dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14701
share rss forum feed

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to URFloorMatt

Re: More HD channels coming by October.

said by URFloorMatt:

I think the belief that Verizon already has contracts in place to carry in HD most of the channels it already has in SD is correct. The trick is, Verizon doesn't have to pay the carriage fee as long as the channel isn't on the system. And as long as the contract doesn't have a must carry date, then Verizon doesn't have to worry about incurring any new costs.

The claim was that "all of the channels' contracts with Verizon ALREADY include the HD versions as part of their carriage agreements," and that we, as Verizon subscribers, were therefore paying for content in a format we're not receiving (HD).

Hours after a number of us asked for evidence to back up that claim, the poster of the claim has provided none.


Andy from CA
Premium
join:2008-09-05
Anaheim, CA
reply to Acct101

I would like to see channels we don't get in HD (BBC America, [adult swim] and others) have their HD shows available on VOD. I understand the reason these stations aren't available as live channels because of lack of QAM (cough IPTV cough) but we should be able to get them in HD-VOD if the SD-VOD is available.

Please! It may get me to swap out my 2500s.


Acct101
Premium
join:2011-09-20
Bensalem, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·T-Mobile US
reply to Acct101

Just because Fios has more premium movie channels, doesn't make them better then any other service provider. It just means they are showing the SAME content on more channels.

I remmeber the beginning of cable TV when the only premium move channels we had were 1 HBO and 1 CINEMAX. Those two channels had more substance then all the premium channels put together today. Premium channels today show the same thing over and over and over again. I'd rather seem them convert the Premium Movie channels to VOD (like Netflix Online) and use that space for channels that have current non repeating content.


skohly

join:2009-08-19
Township Of Washington, NJ

said by Acct101:

Just because Fios has more premium movie channels, doesn't make them better then any other service provider. It just means they are showing the SAME content on more channels.

I remmeber the beginning of cable TV when the only premium move channels we had were 1 HBO and 1 CINEMAX. Those two channels had more substance then all the premium channels put together today. Premium channels today show the same thing over and over and over again. I'd rather seem them convert the Premium Movie channels to VOD (like Netflix Online) and use that space for channels that have current non repeating content.

Excellent Point!!


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to Acct101

said by Acct101:

Just because Fios has more premium movie channels, doesn't make them better then any other service provider. It just means they are showing the SAME content on more channels.

I remmeber the beginning of cable TV when the only premium move channels we had were 1 HBO and 1 CINEMAX. Those two channels had more substance then all the premium channels put together today. Premium channels today show the same thing over and over and over again. I'd rather seem them convert the Premium Movie channels to VOD (like Netflix Online) and use that space for channels that have current non repeating content.

But back then the premium channels only showed movies a few hours a day. They didn't start showing movies until 5 or 6PM in the evening and during the entire day just showed previews. I'll take what they have now over what they had back in the 70's and 80's any day.


joe01880

join:2007-10-26
Wakefield, MA

1 edit
reply to Os

said by Os:

I was basing that on FiOS markets only, but I was forgetting that some of the SoCal markets have FiOS.

These are the counts I have:

TWC NYC: 29
TWC Albany: 28
TWC Rochester: 29
TWC Syracuse: 29
TWC Buffalo: 28
TWC Dallas: 23
TWC LA: 10

some of ya all have way to much time on your hands counting every little difference between each market between providers.
If the grass is greener on the other side follow Jeep and move on.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:2
reply to Acct101

And those that get into channel counts don't even subscribe to the tier with all the channels as its "to expensive" yet they want more channels


knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to aaronwt

said by aaronwt:

But back then the premium channels only showed movies a few hours a day. They didn't start showing movies until 5 or 6PM in the evening and during the entire day just showed previews. I'll take what they have now over what they had back in the 70's and 80's any day.

^^^ This.

No one buys that the 70s and 80s HBO and Cinemax "had more substance" than HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Epix, Starz, The Movie Channel, etc combined. That kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

The need for accurate comparison is why objective lists of channel counts exist.


TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to guppy_fish

said by guppy_fish:

And those that get into channel counts don't even subscribe to the tier with all the channels as its "to expensive" yet they want more channels

lol exactly...I think they want every HD channel in existence to be added to the lowest HD Tier
Expand your moderator at work


MeatChicken

join:2007-08-15
Paramus, NJ
reply to knarf829

Re: More HD channels coming by October.

said by knarf829:

No one buys that the 70s and 80s HBO and Cinemax "had more substance" than HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Epix, Starz, The Movie Channel, etc combined. That kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

The need for accurate comparison is why objective lists of channel counts exist.

