dslreports logo
 story category
Dish Gets Busted Lying About Reaching 200 HD Channels
Gets called out by DirecTV, others...
Yesterday Dish Network claimed they were the first TV provider to reach 200 HD channels. However, as is usually the case, their definition of channel turned out to be a little iffy. 57 of those "channels" turned out to be Video On Demand titles -- and worse perhaps -- titles only available to users who buy the new "Sling Loaded" DVR. Responding to Dish's claim, DirecTV announced that they'd soon be adding an additional 30 HD channels -- bringing their channel total to around 160. Unlike Dish's 200 channels, DirecTV noted in a statement their 160 HD channels will actually be HD channels:
quote:
"While DISH Network is very skilled at grossly inflating their HD numbers, you'd be hard pressed to find an actual list of comprehensive HD channels that match their recent claims. We invite consumers to go to DIRECTV.com/hdchannels to see a list of all of DIRECTV's more than 160 HD channels. We challenge DISH to publish a list of all their full-time HD channels so consumers can decide and count for themselves."
While Dish did add eight new HD channels recently, they were apparently caught trying to argue that the film The Men Who Stare At Goats was a channel, jokes Todd Spangler at Multichannel News. More amusing perhaps is that when bloggers and reporters tried to contact Dish to find out what those channels were and if they could get a full list, Dish PR reps suddenly started acting "evasive" and "a bit strange":
quote:
However, when I told them I could not locate more than around 130 HD channels listed at DishNetwork.com, the company's PR department got even more evasive -- and started to act a bit strange. At one point, a company spokeswoman said she could give me a breakdown of the 200 HD channels on "background only," meaning I couldn't attribute the information to Dish Network.
So now instead of being seen as the TV operator with the most HD channels, Dish is being seen as the carrier who assumes everybody is stupid -- not a particularly brilliant PR move.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Dear DISH network execs.....

......please have your legal department review your ad department campaigns before making stupid statements that will come back to haunt you.

Seriously, this is the era of the internet where such claims can easily be researched.

hvbgn
@comcast.net

hvbgn

Anon

Re: Dear DISH network execs.....

Agreed. This is what happens when the marketing dept jumps the gun without properly reviewing the facts.

A lot of companies are guilty of this.

Or at least, if you "claim" that many channels, then put an asterisk and detail out what 'qualified' as HD.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc

Member

What's the point?

What's the point if there's nothing good to watch on the majority of those channels?

In the end, it's nothing more than a numbers spin.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: What's the point?

said by milnoc:

What's the point if there's nothing good to watch on the majority of those channels?

In the end, it's nothing more than a numbers spin.
I agree. 75 % of the HD channels are pure garbage channels that often are showing non-hd content or are channels that only a VERY small subset of viewers would ever watch. For me, after the local network channels, the Premium channels(like HBO, SHO, etc) and the sports channels, everything else could be shown in 480 analog as far as I'm concerned.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

1 recommendation

Nightfall

MVM

All providers should back their numbers up

Comcast regularly says that they have more HD channels. Their commercials say that they have more "primetime HD, movietime HD" Well, they are also counting PPV movies as well which is a waste. IMHO, anyone counting HD channels should just count the national HD channels.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

Channels or choices?

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall

MVM

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by openbox9:

Channels or choices?
Channels and only National HD channels. Choices could be construed to be PPV channels.

Drex
Beer...The other white meat.
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Not There

Drex

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

What's even better is my Comcast advertises that we have OnDemand and yet I do not. I only have about 10 PPV channels which is what our local office says is "OnDemand".

This is the same local office who told me HDMI was old technology.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by Drex:

What's even better is my Comcast advertises that we have OnDemand and yet I do not. I only have about 10 PPV channels which is what our local office says is "OnDemand".

This is the same local office who told me HDMI was old technology.
Sounds like you should change providers.

Drex
Beer...The other white meat.
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Not There

Drex

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by Gbcue:

[Sounds like you should change providers.
In my case I've chosen the lesser of 2 evils...unless I decide to go DirectTV or Dish. The only other cable company in town is a mom & pop shop.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2 to Nightfall

Premium Member

to Nightfall
"All providers should back their numbers up"

They do - it's called a channel lineup.
said by Nightfall:

Comcast regularly says that they have more HD channels.
No, they don't. They regularly say they have more "HD *CHOICES*"... not "channels" as you said.
Their commercials say that they have more "primetime HD, movietime HD" Well, they are also counting PPV movies as well which is a waste.
And what's factually incorrect about that? First of all, what is "primetime" - depending on where you are, it's either 7pm to 10pm or 8pm to 11pm. During those hours, and taking into account of what your movie options in HD are, how many do you have? ... there is your answer.

In this case, they're talking about a specific time of day and what's available to you. This particular time of day is traditionally where most people view television; a time where they turn on the TV and say "what's on?"...

This isn't even shady marketing in this case.. they're advertising to a specific group of people - prime time TV viewers.
IMHO, anyone counting HD channels should just count the national HD channels.
I TOTALLY disagree with that. HD is HD ... programming is programming.. they are two different things in terminology. To do as you suggest would simply confuse even more people.

