TNT, FOX, Other HD ... {RANT}

Status
Please reply by conversation.

slacker9876

Professional Amatuer
Original poster
Supporting Founder
May 20, 2004
1,821
0
Spokane, WA
The way I see it they don't need to add it. Easy for me to say since I hate basketball (TNT) and I get FOX OTA since they are the only station transmitted via high power in my market and they are clear as day.

I have done some thinking about the D* offering, channel additions and people complaining (or not) about PQ and channel additions. In response to some of the previous posts on these topics:

Screw the HD! Until D* puts up the new birds they do not have the room. Their compression scheme is failing as I see it. My picture is terrible and I would rather them use the bandwidth appropriately and expand the allocation for the current lineup than add what they can after it is all over.

Screw more International Channels!

Screw GAC and other SD additions!

Since we know that the broadcast format has/is changing to ATSC, D* should be making receivers that work for both 16:9 ATSC and down-convert 4:3 NTSC. Those of us who have supported the economy and purchased better receiving equipment should be rewarded, not those ho lag behind and stifle the technology. For those that cannot afford it ... they should not even have satellite TV if it is a strain on the budget.

Speaking of budgets, what is this charging for HD content crap anyway? This should be built in to the package prices. Yes I said it, if you're and SD customer you should have to pay for my HD. Let's assume (we all know what that does) that D* currently has 750,000 HD subscribers, which I doubt. They are making 8.2m a month off this package, if it was not free for 6 months. I know they are not even shelling out 1/10th of that to the programming providers they have. Back to what I was saying … a basic package increase of $0.63/mo would provide D* with the revenue to cover this. Now let’s bump that $1.09 a month for fun … that would be 14.2m dollars, 6m more than they make now. A satellite costs (guessing) 120m, and could be paid off in 20months! Why should one group pay for what should be made available to all. This programming should be made available to the SD receivers as well as HBO SHO and ESPN are.

This is getting far too long and I am even getting off my own topic. The point is let’s get our satellite TV back to where it was 4 years ago … crystal clear images on 13” and 130” TV’s … let’s do this right, instead of now.

I open the floor …
 
For those that cannot afford it ... they should not even have satellite TV if it is a strain on the budget.

Speaking of budgets, what is this charging for HD content crap anyway? This should be built in to the package prices. Yes I said it, if you're and SD customer you should have to pay for my HD.
[end quote]

So what you are saying is...

Whoever you are poor and can't afford a 53" plasma TV, switch to cable! Let D* stop wasting the bandwidth for your cheap SD channels.

D*, you stop all the SD channels now! Give us all the HD channels your satellites can handle!

... I am very sorry but I really can't even afford a HD receiver, not to mention getting a big screen HDTV.
 
mcsj said:
So what you are saying is...

Whoever you are poor and can't afford a 53" plasma TV, switch to cable! Let D* stop wasting the bandwidth for your cheap SD channels.

D*, you stop all the SD channels now! Give us all the HD channels your satellites can handle!

Great English :D and uhhhh, no. That is not what I was saying. I am saying satellite is a premium level of service, it should be made (and it can be) to look as good on a 130" projection screen as it does on a 13" portable TV.

Yes, stop adding SD you do not have room for; as well as HD you do not have room to add.

I also said, HD should be included since satellite is a premium service.

Plus I provided a cost breakdown on paying for new satellites, to add new content ... perhaps someone here knows the cradle to grave costs and we can adjust the numbers based upon that.
 
Let me apologize again, but I see DBS as an alternative to cable, not necessary a "premium service", unless you also consider cable a "premium service".
 
mcsj said:
Let me apologize again, but I see DBS as an alternative to cable, not necessary a "premium service", unless you also consider cable a "premium service".

Cable is a premium service, but it has been known that satellite provides a picture that should be 40% better quality than cable for 10 years. I am getting digital cable installed this week just to demo the two and see what looks better today.

Both are over compressed is my guess ...