I remember in the late 70's/early 80's everyone loved their HBO for the 1st 6 months, then started realizing only a handful of shows were 'new' each month, & started complaining that HBO showed the same stuff over & over, people would switch to/from Showtime or TMC when those came around, thinking they'd get more "new" stuff, but back with the same complaints, they'd get "used to" Showtimes's 6 month rotation & start to feel the need to switch ...

URFloorMatt

join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
reply to knarf829

said by knarf829:

said by URFloorMatt:

I think the belief that Verizon already has contracts in place to carry in HD most of the channels it already has in SD is correct. The trick is, Verizon doesn't have to pay the carriage fee as long as the channel isn't on the system. And as long as the contract doesn't have a must carry date, then Verizon doesn't have to worry about incurring any new costs.

The claim was that "all of the channels' contracts with Verizon ALREADY include the HD versions as part of their carriage agreements," and that we, as Verizon subscribers, were therefore paying for content in a format we're not receiving (HD).

Hours after a number of us asked for evidence to back up that claim, the poster of the claim has provided none.

In that case, the correct answer is: they are in the contracts already, but no, we're not paying for them. That's not how carriage rights work. Verizon isn't paying content providers for channels that aren't on its system, and Verizon ever only pays content providers when subscribers actually receive the channel.

This is a roundabout way of saying that lack of contractual rights is not the reason that Verizon hasn't added many HD channels in the last several years. But that was, I think, already obvious.
Expand your moderator at work


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to URFloorMatt

Re: More HD channels coming by October.

said by URFloorMatt:

This is a roundabout way of saying that lack of contractual rights is not the reason that Verizon hasn't added many HD channels in the last several years. But that was, I think, already obvious.

Not to some people.
Expand your moderator at work

bsangs

join:2002-08-21
Montclair, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to MeatChicken

Re: More HD channels coming by October.

said by MeatChicken:

said by knarf829:

No one buys that the 70s and 80s HBO and Cinemax "had more substance" than HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Epix, Starz, The Movie Channel, etc combined. That kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

The need for accurate comparison is why objective lists of channel counts exist.

I remember in the late 70's/early 80's everyone loved their HBO for the 1st 6 months, then started realizing only a handful of shows were 'new' each month, & started complaining that HBO showed the same stuff over & over, people would switch to/from Showtime or TMC when those came around, thinking they'd get more "new" stuff, but back with the same complaints, they'd get "used to" Showtimes's 6 month rotation & start to feel the need to switch ...

"Firefox" and "Time Bandits" - think I watched those 30 times each in the first six months I had HBO as a youth.

sbernstein5

join:2005-01-18
10024-5650
reply to URFloorMatt

said by URFloorMatt:

In that case, the correct answer is: they are in the contracts already, but no, we're not paying for them.

Yes we are -- we are paying for the SD versions of those channels. I do no believe the providers are charged TWICE for channels -- once for the SD version of a channel and once for the HD version. There is a charge for carrying the channel, that's it.

So if we have it in SD, we are ALREADY paying for the channel, whether we can view it in HD or not.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ

said by sbernstein5:

So if we have it in SD, we are ALREADY paying for the channel, whether we can view it in HD or not.

That's always been my assumption, but not everyone agrees with that. They believe Verizon pays additionally for HD. I don't believe that. In fact, I've read quotes several times from content providers who have said, when asked why VZ doesn't have the HD feed, "that we are providing Verizon the HD feed, they chose not to use it at this time." It's all about QAM space. Even with whatever limited space they might have, obviously Verizon would rather hold off, in case they need it for channels that makes them money. The large additional of Spanish network HD's is proof of that.

sbernstein5

join:2005-01-18
10024-5650

said by Greg2600:

said by sbernstein5:

So if we have it in SD, we are ALREADY paying for the channel, whether we can view it in HD or not.

That's always been my assumption, but not everyone agrees with that. They believe Verizon pays additionally for HD. I don't believe that. In fact, I've read quotes several times from content providers who have said, when asked why VZ doesn't have the HD feed, "that we are providing Verizon the HD feed, they chose not to use it at this time." It's all about QAM space. Even with whatever limited space they might have, obviously Verizon would rather hold off, in case they need it for channels that makes them money. The large additional of Spanish network HD's is proof of that.

My thoughts exactly -- you hit the nail on the head Greg.


dcowboy

join:2012-05-10

Does by mean by october 1 or by october 31 midnite ?


Mac973

join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ
reply to Acct101

They really need to do away with the SD channels completely. There is no reason to still be carrying every channel twice (SD and HD). Since I believe they now charge the same price for SD and HD boxes, they should make everyone exchange their SD box for an HD box. Open up a 3-month window for the exchange and then shut down the SD's. For people still using old SD TV sets, the HD box will automatically downconvert the HD signal.


