Dish Gets Busted Lying About Reaching 200 HD Channels > Just follow Comcast's lead

reply to Gbcue

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

reply to Anon
Why? If they perceive it as junk, then it is junk to them. It's their opinion, no need to go on a rant about it. Personally QVC in HD I would consider junk also, same with some of the random sports channel.

I think it is implied that what is junk to some is not to others. No need to get the panties in a bunch over it.

I don't think you got the point..

The point is that in a discussion that I ASSUME we're having here about an implied fact (see main article - we're not talking about someone's OPINION).. A user with a statement about OnDemand equaling "junk" .. and THEN follows if up with "Channels is where it's at" along with an ATT fanboi comment .. and THEN in the second post this user makes starts to label certain CHANNELS as "junk".. um.. yea.. this person is either being ignorant, not putting much thought into a conversation, or just ranting themselves.

Is this not a conversation about an article as posted?

I am MORE than capable of understanding "implied junk".. however, that user is just all over the place and not making sense.

Something that people need to learn is that passing off an opinion as a fact will get you no where... and when you do something like that, expect to be called out on it, like I did.

If you go back and re-read this entire branch/thread, you'll see where this user misses the mark and point - as they always do.

I do get the point. By calling the HD channels as "choices" then that would cover some of the stretches that companies try to call "channels". When I think of an HD Channel, it is something network based such as CNN, Discovery et, not the OnDemand or Cinema channels. I like DirecTv vs my local cable company as there are much more content. But when I see for me that DirecTv is adding CSN Bay Area HD, yes I would consider it junk.

Choices = any HD selection, but actual channels is where it really matters I feel. And Out of the 30 that DirecTv is adding , I would watch MAYBE 4, bately 5 and to me would consider the rest to be junk.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

You said "but actual channels" and that's my point. Well, was my main point before the cube came in again.

Technology »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel

* Communication channel, a transmission medium, e.g. a wire, or a multiplexed connection, e.g. a radio channel, used to convey an information signal from a sender to a receiver,

* Television channel, a television station or its cable/satellite counterpart

So.. what is a "channel"...? In definition, not what people are talking about in here or have on this site in the past on this topic.

In this case, you have to use the term "channel" in the way the industry uses the term - and most people get it wrong. Again, the break down is how people apply their own slant or own belief in the definition to it.. ie: "slang" as is being done here.

First off, times are changing and the definitions have to either change, or finally be broadened into the terms they really represent.

When you think of channel, many people are still stuck in 1970 when you had 5 local "channels".. that channel was an indicator on the TV dial or set that indicated your "channel"was going to deliver NBC to you.. to "channel the programming to you".. thus, "Channel"

In the term of TV Channel, well, look at HBO - that's a "channel".. right? Then why isn't HBO On Demand? Its another channel for HBO to get you their programming.

In the term of "channel" as above, it's a "transmission medium"... in this case, OnDemand very well CAN be considered a channel. If I tune to Ch 299 on my box, I am delivered HBO OnDemand.. to me, that IS a channel. I don't care if there is a traffic department setting up times and their network feeds me their programming as they see fit.. to me, I get to chose what program I watch when I watch.. to me, and to the definition of "channel".. that selection or group of programs ARE in fact "a channel"..

There does, however, in my opinion as not to make things muddy, HAS to be some respect to that becuase yes, if you want to keep validity to the term, you have to respect it. If an operator wants to create a folder in OnDemand, place ONE single title in it and assign it a direct tune channel number, that's stretching it.

However, on Comcast, HBO OnDemand has it's own selector, which is another channel of HBO. Horror in HD OnDemand, with a collection of movies available, to me IS a "channel" of programming available to me. This would be the same as having a dedicated network or content provider that offers nothing but "Horror" content..

Even linear PPV "Channels" that show the same movie all day long that you tune in at a programmed start time, really and honestly, IS a "channel" as well.. it just happens to be one that shows the same show all day and all night. For example, Alvin and the chipmunks on InDemand PPV.. for 30 days, that's the Avlin and the Chipmunks channel.. in this case, it's a set frequency, it takes up a slot, and the system is capable of carrying that "channel" along side the rest.. so in this, InDemand PPV *IS* also a "channel"..