What really needs to happen is that people need to start applying that one subject you're taught in school every single school year; in fact, the ONLY subject that is taught all 12 years of public schooling - English.

Once you start ONLY counting "national HD channels".. you now have to explain to people what a national HD channel IS.. Some people will think of national HD as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox. Some people will see national as a satellite based network like Discovery and History but NOT ABC or CBS becuase to some people, ABC and CBS is a "local" channel. Some people don't realize that "locals" are in most cases a mixture between "local programming" and "national feeds".. many people don't really understand what "network television" really is.

And, why should they leave out channels like PPV, Sports, HD "Streaming" feeds (OnDemand)...? They ARE in fact "HD"... they come to your TV in resolution that is in fact HD.

OnDemand is another thing that people are going to have to get used to as a "channel" or a "choice" of "HD" too. I find it dis-ingenuous that a certain group of people would not even count that as a "channel".. (Again, look up the word "channel" and the definition OF that word to get what I'm saying)

OnDemand, just because it doesn't have someone else programming the line up FOR you, IS in fact a "channel" of video. The only difference is that YOU choose what in that "channel" you want to watch WHEN you want to watch it. The group of people I referred to just a second ago are those that believe that they're getting their "television" over the internet; again, in this situation, a mis-applied use of the TERM "television".. Correctly stated, it's "Video".. People can't apply terms where it's convenient to them - words and terms have to be applied correctly to the context they are based.

If HBO has their 7 programmed channels and then their OnDemand service, to me, that's 8 channels of HBO. Or, stated in another way which is also correct, HBO provides 8 different "channels" of HBO programming (or HBO channels their program to me 8 different ways to me".. You have to think of where the term "channel" came from to begin with.

Lazy use of American English is only going to continue to confuse and piss people off. Sorry, but this is the truth.

I don't think they need to further erode and micro-term anything more than they are.

My point is simple - if the content is carried in HD, then its HD. I don't think they should only count "national channels" as HD.. I think if it's got a number on the box and it's HD, then it's a channel and this includes OnDemand folders, national, local, PPV channels (to those that carry it still) and specialty programming.

I think what CONSUMERS need to educate THEMSELVES on is simple.. "With *MY* package, how many HD channels will *I* get?

If the consumer is going to be stupid enough to buy a service from a content provider based on the total amount of HD they CAN get to you, and not what ACTUAL PROGRAMMING that fits THEIR desire, then that's the consumer's fault. I still live by the fact that the commercial is NOT the end-all point of definition. Commercials are designed to peak your interest.. not define the terms of service, and not give you everything you need to know.

There is still one fact SO many people over look, and this forum is a great example of that.. I don't care if Dish DID have 200 "channels" of HD.. the fact remains that no single customer can EVER get all 200 of those "channels"... some of those channels may in fact be regional based and not even available to you, yet, they're talking about their system's "ability" or "capacity" - which to the end consumer, they shouldn't even care.

In the end, I don't make a choice based on what a carrier CAN do, it's what all I can get from that provider (includes programming, service, prices, and technology that fits my needs) and if the price fits my needs. That's it. All this other stuff is NOTHING more than the providers, in all reality, talking amongst themselves while dragging in groups of people, such as this group, into the conversation.

Who cares...

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by fiberguy2:

"All providers should back their numbers up"

They do - it's called a channel lineup.
said by Nightfall:

Comcast regularly says that they have more HD channels.
No, they don't. They regularly say they have more "HD *CHOICES*"... not "channels" as you said.
Their commercials say that they have more "primetime HD, movietime HD" Well, they are also counting PPV movies as well which is a waste.
And what's factually incorrect about that? First of all, what is "primetime" - depending on where you are, it's either 7pm to 10pm or 8pm to 11pm. During those hours, and taking into account of what your movie options in HD are, how many do you have? ... there is your answer.

In this case, they're talking about a specific time of day and what's available to you. This particular time of day is traditionally where most people view television; a time where they turn on the TV and say "what's on?"...

This isn't even shady marketing in this case.. they're advertising to a specific group of people - prime time TV viewers.
IMHO, anyone counting HD channels should just count the national HD channels.
I TOTALLY disagree with that. HD is HD ... programming is programming.. they are two different things in terminology. To do as you suggest would simply confuse even more people.

What really needs to happen is that people need to start applying that one subject you're taught in school every single school year; in fact, the ONLY subject that is taught all 12 years of public schooling - English.

Once you start ONLY counting "national HD channels".. you now have to explain to people what a national HD channel IS.. Some people will think of national HD as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox. Some people will see national as a satellite based network like Discovery and History but NOT ABC or CBS becuase to some people, ABC and CBS is a "local" channel. Some people don't realize that "locals" are in most cases a mixture between "local programming" and "national feeds".. many people don't really understand what "network television" really is.

And, why should they leave out channels like PPV, Sports, HD "Streaming" feeds (OnDemand)...? They ARE in fact "HD"... they come to your TV in resolution that is in fact HD.

