HDTV: Who's the Bigger Liar of 2008? (nation's TV providers stretched the truth to channel counts)

tvpredictions.com ^ | Dec. 30, 2008 | Phillip Swann

[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.

[TomGuy]

I dropped the landline in Dec. It was $25/ month just to sit there. Any long distance call added $5 to the bill by the time they added all their extra fees.

I found a pay-as-you-go cellular for $100/year with 600 minutes of usage (I don’t make that many calls). I also found MagicJack, which allows me to make long distance calls. It only costs $20 per year. The combo of MagicJack and cellular give me more options and cost 2/3 less than the phone company’s $300/year landline.

[bcsco]

The phone companies are losing hefty revenue over their landline coverage. I’ll mention the fact we only have cell coverage and perhaps half the people I talk to say the same thing. We don’t do a lot of long distance, and the majority of cell calls is between my wife and myself. So we don’t have to have mega minutes coverage. And we’ve never gone beyond our minutes. Works for me...