But, like I said, there has to be a line drawn to keep things viable. To take EACH title of ON-Demand and only that title and assign it an OnDemand selector really doesn't make it a "channel".. that's pushing it. In this case, I agree with what Comcast is saying by HD Choices.. that's a whole other argument as it can be said "at anytime, you want to tune in and watch something in HD, you have 1,000 choices".. which is factually true.

I think that people need to update their way of thinking and get out of the linear age of 5 channels where most of the definitions and terms they are using are coming from. OnDemand is here.. Internet streaming is here.. 5,000 channels of cable/satellite is here.. and it's only going to continue to change.. people need to update their English skills to keep up with it. And honestly, the definitions really haven't changed.. they were just applied with simplicity before.

I understand your point (personally i think that PPV is not quite a channel). Maybe the term needs to be changed to content stream.

OnDemand I think is more of a service than what I think the majority of people refer to as a channel.

It's all marketing hoopla. But to break it down to what the "industry" terms are vs "consumer" terms can be misleading.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

Technically "OnDemand" is channel 1 on Comcast, right?

So it counts as 1 channel...
--
My Blog 2.0

reply to Anon
fiberguy, You may wish, or need people to add disclaimers such as "All reports, opinions, conclusions and advice provided by the author of this post should be regarded by readers as subjective judgments, and should not be construed as fact." to every post they make. But most people of average intelligence are able to figure out that applies to just about everything on the internet and do not need it constantly spelled out for them.

He was asked how many of the channels were junk. Since what constitutes junk, as you so violently pointed out, can only be a matter of subjective opinion, he was obviously asked what his opinion was and that was what he responded with. The addition of the words "I mean" was clearly translatable as "In my personal, unquantifiable opinion" to anyone with a basic understanding of conversational English and the ability to process context in written discussion.

As for fact to back up his opinion, regional cable sports networks are among the lowest rated stations on cable with few boasting more than 100k viewers daily. Most are lucky to routinely break 25k per day. Shopping networks such as QVC are have small audiences and rarely peak at more than 50k viewers in a 24 hour period. Niche channels such as Fox Business are also among the lowest rated stations with Fox Business rarely reaching 100k viewers daily.
In contrast,"non-junk" stations such as Fox News Channel averages around 1.2 million viewers per day and has peaked at over 4 million. ESPN averages 2.5 million per day and some events can spike their viewership to well over 8 million at once. National networks such as NBC routinely are viewed by more than 20 million people over a 24 hour period.
So, while you may not personally agree, overall, his opinion is supported by actual ratings data.

reply to Gbcue
Not necessarily, cue... for the most part. However, you're stretching and taking things a bit out of context here to try to prove a point.

Channel 1 IS "OnDemand" as far as channels go, yes, it's one channel. However, they also have other Direct Tune OnDemand channels that you can access:

HD Premiums (HBO, ShowTime, etc)
HD Music (Music Videos)
HD OnDemand (All HD Programming)
HD Movies (The stuff not in premiums)
Exercise OnDemand (Exercise Programming)
HBO OnDemand
Free Movies OnDemand
Movies OnDemand
Adult OnDemand
Entertainment OnDemand
Shopping OnDemand
SearchLight OnDemand
Automotive OnDemand
Travel OnDemand
Jobs OnDeamnd

Technically, those are different "channels" of programming. While channel 1 is also a "channel" of OnDemand with all the programming in one folder, it's not the only "channel".. I'm not sure about TWC anymore as it's been a while since I've been in their systems, however, for the longest time, there was no OnDemand channel.. each folder or category of Programming (S/A based) was it's own "channel" which is how you got to the content.

reply to ptrowski
Well, there is technicalities, and there is opinion and there is definitions all coming together here... in the end, it's definition that wins.

PPV is most definitely a channel.. for many years they even refer to them as channels.. ie: "30 channels of PPV".. in this case, each InDemand PPV slot is it's own frequency or fits into a QAM like any other digital channel does. Remember "Action PPV" or "InDemand PPV" or "Hits InDemand"...? They were most certainly "networks" or "channels".. you just accessed them by paying for the day.. many places, Playboy TV is only InDemand anymore but it's still a channel. So that one is hard to really argue. If you took out any of the PPV channels and replaced it with, say, boomerang, its still all the same, just a different feed being pushed down that 'pipe' so to speak.

OnDemand is a service.. I will agree with that.. however, to look at the definition, you one still has to look at what a "channel" is and where the term comes from originally. It's a word that has largely been taken for granted and associated with something else - ie: it's become "slang"..