DBS is a premium service, or at least it is supposed to be. Better PQ, better channel selection, etc. Cable is also premium. Given there are 294 million people in the nation, there should be about 89 million households with TV, of those 45.2 million have Cable or SAT. That means 43.8 have either no TV or are using antennas.
 
Let me put it this way, slacker9876.

Not everyone has a car, so it is a "premium service" (without introducing another term). Suppose there are two choices, Japanese cars (cable) vs. European cars (DBS). Let's say, almost everyone agrees that European cars are better. Then does that mean everyone who choose to buy an European car should get a BMW? Would you say that people who buys a VW should pay a higher cost to make your BMW cost less? Would you say that people who drives a VW is blocking the freeway so you can't enjoy your BMW at 65+mph? Would you say that whoever can't afford a BMW should not drive an European car?

My point is, there are different levels of comfort. You enjoy your Ultimate Driving Machine (HD Package), that's your choice. But you should never ask VW (SD) lovers to pay more for your comfort.

(No offense to anyone in this example. I am just trying to use something else to express my point.)
 
slacker9876 said:
A satellite costs (guessing) 120m, and could be paid off in 20months! Why should one group pay for what should be made available to all.
I open the floor …


A Satellite costs $500m
 
Not taking sides but I agree on the international crap. If it cuts on the bandwidth and you have to cut the quality of a product you are already offering, then wait for the new birds to add more. Appeal to the masses instead of the select groups.

I would like TNT-HD as I would like any HD channel but only if it can be done right. I guess I don't mind the HD price and as long as D* does not jack it around with eac h new addition of HD content.
 
mcsj said:
My point is, there are different levels of comfort. You enjoy your Ultimate Driving Machine (HD Package), that's your choice. But you should never ask VW (SD) lovers to pay more for your comfort.

First of all, I'd like to state for the record that while I don't agree with what Slacker said, I don't personally agree with the way the HD package is handled. The HD package is (currently) five channels for 10.99 a month. Total Choice Plus is over 100+ channels for $39.00... that makes the HD package seem a little steep. I could order 9 HBO channels for $11, or I could get Total Choice Premiere which has those channels included in the price. The HD package is not treated that way, and it should be. If not raising the price of the Premiere package $1, then having some sort of new package with the HD channels with some sort of discount.

I'm not saying that will happen, I just think that the HD package should be counted either as a regular part of a package (ala HBO-HD, ShowTime-HD, CBS-HD, NBC-HD) or as a premium (ala HBO, Starz, Sports package, locals) instead of being in the same boat as Playboy...

~Alan
 
Madtown HD Junkie said:
Appeal to the masses instead of the select groups.

I would suspect that Internationals would have close to if not more subscribers than the HD channels. Also, if DirecTV were to appeal to the masses, we'd get a whole lot more SD additions and more SD locals and very little to no HD channels until DirecTV gets more HD customers than SD customers...

~Alan
 
slacker9876 said:
Screw the HD! Until D* puts up the new birds they do not have the room. Their compression scheme is failing as I see it. My picture is terrible and I would rather them use the bandwidth appropriately and expand the allocation for the current lineup than add what they can after it is all over.

Screw more International Channels!

Screw GAC and other SD additions!

I agree with slacker9876 on this part. For me it's all about the PQ. SD & HD alike. I prefer quality over quantity. The PQ that D* has now is awful IMO. It's worse than TWC analog channels which I have been watching for over a week now. Now TWC is no where near perfect. The analog channels are grainy but better than D* over compressed SD channels. TWC digital & HD channels look so much better than D*. So for the time being I'm back with TWC. If D* ever get it's PQ back to what it use to be, over 4 years ago from what I hear, then I would be back in a heart beat. Hopefully, the sats going up in the spring, D* will clean up their PQ first before adding a bunch more channels.