OnDemand is another thing that people are going to have to get used to as a "channel" or a "choice" of "HD" too. I find it dis-ingenuous that a certain group of people would not even count that as a "channel".. (Again, look up the word "channel" and the definition OF that word to get what I'm saying)

OnDemand, just because it doesn't have someone else programming the line up FOR you, IS in fact a "channel" of video. The only difference is that YOU choose what in that "channel" you want to watch WHEN you want to watch it. The group of people I referred to just a second ago are those that believe that they're getting their "television" over the internet; again, in this situation, a mis-applied use of the TERM "television".. Correctly stated, it's "Video".. People can't apply terms where it's convenient to them - words and terms have to be applied correctly to the context they are based.

If HBO has their 7 programmed channels and then their OnDemand service, to me, that's 8 channels of HBO. Or, stated in another way which is also correct, HBO provides 8 different "channels" of HBO programming (or HBO channels their program to me 8 different ways to me".. You have to think of where the term "channel" came from to begin with.

Lazy use of American English is only going to continue to confuse and piss people off. Sorry, but this is the truth.

I don't think they need to further erode and micro-term anything more than they are.

My point is simple - if the content is carried in HD, then its HD. I don't think they should only count "national channels" as HD.. I think if it's got a number on the box and it's HD, then it's a channel and this includes OnDemand folders, national, local, PPV channels (to those that carry it still) and specialty programming.

I think what CONSUMERS need to educate THEMSELVES on is simple.. "With *MY* package, how many HD channels will *I* get?

If the consumer is going to be stupid enough to buy a service from a content provider based on the total amount of HD they CAN get to you, and not what ACTUAL PROGRAMMING that fits THEIR desire, then that's the consumer's fault. I still live by the fact that the commercial is NOT the end-all point of definition. Commercials are designed to peak your interest.. not define the terms of service, and not give you everything you need to know.

There is still one fact SO many people over look, and this forum is a great example of that.. I don't care if Dish DID have 200 "channels" of HD.. the fact remains that no single customer can EVER get all 200 of those "channels"... some of those channels may in fact be regional based and not even available to you, yet, they're talking about their system's "ability" or "capacity" - which to the end consumer, they shouldn't even care.

In the end, I don't make a choice based on what a carrier CAN do, it's what all I can get from that provider (includes programming, service, prices, and technology that fits my needs) and if the price fits my needs. That's it. All this other stuff is NOTHING more than the providers, in all reality, talking amongst themselves while dragging in groups of people, such as this group, into the conversation.

Who cares...
PPV or on demand DO NOT COUNT AS IT"S NOT FULL TIME HD
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

You quoted my ENTIRE post to respond with that? .. a single line? Did you not see the "(please avoid long quotes!)" next to auto quote? wow.

Anyway.. as you were YELLING... (I also have this mental image of you jumping up and down on your desk at the same time, to be honest)

If a PPV channel is broadcasting in HD, and that's all that channel does, then YES, IT IS A FULL TIME HD channel.. where are you getting your information from?

Let's break this one down in simple. The network is on a fixed frequency QAM, is it not? Is the signal being transmitted in 720 or 1080? Is that signal there today? tonight? Tomorrow? the next day? the next week, and so on? Welp! .. then it sounds like a "FULL TIME HD" to me!

So, I assume in your thought process of it not being FULL TIME HD that becuase you only get it for a short period of time that it's not full time either right? I guess those who subscribe to HBO this month, and not next month, that HBO too is not FULL TIME HD either, right? Hrmmm.. lets look at that. PPV is a "CHANNEL" that you subscribe to for a period of time. Most any of them these days, it's for a 24 or 48 hour period of time. While you only get that channel during the time you're subscribed to it (yes, that's an actual term applied to ANY channel you get) the "network" or "Channel" is still there.

I don't know where some of you guys make this stuff up, but you need to stop it.

And one other thing, to pick your reply apart a little, where did I say that OnDemand was a "full time" anything? I do believe that I was demonstrating OnDemand's delivery method as a "channel" by the true definition of a channel as to "channel" something from one end to another.. which, is what a "channel" is.. and where it got its name from originally. .

But, oh, gee.. forgive me for speaking and apply the English language correctly.

While were at it, lets stop calling Sprints 4G internet 4G becuase there is also a definition as to what is capable of being labeled "4G"...

Sometimes you don't agree with something and it doesn't look right to YOU.. but it doesn't mean it's not.. and, its never right to say "Oh, they're using a technicality by calling something like PPV a "channel" becuase it's not".. um.. it's NEVER a technicality to apply a proper term and apply the correct definition to something.. it's called ... oh, forget it....

You know, Oakland teaches Ebonics, too, for people that refuse to speak English and want to speak their own language.. not my problem if people want to make things up as they go along.

RIF - google it.

jamieh5
@mchsi.com

jamieh5

Anon

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

You type a lot but really dont say a lot. Yes, people want and expect things. Just as your friends, the business, wants and expects to make money hand over fist.

