dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to Greg2600

Re: More HD channels coming by October.

said by Greg2600:

said by aaronwt:

Would they be added to the Extreme HD tier or just the Ultimate HD tier? I'm still contemplating dropping to Extreme and increasing internet to 75/35. That way my price would stay the same. If I knew that BBCA-HD would be on the extreme tier I would go ahead and do it.

Wouldn't it be the same tier as the SD feeds?

You would think but Verizon can always change things around and only add new HD channels to the Ultimate tier.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by aaronwt:

You would think but Verizon can always change things around and only add new HD channels to the Ultimate tier.

I find it funny, people complain they want more HD, then they expect new content to be added for free.

Why add another 20 HD's, its just going to make the service more expensive. Dish Network gets this and its only way to hold down prices is packages with LESS channels, hence dropping AMC

For me, I'm headed the other way, dropped extreme for prime and only seems like I gave up velocity, so no more repeats of Mercum Auctions on the weekends

nowayout

join:2009-06-22
Allentown, PA
I don't expect it to be added entirely freely, personally. But since they did just raise prices on service and STBs (even the ancient and cheap DCT700 adapters), it's fair to expect something for it.

Steve3

join:2010-01-28
Springfield, NJ
Truthfully, I don't know what to believe anymore. We were told that we would have a big number of HD channels added by the end of last year. That didn't happen. Then, they added more HD to their Spanish language package. I don't believe their promises. Action speaks louder than words.

sbernstein5

join:2005-01-18
10024-5650
reply to guppy_fish
said by guppy_fish:

said by aaronwt:

You would think but Verizon can always change things around and only add new HD channels to the Ultimate tier.

Why add another 20 HD's, its just going to make the service more expensive. Dish Network gets this and its only way to hold down prices is packages with LESS channels, hence dropping AMC

I think this is an incorrect assumption. The point is that all of the channels' contracts with Verizon ALREADY include the HD versions as part of their carriage agreements. So if we have the channel on SD (and we have quite a few SD channels that have HD simulcasts which Verizon does not carry), we are ALREADY paying for the HD version -- we're just not able to use what we're already paying for.

Now if the channel is a completely new add (the SD version didn't exist previously) then Verizon will have to pay more for it. Most of us are just looking the the HD versions of channels we already have in SD.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
said by sbernstein5:

The point is that all of the channels' contracts with Verizon ALREADY include the HD versions as part of their carriage agreements. So if we have the channel on SD (and we have quite a few SD channels that have HD simulcasts which Verizon does not carry), we are ALREADY paying for the HD version -- we're just not able to use what we're already paying for.

Would love to see a primary source for this assertion. The only specific reference to this I've ever seen was from dear, departed JeepMatt in relation to our local "The Comcast Network" (TCN).


Ike1

join:2012-06-02
Newark, NJ
reply to sbernstein5
said by sbernstein5:

The point is that all of the channels' contracts with Verizon ALREADY include the HD versions as part of their carriage agreements. So if we have the channel on SD (and we have quite a few SD channels that have HD simulcasts which Verizon does not carry), we are ALREADY paying for the HD version -- we're just not able to use what we're already paying for.

I would also like to see a primary source for this assertion. I don't believe it's true, based on what I've read. My understanding, up to now, has been that there are SOME channels whose HD feeds are offered at no extra cost, or are already written into their contracts (including OWN, based on what I've read), but others cost more than the SD version.

If you were correct, then I think we'd have more HD on-demand content from these SD channels like BBCA and Cartoon Network, because that would (presumably) also be included in the contracts but would not eat up linear channel bandwidth. Currently, as far as HD programs on-demand from SD channels, we only get some Fearnet HD programs on-demand and Style Channel HD programs on-demand. (There might be another lesser-known one that I'm missing.)

Presumably those channels are like OWN and do not charge extra for HD content, or at least not for HD on-demand. But that's just a guess.

Anyway, new episodes of Doctor Who might be premiering as early as August 25, so I'm especially impatient about BBC-A HD right now.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
I have to agree with you. I keep seeing that asserted, but why should it be true? Each carriage agreement is unique to the parties involved. It MAY be true for one channel, but that doesn't mean that it's true across the board. Each contract will have its own stipulations in it (e.g. why is ffwd disabled on some VOD feeds... but not all?), which may include extra feeds for things like HD. Same thing with things like VOD... or streaming services... all of which generally require additional items to the contracts between the providers. I mean, look at the channels you can get via XBox with FiOS. Why can't you get EVERYTHING that Verizon carries linearly? Because, even the streaming of live channels to another TV require... additional agreements between Verizon and the content providers. There is simply no basis for the notion that all existing carriage agreements would include HD.

URFloorMatt

join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
reply to Ike1
said by Ike1:

If you were correct, then I think we'd have more HD on-demand content from these SD channels like BBCA and Cartoon Network, because that would (presumably) also be included in the contracts but would not eat up linear channel bandwidth. Currently, as far as HD programs on-demand from SD channels, we only get some Fearnet HD programs on-demand and Style Channel HD programs on-demand. (There might be another lesser-known one that I'm missing.)

Presumably those channels are like OWN and do not charge extra for HD content, or at least not for HD on-demand. But that's just a guess.

If I were a content provider, I wouldn't offer on demand content unless I was getting a carriage fee.

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. We can guess that many of the additions we've seen over the last year had such a requirement, and that's why they were added. This was implied, if not explicitly confirmed, by the Twitter account.

I don't know how VOD carriage works, but if you're not carrying my HD channel, I definitely wouldn't let you carry my HD VOD content. It's a recipe for lower ratings, and it conditions viewers not to watch live. VOD is icing on the cake; it's not a substitute for the cake. My money maker is getting on the system, and then getting on the broadest tier. VOD exists so you carry my channel instead of the other guy's because he doesn't have VOD and VOD is a value add for the consumer.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
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.

URFloorMatt

join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
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.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
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.

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 ?