Mark
 
markd said:
I agree with slacker9876 on this part. For me it's all about the PQ. SD & HD alike. I prefer quality over quantity. The PQ that D* has now is awful IMO. It's worse than TWC analog channels which I have been watching for over a week now. Now TWC is no where near perfect. The analog channels are grainy but better than D* over compressed SD channels. TWC digital & HD channels look so much better than D*. So for the time being I'm back with TWC. If D* ever get it's PQ back to what it use to be, over 4 years ago from what I hear, then I would be back in a heart beat. Hopefully, the sats going up in the spring, D* will clean up their PQ first before adding a bunch more channels.


I doubt the satellites going up in the Spring will help that much as they're going to be used for backup (and possibly some locals). However, with the exception of some PQ problems last year, SD channels on DirecTV (for the most part) look fine on my 50-inch Hitachi.

~Alan
 
If you are talking about the SpaceWay satellites Directv has stated that they will be used to broadcast more HD and LIL HD channels.
 
Alan Gordon said:
I would suspect that Internationals would have close to if not more subscribers than the HD channels. Also, if DirecTV were to appeal to the masses, we'd get a whole lot more SD additions and more SD locals and very little to no HD channels until DirecTV gets more HD customers than SD customers...

~Alan


My point was, if you read it in it's entirety, was don't add anything especailly something not enjoyed by the masses if it takes bandwidth and make the PQ suffer for all. I mean english content programming, whether that be Sd or HD, would be enjoyed by more than the international items.
 
Too many posts to quote all so:

Bottom line, fix the problems you have before you make them worse.

Everyone pays their fair share, yes this applies to SD'ers too ... as a lot of you within 2 years will have migrated to HD. FYI The major networks have already done this ... check out the prime time lineups!

$5.00/mo (for all) gets two new SpaceWay birds every five years, more importantly it gets us quality along with quantity, is HD and SD formats.

Oh and I do drive a VW Passat :p

Please note I started the thread by saying not to add HD, SD, I'ntl or others, we all bite the bullet until the system can handle it!
 
Oh and I meant to say if SD'ers don't want the PQ to slide ... they have to pay that same as the rest of us. It has slid already ... we need to get it BACK to where it was
 
I'm afraid that after so long of bad PQ, they will try to condition us to it and it will never go back( kind of like our gas prices!?!)

TC
 
Neutron said:
If you are talking about the SpaceWay satellites Directv has stated that they will be used to broadcast more HD and LIL HD channels.

I assumed he meant DirecTV-8 and 9s. I have read that the SpaceWay satellites will have LIL HD, although I have heard no official word from DirecTV about SpaceWay being used for national HD channels... although I wouldn't be surprised...

~Alan
 
I think granted the griping they are getting (seems to have stopped Fox HD from addition) they will look at what they need to do. I will gripe no less than once a week until they decompress this crap.

Mike Greer: If your listening, cable still sucks but I'll have a definitive answer on this come Friday when I get installed.
 
Alan Gordon said:
I assumed he meant DirecTV-8 and 9s. I have read that the SpaceWay satellites will have LIL HD, although I have heard no official word from DirecTV about SpaceWay being used for national HD channels... although I wouldn't be surprised...

~Alan
After watching the ABC-MNF game tonight, 10-4-2004 I hope D* gets any satellites in orbit as fast as they can. I received the game from D* through my local KOMO TV located in Seattle which is not an O&O station. Since I cannot receive KOMO by OTA because of continual dropouts, I receive the broadcast in SD. My reception was as follows: (1) Dull, washed out colors (2) Grainy picture quality (3) Horizontal rolling bars moving upward on both TV's, a Toshiba 50HX81 and Sony KDF-60XBR950. What a waste!!! Absolutly the worst picture I have seen for monday night football from D*. Hopefully they can get Spaceway 1 & 2 up at an earlier date then scheduled so as to releave some of this compression as I can't see how its going to get better with adding TNT-HD and FOX-HD!!! :no
Jim

Can't remember my TV sets-had Mitsu 51HDX82 listed but should have been Toshiba 50HX81 as updated!!! :D
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)