And you hit it on the nail, what I've been saying.. what the industry says and what the consumer says are two different things.. however, when ever you're dealing with something like this, the industry terms and true definitions win out.. otherwise, we wind up with Ebonics, right? You can't go by what the customer things becuase not every customer is even on the same page. It's up to the customer to go by what the industry, or ANY industry says if they're using proper terminology.

The term "broadband" by many isn't considered 256kbps anymore these days.. however, legally defined and industry use, it IS broadband.. The customer may have moved on, but the term remains.. that is until the definition of "broadband" gets redefined by the FCC or who ever wants to change it to a higher number.

So.. really, that's my point. There IS a HUGE disconnect in communications these days. As much as I understand where people come from when it comes to what they choose to believe in what they're being told, in the end, I have to personally side with what is factually correct. Like the argument over "HD Choice".. it's factually correct.. they're using "Choice" to describe what can be tuned into at any given time from what's available to you.. HD Channels, well, satellite DOES have "more HD Channels".. I can't disagree with that. Cable's argument is there is more choice at any given time, which is correct. Satellite says they have more HD channels and tries to dispute cable's claim about choice.. in the end, they're BOTH confusing the customer.. but, too, they're not an educational institution either.. it's up to the public to apply those 12 years of schooling, correctly, to understand.

Things are only misleading to those that chose to be mislead. Our lives are far more than a 30 second spot, or a 10 second glance at a print ad.

So the average consumer watching the commercials about how many HD channels there are should understand that technically they are streams, etc? Bull.

reply to fiberguy

reply to Gbcue
Fox Business is a junk? You gotta be kidding! What channel you consider not junk?

reply to fiberguy
If you want to play the TV provider marketing game, be my guest.

To me, a "TV channel" refers to a dedicated feed of programming being authored and scheduled by a single network. If payment is required, it is typically granted on a month to month basis (in other words, not billed per show or per hour).

I'm quite aware that improvements in technology have convoluted the accuracy of describing, say your main CBS feed, as a "channel". What used to be channels are now data streams. How these streams are combined onto an RF channel isn't relevant to the end user, so they continue to think of them in traditional terms, regardless of its technical accuracy.

PPV and On Demand services are certainly valuable and worth consideration. DirecTV and DISH have those things too. But to compare them to "TV channels" simply doesn't work, it's apples and oranges. It's disingenuous to mix them together in marketing material.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

reply to FBN_Fan
what is junk for someone, may not be junk for you. and what is junk for you, may not be the same for me.

reply to Gbcue
You forgot Fox News Channel, since you do mention Fox Business Anyways, most TV these days is a load of rubbish, in my eyes. Let's play some games =)

reply to djrobx
You said it best when you said "to me"... enough said.

Sorry bub, it's not about "you"... there is a point where individualism becomes a joke, and this is it.

No where is it "defined" that a channel is authored and scheduled by a single network. If that was the case, then channel 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 are all one "channel".. and they're not. In your case, HBO is only 1 channel, and it's not.

What people want to think, either, doesn't make something "so"... this is a long term pet peeve of mine. People cry every day that people in this country "speak" English.. my argument is that people need to not only speak it, but learn how to use it as well. The same is said that people can quote the bible, but very few really know what it means.

You want to try to REALLY mix things up.. you and others. The bottom line is that the operators, while people say are "stretching the truth to market" are doing no such thing. Sorry to say, and it can't be said any louder, the more and more people try to call foul, the more and more people are showing how truly stupid and un-educated they really are.

Look up the definition of the word "channel" and apply it. Stop speaking slang.. stop applying one's own "belief" or "view" of something as "the way it it" becuase it isn't always correct.

Look, to this day, some people say "the speed limit is 55, but if I do 60, it's "okay" because no one ever gets a ticket at 60"... no! The speed limit is 55, not 60.

The term "up to 6meg" means just that.. "UP - TO" yet people forget the UP and TO and see 6 meg. If people want to redefine and change things, then change it.. but to simply make up your own mind and make-it-so in YOUR mind doesn't make it "so"...

I think its arguments like yours, and others, that creates more of the problem than the cable, satellite, and fiber providers in the end.

Forgive me... I actually paid attention in all 16 years of my English classes.

- and to even say that "what used to be channels are now data streams" ALSO is not accurate.. that's simply the way YOU want to see and define it, and it's not.