If people didn't want things, your friends, the business, would be hurting. Nobody needs internet. Nobody needs a car. Nobody needs phone. Nobody needs cigarettes. If people didnt want these things, your friends, the business, would be hurting to fulfill their wanting to make money.
said by fiberguy2:

fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

lol - I type a lot but really don't say a lot. That's a good one.

I'm sorry, but I said plenty.. you refuse to acknowledge any of it. Typically, a reply with what you say about my posting generally means you have nothing to say.

jamieh5
@mchsi.com

jamieh5

Anon

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

Just because I say what you don't want to hear does not mean I have nothing to say. You say the world is full of people who want and only care about "me". The businesses that you typically defend only care about money and themselves. So what's the difference? So is better? If the general public didn't have wants, your businesses would fail. All we need is food, water and shelter. Everything else is out of convenience and luxury; i.e. wants.

Fact. If the people that you frequently criticize didn't exist, which are those who want and those we only are about "me", then those businesses that you typical defend would not exist. Besides food, water and shelter, everything else is a "want" and could be considered a luxury and not a necessary.

Unfortunately there are people who only think about themselves and that their opinions and views trumps all others, and that all others with differ opinions are just wrong and stupid. You can find one of those people if you look in the mirror.
said by fiberguy2:

lol - I type a lot but really don't say a lot. That's a good one.

I'm sorry, but I said plenty.. you refuse to acknowledge any of it. Typically, a reply with what you say about my posting generally means you have nothing to say.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

And you forget that people would not survive with out those same businesses.

TRADE is not a one way street.

Besides.. no. Anything beyond food, water, and shelter, everything else is NOT a "want". That's an INCREDIBLY narrow view.

Our system is MUCH more complicated and intertwined. What I WILL say, AND correct you, is that things like television, movies, iPod, music.. all "wants"..

People need clothing, power, etc. etc. etc. Some people have said power isn't a necessity either before, here, in this very forum.

So, even taking part of what you said, which I agree with SOME of your belief.. if Cable is a "want" and music is a "want" and phones are a "want" then why are so many people, here, crying foul at every turn acting as if it's put too far out of their reach.. if it's a "want" and not a necessity, then your view needs to change. And, these companies don't NEED to price is like it IS some kind of "necessity" either, now, do they? These companies don't HAVE to care about you or anything else. They are actually, as you say, caring in all the right places.. they care about money and themselves.. that's what a non-necessity provider/company/maker, etc. is there for. They DON'T "care" about you..

You seem to tie in "wants" and "business care" in the same argument and it doesn't work. It's a matter of supply and demand, in the end, that matters. If you're the only one that has the supply and there is a demand, then who do you think is in the better position? Now, if 10 other people start offering up in the "supply" of a particular item, then yea, you have to start to "care" a little more.. or, in proper terms of caring, "drop your price" and "provide customer service"..

And let me set the record straight as your view is too narrow minded to see this.. (Sorry, but that's how I feel) .. I don't "defend" business.. I don't "support customers"... I see a topic, I put my two-cents in on an issue. Sometimes it falls to either side of the argument. I think that consumers and the general public is often stupid, and I also see times where the public is harmed. I also see where companies are working with in the system and I also see when they are being incredibly STUPID as well..

But yea, I "typically defend".. get real. There is a world of one side against the other, and then there is the middle ground.. I live in the middle and go where I feel it's right. Also, that's where the world actually works.. it doesn't work on one side or the other.. just remember, in the end, who decides elections too! (it's not the extremes, for sure!)

edit: Ironic stupid statement of the day:
Unfortunately there are people who only think about themselves and that their opinions and views trumps all others, and that all others with differ opinions are just wrong and stupid. You can find one of those people if you look in the mirror.
Take a look in that same mirror there buddy. You're sitting pretty high on your horse telling ME you're right and I'm wrong.. seems to me, where I'm standing, you're trying to tell me I'm wrong and you're right... let me know what YOU see in that mirror. Do you not even realize what you just got done telling me as you were busy doing it yourself? I may tell people sometimes when they're wrong - usually when its clear.. however, if you or anyone actually took the time to read my posts and not apply your own view to it, you'd see that I'm telling people there is also ANOTHER side to it.

I find it INCREDIBLY funny how people often mis-read my posts - says a lot about people. On a site where people are generally cut from the same cloth and on the same side, those people have the NERVE to sit here standing on the ground where they believe THEY are always "right".. and their way IS the ONLY way.. rarely do I say my way is the ONLY way.. I simply present another side.. so again, take a look in that mirror yourself. Most people here won't HAVE another side becuase they're already "right".. think about that one. Reply if you want, I won't read or reply to it.

jamieh5
@mchsi.com

-1 recommendation

jamieh5

Anon

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by fiberguy2:

And you forget that people would not survive with out those same businesses.
And the businesses wouldn't survive without the people.
said by fiberguy2:

Besides.. no. Anything beyond food, water, and shelter, everything else is NOT a "want". That's an INCREDIBLY narrow view.
Those are basic necessities in order to live. It's how they lived back in your days. Everything else is of convenience or wants. It's a fact.
said by fiberguy2:

People need clothing, power, etc. etc. etc. Some people have said power isn't a necessity either before, here, in this very forum.
Clothing is not needed to survive. Shelter is. Fig leaves? Plenty people, back in your day, survived without what we have today. Believe me, though, I do want you to have clothing. I shiver the thought of no clothing on some.
said by fiberguy2:

So, even taking part of what you said, which I agree with SOME of your belief.. if Cable is a "want" and music is a "want" and phones are a "want" then why are so many people, here, crying foul at every turn acting as if it's put too far out of their reach.. if it's a "want" and not a necessity, then your view needs to change. And, these companies don't NEED to price is like it IS some kind of "necessity" either, now, do they? These companies don't HAVE to care about you or anything else. They are actually, as you say, caring in all the right places.. they care about money and themselves.. that's what a non-necessity provider/company/maker, etc. is there for. They DON'T "care" about you..
Phone, cable, music are all consider entertainment.
said by fiberguy2:

And let me set the record straight as your view is too narrow minded to see this.. (Sorry, but that's how I feel) .. I don't "defend" business.. I don't "support customers"... I see a topic, I put my two-cents in on an issue. Sometimes it falls to either side of the argument. I think that consumers and the general public is often stupid, and I also see times where the public is harmed. I also see where companies are working with in the system and I also see when they are being incredibly STUPID as well..
You have a reputation, on this site, for defending the big companies that are in the Cable industry. The big companies in the Telco business usually get your hell.
said by fiberguy2:

But yea, I "typically defend".. get real. There is a world of one side against the other, and then there is the middle ground.. I live in the middle and go where I feel it's right. Also, that's where the world actually works.. it doesn't work on one side or the other.. just remember, in the end, who decides elections too! (it's not the extremes, for sure!)
Sorry, fiberguy, but you're not middle ground in the least. Cable=good, telco=bad, customers=stupid, fiberguy=intelligent, BBR users=selfish. You don't have to post anymore because people have figured out your formula.
said by fiberguy2:

I find it INCREDIBLY funny how people often mis-read my posts - says a lot about people.
Logic dictates that if so many people misread your posts, then perhaps that says something about the source. Sorry, fiberguy, but most of the time when someone doesn't agree with you, you call them stupid, narrow minded, etc., and rarely add substance to the debate. You aren't middle ground in the least. You have the same feeling about the same people and businesses since day one. Qwest could give you a year's worth of broadband and you'd complain, but if Comcast raised your bill by $10/month, you would praise them.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

Upon reflection, I do not wish to post.

Not worth it.

jamieh5
@mchsi.com

jamieh5

Anon

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

You missed the entire sarcasm here, fiberboy.
said by fiberguy2:

And, as I said, I never said I was middle ground either.
What you said earlier:
said by fiberguy2:

But yea, I "typically defend".. get real. There is a world of one side against the other, and then there is the middle ground.. I live in the middle and go where I feel it's right. Also, that's where the world actually works.. it doesn't work on one side or the other.. just remember, in the end, who decides elections too! (it's not the extremes, for sure!)
As well as:
said by fiberguy2:

Reply if you want, I won't read or reply to it.
So we know you don't mean what you type, or you can't be credible. OK.

If you think a group here leans toward a certain view, what do you think you do?!

I think you missed the entire point. You, of all people, claim how people here are always about themselves ("me") and criticize them for their "wants".

The point is, besides food, water and shelter, everything else is a convenience and "wants" because everything else is not required to live. However, when I bring up that argument, you then change your tone about a difference of times and standard living. It's like you just want to argue or listen to yourself.

In the end, you missed the sarcasm. Instead, you just respond to argue while adding little substance. You criticize people for the very same thing you are blind-sighted of doing yourself. On top of that, you give me a big ole thumbs down for my post. I guess if that's all you have, then goodnight!

Paul928
join:2000-05-06
Haverhill, MA

1 recommendation

Paul928 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
"HD *CHOICES*"... not "channels"

What's the difference, just a play on words!!! Typical marketing ploy!!!
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by Paul928:

"HD *CHOICES*"... not "channels"

What's the difference, just a play on words!!! Typical marketing ploy!!!
It may be a "ploy"... but is it inaccurate?

It can only be a ploy if someone is ignorant enough to allow it be one, right?

Even then, I'm not sure if it IS a ploy.. in the sense to deceive anyone. If anyone is deceived by this, again, I find that to be the fault of the person receiving this.

The DAY I heard the first "more HD choices" and the term "OnDemand" used in the marketing.. I immediately knew what they were doing and saying.. and I got it.. Meanwhile, over here at BBR, I'm sure a few disk raids were filled up by the time the people at BBR were all upset over this.. and if ANY group of people SHOULD be smart enough to get it, and move on, they didn't.

Paul928
join:2000-05-06
Haverhill, MA

1 recommendation

Paul928

Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

"Even then, I'm not sure if it IS a ploy.. in the sense to deceive anyone. If anyone is deceived by this, again, I find that to be the fault of the person receiving this."