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2

Many of us have digital adapters. HD channels would not work on them.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to Acct101

Mac, they would never do that for the same reason they aren't going to recall the 6000x series (in fact they're giving them out), it's too big a hit to their bottom line. Not to mention the people who have free DTA's. Plus, I've seen Verizon's newer small HD boxes, they are not as small as the DTA's. Not even close.


Mac973

join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ

said by Greg2600:

Mac, they would never do that for the same reason they aren't going to recall the 6000x series (in fact they're giving them out), it's too big a hit to their bottom line. Not to mention the people who have free DTA's. Plus, I've seen Verizon's newer small HD boxes, they are not as small as the DTA's. Not even close.

If the cable companies can phase out analog cable and move everyone to digital, I would think it would be a similar process to move everyone from SD to HD. The SD channels are obviously taking up a lot of bandwidth and likely hindering the ability to add new HD channels. At some point it's no longer going to make business sense to keep hanging onto an old technology.

It's a process that could take place over a couple years. Start by no longer offering SD boxes to new customers. Since SD boxes now cost the same monthly fee as HD boxes, if someone has a malfunctioning SD box, issue them a HD box instead of another SD box. I think I read a while back that they no longer issue digital adapters to some areas...


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to Acct101

The cable companies were glad to transition because it meant higher rates could be charged. The smallest non-DVR HD STB they have is the Cisco CHS 335 HD STB, which is not small.



joe01880

join:2007-10-26
Wakefield, MA

2 edits
reply to Mac973

said by Mac973:

said by Greg2600:

Mac, they would never do that for the same reason they aren't going to recall the 6000x series (in fact they're giving them out), it's too big a hit to their bottom line. Not to mention the people who have free DTA's. Plus, I've seen Verizon's newer small HD boxes, they are not as small as the DTA's. Not even close.

If the cable companies can phase out analog cable and move everyone to digital, I would think it would be a similar process to move everyone from SD to HD. The SD channels are obviously taking up a lot of bandwidth and likely hindering the ability to add new HD channels. At some point it's no longer going to make business sense to keep hanging onto an old technology.

It's a process that could take place over a couple years. Start by no longer offering SD boxes to new customers. Since SD boxes now cost the same monthly fee as HD boxes, if someone has a malfunctioning SD box, issue them a HD box instead of another SD box. I think I read a while back that they no longer issue digital adapters to some areas...

You assume everyone in the FiOS footprint has an HD tv and they don't, there are still a lot of SD tube tv's out there.
There are some who have HDTV's who still watch SD channels although it just seems wrong.
My sister has a 6 year old Panasonic plasma and the SD looks almost as good as HD. Then there are those who bought EDTV's
I would agree there should be some type of ala cart to choose from.


Andy from CA
Premium
join:2008-09-05
Anaheim, CA
reply to kes601

said by kes601:

Many of us have digital adapters. HD channels would not work on them.

Many of us had VCRs (OK, I still have a JVC S-VHS) who could watch one channel and tape another. We also wired different rooms with a splitter and got all the basic cable channels. This ended when analog ended.

Progress happens and you get winners & losers.


Andy from CA
Premium
join:2008-09-05
Anaheim, CA
reply to Greg2600

said by Greg2600:

Plus, I've seen Verizon's newer small HD boxes, they are not as small as the DTA's. Not even close.

When cable was analog you got all the basic cable stations with a cable-ready TV using no box. And you could add as many TVs as you liked without upping your cable bill.

Progress happens, today's SD duplicate is yesterday's NTSC.


webcobbler

@verizon.net
reply to kes601

I do believe that SD channels should be phased out asap. However, like many others, I have several Digital Adapters that are Grandfathered In. If anything can be done (for free), I would like to see a exchange program for Digital Adapter customers getting a free HD Digital Adapter (Grandfathered In or Not) , and that would be that.

I say this bc I would like to see all SD channels that HAVE a HD equivalent channel to be stricken from the channel guide to free up precious Bandwidth, while ONLY keeping the SD channels that DO NOT have a HD equivalent channel.

Those HD Digital Adapters could get both HD and SD feeds, as well as MPEG4. Problem solved, for now at least.



motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

1 edit

said by webcobbler :

I do believe that SD channels should be phased out asap. However, like many others, I have several Digital Adapters that are Grandfathered In. If anything can be done (for free), I would like to see a exchange program for Digital Adapter customers getting a free HD Digital Adapter (Grandfathered In or Not) , and that would be that.

I say this bc I would like to see all SD channels that HAVE a HD equivalent channel to be stricken from the channel guide to free up precious Bandwidth, while ONLY keeping the SD channels that DO NOT have a HD equivalent channel.

Those HD Digital Adapters could get both HD and SD feeds, as well as MPEG4. Problem solved, for now at least.

eliminating the SD feed is not going to gain bandwidth as they can stuff 14-15 SD channels per QAM really not much of a gain there.