Why pay more for HD? (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

danielle_s

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 27, 2004
431
0
Dodge City, Ks
I don't understand why we should have to pay an additional price for our HD channels when we're already paying for they're SD channel. I know it has to do with new technology and equipment and other things.

What I'd prefer to see is a an exact replica of current packages in HD format.
For example: Create an exact replica of AT120 but using ONLY the HD channels and price it the exact same as the non HD channel package.

Ok now I can hear some of you already going but this channel's not in HD or this channel will never be in HD or something similar. So my opinion is to replace the missing HD channel with it's SD counterpart until Dish or Directv has signed an agreement to carry the HD version. Once they carry the HD channel they simply pull the SD channel from the package.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

nsafreak

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 7, 2004
528
13
Denver,Co
They already tried something similar with the TurboHD packages (with the omission of including all channels whether they were HD or not) and it was canned just a few months ago. I doubt that they'll do something similar anytime in the near future.
 

Stargazer

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
16,561
339
Western WV
I think we will most likely see no HD fee in the future but a price increase to make up for part of the difference. They would not have to charge $10 more since everybody does not have HD. If 1 in 3 have HD then a $3 increase would nearly make up for it.
 

CowboyDren

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 18, 2005
990
1
64133
110 channels of MPEG4 HD programming takes less bandwidth than 295 channels of MPEG2 SD programming. I can see the providers charging more for it, but I can't say whether they do or not.

Turbo, according to Dish, died because of contract disputes, not because of customer demands. Scripps Networks doesn't want you to have HGTV and Food Network in HD if you're not also paying for Fine Living and DiY (which aren't available in HD). That's not a verbatim example, because Scripps was actually 100% onboard with TurboHD, but you see the extension. News Corp/Fox and Viacom were actually the big holdouts, and it looks like they won the fight.

That brings me back to an idea I've had for a while now; why are established HD networks like Discovery, Scripps, and others uplinked in SD at all? The 16:9 revolution is well underway, and it's really expensive for them to produce two feeds of more or less the same content. They should be producing and uplinking in HD only, and put the burden of downres'ing on the content on the distribution channels like Dish and Comcast. But if they did that, Dish and Comcast would have a hard time justifying their HD fees.
 
Last edited:
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

MikeD-C05

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 25, 2003
26,237
16,209
Nederland , Texas
I am betting that sometime in the near future , DISH will stop charging a separate fee for HD. Now they will most likely roll the $10.00 fee into the basic programming pack . Kind of like DISH doesn't charge a "separate dvr fee" per receiver now. WINK, wink. They just rolled it into the new equipment fees. But then I bet the new DISH America names will take the place of the basic top programming packs.

Now DISH could of just done what DIRECTV did and say it is a technology fee for having an hd receiver , but then it would of discouraged many from ever upgrading to an hd receiver , which would put their mpeg 4 transition in danger of never being completed. Eventually they will have to upgrade all the older receivers in western arc to an mpeg 4 receiver so they can reclaim the bandwidth.
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
That brings me back to an idea I've had for a while now; why are established HD networks like Discovery, Scripps, and others uplinked in SD at all? The 16:9 revolution is well underway, and it's really expensive for them to produce two feeds of more or less the same content. They should be producing and uplinking in HD only, and put the burden of downres'ing on the content on the distribution channels like Dish and Comcast. But if they did that, Dish and Comcast would have a hard time justifying their HD fees.
Exactly. It would cost them much less money to do it this way
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Latest posts

Top