OF COURSE it's done to deceive people, are you that naive? I do agree with you that maybe you and others who are a little more informed on the subject would know what they were trying to say, but the "average Joe," would be taken in by all of this! Hell, just look at all the confusion that people had when we went to the digital conversion of TV?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

The confusion of many on DTV transition is not the fault of the conversion, rather, than the people itself. I'm sorry, but if the general public couldn't figure this out, then it really doesn't say alot about our general public.

The message about the DTV conversion was simple.. "Brodcast TV as you know it is changing. On such and such day, you will need to have acted. If you have an older set, you may need to install a digital receiver on your set. If you have cable TV or satellite, you're already covered".. what's so hard about that? WHY anyone, who subscribes to cable or satellite even asked if they needed to do anything, to begin with, was a sure sign of this.

Further, sorry, you saying "OF COURSE it's done to deceive people"... that's your opinion. Have you ever heard of ONE vs MANY? In this case, ONE person has a message, the MANY will take it MANY ways as THEY see fit. Did you NOT see or read a single word about applying the definition to something? I'm sorry, but you really have to stretch the meaning of the term "HD CHOICES" in order to feel deceived. FURTHER, Satellite coming in and making a huge deal out of it make it a big deal. EVEN FURTHER, once someone understands the meaning of HD CHOICES, why is there a need to further worry about it? .. you get it already.. so move on. To continue to make something out of this, you give it a life of it's own, which you're doing. You're smart enough, you obviously know better, MOVE ON to the next battle.

To this day, the MEANING of the words used together of "HD" & "CHOICES" mean exactly what they are along with the fact the put OnDemand along with it.. To read further into something, especially when you obviously already understand it, is in itself, being Naive.

We don't necessarily have to speak to "the average Joe".. there is ALWAYS going to be an average Joe. So what? The "average Joe" needs to not simply allow themselves to be taken by ANYTHING.. look, you can spell it all out 100%, and often it is.. and people will STILL not get it. I'm sorry, but the DTA conversaion couldn't have been any more simple and millions STILL didn't get it. Guess what? "Darwin!!! Come here buddy!!"

In some issues, when people spend too much time over-talking something, they make something more out of nothing. Further, DirecTV and Dish Network didn't help. Just as with the DT Conversion... Cable tried to tell people, in the discussion, that "If you already have cable TV, you don't need to do anything else - we've got you covered".. um.. how many people got confused by THAT? How many people, on top of all that cable advertising, also threw into the mix that "Cable must be out there to prey on people and profit from this"... again, more nonsense that just added to un-necessary confusion that, to be honest, wasn't there.

The messages are clear.. listen to them, read them, and if you have questions, ask them. Otherwise, if you're that stupid to form your own conclusion with out doing research off of a couple words, then really, what does that say about the individule? I don't know about you, but *I* don't need to read at a fourth grade level, NOR do I want to be talked to like one. I also don't want my internet cesored, I don't want to have to have a V-Chip in my TV and pay for it when I don't need it.. etc. Where am I going with this? ..simple.. we've lost our way when we have to cater to the lowest common demoninator. People need to be responsible for themselves.

In the issue of cable, there was nothing factually wrong with the phrase "More HD Choices".. someone's desire to ASSume doesn't change the English language.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic to Nightfall

Member

to Nightfall
Comcast can't even pass a pure 720p channel without downrezing it a little.

Comcast might have that many channels that are formatted widescreen, they just aren't really HD.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

said by axiomatic:

Comcast can't even pass a pure 720p channel without downrezing it a little.

Comcast might have that many channels that are formatted widescreen, they just aren't really HD.
I have yet to see a cable company not compress HD feeds all to hell. If you find one that doesn't, please let me know. Meanwhile, bluray and ps3 media server are the only ways to truly enjoy HD movies on my HDTV. Of course, gaming is what originally prompted me to upgrade to HD while sets were still starting at a few thousand dollars.

canesfan2001
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

canesfan2001

Member

Just follow Comcast's lead

Why don't they just call them "choices" like Comcast does, and then they can just say "thousands" and no one can prove them wrong.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

said by canesfan2001:

Why don't they just call them "choices" like Comcast does, and then they can just say "thousands" and no one can prove them wrong.
Yeah!

More HD "choices". Choices = junk.

Channels is where it's at.

With U-Verse there are 145 HD channels available in my area.

With Comcrap, there are only 0 HD channels because they can't even provide me with a channel lineup... "We are currently working to provide channel lineup information for your area." What a load.
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

How many of those 145 are pure junk?

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

said by caco:

How many of those 145 are pure junk?
Probably around 25%. And by "junk", I mean QVC, some sports channels, Fox Business, etc.

