Is that Pinocchio or a TV company executive?
Posted on 01/01/2009 5:30:47 AM PST by Las Vegas Dave
Washington, D.C. (December 30, 2008) -- On July 31, 2008, Dish Network issued a press release saying it planned to expand its high-def lineup to 150 channels by year's end. On November 1, 2007, Verizon released a press statement saying it would have 150 HD channels by the end of 2008.
And several times this year, DIRECTV issued press releases saying it would have the capacity to deliver up to 150 national HD channels before the year was over.
So now that the year is over (minus about a day or so), did these top TV providers keep their promises?
Answer: No.
Is that Pinocchio or a TV company executive?
Dish Network offers more than 100 high-def channels, but the satcaster is far short of the magic 150 mark. (And if you don't count some PPV channels, the numbers look even less impressive.) Verizon provides slightly more than 100 HD channels in several markets, but not 150. And DIRECTV says it now has 130 HD channels, although that number is inflated with PPV and other questionable "channels."
(Of course, you can argue that DIRECTV should get a pass here because it said it would have the "capacity" to deliver 150 HD channels; not that it would definitely offer 150 HD channels. Yes, there is a difference.)
Asked today by e-mail why Dish Network fell short, a company spokesman ducked the question by issuing the following statement:
"We had a great year: DISH Network more than doubled its national HD offerings, rolled out the first HD-only programming packages through TurboHD at affordable pricing, had two successful satellite launches, expanded our local HD channel markets and became the first pay-TV provider to offer movies in 1080p," the spokesman said.
Asked again by e-mail to comment specifically on why Dish did not offer 150 HD channels, as promised, the spokesman said he had no further comment.
Verizon FiOS Vice President Terry Denson was asked last July by Multichannel News if his company was standing by its commitment to offer 150 HD channels in 2008.
"A lot has been made of actual channel counts but we don’t obsess over channel counts," Denson said.
Except, of course, when the company wanted to issue a press release saying that it would have 150 HD channels. Then, apparently, Verizon did obsess over channel counts.
Verizon and the satcasters are not the only TV providers to have played fast and loose with channel counts in 2008. For instance, Comcast last February said a "typical" local Comcast system would carry between 50 and 60 HDTV channels by year's end. While the cable operator has recently expanded its high-def lineup in several markets (Chicago subs have more than 80 HD channels now), many Comcast markets are still under the 50 mark.
So, why did the TV providers overpromise? (To put it nicely; lying would be another way to put it.)
In what has become a highly competitive industry, the TV providers are afraid of appearing to offer fewer HD channels than their rivals. High-def viewers want more channels and they will seek out the companies that provide them.
So instead of talking about how many channels they had in July, which happened to be fewer than DIRECTV, Dish Network talked about how many channels it would have by year's end. Likewise, Comcast and Verizon made their HD channel boasts when DIRECTV was rapidly expanding its high-def lineup in early 2008 and late 2007 respectively.
For them, it was easier (and more convenient) to say how many channels they would have -- and then hope that no one would look too closely when they didn't actually produce them.
The pinged subjects will be those of HDTV technology, satellite, cable, and OTA HD reception (Over The Air with roof top or indoor antennas), Broadcast specials, Blu-ray/HDDVD, and any and all subjects relating to HD.
LVD
( If you search Freerepublic using the keyword "“HDTV”, you will find most of my past HDTV postings. )
Laurencia digs the new monitor and aquarium screensaver.
With the lousy programs that are on, somebody actually worries that they don’t have High Definition?
Speaking of lying, I took a serious look at a 32” Samsung only to find that the case measures a bit over 32” and the wide screen version (which makes people look “stretched” (and fat) measures 27.5”. When it’s adjusted to “normal”, it’s under 24”. What’s the backstory?
I’m happy so long as Teh Intarweb is crystal clear.
Still no HDTV in this household and no real interest in getting it. We visited my wife’s sister & husband over XMAS as usual who are now a 3 HDTV household. Frankly, I don’t see anything warranting the additional cost. My 32” flat screen is only 3 years old. When we bought it, HDTV’s were very expensive. Sure, the prices have dropped, but why should I replace a 3 year old TV? Not gonna happen...
Just when I'm getting comfortable saying "The Internets", The Cool People change it to "Teh Intarweb". I can't keep up.
Cheer up. If I'm using it, it's no longer cool.
Earlier this year, I dropped DirecTV and got cable. Best move I’ve made in years. The cable company has a bunch of HD channels, most of which they also have as an SD channel elsewhere ‘on the dial’, so to speak. I have SD TVs, no HDTVs.
Well, the broadcasters are broadcasting in HD format (either 1920 X 1080 or 1280 X 720) on those HD channels, but they’re broadcasting both HD and SD material. Depending on how you have your HDTV set up, the SD material might appear smaller on the display or stretched out.
But then there is the case of the broadcaster who is showing SD material on their HD channel, so it looks smaller if your HDTV is set up that way, but then along comes a commercial spot that is in HD. So, what you see is an HD formatted picture inside the SD formatted portion of the display.
I’m not sure that makes sense the way I wrote it, but it makes that HD formatted commercial look ‘right’, but much smaller than it should be.
Then again, I don’t have any HDTVs in my house either. I’m not going to buy any until the economy comes out of this tailspin. In fedgov keeps injecting itself and our tax money into the economy, that might be several years.
Ur lolspeak iz rahter gud.....nom nom nom.
For watching football there’s nothing like a large HDTV screen. We watch on a 67” Samsung DLP and it is an experience you can’t get in the stands even in the best seats. A 67” like ours is optimal from no more than 13’ away. Smaller sets like a 47” don’t cut it and with a tiny 32” screen it’s hardly worth it.
Also the food’s better at our house.
Then I'll be over during football season next year. Again, another reason why I have no need to get HDTV when I know a generous person like yourself... :)
Thing is, I only heard it for the first time yesterday, when my daughter corrected me after I used the expression, “The Internets” while trying to be cool.
Our cat would find itself punted across the back yard and over the fence if I caught it doing such a thing to my TV lol.
I hope it doesn’t have claws. :p
Of course our small children are my biggest worry, even with the TV on the wall. I don’t allow any toys that could even possibly be thrown to be in the room with the TV. Some day I just know I’ll get home from work and find them with a step ladder in front of the TV, and the panel will be beautifully colored with a combination of crayons and ink.
I have cable (Comcast) myself. I’ve never seen the need to go the satellite route. Anyway, I’m not sure how you can see what you see on HD channels. They don’t come up on my system. I get the sound, but the screen remains blank. Are you paying for an HD signal when you don’t have HDTV? Or did your cable company make a mistake?
Widescreen TVs (like "regular" 4x3 TVs), are measured diagonally. So, a 32" widescreen has a display size about 27.9" wide and 15.7" high. When watching a standard definition show in non-stretch mode, the picture would be about 15.7" high and 20.8" wide... about the size you'd get on a 26" 4x3 TV.
I think that the comparison of satellite to cable has to be made on a case by case local basis. We have had Dish (non-HD) for about 5 years now. Our broadband cable provider also has cable TV so I priced it again recently, as I do from time to time, and it was actually slightly more expensive than satellite with the configuration we have.
You would think since I get broadband from them, the cable provider could discount the cable enuf to make it attractive to add on, but they won’t, so we will stick with satellite. Plus in our area, SD satellite is widely accepted to have a slightly better picture than the local cable provider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.