical attention to pull his head from his posterior.
RBBrittain said:
wmhjr said:
I need to disagree with you about 'remote terminals', unless your definition is different then what SBC/Ameritech is calling them (basically remote DSLAM's linked by a SONET network back to the CO). I'm over 23K feet from the CO and couldn't even get IDSL. A 'remote terminal' was installed about 2,400 feet from my home and I have a DSL line that's sync'ed at 6016Kbps down and 608Kbps up, getting actual speeds around 5Mbps/500Kbps, that's just a tad faster then IDSL.
Certainly no SONET around here...
You got lucky! In this region there's absolutely nothing of the sort going on. Specifically, they are laying absolutely no fiber - period. Additionally, that seems to be the trend around the US at the moment. Bell, SBC, ATT, are all dragging their collective feet and now claiming that FTTC is even overkill, creating bandwidth capacity that will "never be used" at a high cost in terms of capital improvements. That trend is not just local - as mentioned you can refer to the LA issue in court at the moment as a shining example of the consumer getting the short end. What I think that will likely mean is that if you are in an area currently served via DSL, you're OK. If you are not, but there is little existing development but a huge increase in residential development (and a reasonably high tax base) you "may" be in luck - but on their schedule. If you are even at the fringes of suburbia, just plain forget it. As an example, even if you're within 100 feet of the nearest CO in this area, you'll get *maybe* 3000/512. Just curious, where do you live?
You got lucky! In this region there's absolutely nothing of the sort going on. Specifically, they are laying absolutely no fiber - period. Additionally, that seems to be the trend around the US at the moment. Bell, SBC, ATT, are all dragging their collective feet and now claiming that FTTC is even overkill, creating bandwidth capacity that will "never be used" at a high cost in terms of capital improvements. That trend is not just local - as mentioned you can refer to the LA issue in court at the moment as a shining example of the consumer getting the short end. What I think that will likely mean is that if you are in an area currently served via DSL, you're OK. If you are not, but there is little existing development but a huge increase in residential development (and a reasonably high tax base) you "may" be in luck - but on their schedule. If you are even at the fringes of suburbia, just plain forget it. As an example, even if you're within 100 feet of the nearest CO in this area, you'll get *maybe* 3000/512. Just curious, where do you live?
rad said:
wmhjr said:
Actually SBC agrees that fiber to the home is overkill but they do believe that they should run it to the neighborhood then use copper for the rest of the run. This sort of mirrors their Project Pronto where they were doing the same thing but had no mention/plans for video/multimedia delivery.
so, let me ask again....
Where are you located? You may be in one of the very small number of areas where this is happening. They have publicly disclosed (in many areas) that there are no "near term" plans to expand the footprint.
There ARE areas where some small amount of progress is being made. The real problem here - to be honest - is the FCC. In order to not "stifle" the overall growth of "broadband" they've largely given free reign to multiple markets. That's also behind the FCC decision 2.5 years ago which takes broadband delivered by cable providers out of the jurisdiction of franchise authorities. To be specific, that means that the franchise agreement between a cable provider and local government (which, by the way is non-exclusive) may not govern broadband. It also means that while cable television pays taxes to the municipality on revenue earned in that municipality, it no longer pays fees for broadband delivered by that same medium. The fact that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forces copper carriers (the Bells) to provide broadband access to other ISP/Providers but does NOT force cable providers to do the same had a net effect of drastically reducing the initiative for the Bells to roll out FTTC/FTTH. Cable has a huge advantage for those specific reasons.
Ironically, it also means that new areas which currently have no broadband will likely get the fastest improvements while areas with "some" DSL penetration will end up being last in line. Actually, kind of like what happened in China, to be honest.
Where are you located? You may be in one of the very small number of areas where this is happening. They have publicly disclosed (in many areas) that there are no "near term" plans to expand the footprint.
There ARE areas where some small amount of progress is being made. The real problem here - to be honest - is the FCC. In order to not "stifle" the overall growth of "broadband" they've largely given free reign to multiple markets. That's also behind the FCC decision 2.5 years ago which takes broadband delivered by cable providers out of the jurisdiction of franchise authorities. To be specific, that means that the franchise agreement between a cable provider and local government (which, by the way is non-exclusive) may not govern broadband. It also means that while cable television pays taxes to the municipality on revenue earned in that municipality, it no longer pays fees for broadband delivered by that same medium. The fact that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forces copper carriers (the Bells) to provide broadband access to other ISP/Providers but does NOT force cable providers to do the same had a net effect of drastically reducing the initiative for the Bells to roll out FTTC/FTTH. Cable has a huge advantage for those specific reasons.
Ironically, it also means that new areas which currently have no broadband will likely get the fastest improvements while areas with "some" DSL penetration will end up being last in line. Actually, kind of like what happened in China, to be honest.
kluken said:
SBC will probably have FTTU complete before Dish gets up to 10 HD channels.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041020/ukw012_1.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041020/ukw012_1.html
Just FYI the new remote D-Slams that Bellsouth is putting in are capable of relaying the DSL signal past the 3megabit barrier. My parents just had DSL made available to them and sinc eth elocal Cable co only offers 512k at 24 bucks a month they opted for bellsouth. their real speeds are typicly around 2200kbps... When they framed their line i was impressed at the speed they got.