••••••••••••••
Expand your moderator at work

FBN_Fan
@pacbell.net

FBN_Fan to Gbcue

Anon

to Gbcue

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

Fox Business is a junk? You gotta be kidding! What channel you consider not junk?
Zoly
join:2004-01-04
Houston, TX

Zoly

Member

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

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

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia to Gbcue

Premium Member

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 =)
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2 to Gbcue

Premium Member

to Gbcue
While they may not have an HD lineup on their programming guide, I dunno.. you could put your zipcode in there, like my hometown zip of 95404, into the TV guide listings, and then select HD programming to see a list of channels.

You could also CALL comcast and ask them to mail one out to you.. or if you're really interested, you can sit there on the phone and let them read every single network available to you.

The web, while convenient, is NOT the end-all source of information.. its just ONE avenue.

Tell me something.. California, being I grew up there and lived there for 30 years of my life in No Cal in the Bay area and Valley, is very well known for high-wind storms.. If you always take the same way home from work every day, and a tree has fallen down and blocked your lane, do you sit there and wait for someone to clear the road? ... or do you take a different route?

I don't know about you, but I'll try every avenue possible before I run out of options and THEN I feel my choices or options have been exhausted.. to do anything otherwise is simply lazy and makes one helpless in life.

Same rule applies in all aspects of life. I seriously think you like being a victim.

••••••••

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Gbcue

Premium Member

to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:
said by canesfan2001:

Why don't they just call them "choices" like Comcast does, and then they can just say "thousands" and no one can prove them wrong.
Yeah!

More HD "choices". Choices = junk.

Channels is where it's at.

With U-Verse there are 145 HD channels available in my area.

With Comcrap, there are only 0 HD channels because they can't even provide me with a channel lineup... "We are currently working to provide channel lineup information for your area." What a load.
I thought you didn't have "overpriced cable"
*busted*

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: Just follow Comcast's lead

said by dvd536:

said by Gbcue:
said by canesfan2001:

Why don't they just call them "choices" like Comcast does, and then they can just say "thousands" and no one can prove them wrong.
Yeah!

More HD "choices". Choices = junk.

Channels is where it's at.

With U-Verse there are 145 HD channels available in my area.

With Comcrap, there are only 0 HD channels because they can't even provide me with a channel lineup... "We are currently working to provide channel lineup information for your area." What a load.
I thought you didn't have "overpriced cable"
*busted*
I don't. I have right-priced television service through AT&T.
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

No one gives a crap.

Most people watch less than 20 channels anyway and all pretty much carry the same basic channels.

»www.zap2it.com/tv/rating ··· &Query=*

Is there that channel that million of folks watch that one of them doesn't have?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: No one gives a crap.

said by caco:

Is there that channel that million of folks watch that one of them doesn't have?
There absolutely is. For example:

DirecTV doesn't have the Travel Channel HD or MSNBC HD (bummer during the Olympics).

Dish doesn't have the MLB Network nor some regional sports network like YES-HD (Yankees) or MSG-HD (other NY area sports teams).

There are actually pretty significant omissions on both satellite provider sides which can be a deciding factor depending on your interest.

caster665
@sbcglobal.net

caster665

Anon

Re: No one gives a crap.

said by SpaethCo:

said by caco:

Is there that channel that million of folks watch that one of them doesn't have?
There absolutely is. For example:

DirecTV doesn't have the Travel Channel HD or MSNBC HD (bummer during the Olympics).

Travel HD and MSNBC HD coming in may on directv

Comcast Chicago does not have MSNBC HD as well.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Still up on their website

as the only provider with over 200HD channels
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Still up on their website

said by Ericthorn:

as the only provider with over 200HD channels
And I'm sure it will remain there too... it really doesn't matter. This is a competitor calling out another.. in the end, who wins? Dish.. as their name will be in the headlines for a while, and I'm sure DirecTv will be more than HAPPY to spend millions, like verizon and comcast do on each other, by airing a lot of commercials that just brings Dish to the lime light. Nothing wrong with free advertising, right?

Here are some examples of providers pulling "gotchyas"

Cellular: "We have the fastest 3G network" - they all can't have it but they all say it.

Cable: More HD choices
Satellite: More HD channels

All HSI: 5 Gazillion times faster than dial up (cometary added: WHO CARES? Why are they comparing 10 year old technology to the latest thing? Fios! Comcast DS3! et all)

Car Companies: "The HIGHEST rated customer satisfaction".. while they cite their sources, that's all they verbally say.

They all do it... there is a user here who is an attorney and explained it well.. there's nothing illegal about it!

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: Still up on their website

said by fiberguy2:

said by Ericthorn:

as the only provider with over 200HD channels
And I'm sure it will remain there too... it really doesn't matter. This is a competitor calling out another.. in the end, who wins? Dish.. as their name will be in the headlines for a while, and I'm sure DirecTv will be more than HAPPY to spend millions, like verizon and comcast do on each other, by airing a lot of commercials that just brings Dish to the lime light. Nothing wrong with free advertising, right?

Here are some examples of providers pulling "gotchyas"

Cellular: "We have the fastest 3G network" - they all can't have it but they all say it.

Cable: More HD choices
Satellite: More HD channels

All HSI: 5 Gazillion times faster than dial up (cometary added: WHO CARES? Why are they comparing 10 year old technology to the latest thing? Fios! Comcast DS3! et all)

Car Companies: "The HIGHEST rated customer satisfaction".. while they cite their sources, that's all they verbally say.

They all do it... there is a user here who is an attorney and explained it well.. there's nothing illegal about it!
VZ wireless has the fastest 3g network here is littlerock

ATT 3gmedianet network makes dial up look like broadband

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

sd or hd

still a bunch of crap.

DanHo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA

DanHo

Premium Member

Re: sd or hd

Holy crap! It's The Hoff!

Bacchusman
@comcast.net

Bacchusman

Anon

Padding the numbers

They are all padding the number of channels they have. Even Direct TV lists over 30 channels that are only HD-Pay Per View.

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium Member
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

thender

Premium Member

Their idea of HD is trash as well.

Compare an OTA broadcast with a directv one, side by side on the same monitor.

More compression than Queen Latifah's girdle!

••••••

Steve B
Premium Member
join:2004-08-02
Auburn, WA

Steve B

Premium Member

I Just Emailed DirecTV....

This discussion had got me thinking about when D* will offer E! in HD. I saw the articles where D* released a list of "some" of the upcoming HD channels when D12 goes live. So I emailed them to ask about E! in HD and I get what almost seemed like a canned response saying "we don't have any info on upcoming HD channels, blah blah" and "we've forwarded your email to management, blah blah". I emailed back and was like "you do have info because D* just released a list of "some" of the upcoming HD channels". So I asked them the question again. We'll see what kind of BS response I get this time.

Fireboss
@suddenlink.net

Fireboss

Anon

Channels Smannel it's all about quality and price..

Most of us have to buy far more channels than we use. Many channels have so few watchers that if they all applauded at once you could sleep through it, yet we have to pay for them. Direct hides pricing in add on fees and special charges. By the time you get to the bottom line they are way more expensive than Dish - nearly as muuch as cable here. Direct will provide locals only in BIG markets where they can rake in bigger bucks.
A few years ago the local stations were arguing with the local cable guys (Suddenlink now though I think it may have been Cox at the time) and in danger of not being carried. They got together and asked each satellite provider to add local channels. Dish accepted quickly, Direct refused outright presumably because the payback wasn't quick enough for them.
No one in this squabble is telling all the truth. I like Dish, have had it for 13 years, but it doesn't have what I want most (MLB package) because Direct paid 3 times the going rate for exclusivity. I priced the changeover and while I can afford it I won't switch to a company that hides it's pricing so gratuitously, provides less the the best equipment and then tells me how great their customer service is when forums around the country say otherwise.
Just my 2 cents of course. . YMMV
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

neftv

Member

Shareholders of Dish....

....Are you happy with your investment?
I am glad I not a shareholder.
I'm very close to leaving Dish myself as a subscriber and no I not stupid like you think I might be. I really hate all the cable and satellite options right now. There are only three or 4 channels I am interested in and I want to be able to watch the shows I follow but once I know they are available on a delayed basis from the internet, so long Dish.

dishsucks
@sbcglobal.net

dishsucks

Anon

don't forget about dishs lack of RSN HD! and lack of HD game

don't forget about dishs lack of RSN HD! and lack of HD games.

on Dish the rsn's are part time HD and dish does not have the room for all live games in HD as well.

Directv has most of the RSN's in hd 24/7 as well as there part time over flow feeds in HD.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

3D TV Channels

Just wait....

Sooner or later, it will be how many 3D channels do you have..

LOL...

Ioweyou
@comcast.net

Ioweyou

Anon

My post from Yesterday (Mon April 29th)

I could care less about anything that dish does. So they have 200 HD channels. ** How many of those are payperview HD channels? Probably most of them which means they are not broadcasting an HD signal on all of them at the same time. **

Geeez I hate it when I'm right all the time.

belawrence
They'll never let you in
join:2000-08-06
Santee, CA

belawrence

Member

I would like to see

actual channel counts that don't include PPV/on demand, sports packages I could care less about, and foreign language HD that I can't understand anyway.
wombough
join:2001-08-30
Albany, GA

wombough

Member

Re: I would like to see

here is one
TechWhiz
join:2004-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

TechWhiz

Member

Finally something to watch

Yay! Travel Channel HD coming in May!

»travelchannel.com/hd hasn't updated yet, still asserting that it's not available and still suggests sending petitions to DirecTV to get it added.

Did those petitions actually work? Heh.

DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium Member
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC

DaMaGeINC

Premium Member

Tv is for losers.

So stop beating a dead horse.
theeinstein
Premium Member
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL

theeinstein

Premium Member

Dish

Hey is Dish network a subsidiary of Obama Inc.? hahaha
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes

Member

yeap thats them

yeah i use to like dish till they started doing shady stuff

eztv_it
@verizon.net

eztv_it

Anon

no longer about channels! 2010, year of the RSS

content is king, and for that the internet will do fine... they have all the hd-tv rips you want!
page: 1 · 2 · next